Real or Memorex?

[njsteve]

But it's a genuine CAUTION FAN sticker! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/grin.gif[/img]

[cook_dw]

Tag looks legit but the trans &amp; diff look restamped.. To me there seems to be more wrong than right; especially for that kinda money..


Edit: Charlie beat me to the punch.

[Lynn]

(That's what I get for leaving the computer, then coming back... Some of this has been mentioned in the interim)

Had a black vinyl top, which means the stripes would also have been black by default.

Not feeling the love for this one. Door strickers and latch should have been painted body color. As already mentioned, rear springs are generic replacements. I don't like the stamp on the rear (but that in itself doesn't mean it isn't original). Kurt S could give a better opinion than mine.

I would guess the quarter panels have been replaced. Didn't do a good job of replicating the inner quarter sound deadening (undercoat) before spatter paint was applied.

Someone mentioned the engine stamp. I couldn't find a pic. But, that is where I would start.

Hood latch looks painted instead of phosphate. Ash trays (unless I am seeing something) look painted silver instead of chrome.

And.... this is just one of my pet peeves, if you are going to restore a car to a &quot;ridiculous level&quot; at least take the giant dent out of the subframe where everyone used to put a floor jack.

As for documentation, I SUSPECT (just that, my suspicion.... which is partly based on my cynicism when it comes to restored cars) that the only piece that is genuine is the Pre-Dilivery sheet, which conveniently has the purchaser's name and address obscured, so you can't check out the story. I also cannot read that info on the POP.

[PeteLeathersac]

'

Subject VIN 124379N683498

Too much use of restored/correct but nothing of the important word...original?
Also, phrasing simple statements as questions isn't usually necessary when all is just?
[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/burnout.gif[/img]
~ Pete

[rsinor]

Can someone tell me if dealer 575 in zone 5 is Feld Chevrolet. This is not a car I am even considering but a car a good friend of mine seems to be in love with, I'm trying to figure out if tis even worth the effort to get a good inspection.

Charlie - I agree with you.

[Mr70]

Nothing specific about that Camaro,but it's Volo &amp; I have 10X more bad then good with them.
I'd run,not walk away Roy.

[napa68]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr70</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing specific about that Camaro,but it's Volo &amp; I have 10X more bad then good with them.
I'd run,not walk away Roy. </div></div>

Yup!

[Charley Lillard]

KurtS posted this on Camaros.net


Well, the delivered date is off cause someone screwed up when they made the repro docs.
IMO, restamped axle and trans.
No pad pic?

[Kurt S]

Thanks Charley.

[rsinor]

You guys are the best, I was able to find out the actual production date on the car per the GM records through NCRS. Turned out to be 9/11/69. kind of put a damper on the p-o-p in service date. Then the records show it would have to been a dealer trade because Feld was not the dealer who purchased it for sale from GM.


Again, thanks a million, I have advised my friend, <span style="font-weight: bold">you can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink. </span>