[Greg Reid]

Black on Black. Looks like a solid project. Not mine..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/302405769046?ul_noapp=true

[Greg Reid]

Well, I feel foolish. The auction claims factory tri-power and he posts pics of PHS showing trips but the other paperwork shows 4 bbl.
Was the tripower shipped in the trunk in '64?

[rexus31]

I'm calling VIN swap on this one. Shouldn't the Body Number on the Manifest be the same as the number to the right of the PO on the Data Plate? There is also no 5N on the Data Plate. The flat hood makes it that much more suspicious. My guess is a rebadged, re-VIN'ed Le Mans.

[rexus31]

A couple more things more that don't jibe with the PHS: no Underhood Lamp, incorrect Dome Light based on what PHS says. Buyer beware!

[Greg Reid]

I don't know the '64s very well at all but I do know that the lack of 5N is not a deal breaker, per se...but added together with all the other questionable 'facts'...Definitely need to do your homework on this one.
I see that someone has contacted the seller with the same doubts-

I have been contacted by a ebayer who is questioning whether this car is a real GTO or a GTO clone. I do not know this person or there credentials. But I find it nessesary to say, this information is all that was supplied to me by previous owner and all I have. Please do your own due diligence as this is a 54 year old project car and I suppose anything is possible. If your not sure, don't bid,if you already bid,you are not affected as reserve has not been met. I don't need to trick anyone to sell a Pontiac project in this price range. I hope this disclosure allows you to make a good decision. Again if your not sure don't bid as this all the info I have.

[Rich-Tripower]

A photo of the VIN plate would help tie the paperwork to the car. A decent proper GTO hood would probably set you back half as much as the car itself, so maybe not so much of a bargain in the end regardless.

The PHS documents don't look anything at all like what I got from PHS on our 64. What we got was a photocopy of the buildsheet, not the manifiest (which contains less useful info from what I can see).

I also see scam anytime a seller says "just going off what the prior owner told me so.....".

[topfuel67]

That cowl tag and rivets look very pristine compared to the rest of the car.

[Greg Reid]

Sure sounded nice while the illusion lasted though...Black on Black, 4spd, Tripower GTO. $5,000.

[Tom Vaught]

Not sure where he thinks on the Body Tag the GTO identifier is there. The normal 5N is not there as many spotted right off.
Not the first Pontiac Mi built 64 GTO without the 5N but in 53 years if his car is a GTO it would be the 2nd one out of Pontiac and the 4th one total. The other two are KC built cars.

Tom V.

[Greg Reid]

It really wouldn't be a bad project as-is, sold for what it probably is and at about the price it's now sitting at..

[bob d]

I live a few blocks away from this car. he seems to find barn finds. it's been sitting by his place for a few years in the rain and snow. is he a straight shooter? maybe with his glock. thanks bob.

[johnta1]

Not real sure on this, but shouldn't the body # from the PHS (9886) be the same as the body # on the cowl tag (8214)?

[rexus31]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Not real sure on this, but shouldn't the body # from the PHS (9886) be the same as the body # on the cowl tag (8214)?

Same thing I asked, John. No one responded. Maybe John V will chime in. Paging John V. Paging John V

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Greg Reid

Well, I feel foolish. The auction claims factory tri-power and he posts pics of PHS showing trips but the other paperwork shows 4 bbl.
Was the tripower shipped in the trunk in '64?

(Not sure if serious, but) no.

K

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Not real sure on this, but shouldn't the body # from the PHS (9886) be the same as the body # on the cowl tag (8214)?

Originally Posted by rexus31

Same thing I asked, John. No one responded. Maybe John V will chime in. Paging John V. Paging John V

Yes.

"Q-Q" paint (from the cowl tag) is Gulfstream Aqua Metallic. Starlight Black would be "A-A"

K

[rexus31]

VIN Swap!

[John V.]

The Data Plate is almost certainly a poorly done/incorrectly done reproduction.

The PHS docs show a Gulfstream Aqua lower body with an Ivory Cordova Top (also shows U color wheels which is also Gulfstream Aqua, so that the car was built with the base "dog dish" hub caps, no wheel cover option).

But the Data Plate shows Q-Q, which indicates Gulfstream Aqua lower body color and Gulfstream Aqua upper body color, so no Cordova Top. And I don't detect any evidence that the car body being auctioned once wore a Cordova Top.

Pontiac Plant didn't code the wheel color on the Data Plate so that is not an issue. The hyphen between the Q's was sometimes done on the '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plates but often there is just a space between the lower and upper color codes, no hyphen.

As was mentioned, the Body No. doesn't match to the PHS doc so that is suspicious. Yes, John, they definitely should match.

I don't think I have ever seen a '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plate with a numeral after the Time Built code, that is a red flag to me. In '65 they started adding codes like that, but not in '64.

But more importantly, all '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plates I've seen will have the "Gate No. and shift" embossed on them. This one lacks that coding.

The missing 5N code is a red flag. The '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plates also coded the 5 Group Accessories individually, so that it would have been coded 2L-2G, not 2LG.

But of course, in '64, the Pontiac Plant did NOT use the 2L so it should NEVER be found on the Data Plate.

And the Pontiac Plant always coded the optional Seat Belt code on the Data Plate of ALL builds in '64. So it should show 5Z if the standard seat belts were installed (they continued to code them at Pontiac even after they became standard equipment in Jan '64), or 5W if the Custom Seat Belts w/ Retractors were optioned, or 5O if the very rare Seat Belt Delete option was chosen after Jan '64. One of these 3 codes would always be found on a '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plate for cars built after Dec '63 (prior to Jan the code would only be used when Seat Belts were ordered, there was no Seat Belt Delete option prior to Jan). The PHS shows that this was a rare Seat Belt Delete build so should have had 5O coded on the Data Plate.

The PHS also shows the 084 Lamp Group option (4 coded in the ACCY. GRPS. box on the RH side of the box). The Dome & Reading Lamp merited a 5 Group Code and the PHS also shows the Verbra-Phonic Rear Speaker that also merited a 5 Group Code. Back-up Lamps also on the PHS merited a 5 Group Code. None of these are coded on the Data Plate. More red flags.

Since this is so obviously NOT an original '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plate, the rest of the car is certainly suspect. I agree, most likely explanation is a VIN tag swap. Likely the "real" VIN will be found stamped on the Frame rail when the body is taken off the frame during resto.

You could also check for the correct front stabilizer bar, probably find the 7/8" bar, not correct for a GTO. But since there doesn't appear to be much else left of the GTO "stuff" if it really was ever a GTO, I don't see where the value is.

The '64 GTO that this PHS was for is a bit interesting.

It represents a rare 3.90 axle build with the 4 bbl engine. This was always available and required the Code 9 wide ratio Muncie when the 4 spd was also ordered.

For years, references have claimed the Code 9 was a close ratio Muncie but it was not. The only difference between the Code W and Code 9 4 spds was the internally installed speedo drive gear. They are both M20 wide ratio Muncies.

The close ratio was the Code 8 trans (p/n 9777000) which did NOT become available until about April and could ONLY be ordered with Tripower and 3.90 axle (you didn't HAVE to order the close ratio when specifying the 3.90 axle, you could still choose the wide ratio).

Most Code 9 4 spds backed up a Tripower so it is rare to find a 4 bbl that was ordered with 3.90 axle and therefore got the Code 9 as this one did.

Rich, not sure where your '64 was built but none of the '64 PHS records were "buildsheets".

Most likely you have a '64 Fremont build, the PHS record for that Plant is a Shipping Manifest record. '64 KC & Balt PHS records are the hardest to decipher, they were coded on a Chevy Form called the Passenger Car Shipping Order.

The '64 Pontiac Plant record is the Manifest record, easily decoded. The one posted for the ebay car is a valid PHS record for a '64 Pontiac Plant build.

It is just very unlikely that the car being auctioned left the factory with the VIN tag that is matched to that Manifest record.

This is a reminder that PHS records document a VIN, not the actual car. If the tag is swapped, that doesn't suddenly mean a Lemans is now an authentic GTO. Just means the VIN tag was original to a GTO. To document the actual car, you need to dig a lot deeper.

Too bad it isn't the original car as a 3.90 axle 4 bbl GTO is a bit unique.

[Greg Reid]

Well, that about settles that...

[rexus31]

Originally Posted by John V.

The Data Plate is almost certainly a poorly done/incorrectly done reproduction.

The PHS docs show a Gulfstream Aqua lower body with an Ivory Cordova Top (also shows U color wheels which is also Gulfstream Aqua, so that the car was built with the base "dog dish" hub caps, no wheel cover option).

But the Data Plate shows Q-Q, which indicates Gulfstream Aqua lower body color and Gulfstream Aqua upper body color, so no Cordova Top. And I don't detect any evidence that the car body being auctioned once wore a Cordova Top.

Pontiac Plant didn't code the wheel color on the Data Plate so that is not an issue. The hyphen between the Q's was sometimes done on the '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plates but often there is just a space between the lower and upper color codes, no hyphen.

As was mentioned, the Body No. doesn't match to the PHS doc so that is suspicious. Yes, John, they definitely should match.

I don't think I have ever seen a '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plate with a numeral after the Time Built code, that is a red flag to me. In '65 they started adding codes like that, but not in '64.

But more importantly, all '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plates I've seen will have the "Gate No. and shift" embossed on them. This one lacks that coding.

The missing 5N code is a red flag. The '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plates also coded the 5 Group Accessories individually, so that it would have been coded 2L-2G, not 2LG.

But of course, in '64, the Pontiac Plant did NOT use the 2L so it should NEVER be found on the Data Plate.

And the Pontiac Plant always coded the optional Seat Belt code on the Data Plate of ALL builds in '64. So it should show 5Z if the standard seat belts were installed (they continued to code them at Pontiac even after they became standard equipment in Jan '64), or 5W if the Custom Seat Belts w/ Retractors were optioned, or 5O if the very rare Seat Belt Delete option was chosen after Jan '64. One of these 3 codes would always be found on a '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plate for cars built after Dec '63 (prior to Jan the code would only be used when Seat Belts were ordered, there was no Seat Belt Delete option prior to Jan). The PHS shows that this was a rare Seat Belt Delete build so should have had 5O coded on the Data Plate.

The PHS also shows the 084 Lamp Group option (4 coded in the ACCY. GRPS. box on the RH side of the box). The Dome & Reading Lamp merited a 5 Group Code and the PHS also shows the Verbra-Phonic Rear Speaker that also merited a 5 Group Code. Back-up Lamps also on the PHS merited a 5 Group Code. None of these are coded on the Data Plate. More red flags.

Since this is so obviously NOT an original '64 Pontiac Plant Data Plate, the rest of the car is certainly suspect. I agree, most likely explanation is a VIN tag swap. Likely the "real" VIN will be found stamped on the Frame rail when the body is taken off the frame during resto.

You could also check for the correct front stabilizer bar, probably find the 7/8" bar, not correct for a GTO. But since there doesn't appear to be much else left of the GTO "stuff" if it really was ever a GTO, I don't see where the value is.

The '64 GTO that this PHS was for is a bit interesting.

It represents a rare 3.90 axle build with the 4 bbl engine. This was always available and required the Code 9 wide ratio Muncie when the 4 spd was also ordered.

For years, references have claimed the Code 9 was a close ratio Muncie but it was not. The only difference between the Code W and Code 9 4 spds was the internally installed speedo drive gear. They are both M20 wide ratio Muncies.

The close ratio was the Code 8 trans (p/n 9777000) which did NOT become available until about April and could ONLY be ordered with Tripower and 3.90 axle (you didn't HAVE to order the close ratio when specifying the 3.90 axle, you could still choose the wide ratio).

Most Code 9 4 spds backed up a Tripower so it is rare to find a 4 bbl that was ordered with 3.90 axle and therefore got the Code 9 as this one did.

Rich, not sure where your '64 was built but none of the '64 PHS records were "buildsheets".

Most likely you have a '64 Fremont build, the PHS record for that Plant is a Shipping Manifest record. '64 KC & Balt PHS records are the hardest to decipher, they were coded on a Chevy Form called the Passenger Car Shipping Order.

The '64 Pontiac Plant record is the Manifest record, easily decoded. The one posted for the ebay car is a valid PHS record for a '64 Pontiac Plant build.

It is just very unlikely that the car being auctioned left the factory with the VIN tag that is matched to that Manifest record.

This is a reminder that PHS records document a VIN, not the actual car. If the tag is swapped, that doesn't suddenly mean a Lemans is now an authentic GTO. Just means the VIN tag was original to a GTO. To document the actual car, you need to dig a lot deeper.

Too bad it isn't the original car as a 3.90 axle 4 bbl GTO is a bit unique.

Thanks for the info, John. Just out of curiosity, how do the intricacies of a Pontiac Plant Data Plate compare to a Kansas City Plant Data Plate?

[John V.]

KC did use the 2L code in '64. At the Pontiac Plant the floor shifter cutout was done on the car assembly side of the operation and will probably look crudely cut.

Presumably at KC, the cutout was done by Fisher Body hence the 2L coding. It will likely be neater in appearance.

KC did not code a Gate No.

KC Data Plates have an early and late style. Early Time Built codes will be a strange format.

KC stopped coding the Standard Seat Belts after December once they were made standard content so you won't see 5Z after Dec.

KC grouped the accessory codes so that they might read "E 2LGP 5NW". They did not code the "1" for the 1st Group codes.

Early year, KC omitted the "64" as part of the STYLE code.

The Cordova Top color code at KC was different, "6" will indicate Black Cordova Top for example.

There are some other KC Data Plate peculiarities that I went into in my Smoke Signals decode article several years ago. But that covers the main things off the top of my head.