Time capsule 410 miles..wow

[70CitrusZ]

Too bad they lie about the milage, cause its a "nice" car..weird color, but different as such.
look at the pic of the e brake handle..sun bleached,but the rest of the dash is mint?
411 miles = perfect showroom inside out un re-touched. Which this is not.

[musclecarjohn]

[ QUOTE ]
There are folks that vacuum metalize....I can't remember the names offhand but I'm sure someone will pipe in...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd sure like to know because I do wnat that original,chrome look.I've seen others do it so I know it's possible...

[Xplantdad]

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad they lie about the milage, cause its a "nice" car..weird color, but different as such.
look at the pic of the e brake handle..sun bleached,but the rest of the dash is mint?
411 miles = perfect showroom inside out un re-touched. Which this is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the flash from the camera is making it looked washed out...this pic looks okay...?

[SuperNovaSS]

The entire fender look like a different color to me. I think its legit.
:. The buildsheets on the frame help support the low milage in my opinion.

Jason

[70CitrusZ]

If it is true milage then it needs to be driven 89 more miles to be officially broken in.
I'm just curious to know how someone could have this car this long and not have driven it.
Low milage, like 3-5k or under 50k or so is one thing, but under 500?
I always wonder how its possible...that car logged 12.5 miles per year?

[GeorgeLyons]

Those %#*(@# parking brake releases turned white if they never saw the sun. Dont go by that.

[Rick H]

Wait a second. Let me figure this out. 411 original miles???? Hmmm.

Ad says original woman owner since new her name Amelia, bought in 1972 in California. I see a 1976 registration for a Cris Carrier as the legal owner who lives in Hartford, CT. The other owner flew out to CA from CT to drive the car and then leave it in CA? You do the math.

Did two owners decide that this small block Chevelle was worth saving for the future? Plus look better then it did new?


Are we to think this car was towed on a trailer everywhere all it's life??

I myself do not believe it.

Rick H.

[Supercar_Kid]

[ QUOTE ]
I always wonder how its possible...that car logged 12.5 miles per year?

[/ QUOTE ] I bet it didn't...I don't doubt it sat dormant and undisturbed without any driving at all for many years. There are plenty of super low mile cars out there that sit in garages all sealed up with no plans of moving. How many 78-82-93 Indy Pace Cars are tucked away, Cosworth Vegas, 454SS pickups...seems there's one in every other town. I wouldn't be surprised if the car has had some minor restoration and preventative maintence (i.e. paintin' & shinin' ) to make it look as strong as it does today, but to totally discredit the mileage of this car w/o seeing it in person is a bit hasty IMO. It's only having 200 odd miles as late as '76 shows it was living a sheltered life in it's early years. By 1976 everyone was well aware that there wasn't much in the line of perfomance cars being offered anymore...plus considering what a '76 Malibu looks like, I'd have probably sat on this super low mile '72 if I could too. Don't hate...appreciate.

[bogusracer]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to remember that the front clip was not attatched to the rest of the car when it was painted. Even thought paint from the same batch was supposed to be used the environmental and spray conditions were probably not the same. With heavy metallics (even if the paint came from the same can) differences in humidity, air pressure at the spray gun, gun distance from the panel, and spray pattern could cause the paint to lay out differnet or the metallic to settle different.

[/ QUOTE ]


Perhaps I can shed some light on the process for painting the cars in an Assembly Plant since I have approx. 30 years experience in the Paint Shop in an Assembly Plant.

During that time frame, the sheet metal was on a seperate carrier from the body. Also the Sheet metal was "Dip Primed", where the body was Elpo coated and spray primed.
However there was a "Marriage Point" where the sheet metal carrier and the body carriers joined up in sequence so they both went through the paint booths at the same time, sheet metal ahead of the body.

It is my opinion from looking at the photos that one of two things might have happened during the painting process.

1) As the fenders were being processed the Reciprocators that spray the Metallic "Dust Coat" to eliminate the "mottled" (Dark Splotchy appearance) ran out of paint, or were shutdown prematurely due to a mechanical issue and never completed their final strokes on the fenders. That's why the rear lower portion of the fenders shows the most "Off Color" area.
(Recips are mounted in the spray booths and have "Arms" that move in a vertical up / down path with automatic spray guns attached. As the cars go by they paint the sides of the cars and apply a uniform coat of paint that properly orients the metallic flake in the paint to eliminate mottle)

2. The primary color coat applicatios failed to paint the rear lower fenders and part of the upper fender area also. This caused the off color (Dark areas) on the fenders due to the fact that the recip coat does not apply enough paint to achieve "Color Hiding" by itself.

In either instance there is insufficient "Film" build (Paint Thickness) to achieve a proper color match.

Unfortunately, I have been witness to numerous occurrances such as that in our Facility over the past 30 years. Not to say it was OK to ship something like that, but the reality of the situation is that some got out the door back then.

Quality Standards being what they were in the late 60's and early 70's it is not suprising to see a car like that make it out of an Assembly Plant and to the customer.

Additionally as has been pointed out previously, since both sides exhibit the same appearance, it was definitely a "Factory Error" that you see on that car.

Just wanted to share my knowledge with you concerning this and give my opinion of what may have happened.

As for my opinion of the mileage, well perhaps the lady who bought the car didn't like the paint job and couldn't get it repaired by the dealership, so she just decided to park the thing instead of drive it. .........

Just my 2 cents worth ........LOL


Bogusracer

[olredalert]

------Cars are not always put away just because someone thinks someday they will be collectable. More often or not, if the car would not be deemed collectable when new then you can figure the car was stored for another reason. Death comes to mind, along with overseas job postings, as well as long term health problems, and many more. When a car is put away for reasons other than purposely keeping it forever or for future monetary gain then all bets are off as to how the car will look when "discovered" years later.
------I once bought, out of the Boston Globe, a 55 Belair 2dr.H.T. with 1100 or so miles. The original older purchaser had passed away 2 years after the car was new. His wife didnt have a drivers license and rarely went in the garage where the car sat. When I first looked at it there were gallon and quart cans of paint glued to the hood with leakage from the improperly replaced lids. All the chrome was mediocre and the tires were absolutely rotten. The cars mileage was undeniable, however, when you looked at the interior.
------The car had to be painted and I tracked down all the chrome NOS (remember this was 1972) to bring it back to an acceptable standard. Sh** happens, so weather this car has the 400 miles or not dont jump to hasty conclusions. It doesnt benefit the seller or you..........Bill S