[Keith Seymore]

Discuss:

https://barnfinds.com/1964-pontiac-g...genuine-miles/

https://lasvegas.craigslist.org/cto/...413106899.html

[242177P]

Weren't the OE mufflers staggered?



Why did they pull the heads?

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Discuss:

https://barnfinds.com/1964-pontiac-g...genuine-miles/

https://lasvegas.craigslist.org/cto/...413106899.html

Two pictures of two different engines. One with power steering and one without power steering.

For a 1200 mile vehicle why did the carbs need to be redichromated?
One picture that carbs look worn and degraded.
The other pictures look fresh but maybe too bright on the dichromate.

Why did someone install a 1965 Tri-Power Linkage on the car?

Tom V.

[60sstuff]

Hilarious!

Post 2 and 3 highlighted a number of issues with this ‘64.

Block stamp 78XW = 389 / 325 HP / 4 Speed

The list of issues is much longer on this 101,321 genuine mile car.

[Rich-Tripower]

One picture shows a console, one picture shows no console. How many different cars are for sale?

[NYGTO]

The seller posted the window sticker but the photo is out of focus, that doesn't help either. The problem here is once you start asking important questions on obvious irregularities, the seller gets his back up and your chances of closing a deal just diminished.

[Chris65LeMans]

This line from the ad clued me in:

"Im not interested in selling it to anyone that is going to drive it daily or use it as primary transportation."

[Goatracer1]

Engine is missing the cover over the front of the bell housing also. Car just looks wrong for an original car.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by 60sstuff

Hilarious!

Post 2 and 3 highlighted a number of issues with this ‘64.

Block stamp 78XW = 389 / 325 HP / 4 Speed

The list of issues is much longer on this 101,321 genuine mile car.

From the craiglist ad:

"Never modified"

So which is it? An original tri-power car with the wrong block from the factory or an original 4bbl car with an intake and carb swap?

I'm betting on the latter.

[64-3Deuces]

Originally Posted by The Champ

From the craiglist ad:

"Never modified"

So which is it? An original tri-power car with the wrong block from the factory or an original 4bbl car with an intake and carb swap?

I'm betting on the latter.

That was my concern also. The 78X originally is a 3-spd. 4-bbl block, so how did it end up with tri power which used a 76 block code? The W makes sense as the factory stamped a W after the X to mark unused 3-spd. blocks as 4-spd.

Also, why not just post the PHS? Kind of hard to tell but the jack doesn’t look right; the 64 jack used a “T” style rack.

This is like the third time I’ve seen this vehicle listed for sale and eagle-eyed GTO guys always point out the inconsistencies in the pics versus what is listed. The listing then vanishes.

[Chris65LeMans]

Originally Posted by Goatracer1

Engine is missing the cover over the front of the bell housing also. Car just looks wrong for an original car.

engine and firewall (in some of the pictures) look freshly-restored. The frame under the oil pan looks like it's touched the ground (or a jack) many many times, and doesn't jive with the 1,300 mile story.

Also - he seems to confuse PHS with the Ford Service that actually does certify cars. He says that PHS certified the miles and story which, of course, they don't.

[Rich-Tripower]

Originally Posted by NYGTO

The seller posted the window sticker but the photo is out of focus, that doesn't help either. The problem here is once you start asking important questions on obvious irregularities, the seller gets his back up and your chances of closing a deal just diminished.

Well, since it is all very likely a scam isn't that just as well?

[aceaceca]

The W stamping on the block is from a different set of punches than the other letters. Slightly larger font. Also the valve cover has been swapped from one side to the other in the pics. The fan shroud is from an A/C car. Our 64 which had the H/D cooling option but no A/C did not come with a shroud as I recall. I think the eagle eyed aces on this site have debunked this car on pics alone. Buyer beware.

[Andre]

This seems to be an exercise in deception in the hopes of grabbing the attention(and money) of a less than informed buyer.

[chrisp]

Originally Posted by Goatracer1

Engine is missing the cover over the front of the bell housing also. Car just looks wrong for an original car.

Not a 1964 bellhousing , pic is 65 & up .

[NYGTO]

Originally Posted by Rich-Tripower

Well, since it is all very likely a scam isn't that just as well?

You are absolutely correct when it's reached this level, a situation I didn't see early on.

The strange thing is the lack of even trying by the seller.

[Tom Vaught]

The seller obviously think all Pontiac Guys are stupid and do not pay attention to details.
He is wrong.

Tom V.

ps Thanks Keith for the original post.

[Dennis H.]

Did anyone mention it has the wrong steering wheel as well, looks to be a 65 wheel.

[Keith Seymore]

Should I save the photos and the ad somewhere for posterity, or is it not even worth the effort?

K

[Rich-Tripower]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Should I save the photos and the ad somewhere for posterity, or is it not even worth the effort?

K

Well, there's some nice pictures there of at least two different cars, maybe more!