Obviously Not "1st Year"

[Go240Zags]

Here's a 240Z listed on eBay with a bit of false advertising. Listed as a 1970, but doesn't have the right hatch vents, console, etc. Also says has factory a/c. Never know what to ask a seller a question about his info so I don't sound preachy. So I just asked if he was sure about the year, and mentioned the hatch vents. We'll see how/if he responds.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4516758604&category=6187

[280z]

he didnt even include the vin. that sounds fishy

[Bambikiller240]

Gary: Just ask him for the VIN. Tell him you are interested and want to do a CARFAX check on it or that you want to confirm there are no leins against it. Of course, you and I know that you can't get a CARFAX for so old of a car, but he may not know.

[Fun_in_my_z]

Sounds like a good idea. I dont think i would buy from him if he cant be honest. But at the same time i wouldnt mind having the car eather.

[e_racer1999]

does sound a lot fishy.... the car is pretty nice though...

[EScanlon]

AFAIK, none of the Series I (as we like to refer to them here in the U.S.) were Automatic. It wasn't until the 71 models arrived that the Automatic was made available.

But that aside, why must we presume that the seller has a malicious intent when the information he gives is not to OUR standard of knowledge? Many of you were just as naive when you first came on this site, and there's a couple here and there that need signs reminding them to breathe in and out. This guy may have just owned and enjoyed the car and is simply passing on what he was told. He didn't question it when he bought it, since he may have bought it for the looks, the performance or..... , and he never cared to know more. He may have simply driven and enjoyed his car. There are people like that.

2¢

Enrique

[Bambikiller240]

ALL of this is quite true, however the absence of a VIN in his (or any) car sale auction is suspicious (but NOT necessarily MALicious) to me. Always has been, always will be. Maybe it's just me but I expect that to be divulged prior to the sale of any car.

Currently the auction indicates "rare factory authorized a/c" and claims mileage to be "100". Pic of the Right Rear Quarter Panel shows considerable body rot that he doesn't mention in the description.

Oh BTW, as a point of reference; ZHome.com indicates that the first 240Z's with Auto trans were "produced" in 08/70 and last of the Series 1 body style was "produced" in 01/71

Z POLICE, what do you think about this car?

[1 Bravo 6]

Hmmmm,

Didn't seem all that fishy to me.

I'm with you Enrique.

Does anyone have a 260 console in their 240 ?????????

Anyone dropped the Auto and replaced it with a manual ????????

Who has discarded the original wheels for something more "showy" and "shiny" ?????.

Why be so eager to point the finger ?????

Rick.

[Go240Zags]

Hmmmm,

Didn't seem all that fishy to me.

I'm with you Enrique.

Does anyone have a 260 console in their 240 ?????????

Anyone dropped the Auto and replaced it with a manual ????????

Who has discarded the original wheels for something more "showy" and "shiny" ?????.

Why be so eager to point the finger ?????

Rick.

I don't think I was pointing a finger, but when he went out of his way to say it was a "first year" car I think any prospective buyer would like to know he was mistaken. I realize I knew very little before I started hanging out here, but it should be easy to read the year off the title. I asked him what the vehicle plate inside the door said. He has corrected his auction and appologized because it seems several people have pointed out his mistake.

I quote with one of the questions he received:

"Q: YOu might want to make sure that title matches the car. The datsun is not a 1970, looks to be a late 71 to 73 not sure though without more pics. answered on: Jan-09-05"

"A: ooops its a 72 my bad!I misread the title 1972! sorry about the misunderstanding."

[EScanlon]

While I agree that the vagueness of the information given, the claims that to the knowledgeable eye are obviously misleading, and the plain lack of information would and do cause a careful buyer to slow down and evaluate properly.

I also have run accross sellers that have absolutely little to no knowledge of the items they are selling, because they are, literally selling it blind based on what they got told. Sometimes this is because they themselves were mis-informed, and other times it's because they asked around and got told the "everyone knows" type of information.

While you are right about the information being readily available (title, registration), you would be surprised at how little some people know about selling something effectively. Selling on the internet adds many factors that many sellers have difficulty in grasping. How many times have you seen people apologizing for having lousy photos? Or for information being "as far as I know" or "from what I've been told" type of info?

That he has responded and corrected his listing shows that he's amenable to the suggestions given. That at least indicates his willingness to have a good sale.

My whole point on denigrating poor ads, is that there have been occasions where the seller proved to be one of our own. Then we get to watch the written tapdance of people trying to justify their previous post whilst not loosing face and trying to lessen whatever "insult" or nasty comments they may have made.

Many times there is a very good and innocent reason for the poorness of the ad.

However, the main value of people posting about ads they encounter, whether good or bad, is that we can help to educate potential buyers and try to uncover the truly bad apples.

Enrique