Funny, you just reminded me about the '64 Pontiac Star Chief I owned briefly. Everywhere I went people yelled out "NICE GTO!" It looked like this:
Not the sportiest thing ever, and the size of a garbage scow. Yup, GTO.
Funny, you just reminded me about the '64 Pontiac Star Chief I owned briefly. Everywhere I went people yelled out "NICE GTO!" It looked like this:
Not the sportiest thing ever, and the size of a garbage scow. Yup, GTO.
I like this...
Seller said: "Things that need replacing are piston rings..." and "The motor only has around 108k which isn't much at all if its taken care of properly,"
Someone should email them with a fake Gmail account and ask them how much they want for their GM prototype that got "accidentally" sent out the door and ask them if they have a line on the previous owner so you could track down the original 304 and competition 4 speed with splitter that GM was testing in it.
In reply to Happy Carmore:
I like the tail lights.
Happy Carmore wrote:SilverFleet wrote: Guys... I found the car on Craigslist.Now it is challenge money...
It is Challenge money, but it has a dumpy Pontiac 350 saddled with a 2-speed transmission with a 2bbl on it and needs piston rings. The engine pics aren't in the ad (they were on Facebook), but that "tripower" setup apparently has two invisible carbs. It would go WAY over budget real quick. That GTO hood would be able to fetch a couple bucks, though.
Like I said, it's a cool car and would make a nice daily driver or cruiser, but the sellers are basing the car's provenance on old wives' tales and hearsay from derpy shadetree mechanics.
Yeah, I know this was a bit of a problem with miatas for a hot sec. It would list it on the carfax as Miata M-edition for all of them. So folks would post that they had a 91 M-edition or something all the time and the carfax backed it up.
I used to occasionally send people emails who were selling their jeep or BMW and the ad said the vehicle had a V-6. I'd try to explain to them that I was not going to buy the car, but that they really had an inline 6 engine and not a V-6. They mostly ignored me, but sometimes wanted to argue.
I also crossed someone once when I asked him how exactly he did a "frame off" restoration on a unibody car (bugeye sprite). Boy, that guy was pissed. I was just trying to help him not look like a numbskull.
If you want to see ads that misrepresent cars, look at classic Minis. They specialize in the car being advertised as a different year than it is, a lot of that has to do with shadiness done to get the car into the states, but people don't like being told when they are wrong most of the time.
That's not a Pontiac 350HO.
Kinda like every 327 is a "corvette engine".
Pontiac never needed to compete with the 396, they had the 421.
I just rolled my eyes so far that I saw my brain.
I am entertained by this ad. I would never respond though. Problems I have:
"price is not getting lowered" - OK goodbye
referring to the car as "she" - personal pet peeve
"It needs new rings, really a simple job" - well you might as well put "You need to forge a new block out of molten metal, really a simple job" and if it's so simple, why haven't you done it already?
T.J. wrote: If you want to see ads that misrepresent cars, look at classic Minis. They specialize in the car being advertised as a different year than it is, a lot of that has to do with shadiness done to get the car into the states, but people don't like being told when they are wrong most of the time.
Some of that (depending on the age) is also just discrepancies between the VIN and the title--Dad had an Austin Healey that was built in 1957. It was a 1959 according to the state, because that was when the car was sold new (in the US).
Actually that ad makes my head hurt, especially with the background info previously provided.
I would be really interested in knowing the casting numbers on the motor and heads if they think it is so special. All the numbers are known and available on the internet, there are sites that even show exactly where to look. There is no excuse for not knowing exactly what you have these days.
This reminds me of the rwd mid nineties escort saga.
SEADave wrote: I would be really interested in knowing the casting numbers on the motor and heads if they think it is so special. All the numbers are known and available on the internet, there are sites that even show exactly where to look. There is no excuse for not knowing exactly what you have these days.
Pontiac blocks even tell you the size right on the side of the block! Wanna know how I can tell that the 400 in my Trans Am is a 400? It says "400" stamped right on the block. It gets tricky when you want to know what year it is and if it's special, but that's just a matter of running the casting numbers. Mine's a 1974 thin wall 400.
That CL ad hit most of per peeves
1) Start out super angry about the price.
2) Telling me about what the car "could be" with just a "small amount of time and money" yeah right
3) All the stupid "she's"
4) Heaps of misinformation
5) "I just don't have the time" I'm so busy being a super awesome cowboy astronaut billionare I can't squeeze in the time to fix the problem that I swear will totally fix the car to perfect condition and triple it's value. I know I said it needs $5 part that takes 10 minutes to change, but alas no time. Because im super important, you know, and a crazy hard worker. Makes me way too busy
Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote: This reminds me of the rwd mid nineties escort saga.
My 97 escort saga was awd.
In reply to gearheadmb:
Long story but the guy finally conceded that Ford didn't make rwd escort (wasn't awd) and I conceded that it was possible (yeah right) someone converted it to rwd prior to his ownership. I still think the guy had a mustang.
While we're at picking things apart, I'm pretty sure that's not a powerglide, most likely a Super Turbine 300, which is completely different. I don't think any BOP Aluminum Powerglides were produced, unless this is a super duper racing 4 door post GTO with a built trans that had a aftermarket BOP bell installed.
Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote: In reply to gearheadmb: Long story but the guy finally conceded that Ford didn't make rwd escort (wasn't awd) and I conceded that it was possible (yeah right) someone converted it to rwd prior to his ownership. I still think the guy had a mustang.
Well, technically...
I'm going to guess the chances of him having one of those and not knowing exactly what it was are pretty much nil though. :P
In reply to Jay:
Yes we went all through that. We battled and called each other names for two weeks. I made a thread about it here like five years ago. I'll see if I can find it tonight.
In reply to stuart in mn:
Which one of the cars in he background? I should be able to tell you what it is.
In reply to daeman:
The dark green 1930s car immediately behind the Fairlane. I think it's a 1937-1938 Pontiac or maybe a Holden, but am not sure.
I'm not up on GM product variations, but if I had a nickel for every time I had to inform someone that their car was not a factory Boss/Shelby/Gt/ or whatever, I would be rich! But, I have have also been surprised myself! Sometimes a Cobra badge was put on odd stuff. I did have the fun of picking apart a 1969 Mach I (badly cloned). Had the fun of informing him that it was originally a 6 cylinder car with an automatic. He was sad because he had bought it as a Mach I and just done some cosmetics and mechanicals to get it to be a good runner. Turned out it was a very rare E model originally that is worth more than his Mach clone rising while Mach Is are stagnate because they made a lot of them and everyone was cloning them!
Don't even start on "It has a Boss motor in it!"
Bruce
In reply to stuart in mn:
I'd say your right on it being a Pontiac, the body lines are too early for it to be a Holden.
That said there's a nice valiant charger right in the background behind the fairlane and the Pontiac.
You'll need to log in to post.
