5R08K195443

CharlesTurner · January 9, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Hopefully someone looks at this one closely:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/…em=160529472559

jwc66k · January 9, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Let me start - an "automobile photoshop".

Jim

C6ZZKGT · January 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM Official Post

The seller states that the Hipo engine and trans are gone. It now has an 8 inch rear end as well.

-Fred-

jwc66k · January 10, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Take a close look at the picture of the differential, the one where the drive shaft is missing. The VIN indicates a build date where the "GT" type exhaust was used for "K" cars. The brake line bracket is located in the position for a single exhaust car. Also note that almost all the pictures show no dual exhaust provisions. Like I said, an "automobile photoshop" - cut and paste.

Jim

mcfly_old · January 10, 2011 at 1:04 AM

The only K item I see is the Vin. If that is correct than someone did an awful lot of work to make this car standard(for lack of a better word) Something does seem fishy.

mike

C6ZZKGT · January 10, 2011 at 12:23 PM Official Post

This car also has a 66 style instrument cluster.

-Fred-

CharlesTurner · January 10, 2011 at 1:15 PM

The cluster would be the least of my worries! <img src=images/icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> Definitely a '65 body car though.

sfm1259_old · January 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM

I looked at the VIN closely, and from the pictures and the last 3 digits look tilted and going off to the right. In my experience the VIN numbers should be straight, I have some examples where the numbers may look a little different from one another. I suspect this is from dies being warn out and replaced by a different manufacturer. The VIN stars are visible. I would just check the other vin numbers on the car to make sure they look okay.

The other thing to check for is if there are holes in the frame rails where existing single exhaust brackets were present at some time. Just my 2 cents.

Tim

C6ZZKGT · January 11, 2011 at 1:34 AM Official Post

I personally inspected this car today. It does have all 3 VIN stamps. I am still going through my analysis of my findings and I will post more of them when I have totally thought them through. The simple things to know is for one that the seller is not in any way trying to misrepresent the car. He is just now learning what he has. As far as I can tell, this car is stamped as a "K" but was built as a "C" or "A" code car from day one. It has provisions in the frame rails for the crossflow muffler system. It does not have reinforecements under the rear seat. It does not have the under seat muffler hanger stud plates. It has never had rear tail pipe hangers. The standard single exhaust rear brake line is in the single exhaust position and it has an 8 inch snubber plate over the 8 inch rear end. There is no choke cable hole in the firewall. It was getting late and I forgot to look for a clutch pedal rod hole. I have other items that I am analyzing as well. I have seen a "K" code car stamped as a "T" code and there have been other examples of wrongly stamped cars on this forum.

-Fred-

Edited by - c6zzkgt on 01/12/2011 19:22:52

CharlesTurner · January 11, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Judging by the unit number, this car was probably produced in early March of '65. Any detail related to a cross-flow exhaust would be totally ambiguous at that time in production. If the snubber plate is single exhaust, no doubt the rear build-up is for a single exhaust car.

The VIN stamp that is visible looks like a re-stamp. The '1' is not the correct style and the characters are crooked. There are many cars from San Jose at that time period that have a double impression on the first few characters, which this stamp also does not show. Would be interested in seeing pictures of the other 2 hidden stamps.

Regardless if it has a K VIN stamp, the rest of the car is not a K car and I sure hope someone does their homework to know this.

Strange that there are so many pictures of the undercarriage and not even one picture of the engine bay

C6ZZKGT · January 12, 2011 at 2:40 PM Official Post

Charles, The reason that there are probably no engine bay pictures of the car is that there is really not much to see.

Anybody that wants a more complete version of my true analysis of this car, please contact me as I am unwilling to post such sensitive information on this forum.

-Fred-

CharlesTurner · January 12, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Can you at least comment on the VIN stampings and how the other 2 hidden ones looked?

C6ZZKGT · January 12, 2011 at 7:42 PM Official Post

Charles, I just sent you an email. Please let me know your thoughts by email or a call.

-Fred-

C6ZZKGT · January 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM Official Post

This car was bid to $15,100 and it did not meet the reserve.

-Fred-

C6ZZKGT · January 14, 2011 at 9:43 PM Official Post

This car is back on Ebay again:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/…em=160532514930

-Fred-

C6ZZKGT · January 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM Official Post

This car sold on Ebay today 1-17-2011 for $15,000. I hope that nobody on this site bought this car as it is definitely bogus. This VIN should be noted as such in case it shows up again in the future. It is neither a rebodied K car nor a Ford stamping error. I can assure you from my inspection that this is not a K car. I am pretty sure what really happened regarding this VIN but I am reluctant to post that analysis on this forum for legal reasons. If somebody can post a picture of the VIN on the apron from this auction on this site for future reference, it would be really good to have.

-Fred-

raccol · January 17, 2011 at 7:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The standard single exhaust rear brake line is in the single exhaust position and it has an 8 inch snubber plate over the 8 inch rear end.

All of which are clearly visible in this picture.

[Blocked Image: http://i.ebayimg.com/01/%21CCJ3dvg%21mk%7E%24%28KGrHqZ,%21mIEz%2082yb1yBNKN%204h64w%7E%7E_3.JPG]

qballll_old · January 23, 2011 at 9:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If somebody can post a picture of the VIN on the apron from this auction on this site for future reference, it would be really good to have.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

[Blocked Image: http://i52.tinypic.com/zso1vo.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://i56.tinypic.com/28qz061.jpg]

Mu5tanggt_old · January 23, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Looks like part of a double stamp might be visible below the VIN, maybe this is a corrected vin stamp of what looks like a mistake.

C6ZZKGT · January 24, 2011 at 9:53 AM Official Post

Gary, I sanded the paint off of the stamping that is in the picture. The second partial stamp is most likely the original stamp. It was apparently sanded off and the first part, for some reason, was not completely sanded off. The metal in that area lacks the normal factory graining and it too shiny with the paint removed. That is why I say that the VIN was sanded off. When Ford made a mistake they did not sand off the original stamping. There are several references to the way Ford handled a VIN stamped in error in other parts of the forum. One is posted here:

http://www.hipomustang.com/hpmx/topic.asp…Terms=vin,stamp

Keep in mind that this cars has a VIN that is stamped with twisted characters. One of the hidden VINs is similar to this one and the other one is better. Ford had some characters that were slightly out of line horizontally due to the stamping machine, but not twisted.

I could have resurrected the original numbers as they were still on the underside of the aprons but there was not enough room for me to get in there easily to check them at the time. I was not in my own environment but rather in the sellers and there was only so much that I could do under the circumstances.

-Fred-

Participate now!