This car was in Russo and Steele's auction last January. It's one of those 'leftover parts' stories and before I cry BS I just wanted to see if anyone knew the car and/or the story.
http://www.russoandsteele.com/collec...-442-W-30/5459

 

My bullshit meter hit the stops

 

Well, considering that the EPA would not legally allow GM to install a 1970 in a 1971 car, the BS meter is definitely bouncing off the peg.

A "matching number" motor???? Really??? So the fact that a generic 455 block has the VIN derivative stamped on it and someone bolted F heads to it makes it a rare one-of-a-kind? One of none is more like it. This is why I pay no attention to big name auctions. What a crock.

 

so skeptical what about a test car ringer? maybe a head honcho's son's car? Its a new year lets look at it in a new light .

 

I've spoken with many GM line workers and they have ALL told me that the old "ran out of parts", "left over parts", "out the back door", etc. stories simply didn't happen. Like Joe brought up, there was so many authorization/acceptance/approval procedures involved in deviating from assigned part installations that a line worker couldn't simply grab whatever they wanted and install it. Even change over years on late production runs required authorization procedures before a part was approved for installation.

 

test cars with so much cam they had to use a different car to test . 421's replaced 389 's light weight weight panels . im sure ther is more than i have read i.

 

Go re-read my post about EPA and the law. Again, for the 1971 model year, ALL GM cars sold had to comply with EPA requirements. That meant that they MUST be able to run on low-lead fuel. Low compression, hardened seats, less radical cam. The engines needed to be EPA certified for that year. Yes, there were one-offs built in the 1960s, BEFORE the EPA requirements went into effect. Also, the magazine test car ringers usually got crushed after the fact if they were not 100% compliant. They could not be sold for street use.

In any event, unless this car has iron clad factory documentation, it's BS.

 

Well, I can't say for sure....but I can believe there might be a exemption clause in the EPA's regulations. It seems reasonable to me that the rules might say something like the manufacturer could put in a prior year's part into a car so long as the consumer is informed and most importantly that this would be limited to no more then X% of the new cars manufactured.

I think this is reasonable because one would have to think that each year manufacturers might have a small inventory of parts left over. It seems an unfair burden on the companies to say "well, too bad you'll have to throw them out". Even recycling them could be expensive.

I don't know any of this for certain. I am just taking a guess that such a loophole would have been smart for the manufacturers lobby for.

 

Wow, all the auction house needs is someone with your opinions and more money than brains...

There is not one speck of documentation presented for this car. History has shown that alleged one-off cars like this are complete fabrications unless there is iron clad documentation. See the alleged 1965 442s with factory installed 425s. Still no factory documentation on this installation.

One legitimate one-off car is the black 1970 (yes, 1970) Hurst/Olds prototype. That car has complete factory documentation, as seen here:

http://www.highoctaneauto.com/1970%2...ype%20Page.htm

Show me similar documentation for the auction car, and I'll believe. Until then, it's BS. And there was no such "loophole". The EPA behaving reasonably? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You may be thinking about the delayed phase-in for very small manufacturers (Lotus, for example). These manufacturers were allowed to sell limited numbers of non-complying cars so long as they worked towards certification. This was done to prevent them from going out of business completely. This exemption was eliminated decades ago.

Finally, as noted above, there was never a "use up the remaining stock" policy. If this had been true, how could one have bought replacement parts (including complete engines) from the parts counter?

 

its new years day... not April fools day

these stories are always b.s.

 

Maybe toatle BS but what fun is it to just jump on That wagon . Sounds like a car that a guy on here has a 67 442 colum shifted hurst built car that sparked a big debate a year or two agoe that was in a mag spread some time back.

 

"My bullshit meter hit the stops." I laughed my *** off when I read that. So concise, so perfect. Man, that was funny! Nice job, citcapp! That should be comment of the year 2011!!

 

Ouch! Well, I would not classify what I said as opinion, nor fact for that matter. It was, I believe, a logical assumption. No I don't believe the EPA is entirely reasonable or honest - exactly my point. I believe the manufacturers would lobby to have such a clause in the regulations as it solely benefits them.....and the EPA being polititians would accommodate them. Also, I did not say they use up ALL remaining stock, but if their projections show that typically they need to keep 100 engines on-hand for warranty and other replacements, but they still have 200 then of course they want to sell off those extra 100. All I am saying is that it seems like a reasonable exemption.

Now regarding documentation: absolutely I agree. Without it I would not trust this seller since the odds of getting one of those legit 1-offs is very small indeed.

Finally, what made me think this was possible was quite possibly, as you suggest, that delayed phase-in. I remember reading something about it, but again only after you mentioned it.

 

I heard about this car some time back and thought it sounded kinda hokey. I've been around the block once or twice and work for a big G.M. dealer (was a very large Olds dealer, been working there 30 years and three generations) and have seen some weird stuff. Many cars have been built that did not fit the normal parameters or ordering guidelines. Some were mistakes, some were not. A high profile car such as a W30 convertible, that was built in very limited numbers, that was only built in one plant, with "SELECT FIT PARTS" would not have been produced for public consumption. Without some bullit-proof documentation and a life-long paper trail, I gotta call BS. A 1971 Cutlass 4-door with leftover 1970 seatbelts, yea I've seen plenty of stuff like that---or Buick moldings on a Delta 88, yea or brown cars with red interiors; but not a signture car that was "Factory Blueprinted" as the advertising of the day boasted.