Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

Hertz GT-H Post Title OR Pre-Title


gth0007
 Share

Recommended Posts

Post Title or Pre-Title. What is the definition ? Are we referring to Shelby conversion date OR payment of the car date? I posed this question in writing to the Hertz Senior Vice-President, Worldwide Fleet and Fleet Acquistion (retired). (note capital letters are for emphasis and not intended to be screaming) The process regarding the GT-H program is as follows, Hertz specially ordered 500 black Mustang GT coupes DIRECTLY from Ford. Hertz was a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford at that time. INSTANTLY Hertz was invoiced for the cars per normal Hertz-Ford ordering-payment policies via established lines of credit. Ford INSTANTLY generated MCOs (Manufacturer Certification of Origin) issued to HERTZ as the BUYER. Hertz had the Mustang GTs drop shipped directly to SAI in Las Vegas for conversion to the GT-H. A Hertz manager signed for the cars at SAI as "received". ALL of the 500 2006 Coupes were pre-assigned at the Ford INVOICE DATE to various Hertz rental locations and to Executives, Licensees etc. Hertz carried the cars in their control systems as "IN PROCESS" until the Shelby conversion was complete. IMMEDIATELY upon completion of the conversion to the GT-H, the Hertz Fleet Department sent the previously issued MCOs (Manufacturer Certification of Origin) to the Hertz rental location where the car had been previously assigned so the car could be insured, tagged etc. The Hertz employed Executive cars were titled first to Hertz in New Jersey, then to the buying employee. Then, at the end of the rental life, the fleet GT-Hs were sold at Ford exclusive auctions. So, in summary the cars WERE sold and paid for by Hertz PRIOR to GT-H conversion. The GT-Hs were NOT titled until AFTER the Shelby conversion. So how you DEFINE pre-title / post-title will determine how you describe the GT-H in this context. Personally, my opinion is that the cars were bought, instantly paid for by Hertz and the title process had begun by Ford's instant issuing of the MCOs to Hertz as the buyer / owner. The GT-H process from ordering, payment, delivery to SAI, conversion to Shelbys is virtualy the same as the current 2011 GT-350. In both cases, SAI received the cars as drop shipped by the buyer/ owner with the title process already begun (payment, MCO etc). This is all interesting and probably is not very important regardless of how you define the GT-H. Nice discussion topic though. Hope this post doesn't generate a lot of negative posts, as it is my goal as the SAI Hertz GT-H Registrar to seek out as much information as possible and present it to Team Shelby and the owners of these very unique cars, regards, Larry Miller Registrar 2006-2007 Hertz GT-H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Larry. That is exactly how I understood the process to take place also. Should be no need for any sort of negative coments. Like many have said before, the GT-H doesn't really belong in any Post or Pre title discussion as they were an internally planned deal from the get go between Hertz/Ford/ and Shelby. That's why we have the book right! :dance: But thanks for doing further research and follow up on the proceedure from the top! Love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not again :)

 

OK, so the chain of ownership is a pre-title conversion.

 

But that's only because of paperwork flow. Hertz could just as well have submitted title paperwork at any step in the process. It is no different that buying a Mustang at a dealer, paying for it, having him install a Supercharger on it, and then submitting the paperwork to the DMV. Technically that is a pre-title conversion. Technically it was done post-purchase.

 

The pre-title work done on the SGTs and KRs was as a manufacturing step. The difference between the SGT (to focus on that) is that the SGT was INVOICED to the dealer as a Shelby GT. The Hertz cars were INVOICED as a Mustang GT.

 

Does this fall into the pre-/post-delivery bucket?

 

No controversy intended... But it sure is confusing, and it comes to intent.

 

I doubt it will make any difference in the value of the vehicles as they were all done in exactly the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post Title or Pre-Title. What is the definition ? Are we referring to Shelby conversion date OR payment of the car date? I posed this question in writing to the Hertz Senior Vice-President, Worldwide Fleet and Fleet Acquistion (retired). (note capital letters are for emphasis and not intended to be screaming) The process regarding the GT-H program is as follows, Hertz specially ordered 500 black Mustang GT coupes DIRECTLY from Ford. Hertz was a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford at that time. INSTANTLY Hertz was invoiced for the cars per normal Hertz-Ford ordering-payment policies via established lines of credit. Ford INSTANTLY generated MCOs (Manufacturer Certification of Origin) issued to HERTZ as the BUYER. Hertz had the Mustang GTs drop shipped directly to SAI in Las Vegas for conversion to the GT-H. A Hertz manager signed for the cars at SAI as "received". ALL of the 500 2006 Coupes were pre-assigned at the Ford INVOICE DATE to various Hertz rental locations and to Executives, Licensees etc. Hertz carried the cars in their control systems as "IN PROCESS" until the Shelby conversion was complete. IMMEDIATELY upon completion of the conversion to the GT-H, the Hertz Fleet Department sent the previously issued MCOs (Manufacturer Certification of Origin) to the Hertz rental location where the car had been previously assigned so the car could be insured, tagged etc. The Hertz employed Executive cars were titled first to Hertz in New Jersey, then to the buying employee. Then, at the end of the rental life, the fleet GT-Hs were sold at Ford exclusive auctions. So, in summary the cars WERE sold and paid for by Hertz PRIOR to GT-H conversion. The GT-Hs were NOT titled until AFTER the Shelby conversion. So how you DEFINE pre-title / post-title will determine how you describe the GT-H in this context. Personally, my opinion is that the cars were bought, instantly paid for by Hertz and the title process had begun by Ford's instant issuing of the MCOs to Hertz as the buyer / owner. The GT-H process from ordering, payment, delivery to SAI, conversion to Shelbys is virtualy the same as the current 2011 GT-350. In both cases, SAI received the cars as drop shipped by the buyer/ owner with the title process already begun (payment, MCO etc). This is all interesting and probably is not very important regardless of how you define the GT-H. Nice discussion topic though. Hope this post doesn't generate a lot of negative posts, as it is my goal as the SAI Hertz GT-H Registrar to seek out as much information as possible and present it to Team Shelby and the owners of these very unique cars, regards, Larry Miller Registrar 2006-2007 Hertz GT-H

 

 

Not to challenge or disrupt your post/pre title discussions but I question this statement in bold type above?????????.......

 

all mustangs intended to be Shelby GTs were shipped by rail to LV by Ford.

 

wasnt Ford responsible for and make all the arrangements to load and ship these Mustang GTs to Las Vegas to become GTHs like all the other Mustangs that made their way from Auto Alliance to SAI??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to challenge or disrupt your post/pre title discussions but I question this statement in bold type above?????????.......

 

all mustangs intended to be Shelby GTs were shipped by rail to LV by Ford.

 

wasnt Ford responsible for and make all the arrangements to load and ship these Mustang GTs to Las Vegas to become GTHs like all the other Mustangs that made their way from Auto Alliance to SAI??

 

 

The reference to shipping is simply the location Hertz told Ford they wanted the cars to go, and in this case it was Las Vegas. Ford would have handled all of the logistics of the actual shipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, not again :)

 

OK, so the chain of ownership is a pre-title conversion.

 

But that's only because of paperwork flow. Hertz could just as well have submitted title paperwork at any step in the process. It is no different that buying a Mustang at a dealer, paying for it, having him install a Supercharger on it, and then submitting the paperwork to the DMV. Technically that is a pre-title conversion. Technically it was done post-purchase.

 

The pre-title work done on the SGTs and KRs was as a manufacturing step. The difference between the SGT (to focus on that) is that the SGT was INVOICED to the dealer as a Shelby GT. The Hertz cars were INVOICED as a Mustang GT.

 

Does this fall into the pre-/post-delivery bucket?

 

No controversy intended... But it sure is confusing, and it comes to intent.

 

I doubt it will make any difference in the value of the vehicles as they were all done in exactly the same way.

 

 

You are correct regarding the Hertz delivery of the title paperwork. Hertz chose to wait until the GT-H conversion process was done ONLY because their assignment of the cars was subject to change from the original Ford invoice location. My car #457 was initially assigned to Miami as indicated on the Ford invoice, but was sent to Los Angeles instead. The assignment changes were due to operational requirements and customer demand. Had they submitted the title immediately upon receipt of the MCOs, then they would have had to re-title on the re-assigned cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct regarding the Hertz delivery of the title paperwork. Hertz chose to wait until the GT-H conversion process was done ONLY because their assignment of the cars was subject to change from the original Ford invoice location. My car #457 was initially assigned to Miami as indicated on the Ford invoice, but was sent to Los Angeles instead. The assignment changes were due to operational requirements and customer demand. Had they submitted the title immediately upon receipt of the MCOs, then they would have had to re-title on the re-assigned cars.

 

 

And the nature of the paperwork flow is further complicated by the fact that Hertz is their own dealer (I believe this to be the case). They enter orders directly to Ford and are listed as the dealer on the MCO. If they ordered their cars from a local cooperative dealer, then that dealer would be on the MCO and Hertz would be the first title holder. The fact that the Hertz was on the MCO made it possible to hold the paperwork across the conversions. I believe this paperwork flow is no longer permitted by Shelby. For example, a dealer cannot buy a GT500, and while still in dealer stock and on the MCO, submit it to Shelby for conversion to a Super Snake. The dealer would have to title it in his name first.

 

The "order of paperwork" discussion also applies to claims of some "pre-title supercharged SGTs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
...