kizz

iTrader: (1)

OK, this is a detective mystery for any of you with access to VIN information other than CarFax.
Only one of these two can be a legitimate VIN, so which one is it?

1G2AW8778CN526439
1G2AW87H2CL526439

I know the guy selling this car. It has 48K original miles, has been a life-long Georgia car, and I have seen it in person. It has VIN #2 from those two I listed. Its cowl plate and engine/tranny combo confirm this.

BUT.. VIN #1 is the one that comes up everywhere, including CarFax, www.e-autohistory.com, and my local DMV. It comes up as registered all over the southeast with much higher mileage and a dirty title. Clearly this is disturbing.

Keep in mind, I've seen it in person, and it has the 2nd VIN listed above. So, the car is physically a 4bbl 4-speed Van Nuys car, but every database says it's a Crossfire automatic Norwood car.

So which of the 2 VIN's is real? I may buy it if you guys help me get to the bottom of this mess. Thanks

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

I know that both VINs are valid. But only ONE can be real, for a car that actually exists. Each sequence number from 500001 on up is a unique car. You can't have 2 of the same sequence number.

Nothing comes up on CarFax for VIN#2, which is the one actually on the car, whch I have seen in person. By the way the odometer is 6 digits,so the 48K original miles does show up as 048123 or something close to it.

So how does CarFax show that VIN as being made in andifferent plant, with a different engine and transmission? It's literally impossible.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Eric, I have done years of *amateur* VIN research on T/A's and countless other unrelated cars. I have yet to see a duplicate sequence number for any year / model. The 1982 sequence numbers were SHARED between Van Nuys and Norwood. I have checked each and every VIN between 500001 and 500100 (26 come up with history) and none have duplicates. In other words if 5##### is made in one place, it cannot be also made at the other plant. I don't know why they are often out of chronological sequence. This car I am asking about was built on 04A which is April's first week, yet its VIN is more 2000 higher than my 524308 which was built in July. I have seen it in person. Its cowl plate clearly says L for Van Nuys, 526439 for the sequence number, etc. I know for a fact that it had the LG4 and 4-speed manual trans. But like I said, 526439 on CarFax comes up as an LU5/3-speed Norwood car. my local DMV confirmed this is a car which exists, though I've never seen it in person, so you never know. They will not give out personal details about the owner. I had to fight to squeeze out what little info I got from them. I don't know if I can check GA DMV without being there in person, and it's not worth all that effort, but this is still the first DUAL VIN I have ever seen in my life, if it's indeed true. If anyone can solve this problem, please let me know.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

David M

You can try the GA DMV by mail. The address is: Dept. of Revenue
Motor Vehicle Division
P.O. Box 740381
Atlanta, GA 30374-0381
Good luck!

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Eric, as I suspected, all 4 of those come up with nothing.

You are sort of making my point for me here, because what I am saying is that there is NO history coming up on the VIN which I know to be REAL (1G2AW87H2CL526439), since I have seen it myself, and history IS coming up on a variation of that VIN which should not exist (1G2AW8778CN526439) !

That's the paradox here. 526439 should only exist ONCE for 1982 Pontiac. But it seems to exist TWICE:

1) on the car which I have seen in person (1G2AW87H2CL526439)
2) on some other car with a full CarFax history (1G2AW8778CN526439) which I have never seen.

Only ONE is a legitimate car, and the other MUST be forged / illegal / illegitimate. There's no getting around it. So which one is good and which one is bad?

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

[This message has been edited by kizz (edited May 22, 2001).]

super83Z

I don't understand why two different plants can't have the same number. What are they supposed to do when they are building a new car call up the other plant and say "Hey we are starting 5XXXXX so you have to go to the next number ok?" That doesn't make sense. I agree with what Eric said about a the sequence numbers and months.

------------------
I WOULD RATHER PUSH A CAMARO THAN DRIVE AN IMPORT

1983Z28 350w/ edelbrock performer RPM power package , dynomax shorty headers, 700R-4 with shift kit, 750cfm carb, edelbrock 3" exhaust system, ASCD SS hood, 16" IROC rims.

future mods:
completely done over suspension, black paint with flames, Hurst shifter, dakota digital gauge package, procharger supercharger.

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Well, you can agree with him if you want, but you'd both be wrong. I'm not trying to be a smart-*ss about it, but their sequence numbers were shared. If 5XXXXX was made in one plant, the other plants would have to take the next number up, and I guess they all shared a database of whiat the next number was. That's the way it's always been done. It wouldn't have been hard to keep a central database with something like a TN3270 network, even in the 80s, or before the 80s for that matter. If you can show an example of the same sequence number being used twice on 2 cars of the same make, model and year by GM or anyone else, I will be very surprised.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Eric,

I will check with a local Pontiac dealer tomorrow. Luckily I have 2 nearby. I would have done it today but by the time I thought about it, it was too late.

To answer your question: the cowl plate can be found here: http://www.indiemonkey.com/82recaro/dreamcar63.jpg It's not very easy to read, but it goes like this:

C 04A 2FS87 L 526439
18E 19L 19U W
AQ9 CC1
? ? ? ? 052277

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Off-topic: I've been meaning to ask you what is on your cowl plate. I guess obviously it does not say LU5, does it? I find it weird that my car is the only one I have seen so far which actually says LU5 on the cowl plate. The only thing I can think of is that it had to be a Recaro AND had to be made in Norwood. If I find another in the future meeting both those requirements, I will ask the owner if his says LU5. If it doesn't, then I'm totally baffled.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

I just remembered that Jeff T. was the only other person I know that has a Norwood LU5 Recaro. I wrote him just now, asking him what his info plate shows. I hope he writes back.

At one point he was contemplating the KITT conversion for his car. Well, it turns out he is through contemplating, and has gone on ahead and began work on the KITT conversion. First touches: "MY KITT" license plate, and painting the gold wheels grey. Very sad indeed. Another one bites the dust... Check it out here if interested: http://people.mw.mediaone.net/99lariat/index.html

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

at least 3 certified kills off the top of my head, though not all KITT related, and I am guessing many more UNcertified that we don't know about yet. here are the URL's of the 3 certified kills:

1) http://members.fbody.com/craigrock/
1) http://hometown.aol.com/craigrock13no2/index.html

Solid black body repaint, countless mods including new engine, I believe.
(you need IE for that 2nd one, as he is using BMP images, last I checked)

2) http://members.aol.com/OTurner279/indexta.html

Custom black and pink paint job. Aftermarket wheels, 350 engine, etc.

3) http://people.mw.mediaone.net/99lariat/index.html
3) http://people.mw.mediaone.net/99lariat/wheels.html

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

kizz

iTrader: (1)

a 4th kill is car #5 on my site. It was completely parted out. Last I heard, it was destined for the crusher, but I cannot confirm that it went to the crusher.

Just saw your edit from above: I have no clue what 279957 means on my tag. Any idea what the lower-right hand number means? Just about every cowl tag I see has a 6-digit on the lower right. Mine is 533012. and what do those 4 individual letters mean on yours?

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

[This message has been edited by kizz (edited May 22, 2001).]

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

I assume you meant lower right. Right?

Yes indeed. It is car #6 on my site. The one that says it was for sale at $5000OBO, sold for $4800.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

Rob P

iTrader: (1)

Kizz, just to throw my .02 in. I used to play with older Camaro's Chevelle's etc. In the past it was not uncommon for GM to make a mistake in stamping VIN number or sequence numbers on parts. Of course this was more prevelant when you had a guy with stamps actually banging them into the steel! Perhaps GM made a mistake in the sequencing, VIN process. No wait, we all know GM has never made a mistake!
Can Pontiac Historical services help you out on this one?

------------------
Rob P
89RSconvtZZ4TPI
Edelbrock Hi-Flow Intake
SLP Dual Cold Air Intake
1 5/8" Headers
Semi-Siamesed Runners
MSD6AL/AdjFPR/IROC frnt@rear swaybar/wonderbar/steeringbox/alum drvshaft/ Alston SFC/3:23posi disc rear/MAC LCA/H.Adams Panhard Rod/KYB struts/ shocks/
92Z28convt5spd
71Impala convt 402BB
BETTER DRIVING THRU SUPERIOR HORSEPOWER!

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Almost certainly, but is it worth $70? ($35 per VIN report) Not in my opinion.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

89RustangRemover

If VIN #1 is coming up dirty and high mileage, but the car has VIN #2, could it be possible that the car was re-VINed? Maybe they put in the engine/tranny along with the VIN plate. And if the 1st VIN shows high mileage and dirty title, why would you believe that the 48K are original miles? Personally, I wouldn't bother into looking any further. Find yourself a nice, clean thirdgen with a clean VIN and title. But that's just my opinion. Later....

------------------
"WARNING: Objects in mirror are about to disappear VERY quickly!"

MikeInAZ

There are so many post on this topic that I kinda' lost place as to what has or hasn't been tried.........BUT.........going back to the first post "only one of these can be legitimate".....I tried a different path for you.

Our car lot and body shop uses two very strict programs regarding VIN numbers. Our NADA guideline CD is very strict about kicking out an illegal VIN number (not valid). And we have a Mitchell Collision Estimating system that does the same.

If there is anything at all wrong with the VIN numbers it is kicked out with warning.

I can tell you that both VIN numbers are valid in both programs and bring up the same model and year of car.

Hope that helps a bit.

kizz

iTrader: (1)

MikeInAZ,

If you look above on this thread where 82RECAROTA posted some vins,you'll find them all to be valid. here they are again:
1G2AW87H9CL524308
1G2AW877XCL524308
1G2AW8774CN547174
1G2AW87H3CN547174
Try those in your system and tell me what happens. Because they are all valid, but guess what, they were never actually used.

If those numbers are kicked out of your system, I could be wrong about this whole "unique sequence number" theory of mine. But if your system accepts them, then it's a problem with that system.

Let me know. I am really interested. Thanks,,.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

MikeInAZ

I will post the results tomorrow a.m. when I get to work. Considering what the programs are designed for ... when a car is wrecked, a LX model might use a different bumper cover or trim package than say a DX model of a particular car, it uses the VIN to pinpoint year, make, model, engine, transmission.

On the other program NADA, uses the VIN to designate the same as above along with options to determine current value.

I'm thinking it won't be able to tell if a VIN was actually used just when a VIN is an invalid number, in other words, doesn't match any car VIN sequence in the last 20 years.

But we'll see what happens.

kizz

iTrader: (1)

I think you're right> I suspect all it does is makes sure that it's a possible VIn and that the check digit (9th digit over) is right when calculated from the rest of the VIN.

If it could actually tell us if the VIN was used on a car or not, then it would answer the mystery of this double VIN. Otherwise it won't really tell us anything new. But give it a shot.. it might be interesting. And if it brings up any known "options" as you mentioned, those would be cool to know too.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

MikeInAZ

OK....from the 4 VIN's you gave me a couple of posts ago:

The first two come back "Invalid VIN number, please recheck to see if you entered correctly".....which I did.

The third one starts to kickout "1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 2 Dr. Coupe, then pops up the error code "unable to decode engine - use assisted method" ....which basically means part of this VIN number (the part that deals with the engine) is not correct.

The last one is accepted and spits out:
1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
2D Coupe 5.0L 8 cyl.

These results are with our Mitchell program which is very critical of the VIN. All four VIN's worked in the NADA program as a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am 2Dr. Coupe.

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

He checked the 4 vins.. The first 2 came up invalid and that makse sense, because they actually ARE invalid and I just noticed it. 82RECAROTA when you calculated those check digits you did something wrong, because they're not 9 and X, respectively, but X and 0, respectively.

The third one came up as unable to decode engine? that is strange; I'm still trying to figure that one out. Unless you entered it wrong, I don't see the problem because 7 is a valid engine code for the crossfire engine in '82

The fourth one came up fine he said, and that makes sense too, because it is a possible VIN, however in my opinion it happens to be one that was never used on a real car.

The main point I'm trying to get across is most of these systems will tell you a VIN is fine, if it's only a "possible" or "valid" VIN, regardless of if it was ever used. To actually get all VINs that were used you'd have to have a serious connection inside a national DMV database or Pontiac database. I think even the strict Mitchell system you mentioned cannot determine if a VIN was used or not. Just my $0.02.

Anyway I don't really think I'll know for sure.. different people say completely different things. I'll keep investigating and see if I can find guaranteed info from a DMV or from Pontiac, as i mentioned..

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Here's my VIN check digit calculator for anyone interested:

http://www.indiemonkey.com/82recaro/vin.mv

Usage: type in a 17 digit VIN and put a question mark ("?") in the place of the check digit. It will calculate it for you.

Also if you leave one digit off the end of the VIN, it will calculate all 10 VINs from 0 - 9, if you leave off 2 digits, it will calculate from 00 to 99, etc.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82RECAROTA

kizz

iTrader: (1)

I did this manually as well as on the vin.mv link above, and I didn't find them both to be X. When the remainder is 0, the check digit is also 0. When the remainder is 10, the check digit is X.
Don't take my word, take this link: http://www.f-body.org/oldfaq/html/vins/checkdig.html. The vin.mv linkI mentioned above was programmed entirely from the info on that page.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

[This message has been edited by kizz (edited May 25, 2001).]

kizz

iTrader: (1)

Hey eric in case you are interested: New pics from a Colorado Recaro on my site! The car is in pretty rough shape.. it still drives. the owner is a 16 year old who got it for $750. He says even though it is so aged, he still loves it. He said it's really very "doggy" when going up a hill. The underside of the engine bay is covered in oil leaks as you will see in the pics.. I don't know how many miles it has, what's on the cowl plate, etc., but I hope to find out soon.

I'd also like to get your opinion on the 2nd pic of car #8. You think it's the same as the first pic?

Anyway, here's the location as always: http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro/pictures.html

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82KITTTA

I would like a chance here to defend myself and the KITT owners for those of you that are accusing us of killing these cars. I've heard the same thing about the General Lee and it drives me nuts. First of all, Knight Rider was a popular television show, who wouldn't want to drive a car like that. We should be flattered that the Trans Am was chosen to make into such a futuristic indistructable car. Unlike a S&TB car that's a glorified moonshine runner.

That car K.I.T.T. stood for something. And only 4 of the original cars exist.

Now the people who own these cars (especially me) baby the car as much as any show car. I personally NEVER take my car through a carwash, EVER! There is NO SMOKING in my car. I DONT drive it everyday.

Right there is something, my car is not a daily driver. It's covered daily. And I'm not a hack here either. I spend most of my funds on this car, no part that's not top notch doesn't find it's was onto the car. And I'd rather the grey Turbos vs. The other wheels on it when I bought it.

KITT is a very popular car. I'm curious what justification you all have to this be destroying a car. Crushing a car, that's destroying it.

Bottom line, I paid for my car in cash, I will NEVER sell it because I love it too much, and it will never meet a crusher. So it's not a dead car, it's still a recaro, and it's still on the road.

Also, I'm not one way minded I know everyone is entitled to an opinion, so I'm not badmouthing anyone. That's also why I'm allowed to say what I am. And of course bottom line is it's my car, I own it.

P.S. I am not just a KR. nut, I am a TA fan all around. I know the MOST about the car I'm using than any other KR person. I DO know most Knight Rider people don't know squat about the Trans Am. I remember being asked "will a camaro work" I nearly wrang that mans neck for that.

I DO know that the original KITT was NOT a Recaro car. Just a Black TA with tan standard interior. I do know every feature the original Knight Rider car suposidly had. And I know every fact, feature and number about my personal car. My car is a Trans Am that looks like KITT.

On a pos. note. I don't mind talking at all about the 82 T/A Recaro. Because I personally like it better than a GTA and am already looking for a second Recaro to preserve and not touch. Just for show.

Besides my cars not perfect. KIZZ knows one big thing about my cars seats in fact that drives me nuts about them, because they are not true Recaro buckets.

Thanks for letting me vent. By the way, my tag does indeed show LU5 on it.

------------------
Jeff Truesdell
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/99lariat/

[This message has been edited by 82KITTTA (edited May 25, 2001).]

82RECAROTA

82 TRANS AM

82KitTA, if you know the most about these cars then you should know it was not a standard interior used in the TV kit, it was the A9R/YR2 seats with the 64D doeskin cloth that was part of the $299 B20 DELUX interior. In dumb dumb terms, they were PMD seats. Standard seats were solid (no headrest hole) vinal. Thought you'd like to know. It's your car, do what you want but think twice about driving around with that half a steering wheel, because in a pinch, one slip and it's in a ditch, tree, car, etc.

Never liked that show.

Kizz, could that car have been screwed up at the DMV back when it was new?

GM is the final say. Let them figure it out for you. Don't let them give you the "we sold it to PMHS" load of dung either.

Good luck!

------------------
Kenney
82 Trans Am WS7 notchback
83 Trans Am WS6 T-tops
Painter @ Chevy dealer
GM junkie

kizz

iTrader: (1)

I'm glad we can have a decent conversation about the whole KITT thing, because most of the time it turns hostile.. it's unfortunate.
All I can really do is state my opinion like everyone else here. My opinion is that history is being dealt a great injustice whenever a rare, collectible, valuable car is intentionally "modified" (the word I like to use is "bastardized"). Like you said yourself jeff, KITT uses *nothing* from a Recaro T/A, so there's really no reason why you can't get yourself a super nice *regular* T/A and turn that into KITT instead. And a regular 82 T/A is considerably lower in price! But what you're doing, in a way, it's like you're thinning the herd of 2,000 for no reason, when instead you could be thinning the herd of 53,000. I don't see why the former has to be done and I think it's tragic. But, having said that, it is totally up to you since you lawfully bought the car and it is yours. Eric is right that the VERY VERY FEW Recaro T/A's left in existence in decent shape will just get more and more valuable as more people turn their Recaros into KITT, or black/pink crazy stuff or .. whatever. I was looking for a Recaro for years, and I only found the ones on my site. Only 3 or 4 were for sale, I got one, Eric got one, you got one. The 4th one is still in MD for $3500 (pretty rough.. check my site, it's the one I got the mint hubcaps off of) and the guy must've been some oddball type of guy because he said if he didn't sell it, he'd donate it to charity.. Umm.. OK. The rest are either parts cars, junkyard dogs, or worse: already crushed. They're very few & far between. Good luck on finding a 2nd one as you mentioned.. If you find it, the seller will probably already have researched the rarity and his asking price will be beyond most people's reach. I got lucky that the previous owner of my car was sort of "bored" with it.. he has gotten his fun out of it, he was in his late 30s early 40s and so he needed to do more things with his family. If it had not been for that, his price would've been double, triple, who knows. With 2745 original miles, showroom condition, I would have believed a price of $20k or more. And even though they made 2000, it is very *alarming* to actually estimate how many are left. You know how many '67-'68 GT500KR Shelbys they made? I think it was around 500 total. I have seen many more of those than 82 Recaro T/A's. You know how many 69 T/A's they made? I believe 697 of them. I see them every time I turn around in collector's magazines, even a CONVERTIBLE one was on ebay recently! one of EIGHT! and NO 82 Recaro anywhere in sight, even though they made 2000. These cars are way gone, buh-bye.. I think you'll have a really tough time finding a nice 2nd Recaro., so gooood luck. Even a junkheap restorable one will be extremely hard to find. Anyway, no more rants from me till later GT

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

82KITTTA

You guys all raise very good points. I'm glad to just get this out in the open. There are a few reasons I went ahead with this car as well.

As far as KITTs correct interior, I've heard so many variations it's amazing. I don't think Pontiac ever printed two things alike, or that's what it seems like. I've heard that color called Doeskin in one and Camel Tan in another.

I do wish there were more resto parts for the 3rd gen firebird than there are, but that's another topic.

Oh yeah. When I meant Standard I'm sorry I was comparing it to the Recaro interior I didn't mean to mess it up with those UGLY seats that were on the Firebirds lets say.

Keep in touch.

------------------
Jeff Truesdell
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/99lariat/

super83Z

can I see a pic of a recaro and a KITT T/A?

------------------
I WOULD RATHER PUSH A CAMARO THAN DRIVE AN IMPORT

1983Z28 350w/ edelbrock performer RPM power package , dynomax shorty headers, 700R-4 with shift kit, 750cfm carb, edelbrock 3" exhaust system, ASCD SS hood, 16" IROC rims.

future mods:
completely done over suspension, black paint with flames, Hurst shifter, dakota digital gauge package, procharger supercharger.

kizz

iTrader: (1)

<img width="724" height="387" src="http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro/dreamcar01.jpg">
<img width="450" height="269" src="http://www.markscustomkits.com/scanlight.jpg">

I hope you can tell them apart.. otherwise there's no point

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

kizz

iTrader: (1)

I don't mean to be rude, but it seems you really don't know as much as you say you do, and I don't really care for people with inflated egos. We've been correcting you left & right on this thread, through email, and you come back with "oh yeah, of course that's what I meant".

The Viscount interior which is what you need for a kitt rehash was OPTIONAL on Trans Am and Firebird. Only on Firebird S/E was it standard. So the "ugly" interior you mention was standard on Trans Am, IIRC. If you don't get the facts right, you'll never find the Viscount interior, especially in the charcoal you want (yes, it does exist), and that may be a good thing or a bad thing.. depends on who you ask.

As for the power mirror switch on your door panel, I recently got soem new info on it. It's not a 1982 Pontiac option that I have ever seen, and I have seen tons of f-bodys. It's most likely a Camaro part, according to a reputable source. Here's what I've got from him:

"afaik, only the camaro should have had them! And the pontiac ones were
HARDWIRED in.. no connector you could yank off too! So maybe somebody stole an
entire camaro left mirror, switch and everything.."

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am LU5/WS6/Y84, lowest mileage '82 T/A yet! - http://indiemonkey.com/82recaro
1985 basic Firebird, LB8/F41/GU6/DE1, '82 T/A wheels, CB, 128k - Get JPG picture here

[This message has been edited by kizz (edited May 27, 2001).]

82 TRANS AM

That Kitt front cover sure does fit nice. Does'nt look hacked on at all HeHeHeHe.

I'm sure it runs nice and cool too with the air ducts filled with lights and no bottom air deflector.

Turn on the little red light and the hoties must flock to it.

Thats it, i decided to turn mine into one. It's too cool, i gotta have it.

NOT!

If anyone wants to turn their Recaro into a kitt car, i'd be glad to switch seats with them since i have the correct Kitt seats. But before you do, go to a car show where someone has brought a Kitt car and stand near it for awhile and listen to the people comment on it while walking by. If you can handle the abuse and the laughter, by all means go spend thousands to change it over. To be honest about one out of ten people liked it. But they looked like Trekies. I enjoyed the amusement of parking one car away from one at a show. It was funny.



------------------
Kenney
82 Trans Am WS7 notchback
83 Trans Am WS6 T-tops
Painter @ Chevy dealer
GM junkie