CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 17, 2014, 08:47:43 AM

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.
104475 Posts in 12233 Topics by 4716 Members
Latest Member: Hgtech
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: This is a good looking car! on: April 09, 2014, 12:00:16 AM
Car has been sold twice at Barratt Jackson here:
http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/lotdetails.aspx?ln=938&aid=221
and here:
http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/lotdetails.aspx?ln=711&aid=443

Both times its was described as having a “correct” block. Now according to the ebay ad its numbers matching. Buyer beware.
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another 1969 Z/28 "Barn Find" on: April 08, 2014, 11:56:00 AM
I need to correct my earlier post. When I first read the report  I thought it said the the interior and exterior colors do not match the trim tag. What it actually says is “The exterior and interior colors do match the trim tag on the firewall”. Having said that it doesnt make me feel any better about the report because thats not the wording that I've seen in known authentic reports. The ones I have that I know are authentic are phrased “The exterior and interior colors are original and correct for this vehicle and match the trim identification tag on firewall.” Not exactly a smoking gun but certainly a red flag
Also, revisting the report I did notice something else that would case me to question its authenticity. According to the ad the car was driven into the barn in 1977 and now has a  “non descript” small block in it. Jerrys report notes a 302 with a 618 casting. Are we to believe that the “non descript” small block made its way into the car sometime after 2007 when the report was done? Again the wording on the report is not consistent with others I've seen. If there was a 302 present either in or out of the car at the time of inspection guaranteed that Jerry M would have made note of the casting and assembly dates. The engine description would read something more like Engine:  V1113DZ assembly date, “386” block casting, casting date K68, original 302 engine   
 
is it unethical of me to ask everyones opinion on what you think this car is worth?   I realize the factor of "how bad somebody, really wants the car" determines it.    Just trying to get an idea and compare it to other "barn finds"
Bidding is over 20k and the reserve is not met. IMO even 20k is too much for what I believe is  a possible X77 car with non original drivetrain in need of complete restoration Add 30k (or more) for a proper restoration and your in 50k and have a car that might be worth 40k or even less. I bought my car which is a rotisserie restored X77 with a date code correct but not matching  302 for 30K. I cant see this car being worth more than 10K..maybe a bit more if the shiny new engine without a vin could be autheticated as a real DZ.
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another 1969 Z/28 "Barn Find" on: April 05, 2014, 08:19:27 PM
Somethings fishy here ... .Jerrys report also says that the interior and exterior colors do not match the trim tag..The trim tag pictured says its  Cortez Silver with a black standard interior which is what the car in the photos is. To many inconsistencies on the report to be typos, imo
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Is this a belated April Fools Joke? on: April 05, 2014, 07:26:51 PM
I have nothing to say...just wanted to see another HO avatar in this thread... Smiley
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Loose X77 Tag on Craigslist on: March 31, 2014, 12:40:21 PM
http://boston.craigslist.org/sob/pts/4397153866.html

I cant make out the body #, maybe someone with better skills can
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Hmmm, "complete bumber to bumber" restored 69 Z on: March 26, 2014, 11:48:41 PM
More concerning to me - how many Norwood Camaros after January had the VIN stamped on the deck ? New guy on the line, maybe didn't realize that it was a hassle to remove the alternator to stamp the VIN ?

Not only should the vin not be stamped on the pad the V0421DZ date is weeks early for an 05D build should be more like the second week of May = restamp (or more accurately added stamp). Be interesting to see what the area around the oil filter looks like
37  Model Specific Discussions / Foreign Camaros / Re: 67 coupé camaro with "sunroof" on: March 21, 2014, 12:18:34 PM
Vin is 124377N151035
:-)


Car with that vin is discussed here
http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/showpost.php?pid/1301165/
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Trim Vinyl top ? on: March 18, 2014, 04:51:23 PM
Butternut w/ a vinyl top is such a great combo. I'm going to follow this thread see how it turns out. Wish I had some advice to give but I'm it the same boat, I want to put the vinyl top back on my 69 but havent worked up t nerve to try it myself.
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Temecula ROD RUN on: March 17, 2014, 09:24:16 PM
We are ON like, Donkey Kong bro.
TO: Oakleyss, 69Houdini , Ed Bertran, Jack and anyone else in the So Cal Area
Where : Old town Temecula
What: Free car show at Mad Madeline's
When: March 23rd I think they start getting cars in at 7am? (Zak you may have to check that for me)
Be great to see the guys of the CRG come out!

Im in.....Ill post an invite over at TC as well
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Striping on: March 10, 2014, 01:01:16 AM
72 72 Stripes would be white
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Temecula ROD RUN on: March 09, 2014, 01:15:55 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.
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Mecum Anahiem on: November 23, 2013, 08:15:50 PM
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.
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Mecum Anahiem on: November 21, 2013, 11:49:02 PM
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. http://www.mecum.com/auctions/lot_detail.cfm?LOT_ID=AN1113-168140. Car was getting a LOT of attention.
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Mecum Anahiem on: November 21, 2013, 08:33:47 AM
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.  Smiley Velocity has live TV coverage all three days.
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 survivor that wasnt. Is it even a real #'s matching Z ? on: November 10, 2013, 03:07:22 PM
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.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
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 0.361 seconds with 18 queries.