Mvice8489

Considering buying a white Testarossa!

Recommended Posts

Sonny-Burnett
12 hours ago, Bigsarg said:

Two distinct features stood out that can not be explained as cosmetic alterations. Knowing these cars as I do there is no reason for the show car to have either.

What specific physical features then did you spot that made you apparently toss out the objective VIN number evidence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonny-Burnett
19 hours ago, Stinger390X said:

I tend to agree with volobrian.......I heard that an old chevy was blown up in the chapter that had the bad guy blow up the car with a missle launcher. This may be the confusion?

Well............Here we go again!

I'm off to Florida tomorrow morning to be probably disappointed again but if the Daytona is nice, I will buy it??????

Wish me luck boys and girls....this might be the one after a 12 year search. (I have seen so much junk................)

Best of  luck Stinger....hope this car is the one. 

Edited by Sonny-Burnett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg
2 hours ago, Sonny-Burnett said:

What specific physical features then did you spot that made you apparently toss out the objective VIN number evidence? 

It is more than evident that the body is not an early Mcburnie body. And the discrepancies can not be explained away by, over time esthetics have been changed. I didn’t notice them on the pics, but they jumped out like a sour thumb when I walked up to the car. But in pics u can make them out easily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonny-Burnett
4 hours ago, Bigsarg said:

It is more than evident that the body is not an early Mcburnie body. And the discrepancies can not be explained away by, over time esthetics have been changed. I didn’t notice them on the pics, but they jumped out like a sour thumb when I walked up to the car. But in pics u can make them out easily. 

Can you be more specific please? What exactly are you claiming is different about the body, etc that makes you think it is not the show car?  so far I have not heard anything specific that supports your contention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg

I’ll give you one of the two items that are not correct on the Volo car. You should be able to figure out the second with out my help. The show car had stock stainless steel header on top of windshield and covette reviels on the A pillars. The car at Volo has a fiberglass surround that replaces this pieces. Mcburnie made his cars with this feature before he started selling the kit outright. So an early Mcburnie would have this. But the show car would not. To get one of these fiberglass surrounds would be hard to come by unless you had the whole car. And why on earth would you replace the stock convertible components on the windshield in the first place?  This is one of the reasons that can not be simply explained away. As rare as that fiberglass surround is. If you needed something for the windshield, it would be so much easier to find a stock piece. 

I hope this helps, and the other reason I believe it is not the show car is even more convincing. This body is not the body used in the show. I don’t know anything about vin#s or hidden vin#s. But I have researched these cars to the fullest extent during my restoration. I have talked to anyone and everyone one that has knowledge of thes cars. Things just don’t ad up to this body was on the car that was used on the show. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
volobrian

Not sure what that proves? The piece you’re referring to is an accessory that was added to the car after Miami Vice.  It only covers the existing stainless trim.  It was added prior to 1989 and wasn’t rare at that time. Carl Roberts, who acquired both MV Daytona’s, also built and offered replica Daytona’s and this was a standard feature for his cars. As previously stated, Carl had made changes to this car after it was used in Miami Vice and before it was used in Speed Zone.  Other discrepancies are the marker light that were filled, the interior changes, taillights, exhaust, etc..   I could paint the car pink, add a spoiler and 24 inch rims.  That wouldn’t change the fact that it is the car that was used in the show.  While the cars features can be changed, what can’t be changed are the government issued records from the DMV in Universal Studios name with the cars VIN number. While cosmetic differences can be argued, what can’t be argued is the fact that the VIN of this car matches the VIN number listed on those documents.  As for the body, everything matches up perfectly, the first Daytona McBurrnie built, the body didn’t fit.  Tom wasn’t aware that the Corvette donor car he used was previously in an accident, the wheelbase of the passenger side was 1 1/4 inches shorter than the drivers side.  So he had to cut and modify the body to compensate for this.  This car is 1 1/4 inch’s shorter on the passenger side, both body and wheelbase.  When he first built the car, it was red.  It was later repainted black for the show.  The first layer of paint on this body is red.   The MV car had speakers cut in the door, while the speakers are gone, the holes are still there.  Originally the nose emblem had the wrong placement, later it was lowered to the proper spot, the patch is still evident.  Furthermore, Carl Roberts has also verified that this is the original car and body. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg

The fiberglass surround does not cover the stainless trim. It replaces it completely and there would be no reason to do this in any configuration.  Carl Roberts may have built these cars but Mcburnie did not have that on the cars. Yes you say the vin matches. That may be the fact but the body doesn’t match correctly. The other point is that the housing for the Ferrari front turn signal in your car is fiberglass. Mcburnie’ cars that were built in the very beginning used Ferrari factory housings. Later cars the lense housing was part of the mold. This fact also I’m sure you will have a plausible answer to. I just find it odd that your car has these characteristics and it absolutely just should not have either. 

This along with the number of other museums that claim they have the actual car has really made me cautious to think that the cars even exist. 

As I said I am looking forward to meeting the gentleman that worked on the set of MV that said that a Ferrari rep was on site to see the cars destroyed. I do remember reading that in the 80s and one day I will run across that article again.

Now, my opinion is not fact, I am just a very knowledgeable Daytona owner that has questions why your car does not meet the basic configuration of the first 4 cars that were built by Mcburnie. The two points stated are indisputable characteristics that should not be part of your car if it were the car used on the show. 

There is also one other thing that would bring me pause. But that is for another conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CameraDaytona
59 minutes ago, volobrian said:

Not sure what that proves? The piece you’re referring to is an accessory that was added to the car after Miami Vice.  It only covers the existing stainless trim.  It was added prior to 1989 and wasn’t rare at that time. Carl Roberts, who acquired both MV Daytona’s, also built and offered replica Daytona’s and this was a standard feature for his cars. As previously stated, Carl had made changes to this car after it was used in Miami Vice and before it was used in Speed Zone.  Other discrepancies are the marker light that were filled, the interior changes, taillights, exhaust, etc..   I could paint the car pink, add a spoiler and 24 inch rims.  That wouldn’t change the fact that it is the car that was used in the show.  While the cars features can be changed, what can’t be changed are the government issued records from the DMV in Universal Studios name with the cars VIN number. While cosmetic differences can be argued, what can’t be argued is the fact that the VIN of this car matches the VIN number listed on those documents.  As for the body, everything matches up perfectly, the first Daytona McBurrnie built, the body didn’t fit.  Tom wasn’t aware that the Corvette donor car he used was previously in an accident, the wheelbase of the passenger side was 1 1/4 inches shorter than the drivers side.  So he had to cut and modify the body to compensate for this.  This car is 1 1/4 inch’s shorter on the passenger side, both body and wheelbase.  When he first built the car, it was red.  It was later repainted black for the show.  The first layer of paint on this body is red.   The MV car had speakers cut in the door, while the speakers are gone, the holes are still there.  Originally the nose emblem had the wrong placement, later it was lowered to the proper spot, the patch is still evident.  Furthermore, Carl Roberts has also verified that this is the original car and body. 

The history of this car is pretty well known.  I have a copy of the original contract from Universal Studios with Carl Roberts to build the stunt Testarossa.  The two Daytonas used in the series were given to Roberts in partial payment for building a stunt TR.  The serial numbers  of the two Daytonas are on the contract.  As we understand Roberts started to build the TR using the Daytona (car 1), but had to give up because he could not use the front engine car for building a mid-engine TR.  So, he procured a Pantera and used its chassis.  Car number 1 was then put back together when Roberts was contracted to supply two Daytonas for the movie Speed Zone.  We do not know if he used all of the parts from the original car 1 to rebuild it for the movie.  I think he did change the dash and some other things versus the car as it was used in the MV series.  It, along with a second Daytona (not car 4 which was the "camera car" used in the series, but was one of Robert's builds.), was shipped to California to be used in the movie.  After the filming of the movie, the cars were taken to Lubbock, Texas where they stayed for a number of years. (Paperwork is available to verify all of this.)  They were not well treated, being left outside for a number of years.  Car 1 was "found" in Lubbock and purchased by the Volo Museum.

The serial numbers are not mysterious.  Every C3 (68 to 82) Corvette has the VIN number stamped on the top of the frame in two spots.  These are not generally visible since the body sits on the frame.  So, we did not know if the Volo car was really car 1 since there were changes as have been noted in this thread.  But the Volo guys cut a chunk out the floor of the body and found the original VIN stamped in the frame rail.  The stamping was verified to be original, thus proving that this frame was the one used in the MV series.  As I mentioned earlier, there could have been some changes to the body from original when Roberts put the car together for the movie.  (Both of the Daytonas used in the series were built by Tom McBurnie.  But Carl Roberts was also building replicas, so he could have used some of his parts to rebuild car 1.  VoloBrian probably has more info on this.)

During the second year of filming all of Mardikian's (the grey market dealer in LA who initiated the building of the cars and ultimately leased them to Universal) had all of his records seized by California law enforcement, including the titles for the two Daytonas leased to Universal.  Universal decided to purchase the cars from Mardikian (who was in jail) because they were afraid the cars would be taken by the authorities and they would no longer be available for the series.  So, through Universal's layers and Mardikian's lawyers, they worked out a deal.  The issue was that California would not reissue the titles until the CA Police verified the serial numbers.  But the cars had to stay in FL for the filming.  to make a long story short, CA finally agreed that if the FL state police verified the VIN, they would reissue the titles.  So, that's what happened.  Tom McBurnie gave me a copy of all of that licensing paperwork which also shows the VIN numbers of the two cars.  Also, the Universal titles (which I have for my car - car 4, the camera car) show the VIN numbers for the Daytonas.  So, we have good evidence of the VINs for the two Daytonas. 

The Ferrari people wanted Universal to stop using the replicas and thus gave Universal the two Testarossas, but I have never heard that they required that the Daytonas be destroyed - from either Carl Roberts or Tom McBurnie.  The "blowing up" of the Daytona was Universal's method of stopping the use and bringing in the TRs.

I think that the Volo car is definitely car 1 - there were probably changes made in the car for use in the movie, but I think there is very little doubt that it is the "stunt car"..

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg
52 minutes ago, CameraDaytona said:

As we understand Roberts started to build the TR using the Daytona (car 1), but had to give up because he could not use the front engine car for building a mid-engine TR.  So, he procured a Pantera and used its chassis.  Car number 1 was then put back together when Roberts was contracted to supply two Daytonas for the movie Speed Zone.  We do not know if he used all of the parts from the original car 1 to rebuild it for the movie

 

so I take it from you review of events that the body is a mismatch of parts of the car in MV and Carl Roberts parts. This could explain these major discrepancies in the body. But then the only thing that the Volo car has that can be confirmed is the frame. Cause surely we agree that the front end is not from the MV car. This debunks that they could see evedence. where the nose badge was mounted incorrectly in the first season unless some other person had mounted one there in the past. Which is highly likely  

Does this make it the car used on the set?  Sure by your account it’s the frame, but the frame is not what the fans loved. So this is a conundrum of a whole  new issue. I would imagine some fans would say yes it’s the car, and some fans would say no it’s not the Daytona used on the set. 

This is an interesting insight and I think you for taking the time Sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
volobrian

The fiberglass windshield cover is a cosmetic piece, I can remove it in less than 5 minuets and can install it on any Daytona.  The windshield frame is the cars integrity and a physical part to the car.  If you are familiar with Daytona bodies, you’d know that the majority of the Daytona body is just skins that are bonded to the structure of the Corvette donor car.  It uses the Corvette door frames and main body structure.  The body structure also has numbers that are referenced back to the frame.  The main structure matches the frame.   It is the original body and frame.  The original Corvette donor was a green car, the windshield frame, door frames and other key pieces still show the original Corvette green paint. McBurnie Car #1 is a well known story with key details unique to that body.  Because of the collision to the original donor car, the body to car 1 had to be cut and modified to fit the chassis.  The passenger side wheelbase is 1 1/4 inches shorter.  The rear fender was cut, a section removed and spliced together to compensate for this.  Since the Daytona skins are bonded, not bolted to the main Corvette structure, it’s highly unlikely they were cut off and there are no signs they ever were. Since the body numbers correspond to the frame, this also proves it’s the original body. There are also many more features to the #1 body, originally red, speaker hole placement, etc that support the originality of the body.  I’m not sure what you are referring to with front light housings other than the actual orange housings, but if that’s what you are referring to, like the windshield cover, it is a bolt on item and not an actual part of the body or structure.   Those can easily be removed, replaced.  That doesn’t affect the actual body part they are bolted on to.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonny-Burnett

So @Bigsarg, from the additional info provided by @volobrian and @CameraDaytona  it would seem that the fiberglass windshield component can be easily changed out and so would not be something that would change the perspective on the authenticity of Car1. And the turn signal housing would also appear to be a changeable component so same there.  With the facts identified by volobrian about the car's existing body structure with its own unique codes that align with the green donor car, and of course the most important VIN number found on the frame, I haven't yet heard any viable argument that would make the case against the Volo car being Car1. And I would completely ignore any other sites/museums claim to the car as purely sales hype. 

On 10/7/2017 at 12:05 AM, CameraDaytona said:

I think that the Volo car is definitely car 1 - there were probably changes made in the car for use in the movie, but I think there is very little doubt that it is the "stunt car"..

Have to agree... 100%.   Appreciate you guys weighing in on this topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg
On 07/10/2017 at 7:57 AM, volobrian said:

 

Camera Daytona, can you post a real good close up of one of your front  turn signal indicators? Thxs in advance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg
3 hours ago, Sonny-Burnett said:

So @Bigsarg, from the additional info provided by @volobrian and @CameraDaytona  it would seem that the fiberglass windshield component can be easily changed out and so would not be something that would change the perspective on the authenticity of Car1. And the turn signal housing would also appear to be a changeable component so same there.  With the facts identified by volobrian about the car's existing body structure with its own unique codes that align with the green donor car, and of course the most important VIN number found on the frame, I haven't yet heard any viable argument that would make the case against the Volo car being Car1. And I would completely ignore any other sites/museums claim to the car as purely sales hype. 

Have to agree... 100%.   Appreciate you guys weighing in on this topic. 

Sonny-Burnett, have you ever had to replace /take a lense out of an Daytona replica? 

The lense is screwed (bolted) in. The housing however on a replica (the Volobcar) is not bolted in. It’s part of the body and made out of fiberglass with the body. The housing on the Real Miami Vice car is bolted in. Thus it could be removed. It was a Ferrari part # 30298300. So like I said, the front end is not from the real car. 

The fiberglass surround is easily removed and put on another windshield of a C3 corvette. This I agree with. But why would you do that? CameraDaytona explanation is plausible. CR had dismantled the car to make the TS stunt car and then just threw the Daytona back together. This would explain the fiberglass surround. But. Since the body lifts off the frame in one piece, it does not explain the front end. Volo states: there’s evidence that the nose badge  was mounted high just like season 1 car. Humm. That’s odd since it is INDISPUTALE  that the nose of his car is not the front end of the car on the show. 

My third reason is even more Daming then the others. But let’s get past the first two first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
volobrian

1. The housings are bolted in.  They were even removed when we had the car painted. They aren’t molded as you say.

2. Why would Carl Roberts add a part, that he produced, to a car he owns?  Why wouldn’t he?  Carl made many changes to the car to make it look more like a Ferrari, like the other cars he was producing.  He also added a Ferrari dash, filled in the rear marker lights, put Ferrari style door handles on it (which we removed and put the MV style handles back on) and other changes, these minor changes don’t change pedigree.

And #3 is? 

 

04489C11-F068-42C7-A856-73765E891079.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonny-Burnett
2 hours ago, Bigsarg said:

Sonny-Burnett, have you ever had to replace /take a lense out of an Daytona replica? 

The lense is screwed (bolted) in. The housing however on a replica (the Volobcar) is not bolted in. It’s part of the body and made out of fiberglass with the body. The housing on the Real Miami Vice car is bolted in. Thus it could be removed. It was a Ferrari part # 30298300. So like I said, the front end is not from the real car. 

The fiberglass surround is easily removed and put on another windshield of a C3 corvette. This I agree with. But why would you do that? CameraDaytona explanation is plausible. CR had dismantled the car to make the TS stunt car and then just threw the Daytona back together. This would explain the fiberglass surround. But. Since the body lifts off the frame in one piece, it does not explain the front end. Volo states: there’s evidence that the nose badge  was mounted high just like season 1 car. Humm. That’s odd since it is INDISPUTALE  that the nose of his car is not the front end of the car on the show. 

My third reason is even more Daming then the others. But let’s get past the first two first. 

My turn lenses are also bolted in, and it is a later McBurnie produced in 1988.  And apparently so are the lenses on the Volo car. 

Not sure why you insist that the nose of the car is not the front end of the show car. Based on what? You still haven't made the case that anything about  Car1 is inconsistent with its use in the series, other than cosmetics which @volobrian has already explained. 

Edited by Sonny-Burnett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg

When you are talking turn lenses. You are talking about just the lense, correct?

the place that the lease screws into is what I’m talking about. Not the lense

pic 1. A lense

pic 2. Mcburnie without lense but the housing is molded into the body. That black part is fiberglass and part of the fender  

pic 3. Lense and housing with gasket all bolt to  the car from the backside of the fender. You can not take the lense off just by unscrewing it, it all comes out from the backside of the fender  as one unit  

the silver part of pic three is molded into the car. On a replica. However the MV car It is a separate piece. 

Pic 4. A real Daytona without the housing attached to the fender from behind. 

This is how the first 4 cars were made. The housing was a real Ferrari part, not part of the car built with fiberglass  

If you can unscrew your lense and drop it out of the car and the housing is still there like in pic 2, then it’s fiberglass  

if you have to take it all out from behind the fender, then it’s a Ferrari housing  and the car at Volo the lense will unscrew and drop out from the front  

I hope this time I’ve made it clearer. I don’t think you understood what I was describing before  

 

3D5A0DF7-E686-46B0-822B-F9152ED5F25D.jpeg

78E9FE5F-FED3-4241-A125-8E41D7CFC181.jpeg

E1BBD2B7-2A05-4B2F-B742-35331D2A28A6.jpeg

CD08EA10-9D52-4FD4-A301-6F4E6B164FEC.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
volobrian

I understood what you are saying.  Our car has the housings.  Here pictures of them along with the repaired area from where the emblem used to be.  

Next? 

9EA82BA7-2A4D-4F3F-896F-F2218A0F054B.jpeg

493099A9-F754-44AB-80A4-6E0276ADD43D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
king77

I have seen this type of back and forth before many times on these types of car issues and I believe I know what's next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg

That’s exactly what it should look like. Your car does not look like that is how the lenses are mounted from standing next to the car.  

Can you post a few more pics of the forward mounted area of your car?  

Who ever did your body work did not understand what the front end should look like. Or how the lenses  mount.

When I talked with Tom M In 2006. He told me that the second set of molds had the housing as part of the body. So only the first 4 or 5 cars had Ferrari housings, after that they all have molded fiberglass housings. Again this is how the lense housing should be mounted from behind the fender. 

You say there is evidence of the rear quarter panel being cut and sliced back together to shorten the body to fit the wrecked car (car #1)

Can you explain exactly what you are saying. From talking to Tom M the molds were made from the wrecked car (thus the name car # 1/ 1st car made) The bodies Mcburnie made would only fit the wrecked car. The bodies had to be worked to fit the other cars that were not wrecked. This is why a new set of molds were made, which consequently had the parking light lense housing as part of the body itself.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Bigsarg
Editing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
volobrian
35 minutes ago, Bigsarg said:

That’s exactly what it should look like. Your car does not look like that is how the lenses are mounted from standing next to the car.  

Can you post a few more pics of the forward mounted area of your car?  

Who ever did your body work did not understand what the front end should look like. Or how the lenses  mount.

When I talked with Tom M In 2006. He told me that the second set of molds had the housing as part of the body. So only the first 4 or 5 cars had Ferrari housings, after that they all have molded fiberglass housings. Again this is how the lense housing should be mounted from behind the fender. 

You say there is evidence of the rear quarter panel being cut and sliced back together to shorten the body to fit the wrecked car (car #1)

Can you explain exactly what you are saying. From talking to Tom M the molds were made from the wrecked car (thus the name car # 1/ 1st car made) The bodies Mcburnie made would only fit the wrecked car. The bodies had to be worked to fit the other cars that were not wrecked. This is why a new set of molds were made, which consequently had the parking light lense housing as part of the body itself.

 

 

 

 

I misspoke,  I was going off a memory from about 2009 with Jurassicnarc when we were trying to match up the characteristics of car 1 to my car to see if it were the #1 body.  I remember both the wheel base and body were both shorter and seeing body work, thinking the body was shortened to accommodate.  After just now revisiting the car, the body work I had seen is the same on both sides of the car and just sloppy glass work in general. IMG_2148.jpg.a1d28c2a829f59d9637362f3f03e706a.jpg

IMG_2149.jpg

IMG_2150.jpg

IMG_2151.jpg

IMG_2153.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonny-Burnett
49 minutes ago, Bigsarg said:

Can you explain exactly what you are saying. From talking to Tom M the molds were made from the wrecked car (thus the name car # 1/ 1st car made) The bodies Mcburnie made would only fit the wrecked car. The bodies had to be worked to fit the other cars that were not wrecked. This is why a new set of molds were made, which consequently had the parking light lense housing as part of the body itself.

My understanding of this is just the opposite. I recall someone, perhaps @jurassic narc or @CameraDaytona, commenting that when McBurnie made his first molds they were equal length on both sides as you would expect. So when they did not fit the Car1 side with the shorter frame, he then made alterations to fit the molds. So these molds would only have NOT fit Car1, and not future cars. 

Edited by Sonny-Burnett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigsarg

Vilobrian:

I misspoke,  I was going off a memory from about 2009 with Jurassicnarc when we were trying to match up the characteristics of car 1 to my car to see if it were the #1 body.  I remember both the wheel base and body were both shorter and seeing body work, thinking the body was shortened to accommodate.  After just now revisiting the car, the body work I had seen is the same on both sides of the car and just sloppy glass work in general. 

 

This is correct. The repair would not show from that area of your pictures. You would possibly see it from the inside of the trunk, but highly likely that you can’t see it anyway. We’re talking about the skin of the car, not the inside wheel well. But yes your car should not have any alterations to the body. The molds were made to fit your car. Center line of wheel well matched only car # 1. 

Tom M said as the body was placed on another car it just looked odd and that’s why they checked measurements and found that the car #1 had been wrecked. 

Can I see the front area of your lense housing from the rear? The pic I took of your car does not look like it is a housing, but that it’s molded in. You can see why it appears that way from pictures I took below. Thxs

6426E7AB-31B5-4980-81C9-DDE435A2B6FD.jpeg

78077BD2-4659-48FF-9CFE-477981A3EA36.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
volobrian
2 hours ago, Bigsarg said:

Vilobrian:

I misspoke,  I was going off a memory from about 2009 with Jurassicnarc when we were trying to match up the characteristics of car 1 to my car to see if it were the #1 body.  I remember both the wheel base and body were both shorter and seeing body work, thinking the body was shortened to accommodate.  After just now revisiting the car, the body work I had seen is the same on both sides of the car and just sloppy glass work in general. 

 

This is correct. The repair would not show from that area of your pictures. You would possibly see it from the inside of the trunk, but highly likely that you can’t see it anyway. We’re talking about the skin of the car, not the inside wheel well. But yes your car should not have any alterations to the body. The molds were made to fit your car. Center line of wheel well matched only car # 1. 

Tom M said as the body was placed on another car it just looked odd and that’s why they checked measurements and found that the car #1 had been wrecked. 

Can I see the front area of your lense housing from the rear? The pic I took of your car does not look like it is a housing, but that it’s molded in. You can see why it appears that way from pictures I took below. Thxs

6426E7AB-31B5-4980-81C9-DDE435A2B6FD.jpeg

78077BD2-4659-48FF-9CFE-477981A3EA36.jpeg

 

IMG_2154.jpg

IMG_2155.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mvice8489

Hey, what happened to this thread?  I thought it was to be about my search for a white Testarossa....LOL !!!

So Volo's car  basically consists partially of a frame which has the correct VIN and partially of a body that has been completely redone since the show aired? Am  I reading this correctly?

If that is the case, is it "really" the car from the show?   As fans aren't we more emotionally attached to the actual look of the car specifically as to how it appeared on the show  (i.e,. same seats, dash, side-markers, carpet, exhaust pipes, mirrors)?  I know I am. 

THAT is the stuff that I fell in love with.  Not some frame that now supports a body that is completely different.    

Just one man's opinion of course.  But my suspicion is if we polled 'Vice fans that most would agree with that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now