I need a little input from some of you that have more experience with C1's than I do. I have found what appears to be a 1962 survivor. The odometer reads about 37K miles, and I've gathered all of the numbers from the car. It doesn't appear to be a numbers matching car, but really strikes me as odd is the way that the pedals are wore and the wear on the carpet. I'm not sure if the photos attached are indicative of something with only 37K miles on it or not, so hopefully someone can chime in and give me a little feedback. Should I be worried about it? Or will actual mileage be a factor at all in the value of the car. The condition of the car overall is very good, but not perfect by any means.

A little history...

Car appears to be a second owner car
I found a tire receipt in the truck from 1971 - mileage there is listed at about 11K miles.
Last time the car was running was 1978, to anyone's recollection.
Engine has not been turned over to my knowledge since then.
It is fairly complete, with only a few items missing, mostly cosmetic (shift pattern plate, fresh air intake hose)

Have a look at the pictures and tell me if I should be worried - I know I will have my work cut out for me if I do buy it.


Thanks in advance for your feedback.

 

to much wear for 37k
most likely 137

 

I'd buy it and the Esso sign in a minute. The old tires are a sure sign it has been sitting a while....looks like a repaint too..

 

I'd worry a lot less about the number of miles and more about the TYPE of miles. If it was a Northern car driven on salt-laden roads or near the ocean it could be big trouble.
Look for a rotten frame, old (bad) wiring, and, body damage.

 

or 237

 

who knows the actual mileage... See if it turns over. Why was it parked?

Also, ditto on the sign. That thing is cool! Oh yea, so is the 1962.

 

Get them to throw that sign in with the car. You can make back some nice coin if you sell it.

 

What numbers did you find on the engine? Pictures of engine?

 

Here are some engine pictures. I found the block, cylinder heads, intake manifold, distributor, generator, radiator, exhaust manifold numbers. Like I said, it's definitely not a numbers matching car. I'll put up a couple of pictures of the underside of the car as well. I don't think the frame is rotten, seems pretty solid.

Thanks for the replies so far, and sorry, the Esso sign isn't for sale...

 

As promised, pictures of the underside. I think a muffler has been replaced LOL.

 

God eye on those pedals and wear, no way that car has 37k original miles. If the owner swears that mileage is correct, the odometer could be broken or related hardware that drives it. I wouldn't let that be a issue. IMO, I'd just blow by that and concentrate on the rest of the puzzle. If the basics like frame and body and engine appear to be in good condition, that's what's important.

That frame looks very nice in those pics, just tap around the rear frame kick-ups in front of the rear tires, and check for rust in the rear crossmember. Even rust in the x-member isn't a showstopper as they can be replaced relatively easily. But it could be fine.

THAT looks like the perfect car to buy to me. It looks like it has good bones, not badgered up, and a nice overall project that probably needs just complete brake work, refreshed wiring, and some engine tinkering to get going. The rest could be done over time based on budget.

IMO if the price is reasonable, consider it for sure.

 

I agree.

The fact the axle shaft loops are there is good - they usually go pretty fast in a harsh environment...as stated check the kickups and rear crossmember on the frame. And the seat belt anchor plates under the car look damn near new - another good sign.

Can't tell much on the engine - its missing the shielding (that's correct if it doesn't have a radio) and the valve covers are wrong.

You can't judge a thing by brake pedal wear on these old cars - I've replaced my pedals twice already on the '61 and I've put less than 30,000 miles on it.

 

It's a real nice car, but I'm not buying the sellers claim, that it's a survivor.

In the under hood picture, there appears to be red overspray on the left side female hood latch, spring and bumper. This would lead me to believe the car has been repainted. Check around the edges of things like the door reveal moldings, door handles, wiper escutcheons, windshield moldings and weatherstrip, for more signs of overspray.

To me, the underside looks like it has had a "rattle can" paint restoration, done on it at sometime in the past. Painted brake and fuel lines, as well as suspension bushings, and the paint on and around the seat belt reinforcements, just doesn't have that factory look to me. The shocks have been replaced too. These things would hardly be indicative, of what would be considered a low miles, survivor car.

Wrong motor, repaint, replacement shocks, worn pedals, etc., all of this leads me to believe that the mileage is something higher than 37,000.

None of this is a reason to walk away from this car though. It still looks like a good solid 62, I just don't think that it's a 37,000 "survivor". The fact that it's not a survivor (in my opinion), and that it's a wrong motor car, should be reflected in the price.

Personally, I don't think you can ever go wrong with a 62, especially a red one. Of course, I'm a little biased. If you haven't noticed already, take a look at my avatar!

 

How much are they asking for the car?

 

They don't use much salt in Northern Canada, it is too cold for it to work.

Used to the same in MT. I never saw rust on cars that spent their like in the state. That and the cold temps greatly slow down the rusting process. Things don't rust quickly at 35F

Actually, one the large rust contributors in places like Ohio, isn't road salt, but the acidic organic soil dust that gets into places, and then reacts with water. The under hood area isn't all rusty like you see from rust belt states.

You are assuming the speedo even works, it may have broken eons and tens of thousands of miles ago.

But, you are correct, the carpet and pedal wear in from a car with closer to 100K than 37K miles.

Doug

 

I've seen enough. Buy it, and go to work on it!

 

Hi and welcome fellow Canuk, I'm in Montreal.
Looks like a solid car from the pics, but it's very easy to hide past sins on these old Vettes, read expensive.
As a rule of thumb, figure $5K just to get it running, that's if the engine isn't ceased etc.
Certain things on old Vettes cost more that on conventional cars of the same period, radiator is $1K, paint that will last is $12K+, body work cost more etc...
Looks like it could be a fun project, but be warned that even if you do your work yourself, a car like that can suck up multiple thousands in short order, I know, I've had my '62 for nine years.
You can buy a nice running painted NOM '62 for about $35~$40, work the math backwards to see if this one is worthwhile for you, it's almost always cheaper to buy one that's already done to the level you want.
PM me if you have any questions.



Paul

 

When you ran the various part numbers off the engine, were any of them correct for a 62 Vette? Also, what redline do you see on the tachometer? Reason I ask is the intake seems to have the large 'W' for Winters Foundry so likely it's a factory Chevy intake and maybe the original intake used on a 340 horse 327 in 62 because I see it has the exhaust crossover and I thought that was only used on exhaust systems for the 340 and FI 62's. Obviously if that's all that's left over from the original engine it doesn't help a great deal but it's a neat fact if it was indeed a higher horsepower car. Do you have a pic of the interior showing the tach?
Mike T.

 

Latches, springs and bumpers were installed before black out, so they would have overspray on them so I wouldn't rule out original paint. Funny it would still have the cross over pipe after all those years. I'm very curious about the numbers.

 

I too, think the term "survivor" is being overused, this being an example; however, if the price is right, this looks like a very do-able car.

As far as the pedal pad wear goes, if they are original old soft rubber, they wear much more quickly than today's hard synthetic rubber pads.