|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: VCODE]
#137506
04/29/09 11:28 PM
04/29/09 11:28 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
OP
David Walden
|
OP
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
"I was deducted for having a repo VIN on the Challenger so I needed to keep the original on this car."
Dave, I'm a little confused, if the door sticker was indistinguishable from the original, except for the fact it was to new looking, why the deduction in points? I thought the Challenger scored perfect on the paint and that obviously wasn’t original. How does that work in the Mopar National judging criteria?
Is it true that if you use repro parts 1 point is taken off automatically?
Hi Bob and Mike!
If you guys don't mind, I will address both points in this one post. Yes Bob, an automatic one point reduction occurs if the part is not original Mopar issue. You get one point for originality and one point for the condition or appearance of the part. If the part is original and looks new, you get two points for the part. If it is reproduction, only one point can be earned for just the overall appearance of the part.
Mike, I have wondered for years how a vehicle can be judged with an inconsistent view throughout the SAME vehicle!?! I am not referencing the OE judging specifically but I really don't know how to answer your question. I agree 100% with your rationale even though I criticize my own vehicles by doing so. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If one aspect of the car is scrutinized and docked because of the reproduction status of a part, why isn't the replacement or "reproduction" paint given a one point deduction? It isn't original! Wouldn't you assume that the same judging characteristics would apply for EVERY part or aspect of the car? If the judges say that the decal appears to be too new and therefore receives a deduction, wouldn't the beautiful new appearing paint job fall within the same category of scrutiny?
Concerning the VIN decals, I really think that what we provide is every bit as good or "original" as the ones that were manufactured many years ago. Before everyone jumps all over that comment  let me explain the reasoning behind it. In 1970, Chrysler used an independent, subsidized manufacturer to produce their VIN safety standard decals. The company they commissioned was given a license and the approval to provide these labels/decals to the car industry. In 2002, ECS (an independent, subsidized manufacturer) was given licensing rights to manufacture VIN safety standard decals for the Chrysler market. We have the original blueprints and specifications that were given to the same company who originally provided the service/product in 1970. Unless someone has a need or love affair with 40 year old generic materials, compared to the exact same materials we use today, what is the real difference? Ninety five percent of the NOS replacement parts we buy today were manufactured AFTER the cars were produced on the assembly line. Aren't those parts simply reproduction parts that were manufactured at a later date by an independent, subsidized (licensed) manufacturer? NOS parts were not made by Chrysler. They were made under contract just like the parts that people like BE&A and I, are authorized to manufacture. If someone wants to argue that the "old" reproduction NOS replacement parts have a more "correct" status, I need to ask based on what? If it was made after the fact and not a factory installed piece, are we to assume that one degree of incorrectness takes precedence over an "acceptable" or alternative degree of incorrectness? A piece that was made 35 years ago by a subsidized independent manufacturer (for Chrysler) is still just an older version of a reproduction replacement part!!
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: ECS]
#137507
04/30/09 11:52 AM
04/30/09 11:52 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,912
Anchorage, Alaska
Iceman01
Challenged
|
Challenged
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,912
Anchorage, Alaska
|
Quote:
Concerning the VIN decals, I really think that what we provide is every bit as good or "original" as the ones that were manufactured many years ago. Before everyone jumps all over that comment let me explain the reasoning behind it. In 1970, Chrysler used an independent, subsidized manufacturer to produce their VIN safety standard decals. The company they commissioned was given a license and the approval to provide these labels/decals to the car industry. In 2002, ECS (an independent, subsidized manufacturer) was given licensing rights to manufacture VIN safety standard decals for the Chrysler market. We have the original blueprints and specifications that were given to the same company who originally provided the service/product in 1970. Unless someone has a need or love affair with 40 year old generic materials, compared to the exact same materials we use today, what is the real difference? Ninety five percent of the NOS replacement parts we buy today were manufactured AFTER the cars were produced on the assembly line. Aren't those parts simply reproduction parts that were manufactured at a later date by an independent, subsidized (licensed) manufacturer? NOS parts were not made by Chrysler. They were made under contract just like the parts that people like BE&A and I, are authorized to manufacture. If someone wants to argue that the "old" reproduction NOS replacement parts have a more "correct" status, I need to ask based on what? If it was made after the fact and not a factory installed piece, are we to assume that one degree of incorrectness takes precedence over an "acceptable" or alternative degree of incorrectness? A piece that was made 35 years ago by a subsidized independent manufacturer (for Chrysler) is still just an older version of a reproduction replacement part!!
 Excellent food for thought Dave. 
Until total honesty is on the table, we're not even talking about reality...
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: A12]
#137509
04/30/09 03:20 PM
04/30/09 03:20 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
OP
David Walden
|
OP
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
Dave, are your labels made of "tamper resistant material" like all compliance labels are supposed to be? They are supposed to tear or are destroyed if removed. Not that it makes any difference and just asking but that's the reg for compliance labels....don't ask how I know 
MikeR
Hi Mike,
As of September 2008, all replacement VIN labels (for newer vehicles) are required to be manufactured with "self destructive" tamper resistant adhesive material. ECS has another branch of our company that supplies licensed replacement VIN decals to the collision industry across the country. Check us out at ESCVIN.com. We are licensed and approved to obtain all types of select materials that were/are used by the various automobile manufacturers. Our "vintage" decals are not under the same guidelines or jurisdiction as the ones that were made for the model years 1990 to present. We use a product that is twice as durable as the original only because the customers asked for the "better" material from the outset. Some of those pioneer customers complained that they were not able to move the decal if they placed it in a wrong location. They couldn't reposition it even if only a small part of the decal was stuck to the painted surface. The tamper resistant material we use for the Chrysler VINs will destroy the surface artwork or print if you try and remove them. If anyone ever requests the older style tamper proof material, we can certainly provide that particular type. Since our customers are not buying these to see if they can be destroyed upon removing them, the variant "tamper resistant" material we use has not been an issue whatsoever. Keep in mind that the material label stock used by Chrysler (throughout the years) has changed numerous times.
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: A12]
#137511
04/30/09 06:42 PM
04/30/09 06:42 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
OP
David Walden
|
OP
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
I totally understand the rational for not using the tamper resistant material on the reproduction labels, appreciate the reply.
MikeR
Hi Mike,
I just wanted to clarify that the material we use for the reproduction Chrysler VIN decals, IS in fact a tamper resistant product. It does not remove in the same fashion as the originals however. We chose the variant form of material because it doesn't destroy the entire foundation layer when it is removed. The base layer will remain but the face of the printed surface will separate away from the clear overlay if it has been firmly pressed into place. It allows for (some) positioning correction during the initial application phase. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: anlauto]
#137512
05/09/09 02:40 PM
05/09/09 02:40 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
OP
David Walden
|
OP
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hi Mark,
The original battery is long gone. It still has the original cables though. We do know from the buildsheets that it took the yellow cap battery. I have 21 months to locate an original....that will be a tough find!
If you do find an original please post pictures of it beside a reproduction....I don't think I've ever seen an original  Is there a lot of differences?
Which leads me to a OE Level judging question....
If a persons car is sporting a reproduction battery, which I'm sure 99% are....Is there a point deduction?
Hi Alan! Guess what Dave Stuart and I found yesterday on a road trip to Indiana?
A yellow cap, 24 Series, ASSEMBLY LINE, date coded, original Chrysler battery!!!!!!! My buddy (Ed Meyer) had ONE that he got from a guy who did the warranty claims for Chrysler dealerships many years ago. (I almost immediately thought of you when we saw it.) I could not believe that we found this. Until yesterday, I had never even seen an assembly line battery. Your statement about the repos being 99% correct is not even close. The original has a different look that stands out distinctly from the reproduction. I will get some close up side by side comparison photos and post them on Monday. I have already “detailed” the battery and it looks New again. An Unbelievable find!!
We are finished locating every replacement component needed and were able to stand by our original mission statement…..not a single reproduction part!
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: ECS]
#137513
05/09/09 04:24 PM
05/09/09 04:24 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,854
Georgetown Ontario Canada
anlauto
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,854
Georgetown Ontario Canada
|
That's awesome Dave...will it take a charge?  Does the date code work well for your car? That would be an amazing find. Congratulations  If that's my quote above...I said 99% of people are using reproduction batteries NOT that reproduction batteries are 99% correct. As I've stated...I've never seen an original that I know of.
CHECK OUT MY NEW WEB SITE !
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: anlauto]
#137514
05/09/09 06:51 PM
05/09/09 06:51 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
OP
David Walden
|
OP
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
Quote:
That's awesome Dave...will it take a charge?
I said 99% of people are using reproduction batteries NOT that reproduction batteries are 99% correct.
It actually MIGHT take a charge! It was stored dry and the plates look pretty good. I am going to research the "How To" on something like this and see if it can be brought back.
The date code is 12/69 so it will work for this car built in 4/70.
Sorry for not understanding your quote and my misprint.
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: stevenjuliano]
#137518
05/11/09 01:03 PM
05/11/09 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
ECS
OP
David Walden
|
OP
David Walden
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,711
USA
|
|
|
|
Re: TAKING IT TO THE "NEW" NEXT LEVEL!!
[Re: ECS]
#137520
05/11/09 02:14 PM
05/11/09 02:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,500
N.E. OHIO, USA
A12
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,500
N.E. OHIO, USA
|
Quote:
Here you go Mike.
THANKS Dave! yep five vent holes on the original caps vs. one on the repo So are there deductions for non-correctness on reproduction parts 
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to replace it with a repop anyway but I wanted to hold onto the real deal original. 
