CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 12:25:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
97529 Posts in 11718 Topics by 4581 Members
Latest Member: Cooper48
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 65
61  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 396 Camaro TH400 oil pump cover on: March 01, 2014, 07:38:01 PM
 If you are talking about the round cover in the front that the torque converter shaft comes through, it is unpainted.

Mike
62  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Fredd Gibb ZL 1 on eBay.. Rebodied? on: March 01, 2014, 02:23:56 PM
 I was 'mated' with my wife in 1977...I am still the same original person!  Cheesy

Mike
63  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Van Nuys Tag on 69 camaro on: March 01, 2014, 10:20:43 AM
Hmm, without the original motor, its going to be hard to validate a LOS car is a Z/28.
  Or hard to disprove it.
IMO, I wouldn't get too concerned or too hung up documentation unless you have intentions to resell the car (most here keep their prized possessions) so just enjoy owning and driving it.

Mike
64  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: PACE CAR TROUBLES on: February 25, 2014, 07:36:55 PM
What's the story behind this? Was the car coming from or to a show?
That's the kind of accident whereby you wake up the following morning and hope it was just a bad dream.

Mike
65  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Question on exhaust manifold tube support on: February 25, 2014, 07:05:42 PM
  It may be tight possibly from being slightly out-of round. If it looks like it is just a tight friction fit and not an obvious over sized OD, then try putting a thin layer of grease on the flange and using a wooden block across the OD, tap it in.

Again, this is only if it looks like it wants to go in but is just snug. I use grease at times for stubborn exhaust fittings and it works great.


Good luck!
Mike
66  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: PACE CAR TROUBLES on: February 25, 2014, 06:55:14 PM
 If the rear frame rails are straight then the rest of the body is likely square. Looks like the outer panels plus inner wheel tubs need replacement, for starters. If it were mine I'd rebuild it if I had a sentimental attachment to it.
Trunk floor boards can be replaced as well as the inner braces.

Mike
67  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 traction bar busings? on: February 24, 2014, 09:18:18 PM
Hi Mike,

  I was looking to see if an OEM type of bushing was made where rubber was used.
If these ES bushings are what is available, I'll go with them.

Thank you,
Mike
68  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 67 traction bar busings? on: February 23, 2014, 11:31:52 AM
 Any '67 owners whose car has the rear traction bar replaced the rubber bushings?
Mine are dry rotted and need replacement. I have seen these on eBay but they look to be the solid type: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rear-Traction-Bar-Bushing-Set-Passenger-Side-Energy-Suspension-3-7115-3-7115BL/360855488013?_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.RVI%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131017132637%26meid%3D5041252489324300350%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D20131017132637%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D221175379129

Thank you,
Mike
69  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Were 'Pacesetter' VIN's period different? on: February 22, 2014, 11:29:14 AM
This car has been discussed before.

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=11345.0


HA!  and I even replied to that one too :-) I should have done a search before starting this thread!

Mike
70  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Were 'Pacesetter' VIN's period different? on: February 22, 2014, 11:27:50 AM
 This tag in interesting....
The interior code 'R' is misplaced relative to a normal left margin for that period and the body number N158382 looks to be off for the few 05D tags I have pictures of which are in the N125XXX range.
Unless someone can state otherwise that Pacesetter cars were stamped on a different addressograph, then this is an obvious misrepresentation.

Mike
71  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Were 'Pacesetter' VIN's period different? on: February 22, 2014, 11:18:11 AM
 That sure looks like a re-stamp pad to me especially the T sequence which looks to start even with T0 and curves upwards. I haven't seen pad misalignment that bad before on BB's for 67

Thanks for posting that pic, Vince. Between the VIN vs. date sequence gap, the misplaced interior paint code on the trim tag and the obvious engine pad re-stamp.......

Mike
72  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Were 'Pacesetter' VIN's period different? on: February 22, 2014, 09:40:32 AM
  I came across this on eBay (  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-PACESETTER-1967-camaro-pacesetter-ss-rs-convertible-frame-off-resto-396-c-i-rare-/321330484032?forcerrptr=true&hash=item4ad0ca1340&item=321330484032&pt=US_Cars_Trucks ) and noticed two things about the car.

1- Trim Tag - the area where the interior color code is stamped has the character embossed above to what looks between the letters B&O (in BODY) so the left margin placement for that code is way off when compared to others of that date period. I can't see it clearly due to the small posted image but it looks like the seller has all the embossed characters cleaned of paint to stand out.

2- The VIN listed as N155815 (the engine is said to be stamped N15581 but that can be an ad error) seems too early a sequence for a 05D car. My 05B NOR is N218XXX so the Pacesetter VIN sequence period doesn't look right if cars were issued VIN's sequentially.

  The trim tag interior color position stamping warrants closer inspection but were Pacesetter cars assigned VIN numbers differently to cause an earlier VIN to be in a later body build?

Mike
73  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/28 Barn Find?? on: February 18, 2014, 08:34:05 PM
Here is an update to this car and I hope it is the last we see of it.
  As was brought to the attention of CRG about the sale reappearing for a third time and for much less than the supposedly ~$51,000 selling price of the previous two auctions, I decided to send the seller ( eBay ID: banksjune ) on Feb 14th an email through eBay inquiring if the $28,500 price was in error. If not in error then I would have certainly driven to see the car and inspect it with an appraiser for that price.
  I received a reply from a person purportedly to be a Lt General <name withheld> in the USAF on Feb 15th.  The email exchanges ceased after my last email to him (see below). I have even reached out to the vendor (diesel-truck-king) who advertised the Camaro for sale explaining the situation and if the car was really sold. I have not received any replies from that vendor in days and yet I see he/she is giving recent feedbacks so someone is ‘home’.
  Interesting enough is when you look at the relisted eBay auction for this car, it has a winning bid of $51,100 from an eBay id of v***g and yet when you look at the feedback on diesel-truck-king profile the buyer ID is now p***a  for $51,100 and not v***g (see attached images). I understand eBay hides the full names but do they show them differently between bid history and feedback?
Below is my email to diesel-truck-king:
Hello,

Recently you had a 1969 Z-28 'Barn Find' Camaro for sale. It was listed twice and both times had a buyer for approximately $50K. I figured the first time there was buyer remorse so they backed out. I had seen the ad listed for a 3rd time late last week for a $28K price and the same VIN. The eBay link is no longer valid which is unusual even for sold items. I had sent the seller a question verifying the $28K selling price and he replied to me and is looking to sell the car. Something doesn't feel right about this recent communication which is why I am reaching out to you. Was this car sold?

Thank you,
Mike


 Anyhow…to show you the correspondence of my email exchanges with the alleged USAF person, read on below. Out of respect for the real person whose name was used in this obvious scam attempt, I have removed the name. Interesting enough, all email was sent to my yahoo account instead of my eBay account, which was my first red flag.
The second flag is the different fonts used in each reply and sentence structure. My third reply is when all communications stopped from this person.

Below is the email thread with the earliest at the top. Check out the URL for the photos and see it was an anonymous upload:
> Hello,
>  
> My name is <name withheld>
> and I would like to thank you for contacting me regarding
> the 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 DZ 302 Trim that I
> have for sale on eBay.
>
> Few
> details about the car:
> Original Mileage:
> 22326
> Vehicle Title: Clear
> Transmission: Manual
> Engine: 5.0
> DZ-302
> Exterior
> Color: Burgundy
> Interior Color: Black
> VIN: 124379N625163
> Photos: http://www.use.com/6242ca218ba599cc7d8a
> The full
> price for the car will be $28500 and I will only deliver the
> car as I am located at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson,
> Alaska and can't meet you. The car is located in
> Alexandria, VA at the delivery company. The delivery taxes
> are included in the price.I would like this transaction to
> be done through eBay.Let me know if this is ok for you and I
> will offer you more details about the sale.
>  
> Thank
> you
> Lt. Gen. <name withheld>
>
> P.S. This car has been owned by
> my son who died by cancer and I want to sell it kind of
> cheap in his memory.


My reply:
> Hello Mr. <name withheld>,
>
> Thank you for replying to my inquiry. I'm sorry to hear about your son's passing.
> I had seen this lovely car on eBay under Item number: 221357939653 in January.
> I'm a little confused as what happened to cause the bid to close and reappear again this past week.
> This is the same car VIN in the two ads. Would I be able to inspect it with an appraiser at the delivery location?
>
> Thank you,
> Mike XXXXXXX


His second reply:
Hello again,

The truck is already at the delivery company in Alexandria, VA crated and ready for delivery. I have setup this sale with eBay so this deal must go through them.
Unfortunately I'm not near you so I can't meet in person with you so this is the reason why I chose to sell my truck on internet.
In order to complete this deal the payment must be sent to eBay. As soon as they receive the payment will notify me to start with delivery. The delivery cost is included in the price. The delivery company is DAS (dependable auto shippers)
eBay will not release the payment to me until you receive and inspect the truck (you have 10 days for inspection). If the truck is not in same condition as I said you will ship it back on my expense and eBay will send you a full refund. But I assure you won't be the case. Now, if you are serious about this and want to move forward, just mail me back with:
- Your Full Name - Required by eBay (You'll receive important guidelines + payment instructions from them.)
- Your Delivery Address and Phone Number
As soon as I will receive the details from you, I will forward them to eBay and declare you as the buyer. They will contact you with further information regarding payment and delivery.
 
Thanks you
Lt. Gen. <name withheld>


PS:The truck comes with all the documents ( title, bill of sale, full service records, etc.) It has a clear title in my name. The title will be signed into your name as soon as the payment will be sent to eBay.


My third reply:
Hello Mr. <name withheld>,

  
I'm somewhat confused about this cars recent selling history which I'm sure you can clarify.
I had seen this eBay ad in January as eBay item number :221357939653
( http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z-28-1969-chevrolet-camaro-z-28-dz-302-s-matching-22-k-actual-miles-rare-no-reserve-/221357939653?forcerrptr=true&hash=item3389f61bc5&item=221357939653&pt=US_Cars_Trucks ) and it looks like it ended Jan 26th due to a winning bid of $52,200.

   It was re-listed again under eBay item number: 221365150446 ( http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&vxp=mtr&item=221365150446 ) and ended Feb 9th with a winning bid of $51,100.
 It then reappeared as eBay item: 171242694494 ( http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z-28-1969-CHEVROLET-CAMARO-Z28-DZ-302-s-MATCHING-/171242694494?forcerrptr=true&hash=item27dedc275e&item=171242694494&pt=US_Cars_Trucks) which is when I asked you a question about the price. This latest URL no longer appears to go to the link to the car for sale.

  Your second reply mentions about selling your truck (instead of the Camaro Z-28). Can you post the current eBay link to the Camaro that is supposed to be used for the transaction?
 
Thank You,
Mike XXXXXX


****************************** end of emails ********************


Below are screen shots of the bid history and feedback I mentioned above.

Ah yes….As the old saying goes…."if it looks too good to be true….."
Mike
74  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Cowl Tag Check on: February 18, 2014, 07:20:41 PM
William,

 Was the disclosure done before or after the sale of the car? If after, I'm surprised it went for that much money unless there was other supporting proof of its authenticity.
I'm curious if it was a re-body, why reproduce the tag unless there was an engine fire or something else to damage the original tag (I have seen an engine compartment fire due to an oil line leak melt a trim tag extensively many years ago).

Mike
75  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 pacesetter sale on: February 15, 2014, 03:25:46 PM
My AIM is pretty old and I can only reference by UPC's.
What is the UPC?

Thanks,
Mike
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 65
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.107 seconds with 18 queries.