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.
Ed,
I think that is why so many people want to belive that the orange car is the other Zl1. Because it closes the book on the history of the holy grail of corvettes. But that is what we thought we had when the white car was deemed to be real and here we are opening the book again discussing the orange car. I am not sure if the other Zl1 is still out there or long gone but I am convinced there was another bookend to the yellow car and it wasn't the white or the orange one.
Just read through the Motor Trend article on this car. Found this interesting:"Though it has complete factory documentation, and an ownership history verifiable through its original and present owners, Bruce is taking another big step in that direction. "I've been working with David Burroughs," he says of his work with the founder of Bloomington Gold. "His company is called Prove-It, and he is completing authentication of the car now."
David explains further. "The issue is to determine if we can provide the degree of probability that the car is a no-doubt-about-it authentic ZL1. When you get into cars of this type, what the owner wants to do is have more than just his word, if he can have it proven conclusively." (As of this writing, the work of David and Prove-It's team of experts was still in progress.)
So why would the owner sell the car at auction now and not mention the findings friom David Burroughs? This article ran in 2014 so I assume the reasearch was completed and as part of David's research I am sure he spoke with John Maher the original owner.
If you were going to fake a ZL-1, why would you use a car that stretched believability given the accepted timeframe?
Secondly, why do we say the documentation makes or breaks a car's authenticity when they could have been lost to time and recreated (albeit clumsily) for this actual ZL-1?
The folks arguing this is a fake have a tough row to hoe in discrediting it, as well as the owner claiming it's authentic, because we're talking about such a rarity where multiple examples never existed in order for TFP patterns to emerge. Was an L-88 or a ZL-1 treated just like a base model moving down the line with the same input of options for the tank sheet or might it have required personal attention to enter the order?
I realize I'm throwing out a lot of questions, that some here would surely feel are trivial or downright erroneously based, however, what if this is a real factory ZL-1 and is discounted for a few sheets of paper?
Well it's not just a few sheets of papers that are causing all the experts that study these cars and the way thet were ordered, assembled and dlivered to declare this is not a facrory built ZL1. Yes the made up paperwok with differnet engine numbers and inconsisent tank stickers and the wrong id number on the window sticker tarnishes the car, but the fact that the car does not have the original motor and originaly was described that it did is another issue. Not all of these cars have factory docs but you can still confirm the authenticty my analyzing the engine stamping vs other examples built in that timeframe. This engine was studied by every expert regarding typical factory prodcution and deemed to not be a factory stamped motor. I don't have a dog in this fight, in fact I would love to see this car deemed the other ZL1 as long as there is factual evidence that it left the factory as a ZL1. As of now there is not one piece of evidence that has been presented that ties this car to the other Zl1.The truth is there were a number of L88 ordered cars that were raced wth the Zl1 block/engine. Such as the 69 ZL1 BFG Car: http://www.proteam-corvette.com/cars...69-BFG-L88.htmhttps://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/m...orvette/192318 Ths BFG race car was acurately described as a factory delivered L88 and raced with a ZL1 engine. To be honest that is how this car should be described. I would have kept the gulf racing paint scheme and the side exhaust and not restored it. I would have tossed all the fake paperwork in the trash can and refference the internal GM docs in the auction that list this car as an L88 with M40 and feel good about listing the car honestly. I am confident that if this car sells at auction it is only a matter of time before the new buyer trys to get the car judged and certfied realizing no one will judge it and then turns to legal action once they are disapointed.
As of now there is not one piece of evidence that has been presented that ties this car to the other Zl1.The truth is there were a number of L88 ordered cars that were raced wth the Zl1 block/engine. Such as the 69 ZL1 BFG Car: http://www.proteam-corvette.com/cars...69-BFG-L88.htmhttps://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/m...orvette/192318 Ths BFG race car was acurately described as a factory delivered L88 and raced with a ZL1 engine. To be honest that is how this car should be described. I would have kept the gulf racing paint scheme and the side exhaust and not restored it. I would have tossed all the fake paperwork in the trash can and refference the internal GM docs in the auction that list this car as an L88 with M40 and feel good about listing the car honestly. I am confident that if this car sells at auction it is only a matter of time before the new buyer trys to get the car judged and certfied realizing no one will judge it and then turns to legal action once they are disapointed.
Thank you for once again explaining your thoughts on this. I agree that they should have kept the Gulf theme and its condition as a race car. It may not be the long-lost ZL-1 but an L-88 is no shabby piece of history!
I think I saw someone mention lack of "broach marks". I am not a Metalurgist or any kind of expert in anything at all. But, with aluminum being much softer, would an aluminum block be put on a broaching machine like a cast iron block? Would someone knowledgeable expect to see broach marks?
I spend a little time on a site that sometimes discusses the ZL1 Camaros and I don't recall broach marks being mentioned. Did the aluminum blocks even have broach marks?
I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to learn.
I think I saw someone mention lack of "broach marks". I am not a Metalurgist or any kind of expert in anything at all. But, with aluminum being much softer, would an aluminum block be put on a broaching machine like a cast iron block? Would someone knowledgeable expect to see broach marks?
I spend a little time on a site that sometimes discusses the ZL1 Camaros and I don't recall broach marks being mentioned. Did the aluminum blocks even have broach marks?
I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to learn.
Rick
Aluminum blocks were not broached like the iron blocks. The decks were finished with a milling machine leaving circular marks like decking machines used by regular machine shops. In other words, the circular machining marks that we don't want to see on original iron blocks are the correct surface for an aluminum block..
Well, John and Stan,
Here is a problem with both of those tank stickers and why you really can not compare them to one another accurately.
They are produced too far from one another in the production line. The later vin tank sticker for the yellow car is correctly formatted with the “inline” typing for THAT time frame. At this point they changed formatting several times along with other bits of information on tank stickers as the programmers for GM went in and changed things for other cars in the GM lineup for the new 1970 run but of course the Corvette ran long in 1969. They also did many other updates between the time the orange car and yellow cars were built.
Agreed. I think the number of constant changes (outside the control of the plant/assembly line/processes) is often underappreciated by those not used to how large factories and computer programmers/systems work. These things change at a completely different rate/time period than production nuances like "model years". Constant change happened.
Further, given factory documentation indicates the first RPO ZL1 was around December 9, 1969, this indicates the Monaco Orange car was likely the "pilot car". This means considerable variation may exist between how the options might be entered into the computer system, or how those options were configured for printout on the tank sticker, etc.
You have to look at all the evidence as a whole, instead of pointing out various flaws and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The question at hand: does the preponderance of the evidence, TAKEN AS A WHOLE (especially all the new evidence from GM that seems to address/resolve some of the earlier head-scratchers about the car) have a sufficiently high probability that this is the other RPO ZL1? I wasn't always convinced as I noodled on the data/photos/controversy/etc over the years, but I am convinced now that so many stars have aligned and formerly inconceivable facts were proven wrong (e.g. that no RPO ZL1 could have been produced with closed-chamber heads as one of many examples).
Another head-scratcher that doesn't seem to come up often:
It is well documented that John Maher traded in his nearly brand new 2,400 mile 1968 L88 Roadster 194678S410937 for his Monaco Orange 1969 Roadster. His 1968 did not have a M40...so if he just wanted a M40 for drag racing it would have been easier to just swap that in. So, if it wasn't for some sort of significant upgrade/unobtanium from buying the 1969...why do the trade at all and just not stick with the 1968 L88?? The opportunity to get a RPO ZL1 certainly would be a justifiable reason...but otherwise I can't think of many reasons to do this trade.
(as an aside Tony Faulk ended up owning Maher's 1968 L88 at some point)
Just trying to sort-out documented evidence from internet rumor, that's all. Many people have said that they've seen multiple tank stickers for the orange car, but no one (so far) has presented any photos or links to support that claim.
Personally, i don't have a firm conviction yet about the tank sticker. As ed427vette has said (i think), everything about it seems legit (the print type, the margins, the dates, the order number, the blank axle line then doubled-up at the bottom) ... with the possible exception of the L88 absence.
Agreed. I've seen two photos of the SAME sticker, but never anything where the image of the stickers was different. One black-and-white photo from before it was removed (which still had ident number on it) and one color photo where the typical top left corner breaks off.
Thanks Greg for the period insight into the Daytona Yellow ZL1 as a Hechler employee. Fantastic stuff!
I talked to Holtie's daughter a few years ago about the Yellow ZL1. From what I understand, Holtie and someone else (I'd have to check my notes for who...perhaps Ted Patrick) drove from VA to the St. Louis plant to actually inspect the car before making an offer on it. It was reportedly Holtie (Holt Rotella) that convinced Patrick to buy it. Hechler agreed to buy the ZL1 on November 26, 1969.
Well, as I said, the second design L-88s were already built in November (maybe four to six of them) so that certainly precedes the ZL-1 in question by a month. And if you take the Heritage Center documents at face value, it could simply be a first design L-88 with an aluminum block… So it works out in a similar fashion. My money would be on a second design engine though. No proof, just a hunch.
This is such a fantastic thread! I've been reading and re-reading all day...I was offline for a few days and now its work to catch up.
However, doesn't the GM Heritage records address this by the fact production switched back to the "first design" style L88 engines with closed-chamber heads for all M40 L88 type cars starting November 26th, 1968?! They listed five L88s that received the earlier style during that time period.
Aluminum blocks were not broached like the iron blocks. The decks were finished with a milling machine leaving circular marks like decking machines used by regular machine shops. In other words, the circular machining marks that we don't want to see on original iron blocks are the correct surface for an aluminum block..
And that doesn’t begin to address why the stamp is off as well.
Agreed. I've seen two photos of the SAME sticker, but never anything where the image of the stickers was different. One black-and-white photo from before it was removed (which still had ident number on it) and one color photo where the typical top left corner breaks off.
They aren’t the same and that doesn’t explain why the photo WITHOUT the ident number came first and the black and white photo WITH the ident number came second and AFTER the NICB database was accessed (apparently for the ident number - didn’t realize that I could discuss this). There’s a reason NCRS declined to authenticate this paperwork.
rynoshark this is probably one of the best threads on the forum this year, great way to close out 2022! I have read all your comments and the issue I have is there is zero verifed documentation linking identification number 221864 and vin 1946796710209 to being a factory built ZL1. Outside of all of the circumstantial evidence put together by the current owner/auction company and others to close the loop on the backstory of this car, there is no empirical evidence, none. Shouldn't a car that is being represented as the other facory built ZL1 and a 7 figure car have bulletproof dcumention? Yes it should. It is not up to me, the forum members, or NCRS and Bloomington Gold judges to proivide proof that this isn't a ZL1. We aren't the ones making the claim that this is a facory delivered ZL1. The burden of proof is on the seller who is representing a car with made up paperwork, a restamped block and some internal GM docs that show it was an L88 M40 but nothing pointing to the fact it is a real ZL1. If what you say is true that there was an early automatic ZL1 built, then car numbers 10148, 10216 and 10255 which were the other L88 M40 cars listed in the GM internal overheating doc have eqiual claims to being delivered as a Zl1 since there is no evidence to support car number 10209's claims, correct? Since you are 100% convinced that this car is the other real ZL1, it would be great to have your thoughts on the following:
1. Why has every notable judge and a number of people who worked at the St. Louis Corvette plant deemed this car to not be a factory built ZL1? This includes the most knowledagle experts in the world with the highest knowledge regarding the factory production process, factory documentatioon, engine stamping etc. I have personally spoke to a number of them and not one of them is willing to to support this car as the other ZL1.
2. Why has John the original owner not provided a signed letter authenticating the car? Why isn't there a video of John with the current owner talking about the authenticity of the car? If you were the seller wouldn't you want him to be a part of this auction to validate past claims?
3. Why are there two different dealer invoices signed with inconsistent option prices and different engine numbers listed?
4. If this car was 100% a real ZL1 why was David Burroughs hired to prove it and where are his docunented findings listed in the auction files? Why hasn't he come forward and declared it to be a real ZL1?
5. Why has Kevin Mackay, who restored the car not come out and 100 % backed the originality of this car like he did for the gold L88 coupe that sold this year?: https://bringatrailer.com/listing/19...88-corvette-2/
6. Why was the car on display at Bloomington Gold in 2013 by the current owner with a reprodcution window sticker that had an identification number different than the one that is in the black and white copy of the tank sticker if the black and white copy is supposedly from years ago?
7. Why did the black and white copy of the tank sticker surface only after the real identification number was recently discovered? Roy shared the facts of the recent NICB search for this car. Why did a black and white copy of that photo supposedly survive but not the photo?
These are just a few of a long list of issues with the documention, timeline and history of this car. Like I mentioned a number of times in this thread, show me one piece of REAL documention that has the id number, vin and the ZL1 option proving this is a real ZL1 and I am open, like many to accepting this car as the real thing. As of now there has been zero evidence presented, just speculation.
This is such a fantastic thread! I've been reading and re-reading all day...I was offline for a few days and now its work to catch up.
However, doesn't the GM Heritage records address this by the fact production switched back to the "first design" style L88 engines with closed-chamber heads for all M40 L88 type cars starting November 26th, 1968?! They listed five L88s that received the earlier style during that time period.
‘They never “switched” back to anything. GM built up to six open chamber engines for Daytona in November 1968. My only reason for mentioning it was to show that the open chamber heads, cam, etc. WERE available. The rest of the L-88s were closed chamber until June 1969 or so. So if a ZL-1 was intended, the parts were there, they didn’t need the Heritage Center docs to OK the retrofit.
Doesn’t explain the lack of a different broadcast code for what would have been a substantially different engine.
Doesn’t explain one (perhaps two) serious errors on all of the tank stickers presented.
Doesn’t explain two very different sales orders.
Doesn’t explain a restamped engine being claimed as the original.
Doesn’t explain the NICB information being accessed and ident number being presented on documents after the fact.
If there is any question as to the reason why some people have issues accepting this car as a ZL-1, there are your answers. As I said, I had a lot more faith in John saying, “That’s how I bought it.” as opposed to all of this “paperwork” that was created after the fact.
The GM Heritage Center docs support an L-88/M-40… That’s what I think it was delivered as. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but all of the above shenanigans certainly haven’t helped it’s cause.
12-30-2022, 06:45 PM
