Deciphering the McLaren F1 VINs

[jkbon]

This one can be confirmed now ?
Even if they list SA94B5AC3V1048063 instead of SA9AB5AC3V1048063

[Peloton25]

Originally Posted by mini magic

SA9AB5AC6R1048069

Note, 069 is new for you based on your list above

Well unfortunately that VIN is not valid based on the check digit calculator. For it to be valid, the check digit would need to be a "7".

Also, the "R" in the 10th position implies 1994 and while there is some variance, I highly doubt that #069 would have had a VIN assigned that early.

Originally Posted by jkbon

This one can be confirmed now ?
Even if they list SA94B5AC3V1048063 instead of SA9AB5AC3V1048063

The check digit does not validate on the first version, but is accurate on the second where the pattern matches all the other VINs. I'd say who ever put that flyer together made an error, but it would be safe to call the VIN on the list accurate now.

Thanks!

>8^)
ER

[gerd]

The LM VIN reported is straight from the DOT/EPA submitted paperwork by the RIs/ICIs/fake manufacturers (Ameritech). Only McLaren can verify for certain any VIN. There are many mistakes, mostly intentional, on VINs submitted to DOT and EPA.
Ameritech VIN'd cars don't exist except to illegally import the cars as was done. In a letter from EPA lab manager D Smith, the person responsible for EPA testing on the Ameritech/JK/ Mclarens, Smith wrote that the seven Ameritech cars were in fact McLarens and were approved intially with two VINs for each car. But Smith confirmed that the cars were in fact McLarens.
In a letter from Pacific Appraisers to DOT OVSC, Pacific inquired about one of the seven McLarens when the owner went to insure it because the owner was using the McLaren VIN. At this point, DOT was caught in a lie they knew existed but were hoping they would not get caught . The solution according to a DOT memo posted here some time ago was to cover it up.

[Peloton25]

Originally Posted by gerd

The LM VIN reported is straight from the DOT/EPA submitted paperwork by the RIs/ICIs/fake manufacturers (Ameritech). Only McLaren can verify for certain any VIN. There are many mistakes, mostly intentional, on VINs submitted to DOT and EPA.
Ameritech VIN'd cars don't exist except to illegally import the cars as was done. In a letter from EPA lab manager D Smith, the person responsible for EPA testing on the Ameritech/JK/ Mclarens, Smith wrote that the seven Ameritech cars were in fact McLarens and were approved intially with two VINs for each car. But Smith confirmed that the cars were in fact McLarens.
In a letter from Pacific Appraisers to DOT OVSC, Pacific inquired about one of the seven McLarens when the owner went to insure it because the owner was using the McLaren VIN. At this point, DOT was caught in a lie they knew existed but were hoping they would not get caught . The solution according to a DOT memo posted here some time ago was to cover it up.

So, if I get what you are saying... before the DOT/EPA verify something as simple as the basic formatting of the VIN that is provided, they count the number of zeros on the check that is included with the application.

>8^)
ER

[hurstg01]

Originally Posted by mini magic

SA9AR5BC8T1048054

huh? They didnt do a #054 did they?

[payso]

Originally Posted by hurstg01

huh? They didnt do a #054 did they?

GT

[Peloton25]

But keep in mind what I stated earlier - for that VIN on F1 GT #054 to be accurate the check digit needs to be a "3", not an "8" as the Brunei list shows. If the check digit is not a typo (as I suspect it is), then one or more of the positions 4-8 are wrong as the entire VIN can not be validated as provided.

>8^)
ER

[gerd]

Originally Posted by Peloton25

So, if I get what you are saying... before the DOT/EPA verify something as simple as the basic formatting of the VIN that is provided, they count the number of zeros on the check that is included with the application.

>8^)
ER

I can't recall the last time that either DOT or EPA verified a VIN. The S&D list has dozens of mistakes. VIN's are designated through SAE and ISO. WMI is a joint process involving the Feds. But their is no verification process other than asking the states who do verfiy more often, VINs. Another of those "we make rules for emotional/political/Swiss Bank account reasons without determining how we will enforce it".
DOT and EPA could care less about accurate VINs, unless it comes back to bite them.
As for counting zeros and Swiss Bank accounts, there is someone in approval power whose wife is a Swiss national....

[hurstg01]

Originally Posted by gerd

As for counting zeros and Swiss Bank accounts, there is someone in approval power whose wife is a Swiss national....

[mini magic]

Originally Posted by jkbon

This one can be confirmed now ?
Even if they list SA94B5AC3V1048063 instead of SA9AB5AC3V1048063

What is that?

[jkbon]

It comes from here :

http://www.turbo-car-trade.com/viewCars_1452.aspx

[gerd]

1 - Assigned by SAE
A - Assigned by SAE
S - Assigned by SAE
M - Series - CS
D (on file with Ameritech letterhead) or C as filed on EPA documents - Body
Type - Coupe
9 - Engine ype - BMW, 12 cyl, 627 hp, 6.1 litre, gas
9 - Restraint system - 3 point intertia
L - Line - F1
0 - check digit varies
S - Year
A - Plant of manufacture - Danbury, CT (yea right)
3 - Assigned by SAE
9 - Assigned by SAE
8 - Assigned by SAE
0 - sequential number
0 - sequential number
1 - sequential number

All data supplied by Ameritech to DOT dated 4/25/1997

[Peloton25]

Just realized I had this image for #038's VIN as well.



What I had not realized is that this one has a larger engine than all the other F1s...

>8^)
ER

[hurstg01]

your post prompted me to see if I had the same shot - I didn't (but for the pic ) but I did have this

[roger_ph]

Originally Posted by Peloton25

Just realized I had this image for #038's VIN as well.



What I had not realized is that this one has a larger engine than all the other F1s...

>8^)
ER

Erik,
I have the information of the first owner of #038 that, as long as he had the car, the engine had 6.1 liter and that there isn't available souch an oversize. It seems to be a transfer error.

Roger