Craigslist Ad for "1972 tii"

[02Les]

It was for sale June in the ClassicAutoTrader as a 1976 2002.

 

1976 BMW 2002                                                  Jun ‘20

 

$35,000

 

Private Seller

Temecula, CA 92592

Classic Car Overview

1976 BMW 2002.  One-of-a-kind; great condition.  5-speed (320i), twin Weber 40 DCOE sidedraft carbs, Schrick 284 cam, Recaro seats, aluminum radiator, Wilwood BBK (F), Bilsteins, Momo, electric sunroof, Pertronix electronic ignition, more…

Mileage 220,000 miles

 

https://classics.autotrader.com/classic-cars/1976/bmw/2002/101335049

 

[Conserv]

30 minutes ago, 02Les said:

It was for sale June in the ClassicAutoTrader as a 1976 2002.

 

1976 BMW 2002                                                  Jun ‘20

 

$35,000

 

Private Seller

Temecula, CA 92592

Classic Car Overview

1976 BMW 2002.  One-of-a-kind; great condition.  5-speed (320i), twin Weber 40 DCOE sidedraft carbs, Schrick 284 cam, Recaro seats, aluminum radiator, Wilwood BBK (F), Bilsteins, Momo, electric sunroof, Pertronix electronic ignition, more…

Mileage 220,000 miles

 

https://classics.autotrader.com/classic-cars/1976/bmw/2002/101335049

 

At which time it had 220,000 miles on it. Now it’s got 49,000 miles. Of course, that’s the mileage on “May 1972 car” with a cross-hair speedometer that wasn’t invented until September 1973. ??

 

It already had the twin Webers. Any hope that engine number 2761619 happens to be present — to, however-vaguely, justify the “re-VINing” — is swiftly fleeting.

 

Something bad happened between June and August 2020, and the only work it might have entailed is placing the steering column pad of VIN 2761619 on “some ‘76 2002”.

 

Thanks, Les, as always!

 

This was a particularly good one!

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

[Gordon]

On 8/31/2020 at 3:16 PM, 02Les said:

It was for sale June in the ClassicAutoTrader as a 1976 2002.

 

1976 BMW 2002                                                  Jun ‘20

 

$35,000

 

Private Seller

Temecula, CA 92592

Classic Car Overview

1976 BMW 2002.  One-of-a-kind; great condition.  5-speed (320i), twin Weber 40 DCOE sidedraft carbs, Schrick 284 cam, Recaro seats, aluminum radiator, Wilwood BBK (F), Bilsteins, Momo, electric sunroof, Pertronix electronic ignition, more…

Mileage 220,000 miles

 

https://classics.autotrader.com/classic-cars/1976/bmw/2002/101335049

 

No wonder the VIN was changed. There is no way a 76 2002 will pass CA smog test with DCOE Webers and a 284 cam. It would flunk the visual inspection as soon as the smog tech opened the hood.  Now it's registered as a 72 so no smog test is required on change of ownership.  Only 76 and newer cars in CA have to pass CA smog test biennially or upon change of ownership.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Gordon

[Mike Self]

4 minutes ago, Gordon said:

No wonder the VIN was changed. There is no way a 76 2002 will pass CA smog test with DCOE Webers and a 284 cam.  Now it's registered as a 72 so no smog test is required on change of ownership.  Only 76 and newer cars in CA have to pass CA smog test biennially or upon change of ownership.

Astute observation, Gordon...Betcha the June buyer tried to register it in CA and found out the bad news...but if it came from in-state, wouldn't the seller have had to provide smog test passing grades in order to sell it?  

 

As a modified '76, it's actually a nice car...tasteful mods, nice appearance (we'll ignore the pop-up sunroof, which was probably perpetrated on the poor car back in the 1970s or 80s).  I think what has everyone augured is the blatant misrepresentation.  

 

mike

[Mark92131]

5 minutes ago, Mike Self said:

wouldn't the seller have had to provide smog test passing grades in order to sell it?

 

In CA, sellers of cars 1976 and newer are required to smog their cars, however unsophisticated buyers don't always know this rule and turn over their hard earned cash in exchange for a Bill of Sale and a pink slip.  When they get to the DMV, they get the bad news and the Seller is in the wind.  Most of those 1976 cars that can't pass smog get sold on out of CA, which isn't a bad thing for east coasters looking for Square-Tales with minimum rust.

 

Mark92131

[Son of Marty]

OK, I'm confused, the ad states it's a one owner car and then later states there are no know reports of prior accidents or know areas of filler. Wouldn't the one owner know this with out reports? You can see why I'm confused.

[Gordon]

1 hour ago, Son of Marty said:

OK, I'm confused, the ad states it's a one owner car and then later states there are no know reports of prior accidents or know areas of filler. Wouldn't the one owner know this with out reports? You can see why I'm confused.

CARFAX doesn't work for cars with a seven digit VIN. You would need to do a very thorough pre-purchase inspection and go through the maintenance receipt history. 

[Son of Marty]

We really need a sarcasm font around here.

[chargin]

5 hours ago, Conserv said:

don't believe there's any 1972 here, except for the VIN, unless the block is from VIN 2761619, which could be...

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

That's pretty much what I was sayin ?

[jp5Touring]

The only thing that says 72 is the owner.  Wonder if anyone has tried to contact him.

I get the idea someone thought they had a quick flip. $$$

[TobyB]

I'm still flabbergasted that a squarie can break 4 digits in the cash department.

 

Asking, I guess...

 

I mean, really, it has RUST on the fuel pump blockoff plate.  Err, if it's a 320 engine,

why did it have a blockoff plate?

 

Oh, so many questions, not the least of which are how the Museum of Modern Art got involved with the steering wheel.

 

t

in 1972 was riding a tricycle.

By 1976, had a banana seat and a sissy bar.

[roadhog0]

One owner my *ss.... Title doesn't show squat, just that it was transferred in 98. Therefore, not 1 owner. It's like these folks can't do math... Crappy car flippers drive me insane!

[Tommy]

15 hours ago, '76mintgrün'02 said:

PICTURES TALKS

Is this the only thing right? Misspelled though. 

Since the text really doesn't say anything true about this car.

June add seems legit.

[dlhoovler]

But... Is it just me, or is that a snorkel-free nose? ?

[Conserv]

2 hours ago, dlhoovler said:

But... Is it just me, or is that a snorkel-free nose? ?

Dave,

 

My ‘73 tii has a snorkel-free nose, but it’s a used nose that appears to have been installed at the time the car was over-painted Malaga. The ‘73 was originally Inka but the nose, left fender, and hood show no traces of Inka under the Malaga. This Malaga over-paint was done in the 1980’s and the car was not registered from 1988 until I purchased it in 2014. So, was the painter or owner fastidious in sticking with a snorkel-free nose? Well, there was no masking done for the Malaga over-paint — the windows and lights were crudely masked, but nothing else. And the car doesn’t appear to have been washed or sanded before the Malaga was applied: you can remove the Malaga with a thumbnail. I know. I’ve been picking at the paint for 6 years. So why did my ‘73 get a snorkel-free nose? In my opinion: sheer luck. It was the first or the cheapest nose they could find. You have to assume that, 40 years ago, some percentage of used noses were from tii’s.
 

And perhaps a nose from a ‘74 tii was the first or the cheapest nose they could find for the red ‘76 now known as VIN 2761619...

Below: first two photos show the trunk of my ‘73 after 6 years of “scraping with my thumbnail”. It was entirely Malaga when I purchased it. Last two photos show the Malaga paint job. If it’s not Malaga in the photos, it simply means I’ve fussed with it during the last 6 years. This is my evidence that the presence of a snorkel-free nose on my ‘73 was entirely accidental (no pun intended)!

 

Best regards,

 

Steve