Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars. |
|
|||||||
| Register | Album Gallery | Thread Gallery | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Become a Paid Member | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
11-25-2003, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
Steved, you need to reread the original thread the question from Astock asked "the question is how many factory ram air V Judges were produced [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif[/img]" You also implied this was a factory Ram Air V car, quoting the memo notation as proof on the PHS docs.
I believe Mrs. Billybobcat to be correct about the engine serial production number being an ordered sequence and that with only a handful of these engines produced for over the counter use it would make perfect sense that the number is a 6. You get all these other pics but not a date code? This is the never ending post there have been many noted authorities like Jim M. and I believe an engineer from the engine shop that stated that this engine was never installed at the factory or engineering, but dealer installed. What else do we need here the second coming? Unless a buildsheet, protecto plate, or an engineering change order that shows that code or serial production code is produced (from a legitimate source) it will always be looked upon as a dealer installed option, which I think is really cool and a unique piece of Pontiac history, a rare car with possible race history with a very rare engine. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread but it is now like beating a dead horse we all need to agree to disagree and the majority of Poncho fans know what the real deal is. 
|
|
#2
11-25-2003, 02:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
I believe it has been mentioned several times it is the responsibilty for the car to be proved.
Even though Rita is trying to dis-prove it, atleast she is doing something. And with here article post, pretty much smacked Don upside his head with his accusation of fraud. I wasn't going to go back on that; but since Don decided to step back in, there it is. It would still be nice to get some perspective on the block codes, regarless of the RAV debate. I don't suppose you have a Pontiac block that you could add some insight with?
|
|
#3
11-25-2003, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
I wouldn't call it case closed until someone can show proof that the car arrived at Knafel before the engine was actually built. Does the PHS documentation show when the car was shipped to the dealer or when the car arrived at the dealer? Or can someone produce an NICB report showing the date Knafel got the car? That seems to be the next logical step in proving or disproving.
__________________
69 Z28 JL8, #'s match - being restored
|
|
#4
11-25-2003, 03:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
Jeff
This is all I have, and it probably has nothing to do with time spent in engineering. Jim M would probably be the next hope for documentation. Supposedly all of Knafel's records are destroyed.
|
|
#5
11-25-2003, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
Why would you bother this man again his quote below is from a previous post. If this car was real I believe he would be one of the first to talk it up.
"Guys Pontiac "never" built a Ram Air V GTO at the factory!!!" Jim Mattison Pontiac Historic Services The RA V horse is starting to look like road kill it has been beatin so badly.
|
|
#6
11-25-2003, 04:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
Because Jim was kind enough to call me during this debate, we worked things out between us. I apologized to him in person and publicly. And he stated, he would do what he could to help in the matter.
Any other questions?
|
|
#7
11-25-2003, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you bother this man again his quote below is from a previous post. If this car was real I believe he would be one of the first to talk it up. "Guys Pontiac "never" built a Ram Air V GTO at the factory!!!" Jim Mattison Pontiac Historic Services The RA V horse is starting to look like road kill it has been beatin so badly. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how you can look at it that way. According to Chevrolet records, they never built a 68 Z28 convertible either. And we know that car went to Engineering to have the crossram and rear disc brakes put on. I think the research that has been done regarding this GTO has been very informative. Even if it can be proven that this car arrived at Knafel with a RA IV engine, then what's the story behind the RA V engine that is in the car now? It has the correct engine code and production stampings. Were they stamped after the fact? We'll probably never really know for sure, but why call it a dead issue when there are still questions worth finding answers to.
__________________
69 Z28 JL8, #'s match - being restored
|
|
#8
11-25-2003, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
Jeff I agree that it would be cool to find out how the RA V got in that Judge and if it in fact had some race history like the Tin Indian, but I think that being installed at the factory or engineering is becoming a beatin horse issue. Unlike the 68 Z-28 Covert which had documentation to support that it is the real deal the supposed RA V car in question does not.
I like all musclecars but have been a Pontiac person for a long time. Pontiac guys always love to talk about the RA V as the Hemi or Chevy Rat beater. Although it pains me to write this Chevrolet was always and is GM's racing flagship and when MacDonald took over at Pontiac a lot of programs were stopped. Look at Pontiac today they pulled out of NASCAR. With Toyota coming into the sport you can bet dollars to donuts that all the Racing program money that was earmarked for Pontiac will be given to Chevrolet. ( I know that's a little off topic)to kick Toyotas butt.
|
|
#9
11-25-2003, 05:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
[ QUOTE ]
Does the PHS documentation show when the car was shipped to the dealer or when the car arrived at the dealer? [/ QUOTE ] Take a look at the attachment in the reply that Steve posted about this question. The document clearly shows a ìDATE SHIPPEDî of ì11-06-69î It also shows a ìDATE OF NOTEî of ì11-19(?)-69 and a date of ì11-30-69î as ìINTEREST FROMî. Think about it Steve. You work at a car dealership. Do you really think that the owner of a dealership is going to pay INTEREST for several months on a car that they have not even taken delivery of? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif[/img]
__________________
<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: purple"> "Live Big, Live Bold, and live GENEROUSLY. Like Peter did." ~Tom Breske RIP COPO PETE! </span> </span>
|
|
#10
11-25-2003, 05:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 70 Judge RAIV and V continuation
My families dealership never had a car go to engineering that I'm aware of, so I wouldn't have anything to look back on in our files to verify that either way.
Date shipped, could be the date it went to engineering, and interest from could be when it left engineering. Rita your doing a great job, we just need some way to verify. We have a man that will probably be making a post some time today that will probably establish your theroy on the date code correlation with the production number. He also thinks all of them started in a 6. If your theroy is correct, all we have to do is find the date it left engineering. It will either prove it didn't happen, or leave the door open. I'm working on the your date code theory, you think you can find out if the dates on the invioce actually reflect engineering?
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
