[drailed]

Just wondering if anyone on here is familiar with this car or has seen it around. Sounds like the guy just picked it up for resale. Looks pretty nice from the pics. Not sure whats up with the "numbers matching" 389?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Watch...t_68573wt_1161

[chipster]

Originally Posted by drailed

Not sure whats up with the "numbers matching" 389?

Maybe the heads and Tri-power match the block.

[lust4speed]

Pretty cool that Ohio issued a replacement state VIN plate with the original VIN number. I'm pretty sure that California would have just assigned the next numerical number available from their computer.

[drailed]

Looks like it has the correct 670 heads on it.

[Garry Sr]

I don't have a clue but luckily I don't care so I'll share a couple thoughts.

This is looking pretty of half assed:



and this is looking to the point where it might actually get scary:

[LeighP]

Wow, numbers matching tri-power 389 in a 67....cool.....

[Old Blue 66]

Is there any truth to the rumors I have heard in the past that some very early 67's had 389's?

[drailed]

I have heard of some early 67s coming through with the tri power, not sure of the 389. I didn't think they started putting the partial VIN on the motor until late 67?

[johnta1]

I would think it would be near impossible to have a 389 put in it at the factory.
(now at the dealer possibly)

Also the same for the tripower.

Now someone on the line having an old setup and slapping it on for his car, maybe.

[lust4speed]

Considering the GM edict from above that no division would have multiple carburetion other than Chevy with the Corvette, it would probably have been a career ending move to continue with any Tri-Power installations from the factory.

I think that we have a Chevy salesman trying his hardest to hawk the GTO, and he is oblivious to the '67 specs. He did mention PHS and checking the engine number, and the engine build number could match the documentation. There's a lot more right about this car than wrong, and I could overlook goofy statements by the guy on this one.

[66GTO Jim]

Originally Posted by Old Blue 66

Is there any truth to the rumors I have heard in the past that some very early 67's had 389's?

This is an old rumor but not true. There were no Tri-Powers factory installed on any 67 due to the emissions regulations that were in effect for the 1967 model year. That is what I was told many years ago from folks who worked at Pontiac Engineering. The 66 Rochester 2Gs did not meet these regulations. I don't remember, but I would guess it was because the earlier 2BBLs were vented on the top to reduce boil over problems with these carbs. The 67 Rochester 2GC 2BBLs used as stand alone carbs were upgraded to meet the new regulations. With the GM ban on multi-carbs on any car except the Corvette after 1966, Rochester did not go to the expense to upgrade the end carbs for the Tri-Power to meet the new emission standards. By the way, the Corvette used Holley 2BBLs on their 3 deuce setup not Rochesters.

I was also told that Pontiac definitely wanted folks to believe that the 4BBL QJet was better than the Tri-Power for obvious marketing reasons and would not want to have any 67 GTOs running around with factory Tri-Powers. That is why they had Milt Schornack at Royal Pontiac do the back to back drag tests for the magazines. After running the new 67 GTO with the "stock" QJet he swapped it with a 66 Tri-Power. The GTO ran faster with the QJet setup, of course, but Royal was famous for having their test results match the desired outcome!


Jim

[drailed]

I think that we have a Chevy salesman trying his hardest to hawk the GTO, and he is oblivious to the '67 specs. [/QUOTE]

This is the impression I was getting. Ive always been dead set against ever buying anything sight unseen and it probably wont matter anyways because I think this car will shoot out of my price range. It hit the ground running right off the start. Ive been finding myself lately contemplating parting ways with the old mopar and making room for a Goat. Would love to keep both but I know it cant happen.

[69goatboy]

Originally Posted by johnta1

I would think it would be near impossible to have a 389 put in it at the factory.
(now at the dealer possibly)

Also the same for the tripower.

Now someone on the line having an old setup and slapping it on for his car, maybe.

If the Royal Bobcat badging is real, is it possible that a Canadian 67 could have received a 389?

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Originally Posted by 69goatboy

If the Royal Bobcat badging is real, is it possible that a Canadian 67 could have received a 389?

No, the canadian built cars got Chevy engines.
And they were called Arcadian's ...... aka Hybrids to most.
But in the full scheme of all things - after it left the factory - anything is possible.

Have known a lot of folks to struggle over the 6.5 emblems carried over on the 67 and 68 GTO's . But ALL 67 and 68 GTO's got 400 CID engines on the assembly line.

This car in question was originally a YS code Automatic.
It still has the 670 heads, and might still have the original YS block.

Like lust4speed mentioned - the Engine Unit Number is listed on the Billing Card.
The original block will have that same number stamped above the block code - IF - it is still the original YS block .

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Arcadians or Beaumonts or sumpn - i forget which is which . lol
pretty odd vehicles
neat in their own way

[Dennis H.]

There are too many wrongs with this 67 GTO that I would steer clear of it, especially for what the price is. It among other things has the wrong shifter, gauge package, rear end(12bolt), wrong intake with the 3-2 setup, wrong air cleaner wing nuts, wrong paint on rally II's and wrong paint throughout the car, front GTO emblem painted red, and who knows what else. Looks like a cheap makeover car to me.

[CATBIRD]

Isn't the body number supposed to be 24237 for a hardtop?

[lust4speed]

The 24217 is correct for the hardtop. Post would be a 24207, and I'm not sure what the convertible would be.

[psw]

Originally Posted by CATBIRD

Isn't the body number supposed to be 24237 for a hardtop?

Its got the right VIN for a '67 hardtop:

http://ultimategto.com/cgi-bin/stats...7&f1=vinmatrix

PSW

[lust4speed]

OK, 24267 is the convertible...