RHD 240Z on ebay - this is the real test of today's prices !

chrisvega

chrisvega

Well-Known Forum User
I think the seller is erring on the side of caution with his description looking at the rest of his advert. A trade seller but it is an auction and the advert makes it clear there are no guarantees, no comeback and it is a project you are buying (which has been off the road since 2008 as we found out from Tenno)

Threatening to take people to court in an advert does not make a good first impression though, is not enforceable and comes across as overly aggressive to me and makes me think, would I want to buy a car from this seller? There are plenty of time-wasters on eBay, always have been and it is unlikely that statement will put any of them off.

If the seller spent more time composing an accurate description of condition and history rather than a list limiting his liability and comeback then the car would get a lot more interest from potential buyers.

Some cars you judge the seller, you check the photos and get a reasonable idea of what is in front of you for sale.
This car I have no idea. It looks fairly tidy from the pictures but as a UK car, I know it will have had medium to serious rust at some point in it's life. Has it just been patched from MOT to MOT as is most likely or has it ever had a restoration to a decent standard.

'Generally very original' is stated in the advert. What does that mean? It's either 'very original' or it's not!

If it has never been painted or welded and has the original engine than it could be construed to be 'very original' by my definition.
If it has been patched, new sills, floors, arches (hard to tell form fuzzy pics but rear arches don't look original to my eyes) then it is definitely not original in my world. Being generous, maybe the seller means it hasn't been resto-modded hence calling it 'original' as it does have the original period look I suppose.

This could be a decent car but it is not possible to tell from the photos and description given. The seller can expect a load of questions and requests for clear close up photos from anyone interested in bidding and it's a game of Russian Roulette without viewing. Running a short auction (3 days?) is not going to get the best price that could be realised on this car but interesting to see where it lands.
 
SeanDezart

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
chrisvega said:
I think the seller is erring on the side of caution with his description looking at the rest of his advert. A trade seller but it is an auction and the advert makes it clear there are no guarantees, no comeback and it is a project you are buying (which has been off the road since 2008 as we found out from Tenno)

Threatening to take people to court in an advert does not make a good first impression though, is not enforceable and comes across as overly aggressive to me and makes me think, would I want to buy a car from this seller? There are plenty of time-wasters on eBay, always have been and it is unlikely that statement will put any of them off.

If the seller spent more time composing an accurate description of condition and history rather than a list limiting his liability and comeback then the car would get a lot more interest from potential buyers.

Some cars you judge the seller, you check the photos and get a reasonable idea of what is in front of you for sale.
This car I have no idea. It looks fairly tidy from the pictures but as a UK car, I know it will have had medium to serious rust at some point in it's life. Has it just been patched from MOT to MOT as is most likely or has it ever had a restoration to a decent standard.

'Generally very original' is stated in the advert. What does that mean? It's either 'very original' or it's not!

If it has never been painted or welded and has the original engine than it could be construed to be 'very original' by my definition.
If it has been patched, new sills, floors, arches (hard to tell form fuzzy pics but rear arches don't look original to my eyes) then it is definitely not original in my world. Being generous, maybe the seller means it hasn't been resto-modded hence calling it 'original' as it does have the original period look I suppose.

This could be a decent car but it is not possible to tell from the photos and description given. The seller can expect a load of questions and requests for clear close up photos from anyone interested in bidding and it's a game of Russian Roulette without viewing. Running a short auction (3 days?) is not going to get the best price that could be realised on this car but interesting to see where it lands.
Click to expand...
Well said Chris and I know :seeya: James bought your 280Z despite some price dancing:EXTRAlol:
 
SeanDezart

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
chrisvega said:
You get about don't you! The omniscient Mr.Dezart:jester::EXTRArolleyes:
Click to expand...
.....I know people who know people......and you'd be very surprised out of the public eye how many people trust my gobby-opinions...I told him it was a no brainer - buy the 280Z - you owe me a beer next LMClassic.....if you ever make it :rofl:

My aim is only ever to best advise people so as to see smiley faces behind Z steering wheels.
 
atomman

atomman

Club Member
Looks ok in the photos but we all know what could lay beneath a UK car !

A bit shinny for a 'GENERALLY VERY ORIGINAL' car maybe its been painted in the past ? Also maybe there not showing more photo's of underneath on purpose along with the no come backs bit ?

I just checked the MOT history though , bit of underseal on there by the looks of it

Date tested30 November 2006​

PASS​

Mileage759 miles​

MOT test number5247 5423 6390​

Test location​

Expiry date29 November 2007​

Advisory notice item(s)​

  • Front front brake grabbing slightly (3.7.A.2b)
  • Seat belt damaged but not affecting the operation of the belt (5.2.2a)
  • Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
  • Offside Suspension component mounting prescribed area is distorted but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
  • TRAVEL ON HAND BRAKE LEVER ON LIMIT
  • ENGINE MISFIRE
  • wipers poor and slow
  • (( UNDERSIDE OF VEHICLE VERY HEAVILY UNDERSEALED ))
  • EXTENSIVE WELDED REPAIRS ( SOME PLACES POORLY WELDED ) TO FLOORS SILLS + CHASSIS.
  • SOME AREAS HAVE SUSPECT REPAIRS BUT UNABLE TO BE CHECKED FULLY DUE TO HEAVY UNDERSEAL.
I agree with what Sean says , its a good real test to see what people in general are willing to pay these days for a RHD "do'r upper " and by the bidding its a lot more than the 2k I payed for my first RHD 240z, that was a good few years ago now though.
 
Alphabettispaghetti

Alphabettispaghetti

Club Member
atomman said:
Looks ok in the photos but we all know what could lay beneath a UK car !

A bit shinny for a 'GENERALLY VERY ORIGINAL' car maybe its been painted in the past ? Also maybe there not showing more photo's of underneath on purpose along with the no come backs bit ?

I just checked the MOT history though , bit of underseal on there by the looks of it

Date tested30 November 2006​

PASS​

Mileage759 miles​

MOT test number5247 5423 6390​

Test location​

Expiry date29 November 2007​

Advisory notice item(s)​

  • Front front brake grabbing slightly (3.7.A.2b)
  • Seat belt damaged but not affecting the operation of the belt (5.2.2a)
  • Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
  • Offside Suspension component mounting prescribed area is distorted but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
  • TRAVEL ON HAND BRAKE LEVER ON LIMIT
  • ENGINE MISFIRE
  • wipers poor and slow
  • (( UNDERSIDE OF VEHICLE VERY HEAVILY UNDERSEALED ))
  • EXTENSIVE WELDED REPAIRS ( SOME PLACES POORLY WELDED ) TO FLOORS SILLS + CHASSIS.
  • SOME AREAS HAVE SUSPECT REPAIRS BUT UNABLE TO BE CHECKED FULLY DUE TO HEAVY UNDERSEAL.
I agree with what Sean says , its a good real test to see what people in general are willing to pay these days for a RHD "do'r upper " and by the bidding its a lot more than the 2k I payed for my first RHD 240z, that was a good few years ago now though.
Click to expand...

I think the seller knows all this, that's why he's not been very honest about anything.
 
chrisvega

chrisvega

Well-Known Forum User
  • (( UNDERSIDE OF VEHICLE VERY HEAVILY UNDERSEALED ))
  • EXTENSIVE WELDED REPAIRS ( SOME PLACES POORLY WELDED ) TO FLOORS SILLS + CHASSIS.
  • SOME AREAS HAVE SUSPECT REPAIRS BUT UNABLE TO BE CHECKED FULLY DUE TO HEAVY UNDERSEAL.
How are these issues just MOT advisories and not an outright fail?
Unable to check due to heavy underseal?
What a cop out, that wouldn't stand in today's more rigorously policed computerised testing era.
Ever heard of a big screwdriver?
Back in the day we all had plenty of MOT testers using one to poke holes in suspect sills and floors.
 
jonbills

jonbills

Membership Secretary
Site Administrator
I think MOT testers are only allowed to 'look' - can't remove panels or underseal or poke things with screwdrivers.
The bumpers look original and in good condition. That's a plus!
 
Albrecht

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
So can anyone explain the thread title to me? Why is this particular car "...the real test of today's prices."? Especially so in light of its past history and likely need of serious work.

Old cars should be judged on a case-by-case basis. The selling price of this car - or any other single car - is not necessarily going to be a reliable datum point when its true condition is questionable.



And anyway, 1974? No HS30s were manufactured in 1974. Manufacturing date is not the same as registration date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top