TheSamba.com :: View topic

Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:15 pm

Quote: The eBay auction for this 1963 Pontiac LeMans Tempest started out innocently enough. Obtained after owner died. Appears to have original interior but no motor, no transmission. Body has a little rust and some dents. There's stuff in the trunk, but no key to open it. Opening bid nine days ago was a mere $500. After one week, eBay seller 123ecklin will pocket $226,521 before auction fees. What happened between Day 1 and Day 9 is an amazing story.

Quote: But what he didn't know is that the car is one of only six 1963 Pontiac LeMans Tempest Super Duty coupes ever made.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/10/ebay-find-of-the-day-1963-lemans-tempest-sells-for-226-521/

Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:34 pm

HOLY CRAP!!!!!. To me it looks like an ugly rusty piece of crap and I wouldn't have given it much thought......wish it was MY ugly rusty piece of crap so I could sell it.

Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:02 pm

Quote: He turned down an offer of $160,000 to end the auction early because he feared getting negative eBay feedback. That decision paid off. With only seven minutes remaining, the highest offer was $95,000. When the virtual gavel fell, eBayer ccsi2000 had bought a very rare, if a little rusty, LeMans for $226,521

I would have taken that $160,000 so fast it would have made your head spin.

Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:21 pm

coad wrote: Quote: He turned down an offer of $160,000 to end the auction early because he feared getting negative eBay feedback. That decision paid off. With only seven minutes remaining, the highest offer was $95,000. When the virtual gavel fell, eBayer ccsi2000 had bought a very rare, if a little rusty, LeMans for $226,521

I would have taken that $160,000 so fast it would have made your head spin.

That's because you're not a Pontiac guy. Some people will spend ridiculous money on rare cars. I checked out ccsi2000's history and he's a real high roller. He paid $16,100 for some Pontiac RA V heads and intake. He appears to have some serious spending cash on hand.

Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:27 pm

The "Money" shot.

I guess the GTO was not the first Muscle Car.

Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:40 pm

Glenn wrote: The "Money" shot.

I guess the GTO was not the first Muscle Car.

I dunno. A triple 2-barrel 389 in a '64 beats a single 4 barrel 326 in a '63 any day of the week in my book.

Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:51 pm

ovalteen wrote: ...wish it was MY ugly rusty piece of crap so I could sell it.

You and me both. It'd be like buying some ugly painting for the frame at a yard sale, and finding a Rembrant or similiar matted behind it.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:13 am

Damn lucky he didn't just throw it on Craigslist for that first $500.00.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:05 am

Lidpainter wrote: Glenn wrote:

I guess the GTO was not the first Muscle Car.

I dunno. A triple 2-barrel 389 in a '64 beats a single 4 barrel 326 in a '63 any day of the week in my book.

But the 63 was first.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:07 am

cdennisg wrote: Lidpainter wrote: Glenn wrote:

I guess the GTO was not the first Muscle Car.

I dunno. A triple 2-barrel 389 in a '64 beats a single 4 barrel 326 in a '63 any day of the week in my book.

But the 63 was first.
egg-xactly.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:29 am

And smaller/lighter/faster!

Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:32 pm

I'm surprised it was just a 326 - I thought all the Poncho drag cars of that era had 421's?

The first muscle car? That would be a thread unto itself! I say it was the 1914 Stutz Bearcat

Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:18 pm

Glenn wrote: cdennisg wrote: Lidpainter wrote: Glenn wrote:

I guess the GTO was not the first Muscle Car.

I dunno. A triple 2-barrel 389 in a '64 beats a single 4 barrel 326 in a '63 any day of the week in my book.

But the 63 was first.
egg-xactly.

Not really. It doesn't really fit the definition of "musclecar". If it did, the '64 GTO wouldn't have been a defining moment in american automotive history. Thanks for playing.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:53 pm

Quote: Not really. It doesn't really fit the definition of "musclecar". If it did, the '64 GTO wouldn't have been a defining moment in american automotive history. Thanks for playing.

OK - I'm in. Define "musclecar."

Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:06 pm

ho-dad wrote: Quote: Not really. It doesn't really fit the definition of "musclecar". If it did, the '64 GTO wouldn't have been a defining moment in american automotive history. Thanks for playing.

OK - I'm in. Define "musclecar."

In a nutshell it's an intermediate american car with a "big car" engine. It's not about just being small or fast otherwise it would be all about the Corvette or a Chrysler 300F or any number of other cars of the era.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:09 pm

So a 326 isn't big enough? It is an intermediate sized car. Just wondering, as it does seem to still fit the description, and it was a factory built race car. That seems "muscle-y" enough.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:23 pm

Quote: In a nutshell it's an intermediate american car with a "big car" engine. It's not about just being small or fast otherwise it would be all about the Corvette or a Chrysler 300F or any number of other cars of the era.

Well, that would describe the early Mopar SuperStockers or even the Model A coupes with the V8.

In my mind, a musclecar is not only one that had the performance but also was marketed as such. That's why I think the Stutz Bearcat was the first - a stripped down roadster with a race inspired engine that was advertised to be the baddest thing on the road.

I also think the original 300's were musclecars - all their marketing was about its performance both on the NASCAR tracks and on the Bonneville saltflats.

The term "musclecar" is pretty subjective, I guess.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:47 pm

ho-dad wrote: Quote: In a nutshell it's an intermediate american car with a "big car" engine. It's not about just being small or fast otherwise it would be all about the Corvette or a Chrysler 300F or any number of other cars of the era.

Well, that would describe the early Mopar SuperStockers or even the Model A coupes with the V8.

In my mind, a musclecar is not only one that had the performance but also was marketed as such. That's why I think the Stutz Bearcat was the first - a stripped down roadster with a race inspired engine that was advertised to be the baddest thing on the road.

I also think the original 300's were musclecars - all their marketing was about its performance both on the NASCAR tracks and on the Bonneville saltflats.

The term "musclecar" is pretty subjective, I guess.

Absolutely it's subjective. It could be argued that any number of cars are "musclecars" or the "first" musclecar. The 300s were big cars and although they were fast, they were just to big to fit the criteria. The Lemans looks like a big car, and by today's standards it would be but back then it was an intermediate. John Delorean decided to take the 389 out of Pontiac's full sized cars, drop it into the Lemans, steal a cool name from Ferrari and target the youth market. They were cheap and fast. A 326 wasn't a horrible engine but it didn't really make the Lemans stand out in a crowd. I currently own two GTOs and have owned several others over the years but I won't sit here and try to tell you that this was a new idea or that there was nothing on the road that could touch the GTO because that would be less than accurate.

Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:11 pm

Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:40 pm

shit balls