Lets Play A Game: Last Of The Convertibles

3175375 · Dec 20, 2024

Lots to correct there. Body and powertrain look good but there’s a bit missing from the interior that shouldn’t command a 30k price. Maybe 20.

fury fan · Dec 21, 2024

Seller doesn't know how to sell a classic car. Posts a pic of this and other closeups of not-critical details and then only a few pic of the whole car, and from 30 feet away.
And has his phone turned the wrong way.
Moron.

Snotty · Dec 21, 2024

I especially liked the picture of the coil wire.

1970FuryConv · Dec 21, 2024

3175375 said:
Lots to correct there. Body and powertrain look good but there’s a bit missing from the interior that shouldn’t command a 30k price. Maybe 20.

That car was for sale on FB for $25K then it went down to $20K. Flipper.

ayilar · Sunday at 12:57 PM

ayilar said:
Well folks, it looks like some detective work yielded another rare N-code Newport convertible. CE27N0C220200 (or is it CE27N0C220280 ?) has been repainted and is for sale in the Netherlands. Thanks to @NY69 for initiating the for sale thread.

Originally EF8 with black bench interior and black soft top, she is now a light teal with white bench seats. Front and rear 300 clips/lights.

CE27N0C220280 confirmed. One of just 7 N-code 1970 Newport 'verts of which I am aware (last updated 1-1-2025: added EW1):

fury fan · Sunday at 1:40 PM

With all the 'issues' visible underhood and underdash (and is that what the core of a Fusey brake pedal looks like?), I would want to see that the VIN matches that FT.
Not uncommon that a FT doesn't get painted, but why remove it to paint underneath and not paint the tag too?
Perhaps that's been confirmed already? There's no VIN shown in 'confirmed' link, and the 'Netherlands' link is 404, so I can't confirm for myself.

ayilar · Sunday at 6:46 PM

fury fan said:
With all the 'issues' visible underhood and underdash (and is that what the core of a Fusey brake pedal looks like?), I would want to see that the VIN matches that FT.
Not uncommon that a FT doesn't get painted, but why remove it to paint underneath and not paint the tag too?
Perhaps that's been confirmed already? There's no VIN shown in 'confirmed' link, and the 'Netherlands' link is 404, so I can't confirm for myself.

I saved all the photos from the Dutch link back in May 2022, and there was no photo of either the VIN or the fender tag at the time. Regardless, I would be amazed if the VIN in the tag were not the car's actual VIN -- this is an N-code 'vert.

ayilar · Sunday at 6:49 PM

I do not think that we have records on CM27T0C184911 -- a dark green (EF8 would be my bet, not EF9) 1970 300 'vert that sold at Mecum in Harrisburg, PA back in July 2015. No photo of the fender tag, unfortunately.

ayilar · Monday at 9:49 AM

I don't believe that CM27T0C180741 has been posted here either. This 300 'vert was originally FT6 Deep Bronze metallic but has been repainted in white. The SBD was December 18, 1969. This ragtop was discussed more thoroughly in this thread.

fury fan · Monday at 1:48 PM

ayilar said:
I saved all the photos from the Dutch link back in May 2022, and there was no photo of either the VIN or the fender tag at the time. Regardless, I would be amazed if the VIN in the tag were not the car's actual VIN -- this is an N-code 'vert.

I agree that the FT is for a '70 N-code Newport 'vert.
FTs are too easy to lose and swap vs a VIN tag.

The FT could have intentionally or inadvertently made its way onto the car we now see.
It's entirely possible that someone found an N-code 'vert in a JY back in the day and pulled from it to 'restore' this car.
The aqua car (or whatever color it was originally) could have had front end damage, and maybe a red N-code front clip was put onto the car we now see, FT and all.

If it looked more original, I'd be in agreement.
IMO it shouldn't be presumed as an N-code without seeing the VIN (the most basic confirmation).
I don't have a stake in the accuracy of the N-code database, of course, I just think it should be asterisked as awaiting additional confirmation.

ayilar · Monday at 4:53 PM

As the year closes, time to list the 68 (Edit: 69) T-code 300 'verts of which I know (I have a few more whose engine type needs TBC, and they are not included here -- @fury fan should be happy):

ceebuddy · Monday at 5:56 PM

I think there are some more out there. But I must admit I didn't keep track of them.

fury fan · Monday at 6:10 PM

ayilar said:
As the year closes, time to list the 68 T-code 300 'verts of which I know (I have a few more whose engine type needs TBC, and they are not included here -- @fury fan should be happy):

View attachment 699631
View attachment 699632

Well, it doesn't make me unhappy.
Of course, I wasn't unhappy before.
Now I'm unsure of how I should be feeling.

ayilar · Monday at 6:36 PM

ceebuddy said:
I think there are some more out there. But I must admit I didn't keep track of them.

Indeed, there are. I add 1-2 to the list every month.

I also have 30 U-codes in my files. And another 16 T-U « unallocated » 300s. Then I’ve got dozens of Newports.

The search continues!

Samplingman · Monday at 9:27 PM

Excellent work! I only have 28 of them cataloged, but I’ve not really kept consistent records. BTW, you have my EB7 listed twice.

ayilar · Tuesday at 4:51 AM

Samplingman said:
Excellent work! I only have 28 of them cataloged, but I’ve not really kept consistent records. BTW, you have my EB7 listed twice.

Indeed. Reorganized files before posting and obviously messed up.

Do you have any in your 28 that I don’t have above?

Samplingman · Tuesday at 7:12 AM

ayilar said:
Indeed. Reorganized files before posting and obviously messed up.

Do you have any in your 28 that I don’t have above?

None that I can see, but I’m still going through my notes. I have a spread sheet, do you mind if I combine your list with mine? It would make it easier to check for duplicates.

ayilar · Tuesday at 7:13 AM

I indeed made a mistake in the above post (copy/paste gone bad). Thank you @Samplingman for pointing out that duplicate.

Looking back at my records, I see that I made another mistake in this old post:

ayilar said:
CM27T0C115983, a highly optioned ER6 red/black/white console T-code that @plymouth67 bought and sold in 2012, can be found here. It was built on Nov. 6, 1969.

CM27T0C115983, a GY3/black/black T-code 1970 ragtop built on Sept. 9, 1969 with the "right" options, was posted by @mdh157 in the same thread back in 2012. Mark, do you know what happened to that car?

The first 300, bought/sold by @plymouth67 back in 2012, was CM27T0C159165 ; the other car, a DY3 'vert whose fender tag was posted by @mdh157 here, is indeed CM27T0C115983 . Neither car was in the list I posted yesterday, but I have now added them and updated that post --> we have 68 - 1 (the EB7 duplicate) + 2 (these two) = 69 T-code 300 'verts with records.

Here are the fender tags of CM27T0C115983 (@mdh157 never posted other pics of the DY3 -- but luckily he did post the tag; Mark, any more info would be great, even if it was 12 years ago...) and of CM27T0C159165 back in 2012 (ER6 Crimson, discussed here and here) for records in the present thread:

ayilar · Tuesday at 7:42 AM

And here are 29 U-code 300 'verts I have in my records. I know a 30th 1970 TNT 300 ragtop, but I have promised not to release the info about that ER6 convertible till the member who shared her tag with me (and with two other members) has managed to acquire it.

ayilar · Tuesday at 8:24 AM

And here is one more Newport 'vert, CE27L0C197506. This EW1 white L-code is currently for sale on FB as a parts car: see this thread that I uploaded today. SBD was February 23, 1970. Note the C-VON.