When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I dunno....maybe it's legit, maybe it's not. My question is, shouldn't the VIN sticker have more info? (IE the GVWR ratings)? Also, shouldn't the "anti-spin" decal be on the other side of the trunk lid? And what's with the "Hurst" emblem on the trunk lid?
Yeah, this turd is all over FB. The cowl tag is a really bad fake. The style code for a 1972 Cutlass S Hardtop Coupe should be 33687, not the 3G877 that is on the cowl tag. Fisher Body used the old five digit style codes for 1972, despite the change in the VIN to the four character model code that freed up the fifth character of the VIN to be used for the engine code. Also note that this is a Fremont car. So-called pilot cars would have been run in Lansing. Run, don't walk away.
So many things are a joke about this car. Including the price. One thing that always pisses me off about cars like this is the Fact that the dealer knows they are full of crap building it and selling it.
Someone will probably chime in and say "Hey if someone wants to pay it..."
Last edited by no1oldsfan; Sep 6, 2023 at 09:52 AM.
More from a previous ad for the car [owner was asking $67,000 for it then], "This Pilot car (VIN #,00001) is originally from California; Turbo 400 engine replaced by previous owner. In 2014, I purchased the Pilot and completed a full blown restoration (sheet metal all original - no rust!); trunk lid was changed (Fusick Olds); interior restored by Legendary Interior; VIN is on block (see image) - if not original it is period correct; transmission rebuilt; rear axial original to car; 10 bolt posi code SB ratio 273; Options 455 4 barrel turbo 400 axle POSI rally Pac; tilt sport wheel; Am-FM stereo; Hurst Dual gate; All new tinted glass; Cowl hood with Air Cleaner; New SS1 Rims - 15x8; red wells replaced with repro Aluminum; Intake Factory Carb correct #'s; Frame Stamped twice. You will not find a nicer or more detailed 442 out there! Drives and sounds Awesome! Driven less than 100 miles!"
"...engine replaced by previous owner...VIN is on block (see image) - if not original it is period correct..."
Where in the H do these people come up with the "Pilot Car" line? Built in mid 72 in California as a "Pilot Car" for what 1973??
As Joe said there is nothing original on the car. Complete drivetrain has been replaced. I love the line: If not correct motor well it's era correct...🤔🥴
The funny thing is that I think I'm the only guy here who actually knows an automotive trial process and what happens to "pilot" cars when done.
I don't know what they do now, but I know what happened to late 70s "pilot" Corvettes when they were done. It would make a Corvette lover cry. But some of the R&D costs could be written off that way.
Most of the time there's captured test fleet cars (CTF) which are stuck in the fleet pools for real-life testing/feedback by GM employees. I know later on they had their own VIN to keep track of them and not count them toward regular production quotas. Although they were EPA/DOT certified and sometimes sold to the public when they got done beating on them.
If you look at the VIN on this car, doesn't it appear to be WAY too even and straight for GM to have stamped that? Almost too perfect.
I don't know what they do now, but I know what happened to late 70s "pilot" Corvettes when they were done. It would make a Corvette lover cry. But some of the R&D costs could be written off that way.
Most of the time there's captured test fleet cars (CTF) which are stuck in the fleet pools for real-life testing/feedback by GM employees. I know later on they had their own VIN to keep track of them and not count them toward regular production quotas. Although they were EPA/DOT certified and sometimes sold to the public when they got done beating on them.
If you look at the VIN on this car, doesn't it appear to be WAY too even and straight for GM to have stamped that? Almost too perfect.
Of course it is. I Hate scammers. If this car was built honestly and offered that way I would have no problem. The amount of bull 💩 that is accepted these days just blows me away. So many defenders.
Don't know about that, but the rivets on the cowl tag don't look "correct"
Yeah, an 06D on the tag and an 8/71 on the vin sticker looks suspect. I thought they used two digit months and two digit years on those. Plus, that VIN sticker looks like an ECS version anyway.
I will say this. Although I believe this car not to be exactly what it claims to be, it has some of the best non-W side striping and fender numeral alignment I've seen for a restoration. Doesn't negate all the **** that's seemingly suspect about it, but the fact is they didn't wrap the paint into the door jambs, ended them just shy of the bumper body breaks, and didn't automatically follow the body break line angles outside the wheel wells that so many make that mistake of doing. That's about all the good positive I've got to say about it. There's just so much that screams fake to me, though. Too bad. It presents well. Wrong, but well.
There are a lot of issues with that cowl/trim tag.
For example the correct assembly plant code for Fremont is "BF" and not "Z". "Z" was used in the VIN for a Fremont built car however it wasn't used on the cowl tag.
Update 9/22/2023 - I have further researched this and it appears that Fremont did stamp some cars cowl tags with a "Z". Further research would be needed to determine when they switched from "Z" to "BF"
There are a lot of issues with that cowl/trim tag.
For example the correct assembly plant code for Fremont is "BF" and not "Z". "Z" was used in the VIN for a Fremont built car however it wasn't used on the cowl tag.
The biggest problem with that cowl tag is the incorrect format for the style number, as noted above.
Since we're discussing, the largest error made with a so-called pilot car is the assumption by a non-employee of a car manufacturer who is selling the car in question is that the manufacturer wants to make maximum money. They don't. They want to make maximum money while keeping the company safe from liability. Letting an uncertified car out and sold to customers is illegal.
Trial cars, which is what my company calls them, are used for a variety of purposes. The first thing they do is teach the line workers how to build the new cars. It is practice. The second thing is prove out the new and modified equipment that is needed for the new car. Once the trial car is built, it has a purpose. Some stay in the plant, and are torn down, then rebuilt offline for specific training for several cycles and are then scrapped. Some are torn down and stay in a certain build condition for the life of the model run to train new team members; some five to seven years later, they get scrapped, too. Other cars go immediately to the government crash testers to certify the safety ratings of the new model, and they die in crashes and are scrapped.
Still other cars go to trade shows for "reveals" ahead of production. These are the ones that you see in Car & Driver and other publications. Once their showbiz is done, they return to the plant. At that point, they are typically kept by the plant and assigned to a department. My plant has 100 or so cars of various former trial vehicles that are not tagged or registered and they stay inside the wire and are used to move people and stuff around. Eventually, these get replaced by new trial cars several years later and are scrapped.
I have seen precisely one trial vehicle get legally registered and put on the road, and it was still owned by the company. I have never seen a trial vehicle sold. Once you move into "sellable vehicles," the first of them typically gets put in the lobby if it's the first of that car, otherwise, it's a customer's car, certified and ready.
If someone is selling a legitimate trial vehicle, it is an illegal car, both now, and 50 years ago. If it is, in fact, legit, someone at GM screwed up and should've been fired for not managing inventory. None of these cars are made to be restored 50 years later; they're made to keep a housewife safe as she drives around without any mechanical knowledge at all. This is why any of them that are made pre-crash certification and pre-regulation must be destroyed, because they are legally not a car.
That's pretty definitive and very interesting, stated from the perspective of somebody who should know.
I've seen lots of "pilot" cars (seems like a lot of them were Mopars) over the years, featured in magazines or for sale privately and on dealer websites. Am I to believe that they were all phonies?
That's pretty definitive and very interesting, stated from the perspective of somebody who should know.
I've seen lots of "pilot" cars (seems like a lot of them were Mopars) over the years, featured in magazines or for sale privately and on dealer websites. Am I to believe that they were all phonies?
I am sure some of them were fake and were used to creatively backstory a car into a rare car. Some of them were probably real trial bodies that never got properly scrapped, however, they're bastards in terms of provenance. Even if they got a VIN titled and registered after the fact, they're still illegal. Does it matter? Almost certainly not. The only way I could think it could legally matter is if someone had, let's say, something slightly different on the brakes than normal, and it had a failure mode, and the owner T-boned a minivan and killed a family, and the government investigated and saw it was a trial car, then found the brake issue, then they could go after the people that sold the car to the current owner and try to get all the way back to Mopar.
The odds of that happening are like lottery levels. I view these trial cars like a salvage title. They're probably just fine, but I'm not buying one. As you and I know, if you make a car, then send another one made a few days later off to crash test, it passes, and all future cars are certified, the previous car is uncertified legally, but is still fine since you didn't change anything. Regulatory stuff is a real pain in the ***. I'm the guy over certification label changes at my plant (modern day cowl tag), along with a bunch of other stuff I do. The plant wants the VIN label to be physically bigger, like the sticker to have more area, with the same sized text. This is so you can't see body paint around the VIN sticker if you look at it sideways. That's ok for a Toyota, but not a Lexus, which is launching here soon. Current solution is a swath of black paint applied after paint to cover that area. They want the VIN label bigger to eliminate it. It's regulatory and Toyota controlled, so I am stuck telling them to file for a drawing change, THEN I will change it once the drawing is made. They say it will be too late, and I say "chop, chop then."
