[tajunkman]

Originally Posted by John V.

Tajunkman, I know you mean no offense, and none taken by me.

Good. Because I didn't mean anything personal towards anyone.

John V , I read the whole whopper, word for word, I understand what you mean, found nothing more to holler about.

For what its worth, I appreciate you -and others as well, for the time and effort that you put into the hobby

.... and I do consider you and several others here , to be bonafide experts.(and I mean that in a good way)

Merry Christmas

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Transamric

Dave, some of us here actually enjoy John's "rants", as you call them. I find his discussions to be very well thought out & thorough. And he will be the first one to admit when he's blown it.
Short enough for ya?

Ditto.

(I'm pretty short -winded myself!).

K

[bigpop]

I Emed Jim Mattison to give him a heads up about this topic.Hopefully,he can find time to contribute to the discussion.He is a member here. Larry Banks

[John V.]

Since I believe that nothing is likely to turn up to document how this 'bird was used by PMD prior to 3/24/69, I'd like to toss out another bit of speculation.

We know that this 'bird was built at Lordstown in early Nov. '68. About 10,000 '69 'birds (6 cyl. & V8 combined) had already been produced there by that time.

Just about on the 3/24/69 date this car was sold at the original discounted Invoice to Royal in North Hollywood, production of the '69 'bird was halted at Lordstown and production moved to Norwood.

Perhaps this 'bird was displayed at the Lordstown Plant and then sold to Royal and removed from the Lordstown display when production of the 'bird was halted?

The only evidence pointing to this possibility is the date on the Invoice that would more or less coincide with the date production of the 'bird ended at Lordstown.

On the flip side, I don't think it was typical for a Company vehicle to be sold outside of the Sales Zone in which it was used. In other words, I would think a Dealer within the Cleveland Zone would have been more likely to have acquired the car as Lordstown was within that Zone. The fact that Royal purchased the car suggests that it more likely had been used by PMD for some purpose within the Los Angeles Zone prior to the 3/24/69 sale. This is not a certainty, just my understanding of how PMD Company Cars were offered to the Dealers and disposed of.

And the car was built 2 months after production of the '69 began at Lordstown. I would think that if the Lordstown Plant typically displayed the cars being built, they would have put one on display much earlier.

The 12/2/69 dated CMD remains an enigma. Who was Geo. Stephens (or perhaps Slephens?)? Why was a credit issued to Royal several months after the car was initially purchased by Royal already at a discount?

I don't think there is a high likelihood that this 'bird was displayed at the Lordstown Plant thru March. But I thought some of you might find it interesting that the Invoice Date more or less corresponded with the end of 'bird production at Lordstown. Just pointing out that if you are wanting to speculate based only on the evidence provided by the Invoice record, you could come up with any number of possibilities fitting at least some of the info contained on that record.

[70Steve]

Can someone say why this wasn't the silver TA prototype?

I just read the old Hot Rod road test (in the july 07 HPP,couldn't find my copy of the original) just out of curiousity because even Jcoyer mentioned he thought it might have been the TA prototype at one point.

Now, with my bestest sleuthing hat on, this is what I find.....
The TA test car has Rally 2's and whitewall's...so does the ebay cars buildsheet.
What looks like a remote mirror on the TA TC......on the buildsheet? Yep.
Door edge guards (something shining on both sides in the roadtest pics)....on the buildsheet.
Sliver with black Deluxe Int (De luxe or custom? Can't remember as I type.) Check, Check.
In the road test they praise the large tach,the same size as the speedo, and the interior shot shows the 3 gauges above the lighter. Yeah, I know no hood tach, but it has a pre-production fibreglass TA hood in the road test don't forget.
They also mention that the one saving feature of the back seat is that it folds down! On the buildsheet too.
They also praise the space saver spare.....isn't that the instant aire option?
They complain that the trunk light only comes on when the headlights or parkers are on....yep, on the buildsheet.
I don't know about the steering wheel, it isn't a custom sport but they praise the tilt column!! also say they were promised a "formula 1 wheel"' but have heard no further word on it.

There is more I think I've forgotten, but geeez, that seems like a lot of matching rare options. Oh yeah, the test car is claimed to have 3.90's in it.

I wasn't expecting so many little items to match when I dug out the mag, just wanted to reread the article again because of this thread.
Do you think it's possible that PMD took a very nicely optioned 400 powered Firebird, that happened to have a hood tach, and made it the TA prototype? Drop in a RAIV, fit the different tach and gauges etc, and send it off for Steve Kelly from Hot Rod to test and drum up some press. Original publishing date was March 1969.

If anyone can shoot me down in flames, please do. Gotta luv a good mystery!
It is now 2am Christmas Day here, been up putting pressies under the tree, Merry Christmas to all!
Steve.

[guccieng]

"They also praise the space saver spare.....isn't that the instant aire option?"

those are two different options.

[tajunkman]

Originally Posted by bigpop

I Emed Jim Mattison to give him a heads up about this topic.Hopefully,he can find time to contribute to the discussion.He is a member here. Larry Banks

Me too.

[70Steve]

Originally Posted by guccieng

"They also praise the space saver spare.....isn't that the instant aire option?"

those are two different options.

Damn, don't know how I got that wrong! I know what the instant aire option is.
A bit of brain fade I guess.

[roundportponchos]

I think in that article, they show pics of RA motor.. This car was a base 400..

Originally Posted by 70Steve

Can someone say why this wasn't the silver TA prototype?

I just read the old Hot Rod road test (in the july 07 HPP,couldn't find my copy of the original) just out of curiousity because even Jcoyer mentioned he thought it might have been the TA prototype at one point.

Now, with my bestest sleuthing hat on, this is what I find.....
The TA test car has Rally 2's and whitewall's...so does the ebay cars buildsheet.
What looks like a remote mirror on the TA TC......on the buildsheet? Yep.
Door edge guards (something shining on both sides in the roadtest pics)....on the buildsheet.
Sliver with black Deluxe Int (De luxe or custom? Can't remember as I type.) Check, Check.
In the road test they praise the large tach,the same size as the speedo, and the interior shot shows the 3 gauges above the lighter. Yeah, I know no hood tach, but it has a pre-production fibreglass TA hood in the road test don't forget.
They also mention that the one saving feature of the back seat is that it folds down! On the buildsheet too.
They also praise the space saver spare.....isn't that the instant aire option?
They complain that the trunk light only comes on when the headlights or parkers are on....yep, on the buildsheet.
I don't know about the steering wheel, it isn't a custom sport but they praise the tilt column!! also say they were promised a "formula 1 wheel"' but have heard no further word on it.

There is more I think I've forgotten, but geeez, that seems like a lot of matching rare options. Oh yeah, the test car is claimed to have 3.90's in it.

I wasn't expecting so many little items to match when I dug out the mag, just wanted to reread the article again because of this thread.
Do you think it's possible that PMD took a very nicely optioned 400 powered Firebird, that happened to have a hood tach, and made it the TA prototype? Drop in a RAIV, fit the different tach and gauges etc, and send it off for Steve Kelly from Hot Rod to test and drum up some press. Original publishing date was March 1969.

If anyone can shoot me down in flames, please do. Gotta luv a good mystery!
It is now 2am Christmas Day here, been up putting pressies under the tree, Merry Christmas to all!
Steve.

[guccieng]

Originally Posted by 70Steve

Damn, don't know how I got that wrong! I know what the instant aire option is.
A bit of brain fade I guess.

and with age, it happens with increasing frequency, too!

[70Steve]

Originally Posted by roundportponchos

I think in that article, they show pics of RA motor.. This car was a base 400..

Yeah, that is true. i just was surprised at how many other options matched and I know that the biggest option, the engine, doesn't, but it could be conceivable that engineering installed a RAIV at the same time as the TA parts.

If Jcoyer thought it isn't the road test car just because he was told it was a manual when it was actually an auto, then maybe he should check for spoiler mount holes in the trunk lid if he hasn't already (as mentioned earlier).

I know, just some theories and maybes, but maybe the prototype fibreglass hood was taken off by the dealer and returned to eng.? Then a new scooped hood painted and fitted.That would count for a discount on the car wouldn't it?

The Hot Rod article shows a picture with L.A. in the background, so the car was there before March '69.

Guccieng, it's all downhill from here I guess!

[70Steve]

Reserve not met at $8,998.
Here are three pics of the silver prototype, two in the Pontiac Engineering Garage and one with some guy named Jerry Titus.

Not the best pics but maybe some haven't seen them.
It looks like the third pic has hood pins.
Were there holes in the stock core support about where they would mount?
Maybe another clue?

[68gtoMN]

What to expect when posting anything on the internet:

1. If you post on an internet site you open yourself up to questions about any claims made - especially when conclusive evidence is not offered immediately to back the claims made
2. If you post on an internet site and get differing opinions, expect it
3. If someone questions the original post, address the original posted information only - do not ad personal attacks to the poster
4. Questioning incomplete information and postulating about it, based on other known, similar cases, makes this akin to automotive anthropology - it should be encouraged to further the hobby and share knowledge. In the end, many things are learned by all who post even if they are not germane to the actual situation being discussed

There are many stories where people believe a car they possess is a certain car of historical significance and later it is proven to be incorrect information - no matter how many people from its past claim it was so. Most often, this is innocent.

Regardless of how this story turns out, it is wise, in this day of interconnectedness of information, to state only things that can be proven beyond question. If one feels compelled to post other claims, one might consider using phrases like "this might be..." or "it was said that..." In this manner, one maintains credibility.

Ok guys, feel free to flame me now...

[70Steve]

Fair points.

The Germans got nothing to God D#@$ do with it!

[68gtoMN]

Originally Posted by 70Steve

Fair points.

The Germans got nothing to God D#@$ do with it!

Are you referring to my heritage?!

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

What to expect when posting anything on the internet:

1. If you post on an internet site you open yourself up to questions about any claims made - especially when conclusive evidence is not offered immediately to back the claims made
2. If you post on an internet site and get differing opinions, expect it
3. If someone questions the original post, address the original posted information only - do not ad personal attacks to the poster
4. Questioning incomplete information and postulating about it, based on other known, similar cases, makes this akin to automotive anthropology - it should be encouraged to further the hobby and share knowledge. In the end, many things are learned by all who post even if they are not germane to the actual situation being discussed

There are many stories where people believe a car they possess is a certain car of historical significance and later it is proven to be incorrect information - no matter how many people from its past claim it was so. Most often, this is innocent.

Regardless of how this story turns out, it is wise, in this day of interconnectedness of information, to state only things that can be proven beyond question. If one feels compelled to post other claims, one might consider using phrases like "this might be..." or "it was said that..." In this manner, one maintains credibility.

Ok guys, feel free to flame me now...

I agree.

Since I have a car that is not necessarily widely accepted by the mainstream Pontiac historical community, I feel qualified to comment. It's why I started watching this thread in the first place.

I basically live by the precepts you've highlighted above.

In my case whether my car (ie, "Dad's car") is ever documented or not is almost becoming a moot point; the story (and therefore the controversy) and the car are becoming so linked that I'm not sure they can be separated. At any rate, I continue to downplay the controversy and try to build credibility through forums such as these, focusing on aspects of the car and history that are conclusive and documented.

I also want to take a second and apologize to Jcoyer; I tend to be skeptical because I've been on both sides of the fence on this issue - both as an amateur historian and as a car owner - and I think that's a healthy balance. I may be skeptical initially but I can always be swayed by good data.

K

[70Steve]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

Are you referring to my heritage?!

If you watched Smokey and the Bandit, yes.
"Not germane to the situation" made me laugh out so loud the other half came in to see what I was looking at.
Trouble was by then I was looking at a post by ScottM with his interesting little pic next to his name!! That took some quick explaining.

[68gtoMN]

Originally Posted by 70Steve

If you watched Smokey and the Bandit, yes.
"Not germane to the situation" made me laugh out so loud the other half came in to see what I was looking at.
Trouble was by then I was looking at a post by ScottM with his interesting little pic next to his name!! That took some quick explaining.

Hee Hee. Jackie G. I had forgotten about him as Buford T. Justice. Might have to watch that flick again tonight.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

I agree, and I agree that there is precedence for doing "smoking" deals.

There is a Medium Duty GMC truck in the Heritage Center collection. The original GM dealer had loaned the truck for use in a (unreleased) James Garner film, in which the truck got shot full of bullet holes (!).

Rather than having the dealer fix the truck and put it back on the lot, GM simply bought it outright and fixed it up themselves. That's why it is now in the collection, in (over) restored condition.

K

LOL!

I was looking for something else and found this: it's a picture of the truck I was referring to above:

[70Steve]

Any updates on the ebay car?

TH65 just posted some pic's of an old April '69 magazine in the '69 Trans Am article thread and I can just make out in the specs chart that it was a manual.

So, two cars or one? Number plates look different too.

Does anyone think it would be worth starting a thread just for the Silver Prototype car/s? I searched and not much comes up on it.

Cool truck and story btw Keith.