Sick of seeing this Z on ebay

[lcmc]

I am so sick of seeing this Z. This was my car. I had Jerry do the inspection. At that time there was no VIN stamped on the block. I have told this dealer that and they ignore me. Jerry stated in his report "Can I say that this is definitely the original engine to this vehicle? I can neither confirm nor deny it's authenticity."

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Z-28-/281034878802?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid=111000&algo=REC.CURRENT&ao=1&asc=14&meid=3988066764862566638&pid=100015&prg=1006&rk=1&sd=281034878802&&forcev4exp=true

[lcmc]

My point being is this Z had no VIN on the block anywhere. Now it has. Also Jerry pointed out that most with this date had VIN on pad which it doesn't.

[x77-69z28]

Was the trans orig? That stamp doesn't look so good!

[lcmc]

Was the trans orig? That stamp doesn't look so good!

Jerry stated that the assembly date spacing did not look right but the VIN looked good so he thought the trans was original.

[rodent]

The plug in the muncie needs to go in a bit further

[lcmc]

Looks like they had Jerry recertify the car. I'd like to compare the certifications to see the difference between them.

[camaro jock]

They posted the entire report so compare yours to theirs I am sure Jerry was well aware of your inspection, looks like a nice car did you have it painted? thanks Darrell

[HOT3O2]

Hey Danny,
You can read the report on there web site. I looked it over and it seems like Jerry believes it was the original engine.

[KurtS]

I'll give my opinion - block is OK. I had it noted the VIN was by the oil filter many years ago.
Trans is not original. It didn't have the original trans years ago, but did the lizard tail thing and regrew one.

124379N563276

[lcmc]

I'll give my opinion - block is OK. I had it noted the VIN was by the oil filter many years ago.
Trans is not original. It didn't have the original trans years ago, but did the lizard tail thing and regrew one.

124379N563276

Why then was the VIN not near the oil filter when Jerry looked at it when I owned it? That was in 2008. Plus Jerry's comment "Can I say that this is definitely the original engine to this vehicle? I can neither confirm nor deny it's authenticity." Plus why did Jerry think the trans was original in 2008?

[lcmc]

They posted the entire report so compare yours to theirs I am sure Jerry was well aware of your inspection, looks like a nice car did you have it painted? thanks Darrell

Car was painted when I bought it. Looks like they did a cosmetic restoration since I had it. I can't seem to enlarge photos so I can read their report and compare it to mine.

[PURESS]

Danny....try going to          RKMotorsCharlotte.com
5527 Lakeview Road, Charlotte, NC, 28269, US
    web site and pull up the pictures  Scott

[lcmc]

Not sure what is going on. How can Jerry change his tune on this car. No VIN on engine in 08. Now there is one. All at once this car is an original engine car when before it may or may not be. Thankfully I got all the money when I sold the car even though I had to sell it as a non numbers car because of the report in 08.

[HOT3O2]

Danny,

Were you able to pull up the report and compare it with yours? Were there many discrepancy's beside the engine. Did Jerry state there was no vin stamping on the block in your report? 

[lcmc]

Danny,

Were you able to pull up the report and compare it with yours? Were there many discrepancy's beside the engine. Did Jerry state there was no vin stamping on the block in your report? 

Their report is hard to read in the pictures so couldn't compare to much. Jerry only stated in my report that there was no VIN stamped on the pad and that is where it should be for a car of that build date. He did not find one near filter at that time but did not mention that in the report. He said he could not confirm nor deny it was an original engine but it was possible. So at that time it was not documented as an original engine car.

[HOT3O2]

Danny,
I sent the report to you via e-mail. Check it out and see what you think.

Rick

[lcmc]

Danny,
I sent the report to you via e-mail. Check it out and see what you think.

Rick

I sent you my report. See what you think. They both are close other than it all at once having a VIN now and not then.

[HOT3O2]

I see what you mean Danny. Same car, same engine, 2 reports that contradict each other.

[BULLITT65]

Hmmm, why would there be 2 reports by the same guy that are so different within such a small time range. You would think he would have kept the old report or had it with him when he reinspected the car right?

[HOT3O2]

On Danny's original report it just states "No VIN on deck". It said nothing about the oil filter area. Either no one looked for the VIN by the oil filter or it was added after Danny sold the car. Very confusing.

[lcmc]

On Danny's original report it just states "No VIN on deck". It said nothing about the oil filter area. Either no one looked for the VIN by the oil filter or it was added after Danny sold the car. Very confusing.

Jerry checked by the filter and there was no VIN. That is what pisses me off now is that he suddenly finds a VIN there and verifies it as original. It was not there so obviously it was stamped there after I sold the car.

[68camaroz28]

On Danny's original report it just states "No VIN on deck". It said nothing about the oil filter area. Either no one looked for the VIN by the oil filter or it was added after Danny sold the car. Very confusing.

Jerry checked by the filter and there was no VIN. That is what pisses me off now is that he suddenly finds a VIN there and verifies it as original. It was not there so obviously it was stamped there after I sold the car.

Danny, since you stated over and over "Jerry checked by the filter" did you check there as well or only Jerry?

[lcmc]

Yes. I checked also and was with him when he did the report. No VIN there. As far as I'm concerned the report isn't worth the paper it's printed on! What a waste!

[BULLITT65]

So 2 reports, so 2 fees for inspecting the same car. I get it now if they called and asked if a report was already done, there is no money to be made.
It makes you wonder how many cars are out there that are NOW numbers matching again, after the fact of not having the original block. Or how many new Z/28 are being added to the original 20,302, by a well known Camaro inspector/judge.

[BULLITT65]

also Kurt says he noted years ago that it had the original vin stamped block. How many years ago did you own it? How many years ago did Kurt observe an original stamped block???

[lcmc]

also Kurt says he noted years ago that it had the original vin stamped block. How many years ago did you own it? How many years ago did Kurt observe an original stamped block???

I owned the car in 2008. This dealer has had this car for some time now. When they first put it on the market I emailed them and told them it wasn't confirmed as a numbers car. Here is the email and their response.

From: lcmc To: rkmotorscharlotte Subject: Other: lcmc sent a message about Chevrolet : Camaro Z/28 #280910431438 Sent Date: Jun-28-12 21:57:42 PDT

Dear rkmotorscharlotte,

I owned that car a few years ago. Jerry McNeish did an inspection on the car to verify numbers matching. The car is early enough that it should have had the VIN on the engine pad and also no numbers were on the engine near the oil filter like there are now. Just wanted to make you aware that since I sold the car that someone has stamped numbers there. There are lots of restamped cars out there now. I know of one in my area bought by a dealer at a Mecum Auction that is totally fake with restamping and repro trim tag. He now has to take things to court. I can verify that the car you have is real but can't be guaranteed to have the original engine. If I were you I would find out who stamped the engine because you may end up being sued if someone buys it and finds out it has been stamped recently.

- lcmc


Dear lcmc,

When you say you owned the car a few years ago, was that before or after it was restored by RK Collection in Concord, NC?

- rkmotorscharlotte

Now why would they reply asking me that? They restored the car and still have it. My email to them was on June 28 2012. Look at the date of the inspection they had done. Looks to me like Aug. 8 2012. So once I called them out on it they had Jerry do a new inspection.

[BillOhio]

Hey Danny
I didn't know restoring meant stamping numbers? Did they get it from the person you sold it to or you have any ideas?

[lcmc]

Hey Danny
I didn't know restoring meant stamping numbers? Did they get it from the person you sold it to or you have any ideas?

I think they bought it from the dealer I sold it to.

[lakeholme]

Danny,

Just curious... Do you have pictures of the VIN tag and the unstamped pad when you owned the car?  Have you contacted Jerry about this recently?

[lcmc]

Danny,

Just curious... Do you have pictures of the VIN tag and the unstamped pad when you owned the car?  Have you contacted Jerry about this recently?

No pictures. The pad was only stamped with assembly date. The only contact with Jerry was I emailed him to get a copy of report since I gave mine up when I sold the car. At that time I told him about the car being on eBay and now having a VIN stamped by the filter. Also reminded him we found none when he did inspection. He had no comment on it and just sent me the report. I emailed him in late April and he didn't respond until early June.

[dutch]

This whole deal sounds like it sort of substantiates and fosters that old line of thinking 'if you have enough money or influence - you can get whatever you want' - or possibly in this case to rephrase the second half of that to - 'make anything real'.. doesn't it?

 

[KurtS]

When the car was sold on ebay before Danny bought it, the car was noted by the seller as having a VIN by the oil filter.
Jerry's report for Danny basically says he couldn't find it. I can't answer for Jerry, but as anyone who has looked for the VIN down there, it can be hard to see.
His second report noted the VIN. Maybe they pulled the motor, don't know.
But what I see is an updated report with confirmed VIN location, not in conflict with the first one. If the VIN suddenly appeared on the deck, then there would obviously be an issue.

Guys,
I'd rather the accusatory tone stopped. If you have a question like this, just send an email to Jerry and ask him to comment here.

[lcmc]

When the car was sold on ebay before Danny bought it, the car was noted by the seller as having a VIN by the oil filter.
Jerry's report for Danny basically says he couldn't find it. I can't answer for Jerry, but as anyone who has looked for the VIN down there, it can be hard to see.
His second report noted the VIN. Maybe they pulled the motor, don't know.
But what I see is an updated report with confirmed VIN location, not in conflict with the first one. If the VIN suddenly appeared on the deck, then there would obviously be an issue.

Guys,
I'd rather the accusatory tone stopped. If you have a question like this, just send an email to Jerry and ask him to comment here.

OK......here's the deal. I bought it from the guy on eBay. He did state there was a VIN. No pictures! I could not find a VIN. Jerry could not find a VIN. Now there is a VIN. End of story!

[restore-z28]

As Kurt has noted and I think we can at least agree when the motor is in the car that vin is hard to see at the best of times, it is entirely possible on the second inspection perhaps Jerry was able to find it. I have pictures of my block out of the car and still the vin by the oil filter is hard to read. I would agree that anyone who needs more context should reach out to Jerry directly.

[KurtS]

Danny,
You didn't have him show the VIN to you when you bought it?
It was also on ebay before that, btw.

The pad stamping hasn't changed the whole time. The only issue is Jerry couldn't find the VIN when he inspected it for you. Which has to be frustrating, but it happens.

[lcmc]

Danny,
You didn't have him show the VIN to you when you bought it?
It was also on ebay before that, btw.

The pad stamping hasn't changed the whole time. The only issue is Jerry couldn't find the VIN when he inspected it for you. Which has to be frustrating, but it happens.

Kurt.....I bought the car without seeing it. When I couldn't find it is when I called Jerry in on it. It wasn't a big deal to me since the car was Canadian documented and I got it bought right. I was just trying to further document it by having Jerry look at it. Once I saw it back on eBay with VIN it all seemed to strange.

[Jerry@CHP]

Danny, let me chime in here since you are concerned about the car.  Nothing has changed really since I inspected the car for you.  When I did your inspection, we worked on a lift that had two long ramps so it was hard and cumbersome to get under the car by the oil filter and get photos of the vin stamp by the oil filter.  Under varying working conditions the stamped vin by the oil filter can be hard to read.  I stated in your report that is was possible that the engine was original to the car.  The assembly stamp on the deck does match all original stampings in my data base during that time period. 

I remember calling B. Harris about this car too as he had owned it before you.  December is a month of transition and some cars have the vin on the deck from Norwood and some have it down by the oil filter.  When I inspected the car at RK, the working conditions were much better.  Twin post lift with plenty of light and access under the car at the oil filter boss.  RK's staff took the liberty to clean the engine block with a heavy wire brush and lacquer thinner.  I was able to get photos of the stamping at RK.  The stamping matches all of the other vin character stampings around that time period.  I did not bring lacquer thinner or a large wire brush to scrape the engine block oil filter area when I did your inspection.  In most cases with engines and vins by the oil filter, it is very hard to read most of them.  I rely more on the engine assembly stamp.  If I can pull three or four numbers off the oil filter pad then that's a bonus.   

I also stated in both reports that the trans assembly date was not typical for Muncie cases and that the characters were too far apart and not done in a gang stamp.  However, the vin stamping looked very original IMO.

Now if you think I have done a disservice to you just call me.  I'll be glad to go over anything about this car. 

Jerry     

[Jerry@CHP]

Here is photo of that rack that we worked from when I did the inspection for Danny, hard to read vins with this kind of lift.

[Jerry@CHP]

RK inspection.

[lcmc]

Jerry.....I just remember at the time you seemed concerned there was no VIN on the pad and nothing near oil filter. I recall we did clean the oil filter area but didn't use a wire brush and I think you tried to photo the area with no results. This car has been a hard sell since I sold it as I had seen it listed for some time by another dealer. Then it showed up at RK with a clear VIN when we noticed no sign of one. This concerned me.

[Jerry@CHP]

Danny, I understand.  Some working conditions are better than others and I did not suspect any monkey business at the 2nd inspection.  I know that Joe Carroll always tries to buy nice cars as his reputation means everything in the world of marketing these cars.  He's been taken on a couple of occasions and that is why I do a lot of work for him now. 

In the case of this vin, it was hard to read and it was only from the use of equipment at RK that I was able to pick up some of the characters, not all but some.

Jerry

[Charley]

If we are going to bring up the stellar reputation of RK I feel I should give my input.
http://www.rkmotorscharlotte.com/sales/inventory/top_sales_2011/1970-1-2-Pontiac-Firebird-Trans-Am/132152#!/
 Great car but not orig. seat covers as stated in their ad. They bought the car from a good friend on mine and he told them he had the seat covers made for him at great cost yet they sold it as orig. seat covers. They were even reminded of it when they were selling it. They might be great guys but that type of sales tactic does not instill trust.

[69Z28-RS]

"Caveat emptor"....   all the time..  every time..

[lakeholme]

"Et documenta ante te reprehendi"

[Paul68RS/Z28]

From the ad:

" The seats and door panels have been reconditioned and re-dyed, but they are the OEM pieces."

I wouldn't have taken that as meaning Original seat covers. Agree, maybe they should have been clearer, but from a Dealer, I would never expect that. 

If we are going to bring up the stellar reputation of RK I feel I should give my input.
http://www.rkmotorscharlotte.com/sales/inventory/top_sales_2011/1970-1-2-Pontiac-Firebird-Trans-Am/132152#!/
 Great car but not orig. seat covers as stated in their ad. They bought the car from a good friend on mine and he told them he had the seat covers made for him at great cost yet they sold it as orig. seat covers. They were even reminded of it when they were selling it. They might be great guys but that type of sales tactic does not instill trust.

[lcmc]

From the ad:

" The seats and door panels have been reconditioned and re-dyed, but they are the OEM pieces."

I wouldn't have taken that as meaning Original seat covers. Agree, maybe they should have been clearer, but from a Dealer, I would never expect that. 

If we are going to bring up the stellar reputation of RK I feel I should give my input.
http://www.rkmotorscharlotte.com/sales/inventory/top_sales_2011/1970-1-2-Pontiac-Firebird-Trans-Am/132152#!/
 Great car but not orig. seat covers as stated in their ad. They bought the car from a good friend on mine and he told them he had the seat covers made for him at great cost yet they sold it as orig. seat covers. They were even reminded of it when they were selling it. They might be great guys but that type of sales tactic does not instill trust.

I would take it to be original. From the ad: " Unlike most of the RA IV cars you’ll see this one sports its original code 211 Medium Bright Blue Vinyl (deluxe) interior. Yes, I said original, not a new replacement interior from a kit."

[69Z28-RS]

'seats and door panels ... are OEM pieces' ...    makes it sound like no parts have been replaced.. ie.. as from the factory'.
     
Since the owner found 'OEM material' somewhere, and used pieces of that material to replace worn sections (ie. 'recondition' the seat'..   the dealer could have stated that just as well, and been more accurate.  (Note:  OEM material is not the same as 'repro kit material'....)  and I think from what Charley said, the owner found OEM material...

I think overall the dealers statement is 'not wrong', but is a little bit misleading by the way it was stated (by omitting some of the story).

[Steve Shauger]

'seats and door panels ... are OEM pieces' ...    makes it sound like no parts have been replaced.. ie.. as from the factory'.
      
Since the owner found 'OEM material' somewhere, and used pieces of that material to replace worn sections (ie. 'recondition' the seat'..   the dealer could have stated that just as well, and been more accurate.  (Note:  OEM material is not the same as 'repro kit material'....)  and I think from what Charley said, the owner found OEM material...

I think overall the dealers statement is 'not wrong', but is a little bit misleading by the way it was stated (by omitting some of the story).

Just to clarify, the seat material used to make the new seats was never identified as OEM (by Charley). The seat covers were special ordered from a seat cover manufacturer because the two tone material seat covers which this car had, was not a standard available catalogue item. The seat covers on the car are not original to when the car was built, which is what's at issue. They are new reproduction seats. When seller sold it to the dealer he was upfront about this. The rub is; was this information passed on from the dealer to potential buyers. Based on what Charley stated it was not and that was his point.

  

[Charley]

Actually the seat covers were custom made in a local upholstery shop but the material my friend bought from SMS. He said he thinks the only orig part of the interior was the door panels. Dash was from Just dashes.

[dutch]

Guys,
I'd rather the accusatory tone stopped. If you have a question like this, just send an email to Jerry and ask him to comment here.

Kurt: I haven't been following this at all lately - but it wasn't my intention to accuse anyone (especially JM who now that I reread all this, it may have sounded like I was aiming my comment about) and I apologize if it was taken that way.
Rather, I was just grousing out loud at how so often now stories and situations change and/or get morphed into something else, especially by dealers and flippers who only want to 'turn a buck', regardless of how little or much it takes to do that - as evidenced also by Charley's additional info..
As I read this thread in its entirety so far now, there may in fact be some logic as to why the vin# suddenly now is available - but it unfortunately leaves the car tainted in addition to making Dan's previous ownership and subsequent sale of it not as successful as it might otherwise have been..
Its too bad as it is a beautiful car and one I wish I had!

[x77-69z28]

I don't see the car as tainted at all. It has been explained to my satisfaction. That should be the end of it. Jerry didn't say it wasn't the orig block and now it is. The vin stamp has been found and certified. It is a great looking Z. I love rally green.

[vtfb68]

So, Have ALL the filter VIN characters been documented? "not all but some" still seems open to questions.  How can anybody certify a VIN without seen ALL the chararacters? 
   VT