What's new
TurboTransAm.com

Register today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Value and future value of TTA's

andre#4

Well-Known Member
I was wondering about a few things. These are my ideas and I would like to know what you guys think about these ideas. Or other ideas.

Low mileage of TTA's:

When I see a 67 Vette with 24k original miles I am impressed and the car brings good money. But with a TTA, 24k is going to be high mileage, because so many people have these cars with 100 miles or 300 miles or even 3,000 miles. So, are these cars with 20k miles going to suffer because of this? will they be considered high mileage? And what about the people who have cars with 50 or 75 k miles. That would normally be a good thing but with tta's it might be a bad thing.

Speed of TTA's:

Even considering that they are the fastest ta ever built according to the car and driver article that said they do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, and the motor trend article where it could do 162 mph beating all the other cars in the test except a prototype zr-1, these cars are no longer fast. Regular Mustangs that are a dime a dozen do 0-60 in 4.6 and Vettes and Porsches do it in the 3's. Who are we kidding. Chevy sells and leases passenger cars with 638 horsepower. Our cars are not fast anymore. They were fast in their time, sure, and for the ten years after their time and prior to their time, but not any more. Nissan maximas have more power.

Is it going to be like saying a 165 hp 1975 Vette is fast because it can run 16 second 1/4 miles and the other cars at the time could only run 18 second 1/4 miles?

I mean, our cars killed all the competition regardless of price in 1989. The Testarossas and Countaches and Porsches and Lotus's couldn't touch it. But will that mean anything now that there are 400hp Hyundai's? And in the future when the Hyundais have 500 or 600 hp?

The problem of not being a Chevy or Ford:

Pontiacs are never worth chevy or ford money. Just a fact of life. They are the ugly stepsisters (even though they look more attractive and are more sophisticated). Camaros and Mustangs are always worth more than Firebirds. Perhaps it is popularity. But rarity conflicts with that. It seems you need a rare version of a popular car to win in a value contest. Like a 69 Camaro has the popularity and the ZL1 or COPO iron 427 option makes that popular car rare and thus valuable.

Our cars were definitely not popular. I drove one of these every day for 10 years and took it to car shows and embarrassed mustangs and vettes and camaros and exotics on the streets for the whole time and in all that time only 2 or 3 people knew what the car was. Not only that, I came across many people who insisted the car did not exist. So we missed the popularity boat.

The v6 and the automatic:

Everyone wants v8's and stickshifts. Is this going to be a problem? Especially since the cars are so slow and have so little power compared to the modern 638 hp Vette? Especially since the rating was only 245 or 250 hp! Only slightly more than the GTA. (On the other hand, R/AIII's have 366 hp and R/AIV has 370 hp and RAIV is worth tons more money even though only 4 hp more)

And get this:
I was able to buy a convertible TTA from a guy just because he wanted a car with a stick! (Maybe the amount I paid had something to do with it but the way he tells it he just wanted a stick and that is the end of it. On the other hand, the car was running very poorly and slowly because it had sat undriven for a decade and perhaps he thought that it was performing as well as it could since he hadn't ever driven a healthy one)

Any ideas on these thoughts or other thoughts that you guys have?

I used to really hate the way there was no frame and the structural integrity was so bad, and the lack of roof because of the t-tops, ...

but I hear that the Hemi Cuda convertibles have terrible unibodies and their door gaps change according to the position of your right foot and those cars sold for over $2,000,000. So I don't see that as a problem.

Also, there may be no gasoline. But nobody drives the valuable cars anyway they all get trailered.

I thought we really had something, because the most valuable muscle cars are the ones that are customized by subcontractors, or have the motors put in by someone else because the production numbers are too low for GM to get involved. Like the Yenko Camaros or Berger or Nickey camaros, or the GNX, or the others that I can't think of right now. And our cars were customized by someone else.

Also, the most valuable muscle cars are usually ones that have very expensive engine options, usually the most powerful available for the model, and sometimes doubling the price of the car. Like the ZL1 camaros and Hemi Mopars. Our cars cost as much as 3 basic firebirds because of the engine that we have.

Anniversary models are sometimes worth more.
Pace cars are sometimes worth more.


See what I mean? I used to think we had it made, but now I am not so sure. I can't imagine the car hobby will stop. People will die and younger ones will take their place and then get rich and want the fastest rarest coolest car from their childhood. But what is the point of a fast car from your childhood if it is so much slower than your 2025 Prius with 5,000 horsepower and a 6 inch coffee can fart pipe out back?
 
I think that one has to keep focused on the "legendary" history of the car and not compare it to the performance of contemporary muscle cars that now sell for $80K to $100 K. Keep your chin up.

Even if not fully appreciated by the general public (that may not know what they are looking at), I've seen many TurboBuick/GN guys at car shows lusting for a TTA - because of it's similarity and comparative rarity. And of course GNs are well respected too. If you educate people with some history factoids about the TTA, they gradually come around and get VERY interested.

Regarding whether or not it's a Chevy, I don't see that as a big deal. I'd rather have a flashy Hurst/Olds than a Chevelle of the same period. If you've got yer stickers on the door of your TTA (like I do) - you're flashy...

If you want an "investment", the average clean TTA is probably going to do better than most other commonly available cars of today. But if you want to make money, you'd be better off working at a real job. For me, I'm just happy knowing that I would not have much trouble getting a substantial part of my money back after enjoying the car for a few years. I'm pretty sure that I'd be able to get my "investment" back if I wanted to ten years from now.

Depending on how far one wants to go with engine mods/good old American hot-rodding, one can beat todays $80K to $100K cars - for far less money. No shame there. At the same time you can watch one of those $100K supercars depreciate to $40K in just a few years.
 
Last edited:
Speed of TTA's:

Even considering that they are the fastest ta ever built according to the car and driver article that said they do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, and the motor trend article where it could do 162 mph beating all the other cars in the test except a prototype zr-1, these cars are no longer fast. Regular Mustangs that are a dime a dozen do 0-60 in 4.6 and Vettes and Porsches do it in the 3's. Who are we kidding. Chevy sells and leases passenger cars with 638 horsepower. Our cars are not fast anymore. They were fast in their time, sure, and for the ten years after their time and prior to their time, but not any more. Nissan maximas have more power.

Is it going to be like saying a 165 hp 1975 Vette is fast because it can run 16 second 1/4 miles and the other cars at the time could only run 18 second 1/4 miles?

I mean, our cars killed all the competition regardless of price in 1989. The Testarossas and Countaches and Porsches and Lotus's couldn't touch it. But will that mean anything now that there are 400hp Hyundai's? And in the future when the Hyundais have 500 or 600 hp?


With a about $3k in hop-ups my TTA runs with the new cars, except for the ZR-1 and the Ford Shelby GT500KR, but I guess if I dump some more $$$ in her It would run 2010 ZR-1 numbers.

Lifted these number form auto websites:

2010 Camaro

0-60 mph – 4.7 seconds

1/4 Mile – 13.0@111 mph

2010 Mustang

0-60 mph – 4.9 seconds

1/4 Mile [email protected] mph

2009 Challenger

0-60 mph - 5.1 seconds

1/4 Mile – [email protected] mph

My car ran those numbers in 1994 with only a dump pipe open on a stock downpipe, K&N, sqeezed the Fuel reg, stock chip, stock tires, stock everything prettymuch...12.90 @ 108mph....


2009 Ford Shelby GT500KR (GT500KR's starting price was $79,995.)

0-60 mph 4.5, 1/4 mile: 11.92s @ 120 mph

New 2010 ZR1 (Starting at $105,000)
-638 HP 604 LB-FT Torque
0-60 3.4 sec Quarter Mile 11.5 sec @ 128 MPH

I'm thinking that with the current mods, my TTA should probably run 11.80's
@115-118mph

So, I think for the bang for the buck TTA's are about as fast as poor working man like me will get.
 
That's the spirit! It takes no brains to go to the bank and get a loan. These "new car" people are just racing their "checkbooks". No brains required.

And remember that probably the fastest cars on the street are run by drug dealers - using their cubic money. So don't worry about not being the fastest thing around. Don't buy into the "society of envy". If all it takes is money, then what makes that so interesting or respectable? The guys and cars that do more with less are the ones that I think are fascinating and praise-worthy.
 
Considering that there are only 3 convertible TTA's, and you have one of them, I hope you hold on to it for a long time considering its rarity. I am sure it will hold its value.
 
Last edited:
My cousin has a 2009 shelby KR that he modded and does 11.90 in the quarter mile and he paid alotta money...... that is faster than the shelbys at my local track, they are all high 12's and are lucky if they dont grind thier gears shifting....

my tta runs 11.4 and beats the new cars no prob.

like michbc3 said anyone can get a new car and go fast, that's not as fun as modding and tuning your tta to go fast.
 
I have a t-top cloth tta, people are always pulling up and pointing and say ... NICE CAR !! I really don't care that most people around here(car never offered in Canada) think it"s GTA with stupid decals on the doors(I've heard people say that) they sure the hell are not saying that at the next light. I know know what it is, I LOVE driving it, I know I will get my money out when I decide to sell it, I didn't buy it to get rich !!! I bought it to enjoy, and I REALLY enjoy driving this car, beating up on Vette, Stangs, Vipers .. .what ever, whether I win or loose ... it gets peoples attention !!! it's a fun car to drive, it keeps your wits about you !!
I have 2 other Trans Ams to choose from to drive, the 75 gets thumbs up all day long, which is cool, but you think everyone is going to drive in to the side of your car, the 94 convert is great for going topless, but we pretty much go un-noticed,I also have a 2004 SSR in Purple ... gets tons of looks ( good and bad) and rides like a luxury car, awesome cruiser, smooth and classy ... but for going fast and having fun( at the track and street) it's the TTA, non of my other cars come close ... mostly around here ..... it's a sleeper. A couple tweaks and they are a blast to drive


just one mans opinion .... it's a bias opinion but my opinion non the less !!

ps : I would almost KILL for a convertible Turbo Trans Am !!!
 
Interesting...

I definately agree about doing alot with a little. It always amazed me during the years after our cars were built that the other cars all had more and more horsepower, but were never as fast as ours. And they were never as quiet either. These newer, more powerful, louder cars were slower. It was fun while it lasted. We used to call our motors the magic motor. It never made any sense. We just called it magic. A quiet v6 automatic firebird that would absolutely kill the competition, when the big 350 GTA with the Corvette motor would lose. I used to have license plates that read LT1 EATR. Those guys always thought they'd win and never did. One guy almost beat me so I just kept going and he did too. It took a mile to finally beat that guy. We ran into sand at the end of the road!

I just read an article about the 1985 BMW 5 series Alpina B7. It had a 330hp straight 6, did 0-60 in 4.8, and 163mph. And a new M5, with 25 additional years of development, and an astounding 500 horsepower, can only muster 0-60 in 4.7 seconds and a slower top speed (limited electronically)



I love these TTA cars and will never stop loving them. In looks alone they have everything else beat.

To me they have perfect curves and proportions. I wish more were hardtops because I think the t-tops break the curve of the roofline. Wish they were black too although I love the creamy white. Not like todays appliance white.

Anyway, my point was that if you looked at all the criteria for appreciation in a muscle car, our cars were looking very very good a few years ago. Not only were they as fast or faster than 99% of the vintage muscle cars, but also faster than all the modern ones too, and the italian exotics too. We had rarity, and all the stuff I said originally.

So I was wondering if this new horsepower war and new muscle era will take away from that.

I guess it is not taking much away from the Hemi Cudas that sell for over $1,000,000. So maybe we will be ok too.

As far as just breaking even on what you spent after ten years, that would be pittyful. I don't think there is any muscle car ever made that couldn't at least bring its original sticker price when it was 30 years old. In decent condition anyway. Even an average 67 GTO hardtop with the base motor and an automatic would bring at least $6,000 in 1997. I sold a gold one made of Bondo for $9,000. That was 200% of the new sticker price. Our cars have the best motor, and they didn't make 70,000 of them. And I thought that being the quickest and fastest american car of their time should count for something extra.

I will just give one example I know of...

Look at the 69 Trans Am. 697 made. Obviously less than our 1555, but in the ball park. And I am not talking about convertibles or Ram Air 4 cars ...nothing special. Just run of the mill 69 T/A's. (Ha Ha)

The cost about $4000 new I would guess, and now cost about $80,000.

That is a 2000% increase in 40 years. I think they were almost that expensive ten years ago, so you could even say 2000% in 30 years.


Now, our cars cost $32,000. So, if we wait ten years, or lets say 20 years, and we decide to sell at a time when the financial world is on it's feet (not in a melt down or depression time), if our cars did as well as the 69, we could sell for $640,000. Since a lot of us paid $15,000 for the cars, since we did not have to buy them new, we would be doing pretty well here. Even if we only did 1/4 as well as the 69's we would still be looking at $160,000.

If, on the other hand, all we could get for them is $15,000, (the break even number) that would be like being able to get a 69 T/A for $4,000 today. I can't see it being that bad. Unless they outlaw gasoline, which they might do, but even then we could electrify the cars. The hobby isn't just going to die, it is a billlion dollar a year industry with lobbyists.

The only cars that don't appreciate are the 4 door sedans from companies that no one likes with no options. Like the amc ambassador, or the plymouth valiant. They only bring their sticker prices today.



This next one is just to put things in perspective. This type of increase is pretty much impossible:

Look at the 70-71 Hemi Cuda Convertibles. They cost $5,000 and now sell for $2,000,000 That is a 40000% increase.

If we did that well our cars would be worth $12,000,000 in 20 years. Obviously that is highly unlikely, since they only made 40 E body hemi convertibles and 1555 T/A's.
 
What about the mileage thing. Are all the new TTA's that are still "in the wrapper" going to devalue all the "used" TTA's with a few thousand miles on them?
 
1965 Cobra Daytona Coupe CSX2601

This was just a old race car that nobody wanted in 1972.
Strange things happen in the collector car market.

1972 Selling Price - $12,500
2009 Auction Price - $7,250,000

% 2009 vs 1972 - 58,000%

http://www.mecum.com/auctions/lot_detail.cfm?LOT_ID=CA0809-82174

JohnSimonsonCobraDaytonaCSX2601S-1.jpg


CSX2601-1.jpg


JohnSimonsonCobraDaytonaMTApril1969.jpg
 
Im thrilled to own a TTA. I love Trans Ams and this is one of the greatest ones ever made. It is also the only third gen fbody i would ever own. I know what it is worth to me and to anyone who loves pontiacs.
 
if in 20 years tta's are worth nothing I will drive the piss out of mine, and if they are worth lots I will drive the piss out of mine just cause I can. Doesn't really matter to me. I have two tta's to drive and have fun with, if they get a scratch than they are scratched. so be it. My low mile cars are just to have cause they are cool, not really to profit from. I go to work for money, I don't buy cars to make money over twenty years. I like money now not in 20 years. I would only sell a tta if I ran out of room to store it or the means to maintain well.

Just drive your car and enjoy it well you can.
 
if in 20 years tta's are worth nothing I will drive the piss out of mine, and if they are worth lots I will drive the piss out of mine just cause I can. Doesn't really matter to me. I have two tta's to drive and have fun with, if they get a scratch than they are scratched. so be it. My low mile cars are just to have cause they are cool, not really to profit from. I go to work for money, I don't buy cars to make money over twenty years. I like money now not in 20 years. I would only sell a tta if I ran out of room to store it or the means to maintain well.

Just drive your car and enjoy it well you can.

COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm in the same boat as you. Cars as investments are a terrible idea. They might yield what, a 0.5% rate and that is if you are lucky!
 
I think the TTA's have another 15-20 years before they take off. Or maybe they will not.DontKnow: Pontiac's are not at the top of the list for collectibles in the GM lineup like Chevy and now Buick.

Regardless they are a blast to drive... and mine impresses me more and more every time I cruise.:shock:

RatFink... how about a Alky Smiley. :cheers:
 
Got mine for $18,500 in the summer of 1990. I could sell it today for $18,500 with the addtitiion of 32k miles easily. But the stories of beating 1990 Zr-1s with only a cutout and sqeezed reg and adjus, wastegate...priceless. Oh yeah, Alky Smilies...on my list
 
Interesting thoughts guys... I like that shelby cobra article

The 77 to 79 trans ams are not rare and they have doubled in value in the last 12 years or so. That makes sense because most cars seem to increase in value from the 20 year to 40 year old time period. They are now 30 years old, so that figures. Perfect ones used to be $12k when they were 20 years old, now they are $24k. The 1977's cost about $8,000 new, so they are at 3 times original cost and they are only ten years behind ours in age. So if our (rare, fast) cars do as well as those (slow, common) cars, ours will be worth $96k in ten years. I hope TTA's can do as well as a car that they made 117,000 of that took 16 seconds to cover a 1/4 mile.
(117,000 trans ams made in 79)



I remember when you could buy 89 TTA's brand new with less than 300 miles for $22,000. This was in the late 1990's. I don't think they are that cheap anymore. I think it takes closer to 30 to get one now but I could be wrong. Maybe those are just pie in the sky asking prices. Maybe someone here knows what you have to actually pay now a days for a new one.

I bought one new in 1996 for $16k, put 240k miles on it and sold it for $12k 7 years later with dents in 2/3 of the body panels. they were minor dents and the car was otherwise perfect and original. If I bought a new one now I would drive it just like I did the other one. Every day. I sold that one because the dents pissed me off. I loved that car and couldn't look at it anymore. I wasn't going to spend thousands fixing the body because it would just get dented again. That car was perfect without one ding for 6 years, and then, within 4 weeks, the entire car was decimated in parking lot hit and runs. One hit a week for 4 weeks. I didn't see anyone do the damage. It all happened in parking lots while I was not there. One person backed out of the space next to me, and from the gouge in my front fender, door, and rear fender, it was obvious that they turned their wheel too much and didn't pay attention and their front bumper just put this 6 foot long crease in my car. The only good panels left were the hoood, one door and one rear quarter. Everything else hit. I really didn't want a tta with bondo in almost all the panels. I just sold it and drove a cadillac for the next 7 years.

92 Firehawks have doubled too. I know this for sure. People pay 50k minimum for good ones that were 25k 12 years ago or so.


I always buy cars because I love them. I have never bought a car I didn't love no matter how much I thought it would appreciate in value. These are some of my other favorites but I don't anticipate any of them doing better than a tta ragtop.

Jaguar XJ220 (pure beauty and luxury at 220mph with a v6)
Porsche 959 (exotic with luxury, speed and reliability)
Porsche 993 Turbo 1996-1998
Delorean (wish I could put a powerful motor in it though)
Maserati Ghibli (pure Italian car sex on wheels)
Acura NSX 1991-1994 (comfortable quiet cheap reliable gt)
Supra Turbo 1993-1999 (the jap TTA)
Lotus Esprit Turbo SE, S4, S4S 1990-1995 (the british TTA, and a blast to drive...like a golf cart with 300hp.)
Corvette ZR-1 1993-1995
BMW 850 CSi
Ferrari Testarossa 1985-1991 (more italian car sex)


I think of cars as investments because to me, anything that I put money into is an investment. As far as the low annual return on investment, my goal is to make it high. Kind of like some people do better in the market than others. Plus, I like the cars anyway and I would have them anyway. But only a few at a time. As far as wanting money now instead of later, that is what flipping cars is for. Once I got a Ford van for $700, and sold it for $2100 within a week. That is a 15,000% annual return. (although it only lasted one week) Or a turbo supra that I bought in the local paper for $10,000, and sold 3 weeks later for $22k in the auto trader online. The only way to do this legally is to work out a deal to be a freelance salesman for a used car dealer, otherwise you have to pay sales tax and that cuts into the profit. Once I got a 3 year old Porsche 968 ragtop for $19k, drove it for a year, and sold it for $27k. Compare that to the people who drive Porsches for a year and lose $8,000 in depreciation each year. So there is a way to make it work as an investment. The long term stuff is the tricky stuff because my crystal ball broke. That is why I ask you guys what you think.

Ignoring value entirely, I would like to make a black hardtop 88 GTA with red leather, digital dash and 6 speed stick, and put the whole body on a strong Chevy Corvette C5 chassis, and put in either a turbo LS3 motor or a stage 2 buick (if I decide to put up with the vibration). The idea is to have my cake (the GTA) and eat it too (have an actual frame under the car and a roof over it), and have at least 500 wheel horsepower on pump gas with a silent exhaust system. That would be an everyday driver with ac and no outward indication that it is not 100% stock. I'd rather have that than just about any exotic except a Porsche 959 or Jaguar XJ220.

Does anyone think that any of the cars from my list of favorites has any potential for long term appreciation?
 
For the guy who asked about picture of the ragtop I attached two pics. One is 4mb and one is 6mb. I think we all have broadband so It should be ok. In the pic that shows only the side of the car, I photoshopped myself out of that picture. I used to be sitting in the car. So if you notice some irregularities around the area where a person would have been, it is my sloppy photoshop cloning that caused that. I'm sure none of you want my silly looking mug in the middle of your picture. I looked really dumb in that picture.
 

Attachments

  • 20th_Anniversary_TransAm_Convertible_One_of_2.png
    20th_Anniversary_TransAm_Convertible_One_of_2.png
    5.9 MB · Views: 27
  • 20th_Anniversary__Turbo_TransAm_Convertible_august_2009_9,000_original_miles2.png
    20th_Anniversary__Turbo_TransAm_Convertible_august_2009_9,000_original_miles2.png
    4 MB · Views: 27
I paid under 20K for a 9200 mile original (now has over 10,000 and will have over 100,000 when I'm done!) so your pricing may be inflated.

However, with a ragtop you obviously have a much more valuable car than any of us (assuming all else equal ... miles, condition, etc.) My profile pic shows a rare (1 of 1 known to exist) GTO Convertible and that rarity of desirable drivetrain options with a ragtop makes the value go way up.
 
i think under 20k for a 9k mile perfect car is about right. Those are the best ones to buy because as long as they are not drag strip beaters, they have all the newness that you need without the added cost of a car on MSO.

I was talking about cars with less than 300 miles on MSO costing about 30 but again It is just a guess. These cars are what I sometimes call "in the wrapper" because no one has owned them and they still should have the plastic on the seats and steering wheel and carpet. I figure with the dealers asking 40 to 45, they are probably worth 30 in the real world, in a situation where the buyer wants to sell the car within a year of listing it for sale.

No matter how low the mileage is, and even on cars on MSO, the steering wheels get damaged if the wrapper is removed, because of all the people who moved the car have these big watches with sharp edges on the bracelets and it gouges the leather on the wheel. I hate that. Ruin a $400 wheel in two seconds. I bought a new old stock wheel just in case this ever happened to mine. They also slide in on the seat bolsters and their belts can gouge the finish off the leather very quickly. It is possible to keep these surfaces perfect almost forever if care is taken. When my third car (which I bought new) had 240k miles on it, and ten years of use, the seats had no sign of wear, no cracking, fading, darkening, nothing. Carpets were perfect too, and steering wheel. This is a car that sat outside everyday for 5 years. That is why I wonder how these cars get all torn up. Steering wheels with leather coming off, and tears in the seats, and the headliner all torn up. How does this happen and why doesn't it happen to my cars?


I had dark tint that blocked UV light and a reflective windshield shade too. Plus, my spoiler never cracked at all, and the headlight motors never had any trouble. In fact, the only thing that that car ever needed was a few sets of tires, one battery, one set of front brake rotors (vibration), a belt, a power steering pulley, and a power antenna which I never fixed because I knew it would just break again. and the rear main seal which of course I didn't fix. that leaked almost from the time it was new.

I never changed the brake pads or the radiator hoses. And get this...I only changed the oil 5 times, and it was not synthetic. (Synthetic made the rear main leak too much.) The car never broke and never ever was touched by a mechanic. This makes me think that it is mechanics that cause cars to break. I believe my car would have done another 240k with no problem as long as no mechanics got near it. I only sold it because of the body damage from hit and runs.

I did baby the car 95% of the time, but the other 5%, (when I wasn't cruising on the highway for work) I drove the hell out of it, and it was a particularly fast one. Much faster than the other 2 that I had before it. It was all stock except no cat and no air box. and a 160 thermostat. Stock chip even.
 
I have more pics, if anyone is interested. THere is also a nice one in "The Standard Catolog of Firebird 1967-2002" By john Gunnel on page 141.

That is a book that we all should have, because is is cheap to buy and has tons of color pics and pretty accurate info and it is fun to read.

The only thing I hate about my car is that it has a tape pinstripe (gold), and the damn stripe is right above the ground effects, so it draws attention to the crease where the ground effects attach. you can't even see the stripe unless you look closely, and it just looks like a shadow from a distance. I hate it. I thought of removing it, but it was put on by either the dealer or ASC, and every magazine and book with the car in it has that stripe there. People say you chould not change the car from the way it was delivered. That is one of the reasons I didn't remove the original tires. I just got repop wheels and put new tires on them.
 
and the rear main seal which of course I didn't fix. that leaked almost from the time it was new.

I guess I got lucky on this one. 35K miles and untold 23psi+ 1/4 runs and I bet there is maybe a spot no bigger than a dime under the car at any given time.
 
Back
Top