CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mark on October 07, 2013, 11:07:44 PM

Title: Fake 67 Pacecar on Ebay
Post by: Mark on October 07, 2013, 11:07:44 PM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/181233448098?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_sacat%3D0%26_from%3DR40%26_nkw%3D181233448098%26_rdc%3D1

All made up to look like a Pacecar. Has a posted vin of 124667N155815 and a cowl tag of 05B, body number 158332.  He actually calls it a Pacesetter car, apparently not knowing exactly what the pacesetter program was.

7N155815 is a December of 66 VIN, and a body number of 158332 is beyond the end of 67 Camaro production at Norwood.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1967-Camaro-SS-RS-Convertible-396-325-HP-Pace-Setter-Protect-o-plate-original-/00/s/OTAwWDE2MDA=/z/fz8AAOxyZwpSUdE3/$(KGrHqN,!qEFJOH(4m9DBSUdE2ZfWw~~60_57.JPG)
Title: Re: Fake 67 Pacecar on Ebay
Post by: Mike S on October 07, 2013, 11:35:12 PM
 Interesting tag. Option 1 position (W) and interior color code look to be misplaced.
  My 67 conv is a 5B period and the VIN and body  date and number is nowhere this one.
The seller does have an interesting article and I assume he is making it sound that this is a dealer car made to look like a Pace Car. Even so, that still wouldn't support the differences in the period mismatches of VIN tag info. if a dealer bought a non pacer.

Mike
Title: Re: Fake 67 Pacecar on Ebay
Post by: Mark on October 07, 2013, 11:46:02 PM
Tags a repro, if the VIN on the dash matches whats on the car, none of the drivetrain is original as there were no BB's in December of 66 and all the parts in the car are based on the fake cowl tag build date of 05B.
Title: Re: Fake 67 Pacecar on Ebay
Post by: Mike S on October 08, 2013, 01:41:49 AM
 The engine pad is definitely not kosher   ;)
Not to be picky ( well maybe ) but he did say it can be a museum piece?

And there are 5 bids for this?

That's enough for me tonight!
Mike
Title: Re: Fake 67 Pacecar on Ebay
Post by: x77-69z28 on October 08, 2013, 02:13:41 AM
Worst restamp of a block that I have seen in some time.