Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jack92584

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Striping
« on: March 10, 2014, 06:01:16 AM »
72 72 Stripes would be white

General Discussion / Re: Temecula ROD RUN
« on: March 09, 2014, 06:15:55 AM »
Good times for sure. First gens were well represented. We had 2 67 rs/ss, a 6 cyl 68 and my 69 Z all pretty much lined up together and there was probably at least 20 or 25 in total at the show.

General Discussion / Re: Mecum Anahiem
« on: November 24, 2013, 01:15:50 AM »
Burnished brown (btw original paint is about 3 layers deep thats why the color doesnt look right) Camaro was a no sale @$36.000. Also, I have "Carburetor" Carls contact info if anyone is interested in pursuing a private purchase.

General Discussion / Re: Mecum Anahiem
« on: November 22, 2013, 04:49:02 AM »
If I knew there were some unrestored cars up there in Anaheim I might check it out, I live in SoCAl now and Anaheim is about an hour from me, pending traffic.

Here you go, unrestored  69 396/375hp scheduled for auction on Sat. Car was getting a LOT of attention.

General Discussion / Re: Mecum Anahiem
« on: November 21, 2013, 01:33:47 PM »
Heading that way in a few hours. I'm with Bullitt65, I sort of treat it like a car show with a twist. For me the first day is the best because all the cars are still there and the ones that go to auction first tend to be the most affordable. I did register to bid just in case I see something I have to have.  :) Velocity has live TV coverage all three days.

if it was me I may have just said "nice car" and told him about the CRG website

In hindsight, I wish thats what I would have done, got the "nice car" part right. For his sake I hope its at least a real Z because it sounded to me like he paid a bunch for it. On the flip side I guess theres  a caveat emptor argument to be made that before he shelled out the cash he should have done some research.

I'm still on the fence about whether I should have taken/posted the pics. Still seems to me that the owner chose to make the numbers/tags  public and to invite scrutiny of them. I chose to make my vin public by posting it. I'm sure it ended up in the database but no one asked my permission. Maybe thats where the distinction is. I posted mine, sellers post theirs, but this owner didnt play an active role in their numbers ending up on the internet. I can understand how if someone (especially if they are wearing a CRG or similar shirt) went around around randomly taking pictures just to be added that wouldn't look good. I would argue that my posting wasn't just to add a number to a database but to stimulate discussion of a car that clearly wasn't what it was represented to be. For no reason other than my own curiosity I was interested in knowing how much the car had been misrepresented. Maybe thats none of my business. Curiosity killed the cat.

Hmmm...dint think I'd be stirring  up a hornets nest here. As I mentioned in my first post I am fairly new here and may not be aware of proper edicate as to what is what is public and what is private .I guess my take on this is that if you take your car to a public event open your hood and invite others to “come check out my numbers matching original survivor car” you are not attempting to keep anything private. As mentioned in a previous post a coat of paint would go a long way towards keeping a pad stamping private if that was your intention. My posting of the pictures here was more to satisfy my own curiousity as to what extent this owner had been mislead when he purchased this car. Isnt that what these forums are for, a learning tool ?
Frankly, my dilema was not should I take pictures but what should I say, if anything, to the owner who appears to have been mislead by someone into believing this car was something it isn't. In the end I chose to keep my mouth shut even though it was clear the car was not what it was represented to be. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to whether you would have made the owner aware that the car was not what he had been told it was.  Final thoughts... The more I reflect on this I now wish I would have said something to the owner. Its not a question of picking apart someones car but more one of making someone aware they may have been a victim. Perhaps he found it on Ebay or Craigslist and by telling him of the problems maybe he might have had some recourse against the seller and I could have played a part in helping to bring down one of the “scammers”.

So I took my Z to a car show today and while I was there a guy stopped by and told me he had brought a 9,200 mile 1969 Z28 survivor to the show. Of course, I had to check it out and even a new guy like me could quickly tell it wasnt a true survivor. Lots of problems not the least of which was it had deluxe door panels and Houndstooth seats with a 711 cowl tag. Anyway, I took some photos of the pad stamping and the cowl tag and I thought Id post them here ad see if you think they are also questionable. Partial vin on pad matched dash vin.

[Edit by Forum admin per request of OP]

Originality / Re: 69Z Brake Booster input shaft length???
« on: November 09, 2013, 04:37:59 AM »
I remember mine came with 2 shafts and I had to swap out the one that came in it. Maybe yours was missing the second one?

Originality / Re: Do we have a real SS in the garage?
« on: October 14, 2013, 04:18:41 AM »
Might be an ss350 but with x11 cant be a big block.
Read about x codes here

General Discussion / Re: 69' Z28 with Factory Cross Ram
« on: October 07, 2013, 08:16:19 PM »
If every thing else was not enough the trim tag is a fake as well. The video shows a close up of it and with a build date of 02B the D80 option would not have been stamped on the tag.

General Discussion / Re: 69' Z28 with Factory Cross Ram
« on: October 06, 2013, 09:42:02 AM »
I also noticed the ad states that the car has an "all original 12 bolt positraction rear end" casting date E239. The trim tag has a 02B build date on it. A little late for that car.

Trans is wrong as well..not an m22 as advertised, its an m20 also from a later date

1968 - Orphans / VI002MO 8N341120
« on: October 03, 2013, 12:14:49 AM »

Decoding/Numbers / 1969 Z28 124379N614371
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:06:36 AM »
X77 Z28 VIN 124379N614371 Picked this car up a few weeks ago. Purportedly been tucked away in a garage the last 15 years or so. Any chance its in the DB?

1969 - Orphans / 19N56853? V1217DZ
« on: August 19, 2013, 05:52:07 AM »
I have it..

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]