very nice presenting '70 L74/M20 TA on BAT
 

I don't want to seem a "negative-nelly", so I'll hold off on seeming to nitpick an otherwise very nicely built, very presentable car (that's quite frankly I'd love to own ;) )

I found one thing that has me scratching my head;
https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...1&d=1592511957

This is a direct link to the carb close up:
LINK

This is a link to the auction:
LINK

To me, the stamp looks suspicious;
It's a 1976 calender year service replacement - which is by all accounts many years too late to get a manual transmission application unit;
The first zero isn't terribly unusual for a later service replacement, but it's the zero after "0704" that looks really off - it looks like a letter "O" stamp, and appears quite unlike the other number zero stamps preceding it.
Then the stamping of the "263" after the suspicious number zero, seem stamped heavier than the preceding numbers.

Does anyone agree with me that this looks off?

In all it's a very nice looking car, with many easy to fix things on it (except the fenders)...

yeh the carb has fudge prints
But its supposed to be a 7040273 anyhow

The engine VIN looks like it might be missing the first 2 digits, just going by the picture.

A lot of open real estate in the wheelhousings.

Good looking car overall

263 vs 273 - you're 100% correct.

I'm glad you put it as having "fudge prints", because I was so hung up on the "O" and the 263 all looking so off from the rest of the stamping that it being the wrong application number didn't click!?

And my car uses a '263 carb - sheesh do I feel like an idiot.

I still will be wayching to see what it ends up at;
The last '70 TA got good money on BAT.

pfft
no big deal jonny

Bob Vidan thought his cell phone was a bar of soap and tried to wash his hands with it.
I'm sure he would have rather overlooked a carb application number instead.
And he's a retired rocket scientist, or something like that. :D

BaT seems like the hot spot for selling imperfect cars at premium prices.

The engine unit number is ???
(as the block casting number?)

EUN Link

I'd like to see the date code on block.

:confused:

Those ain't JWs, but the spare seems to be - I'll stop there

I see room for complaints if the car was being presented as "all original".

But it's not

I'd drive it
Clay

What's with the passenger side frame rail? It looks like it has a plate welded to it.

'70 T/A's have brought crazy money on Bring A Trailer in the past. It will be interesting to see what this car brings as I am considering putting my '70 on there. Mine is more correct than this one or the white one that was offered a month or so ago.

Nice catch on the frame rail. That is a piss poor repair.

The entire underbody on that car is a little frightening ... look close and you'll see where they stitched in bits and pieces of floorpan patches, too.

Another thing I found interesting... the PHS for the car shows the HD Radiator "option". Generally that only appears on cars that were M21/3.73 equipped, because the heavy duty radiator was mandatory with that combo. After the first few months of production Pontiac started charging extra for it, even though the trans and axle ratio were "no charge".

Yet the car has a COX (3.55) axle instead of the COZ 3.73. I've seen other factory axle screw ups on these cars, so who knows...., but this car has enough "thrown together" elements that the axle isn't as easy to dismiss.

How has everyone missed the incorrect front fenders and hood?

oh, I didn't;
But often these cars have had replacement parts...
stuff like fenders I more or less have come to expect.
And at what point are you being too nit-picky(?)!

Still presents nice.
When I looked at it initially it was at $9k, then after about an hour, it was up to $11k;
It's currently sitting at $31k.

Hood
 

Ok so I missed the hood...whats wrong with it?

The "George Carlin" 70 TA was HD Radiator only

The examples i have from 3/31 through 6/15 with 3.73 all charge $10.53 for Axle-Performance

To me, the person who wrote the ad presents this as a fairly original car having really only had some “minor” floorboard work done to it. That being said my first look is the fenders and hood. I’ll give you a fender or a hood replaced over time but when I see all 3 replace, it leaves me to believe on of 2 things. Either it’s been in a major accident that pretty much wiped out the front end, of its parts were removed at some point for some reason. Given its original drive train still exists and in my opinion it’s legit, I’m inclined to believe this car was wreaked pretty bad I’m the front at some point in its life. Makes you wonder what else could be an issue........[emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please correct me if I'm wrong gentlemen. The auction states this car has received awards at some fairly big deal shows in Texas. This car is a Norwood built 70 Trans Am and it is black underneath. I thought that was only at Van Nuys. Should it not be Red Oxide Paint underneath? :confused:

Hmmm.......didn't we used to call this the Shark Tank?

MY 2 cents....Looks to me that the dash pad has one of those plastic caps on it.....and if I'm right......that is NOT part of ANY $30,000 car that I would buy...

Also looks like BOTH rear frame rails have been boxed/welded on....at the front....

It IS a LOOKER....and somebody that knows nothing about these cars....will be happy with it...

Of some rust issues that were fixed with later sheet metal

agreed;
It was well written, with the impression that the car was all correct.

I agree with this too.
After reviewing the pictures, I personally put into question the level of judging that the shows had.
The biggest glaring things to me which should prevent it from being a show winner at a 'Pontiac Nationals' or 'Trans Am Nationals', would be the aftermarket shifter and silver painted bezel rings.

Agreed on both points, which was why I didn't want to seem to pick it apart.
There was a thread a while ago that one of the members called me and other out for being too critical, and it made me take pause and realize I was being too negative;
I didn't intend to be that way, and my take away was to try to not come across so negative in the future.