|
Re: 67 nickey
The info comes from hot rod magazine articles and they show old pictures of it with mfg. plate on it. Where did you see the car? Maybe we not talking about same one? I don't know if the Hot Rod article is correct or not but that is what they said.
|
Re: 67 nickey
Joe that would be a cool Camaro to have. Do you know where the car is today?
|
Re: 67 nickey
I saw the car at one of the historic races that Vic Edelbrock was attending. I believe it was the Monterey Historics a few years ago. It was parked next to his other cars and right by the Edelbrock trailer. It had Hot Rod Test Car painted on the door. Sound like the same car? I doubt anybody from Hot Rod ever looked at the VIN on the car. Some guy from GM may have exaggerated and told Jim MacFarland that he had the first SS350 Camaro in Southern California because that sounds good in print for promotional purposes. I can only speculate how something like that got started. That's why I found the VIN and cowl tag data interesting. It is a very early car, no doubt about it. The first one? Pretty doubtful.
-Jon 1967 Z28 street car 1967 Z28 Trans Am race car 1967 Z28 Registry |
Re: 67 nickey
That's actually interesting info, all I knew about the car was what I've read in Petersen publications. I had always assumed that GM had rushed one out to So. Cal. to be evaluated before the actual production shipments would arrive to promote some enthusiasm.
I know that it is now owned by Vic Edelbrock, whom I believe purchased it from Jim McFarland. -Mark |
Re: 67 nickey
I checked the article. It was writen by McFarland and he said it was a special built press car that was at Mesa Az. in May 66. He said it was also tested by Motor Trend and Popular Hot Rodding. McFarland bought it in late 1967 and sold it to Vic E in 1996. I don't know why the build date is later then when he says he first saw the car. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
Re: 67 nickey
Joe,
Do you have the May 95, Popular Hot Rodding issue? I believe that there is a picture of the cowl tag. |
Re: 67 nickey
No I don't have that issue
|
Re: 67 nickey
Would you like a scan of it?
|
Re: 67 nickey
Yes I would like to see it
thanks |
Re: 67 nickey
its stated as lemans blue in the 99 camaro book by Dietzler, look close at the hood its got 68/69 chrome stacks , not the 67 blackfins it should have if it was a true 67 SS. And what's with the 68 white stripe why not the 67 bumblebee stripe?
|
Re: 67 nickey
I was going through some photos in my old computer and found a file on this infamous "Nickey" Camaro. I was interested in buying this car. I drove to the owners house and inspected the car and paperwork . I shot some photos of the car and paperwork. The trim tag photo was interesting.
https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7958-image.jpg |
Re: 67 nickey
That's a bogus tag.
|
Re: 67 nickey
Are you referring to the build date and the 4K?
|
Re: 67 nickey
You beat me to the draw Jeff
|
Re: 67 nickey
Felix Lopez, the owner of the "Nickey" has a protect o plate with his name which he claims is for this "Nickey" Camaro. The PP identifies a 67 327 PG Camaro sold from Nickey, but the vin does not match up with the vin to this "Nickey" car. The VIN on the PP is 124377N109118.
Sorry for the crappy photo quality as the photos are screen shots from my old Dell computer https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7960-image.jpg https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7961-image.jpg |
Re: 67 nickey
I doubt an employee at NICKEY would have forgotten to include the "E" in the selling dealer's name but it's easy to understand how someone creating false documents would do so when motivated by greed and lacking in basic observation skills. I guess it sounds like Nicky when you say it...at least he spelled his own name correctly.
Dave |
Re: 67 nickey
|
Re: 67 nickey
Ultra rare buildsheet
The bottom of this build sheet shows the same 327 PG drivetrain as the protect o plate, but the upper portion shows a rare L78 drive train https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7970-image.jpg |
Re: 67 nickey
The car's VIN is: 124377N152608. It does not match the VIN on the Protect o plate https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7972-image.jpg https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7973-image.jpg https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7974-image.jpg https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7975-image.jpg |
Re: 67 nickey
Out of curiosity, I ran the VIN and obtained a NCRS Data Shipping Report
Turns out the car was not originally purchased at Nickey Chevrolet, it was purchased from Hartigan Chevrolet Inc. in Chicago, IL. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7983-image.jpg |
Re: 67 nickey
Here is Mr. Lopez sharing his story with V8TV
https://vimeo.com/10075169 By the way, Mr. Lopez tried to sell me this car for 250K |
Re: 67 nickey
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 66 L78 ragtop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of curiosity, I ran the VIN and obtained a NCRS Data Shipping Report
Turns out the car was not originally purchased at Nickey Chevrolet, it was purchased from Hartigan Chevrolet Inc. in Chicago, IL. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7983-image.jpg Maybe the car was sold or traded to Nickey from Hartigan Chevrolet? Dave 67 Nova Boy </div></div> |
Re: 67 nickey
In deference to all our veterans especially Vietnam vets, mr Lopez is telling a lie and for many, many years.
|
Re: 67 nickey
Respectfully, the NCRS paperwork shows the dealer who originally took delivery of the car - not the dealership who originally sold it.
Dan <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 66 L78 ragtop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of curiosity, I ran the VIN and obtained a NCRS Data Shipping Report Turns out the car was not originally purchased at Nickey Chevrolet, it was purchased from Hartigan Chevrolet Inc. in Chicago, IL. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics...7983-image.jpg </div></div> |
Re: 67 nickey
Mr Lopez in the interview is raving about the original documentation and has the pop but it clearly has the wrong vin and is a (ME) 327-210hp. How come no one is calling him out on it? Well, maybe they are.
|
Re: 67 nickey
Point well taken.
[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img] |
Re: 67 nickey
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1967Z28</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JoeC,
No question that the Hot Rod magazine test car was very cool and has a lot of history behind it. I have seen the car in person and wrote down the VIN and cowl tag info. According to the cowl tag, it was built in August so it would be hard for it to be at the Mesa Proving Ground in May 66. The serial number was in the 102xxx range so there were at least a couple thousand Camaros in California before that one. I'm not bashing you or the car, just wanting to pass on some factual information on it. Like I said, it's a great piece of Camaro history. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif" alt="" /> -Jon 1967 Z28 street car 1967 Z28 Trans Am race car 1967 Z28 Registry </div></div> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but weren't even the very early released cars (i.e. May on cars that went to magazines, etc.) tagged with an August body tag? That would explain an August tag car being in Riverside in May 66. Yes, I know this is an old thread. Just finished reading the whole thing. WOW!!!! fake stuff everywhere. And with the knowledge that we have now, it would be pretty hard to back pedal this one. Hats off to Brian for exposing this one. |
Re: 67 nickey
Wow! I just read the whole thread. I may have seen it years ago, but forgot about it. This car is/was a '67. How could the Protect-O-Plate show the delivery date as 11-10-66 when the cowl tag has a 12B (December '66, 2nd week) body assembly date?!?! Is that really a ship date for the car on the build sheet that says 5/7/67?1?1?! And a Nickey invoice for 10/17/67?!?! What the heck is going on??? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/bs.gif[/img]
|
Re: 67 nickey
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mssl72</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow! I just read the whole thread. I may have seen it years ago, but forgot about it. This car is/was a '67. How could the Protect-O-Plate show the delivery date as 11-10-66 when the cowl tag has a 12B (December '66, 2nd week) body assembly date?!?! Is that really a ship date for the car on the build sheet that says 5/7/67?1?1?! And a Nickey invoice for 10/17/67?!?! What the heck is going on??? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/bs.gif[/img] </div></div>
Deception!! Dammit!!! |
Re: 67 nickey
This thread very much sums up many of the issues with the car.
The whole story doesn't make much sense from purchase to restoration. The car has an L78 trim tag and is too early of a build, in order to be an factory L78. The NicKey Registry, Inc. inspected the car and paperwork and found some of the documents to be fake and/or made up. Especially the three documents where NicKey "Nicky" is spelled incorrectly. |
Re: 67 nickey
Especially the mispelling on the buildsheet... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
|
Re: 67 nickey
I have a legitimate early 1967 Nickey Warranty Book and Nickey used a stamp with the dealers name on it, not hand written dealer name.
|
Re: 67 nickey
looks like shipping document is really hitting the spot.
|
Re: 67 nickey
Lopez sounds deceptive in his interview
and not credible... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/bs.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/bs.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/bs.gif[/img] |
Re: 67 nickey
I like the 'K78' option on the window sticker!
|
Re: 67 nickey
"Some of the documents" Were some of them actually real?
|
Re: 67 nickey
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lynn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1967Z28</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The serial number was in the 102xxx range </div></div>
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but weren't even the very early released cars (i.e. May on cars that went to magazines, etc.) tagged with an August body tag? That would explain an August tag car being in Riverside in May 66.</div></div> Not with that high of a VIN! The VIN matches the tag. |
The subject vehicle is once again on the market. VIN: 124377N152608 a.k.a The Felix Lopez 1967 Camaro.
|
Wow....
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.