'63 Pontiac Catalina 421 Super Duty tribute car

[Matt Harwood]

18 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

 

OK, but let me throw a little gasoline on that fire... 

 

Within the last 5-10 years, the three Detroit manufacturers have sold factory-built race cars that are NOT street-legal and do not carry a legal VIN.  These are cars like the 2013-2016 COPO Camaro, the 2008-2016 Mustang Cobra Jet, and the 2015-2015 Challenger Drag Pack. None of these cars carry emissions equipment and thus cannot ever be legally titled and registered for street use, but they are factory-built race cars.  I realize most readers here couldn't care less about "new" cars, but they will eventually be 25 years old.  What happens then?  Several of the Cobra Jets were bought by collectors and immediately put into storage as an investment (yes, I hope they loose money on that).  Those cars will not have a racing history.

 

Discuss among yourselves... 

 

But they are technically "production" cars that you can buy from a dealer and do with as you wish. The intent that they go racing doesn't automatically make them racing cars. Street legal or not, the factory built them, the public bought them and then used them however they wished, race or not. Therefore, they should be considered production cars, at least in the AACA's eyes. No race history, not a race car. I used to race my 1993 Ford Mustang, now I don't. When it's eligible for AACA events in two years, I won't be trying to register it as a race car.

 

The point of the race car class is to focus on the history of the race car, not the mere existence of it.

[joe_padavano]

2 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

The point of the race car class is to focus on the history of the race car, not the mere existence of it.

 

OK, I can accept that.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

But they are technically "production" cars that you can buy from a dealer and do with as you wish. The intent that they go racing doesn't automatically make them racing cars. Street legal or not, the factory built them, the public bought them and then used them however they wished, race or not. Therefore, they should be considered production cars, at least in the AACA's eyes. No race history, not a race car. I used to race my 1993 Ford Mustang, now I don't. When it's eligible for AACA events in two years, I won't be trying to register it as a race car.

 

The point of the race car class is to focus on the history of the race car, not the mere existence of it.

Matt, in the old days of NASCAR and NHRA, IHRA all of those cars had to be factory built, so you might as well include those cars with the cars Joe is talking about pedigree or not. What makes a factory race car is not it's pedigree, but what was the intent of the factory in building such cars. If you have that documentation pedigree or not the car should be in a factory race car class. A P-51 Mustang is still a Mustang, it's mission whether or not it flew in combat is the same.  

[Restorer32]

Just to throw another monkey wrench into the discussion AACA accepts "motorized vehicles 25 years old or older, which were built in factories and SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED FOR TRANSPORTATION USE ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS". The argument could be made that production race cars could only be shown in the Race Car class and then only if they were actually raced. Good thing AACA is constantly tweaking the rules. If a car isn't or never was street legal how could it be shown in a Production class.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Restorer32 said:

Just to throw another monkey wrench into the discussion AACA accepts "motorized vehicles 25 years old or older, which were built in factories and SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED FOR TRANSPORTATION USE ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS". The argument could be made that production race cars could only be shown in the Race Car class and then only if they were actually raced. Good thing AACA is constantly tweaking the rules. If a car isn't or never was street legal how could it be shown in a Production class.

  Some people did register some of these factory RACE cars for the street after their intent was done even though the factory never condoned doing that, and that was the reason for the disclaimers that went with the cars to their owners warning against that very thing. Still these cars are RACE cars.

[gpfarrell]

I'd say a car isn't a race car until it races.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, gpfarrell said:

I'd say a car isn't a race car until it races.

This Jaguar was supposed to race at LeMans, after it was built the race sanctioning body changed the engine size and virtually outlawed the car for LeMans which it was built for. Even though it never raced it is still a RACE CAR.

  

[MCHinson]

23 minutes ago, helfen said:

This Jaguar was supposed to race at LeMans, after it was built the race sanctioning body changed the engine size and virtually outlawed the car for LeMans which it was built for. Even though it never raced it is still a RACE CAR.

  

 

But under the current Judging Guidelines, if it was never raced it will never be an AACA Certified Race Car. 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

 

But under the current Judging Guidelines, if it was never raced it will never be an AACA Certified Race Car. 

And where would this factory race car be able to be shown?

[MCHinson]

I have no idea. I don't even know what year the car is or anything else about it. All that I know from your post is that it is a Jaguar that was supposed to be built to race at Lemans. If it was not intended for use for transportation on public roadways or highways it would probably not be eligible for judging in any AACA class under the current judging guidelines.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, MCHinson said:

I have no idea. I don't even know what year the car is or anything else about it. All that I know from your post is that it is a Jaguar that was supposed to be built to race at Lemans. If it was not intended for use for transportation on public roadways or highways it would probably not be eligible for judging in any AACA class under the current judging guidelines.

1962-63 SD  Pontiac's which are race cars raced or not are not intended for transportation on public roadways and Pontiac division said they weren't by disclaimers that came with the cars.

Edited April 30, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[MCHinson]

You may be right or you may be wrong. I have no idea. You keep saying that but I have not seen any factory documentation of your "fact". There has been some discussion that contradicts your statement about that point. It is not my area of expertise. I do know that the SD Pontiac that was the source of this discussion is specifically listed in Class 36A so it is accepted for class judging.

[Matt Harwood]

What is the point of this discussion, again? That poor hair has been split so fine that it's a single molecule wide at this point...

[Guest]

Just pointing out you have 1962 63 SD Pontiac race cars in a high performance street class which is wrong.

Pointing out that in the race car class  shouldn't  exclude race cars that never raced as long as the owner can prove it is a race car. In the case of that Jaguar, Jaguar can back that up and the cars is famously well documented, in the case of a 62-63 SD Pontiac, the same and famously documented. AACA doesn't need experts on the car, the owner provides the documentation.

Hoping to make you and others here aware. Hoping you will see the logic and will change some needed things which will not only put cars in their proper place, but also help in stopping cloning underserving cars.

 The point is to please help to make it more just and honest.

 The point about Judging is, it's all about justice. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[ted sweet]

so u want numbers checked on every vehicle? 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, ted sweet said:

so u want numbers checked on every vehicle? 

Read #54

[MCHinson]

I am curious what you mean by that comment. Post 54 has nothing to do with checking numbers on vehicles.

[Robert Street]

The 62 SD that I showed in Virginia Beach last year is an excellently done fully restored vehicle that has no sanctioned race history although it certainly had some street race history down in Florida I am sure.  The car is legally tagged and insured in the state of Maryland. I drove it onto the show field admittedly with fouled plugs and the carbs not adjusted properly for the event. Maryland has some strict rules governing tagging or the ability to tag certain types of vehicles. The very simple conclusion, it is a limited production vehicle Pontiac sold and I believe they didn't have a warranty.  The owner of the car also had a Grand Prix SD which was also tagged and driven almost daily back in the day.  These cars were a limited production vehicle and I believe a large number of them were not professionally raced unlike the 50 or so famous 63 Chevy Z-11 vehicles that all had a racing history but were limited production but still had the ability to tag them.

These cars should be in the appropriate class 36 structure.  I would enjoy having my 62 409 along side a 63 Z-11 at a national show.

Robert Street

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MCHinson said:

I am curious what you mean by that comment. Post 54 has nothing to do with checking numbers on vehicles.

It just means that you move 1962-63 SD Pontiac's to their proper category ( race cars because they are race cars ) and verify the same way as any race car. A race car that did not race must have it's owner provide proof ( documentation)  that it is indeed a race car and built as such.

Do you think all of these Ferrari's raced, no, some were back up cars but they are race cars like SD Pontiac's never the less.

[Restorer32]

I believe a race car MUST have raced to be entered in the race car class. 

[MCHinson]

On 4/20/2016 at 6:06 PM, Steve Moskowitz said:

Helfen, AACA race car classes are CERTIFIED.  That means that every race car entering those classes must PROVE that they have a race history.  The owner of the car submits an application to a committee of race car experts who review the data to make sure the car is the real deal.  So no. those cars cannot go into a race car class unless they actually raced and the owner can prove it so.

 

Cloning by any name is nothing new.  It has been done for decades although it now has taken a life of its own.  Naturally we ARE concerned about the phenomenon.  There are a lot of honest and reputable people building tribute cars and will sell them with full disclosure.  The issue becomes of concern with unscrupulous people and what might happen decades from now as the car passes several hands.

 

The issue for us is how to resolve the issue within the confines of our system.  So far there has been no workable solution presented to us so our definition has remained the same.  With the thousands of cars we evaluate every year it is near impossible for us to decode every serial number in a time period of only approximately 2 hours for the entire field in order to gets results tabulated, correct any issues and then set trophies up for the banquet.  I have stated on the website for years that our system is not perfect nor ideal but we constantly try to make it better but our challenges are far great than single marque clubs who generally hold one national meet a year. 

For some reason you still don't seem to understand the way the race car class works in AACA Judging. Maybe you might want to read Steve's explanation again. I don't know why we are still beating this same dead horse...

[Matt Harwood]

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

For some reason you still don't seem to understand the way the race car class works in AACA Judging. Maybe you might want to read Steve's explanation again. I don't know why we are still beating this same dead horse...

For some reason you don't understand that I think the Pontiac SD cars and their placement in the wrong class is unjust. and the rules in the race car class is unjust and need to be changed and for good reason. I know what the current rules are. I'm asking you to help change them.

Edited May 1, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[Steve Moskowitz]

Helfen, we try to be very inclusive with AACA classes.  That is why we have more classes than any other club I know of and have a 100 plus page rule book.  The whole reason for the formation of CERTIFIED race car classes was to document actual racing history of a vehicle.  This was something that the hobby was begging for as there were cars with dubious backgrounds being promoted as the real thing.  We try to avoid that in AACA by asking the member to prove his car is correct and correct as raced.  We added a new class, 24D which is for cars still being raced or unrestored so that we can save their history and recognize them but they still have to go through the same certification as other cars in Class 24D.

 

I do not believe that there currently is much interest in forming a class for factory cars built for racing but never raced.  First there has not been requests by the race community for such a class and secondly there are probably very few cars in this category.  Most people buy a factory built race car to race!  I realize that in today's environment someone is willing to buy such a car and moth ball it but not back in the day very much. I will bring it up to the committee but as a "member" of this class I do not see any future for it. 

[Restorer32]

So as the rules now stand a car built specifically for racing which was never street legal, and which has no race history, cannot be shown in AACA competition.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Not in Class 24!  However, if it was factory built, sold on a certificate of origin and street legal in at least one state a case could be made that it would qualify for one of the high performance classes if it was accepted by the class judging committee. 

[Restorer32]

The key being it had to be street legal in at least one state.

[Guest]

And that allows anyone the ability to clone a rare race car.

[Robert Street]

4 hours ago, Steve Moskowitz said:

Not in Class 24!  However, if it was factory built, sold on a certificate of origin and street legal in at least one state a case could be made that it would qualify for one of the high performance classes if it was accepted by the class judging committee. 

 

Steve a minor note of interest.  The 50 or so rare 63 Z-11's were delivered to Chevy dealers with a certificate of origin but all were destined to premier racers of the day.  I am pretty certain none of those were street driven or titled.  So.... there are about 17 or so documented restored ones so just wonder what happens if one not lettered as delivered to a dealer shows up at a national show.  Another stellar entry for 36B.  I hope I am at that show!!  I'll try to get the 62 Pontiac SD to that show as it is now recognized with an AACA car number.

Robert

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Robert Street
brain fade (see edit history)

[Steve Moskowitz]

In AACA's general policy it states that "AACA accepts motorized vehicles 25 years or older which were built in factories and specifically designed for transportation use on public roadways and highways."  That is why I stated my comment above.  Of course, this does not apply to race cars.  I am aware of other manufacturers selling cars that were destined to be raced but not sure how many ever were not used for this purpose.  The committee will have to weigh in if this is presented to us.

[Matt Harwood]

I would argue that Super Duty Pontiacs are production cars with interesting options, not race cars. They were designed to race, yes, but until they've turned a wheel in anger, I do not believe they meet the criteria of "race car."

 

I mentioned just about all pre-1965 Ferraris as an example of this. A great many of them were driven to the track, raced successfully, then driven home. On the street. With license plates. The most valuable Ferraris today are those that have racing provenance, but their non-raced brothers are equally prized and offer an identical driving experience. Are they street cars you can race or race cars you can drive on the street? Does it even matter? If they raced, they're race cars. If they didn't, they're not. If a guy tried to stick decals on his Ferrari and claim it was a race car, he'd be laughed off the show field even though there might be an identical car sitting there with similar decals in the race car class. It's about actual history, not about what you were supposed to do with the car.

 

Regardless of the original intent, the Super Duty Pontiacs should remain production cars in a production car class unless an individual car has been raced and has documented history of it. As I said, the race car class is meant to celebrate racing history, not the mere existence of a car.

[Guest]

If Pontiac division says 62 - 63 SD Catalina's and GP's are race cars and not to be used on the street then they are race cars. How plain can it be.

[Matt Harwood]

23 minutes ago, helfen said:

If Pontiac division says 62 - 63 SD Catalina's and GP's are race cars and not to be used on the street then they are race cars. How plain can it be.

 

And Buick says this is a phaeton:

 

 

It's not. It's a convertible sedan. How plain can it be?

[trimacar]

Wow, what a discussion.  The AACA is very clear what constitutes a "race car", and that's that.

 

One doesn't show up at a Classic Car Club of America event with a 1957 Chevrolet, saying "Well, everyone CALLS it a classic...", just like you can't just "call" a vehicle a race car, it has to have been raced. For real.  On a course.  Documented.

 

Matt, your posts are excellent.  And yes, agree, my Cord "phaeton", isn't.......

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

And Buick says this is a phaeton:

 

 

It's not. It's a convertible sedan. How plain can it be?

Buick never said you should never drive the car on the street. Stay on topic please

[Guest]

6 hours ago, trimacar said:

Wow, what a discussion.  The AACA is very clear what constitutes a "race car", and that's that.

 

One doesn't show up at a Classic Car Club of America event with a 1957 Chevrolet, saying "Well, everyone CALLS it a classic...", just like you can't just "call" a vehicle a race car, it has to have been raced. For real.  On a course.  Documented.

 

Matt, your posts are excellent.  And yes, agree, my Cord "phaeton", isn't.......

And that is what class Pontiac 62-63 Super duty's should be in.

[MCHinson]

18 minutes ago, helfen said:

And that is what class Pontiac 62-63 Super duty's should be in.

 

In your opinion...  

 

But the current Judging guidelines indicate otherwise.  If you think it needs to be changed you need to write a letter to the VP of Judging. Arguing about it here will not change it. 

 

 

[Matt Harwood]

51 minutes ago, helfen said:

Buick never said you should never drive the car on the street. Stay on topic please

 

So an automaker saying one thing (this is a "phaeton") should be disregarded, but the same automaker saying something similar (this is a "race car") is gospel. Got it.

 

Again, will we be moving all L88 Corvettes to the race car class? All pre-1965 Ferraris? Bugattis? Porsche 356 Carrera? Camaro ZL-1? BMW E30 M3? Max Wedge Mopars? The aluminum Jaguar XKs and E-Types? 1957 Chevy "Black Widows?" You've dodged this point every time I've made it. You can't cherry-pick which cars get reclassified if there are other cars with the same credentials that would be similarly affected. Your idea is going to result in a race car class full of cars that have never turned a wheel on the track. Nah, I'm sure that won't be confusing or insulting to the guys who have actual race cars.

 

You've got an understandable passion for this one particular car yet for reasons nobody can understand, you want cars that have never raced to be classified as race cars simply because the automaker who built them suggested that you go racing with them (even though it was totally optional and only a fraction of them actually did race). You've also clouded the issue by saying it will help prevent clones (how, I can't quite fathom), and along the way suggested that AACA judges should be policing every car on the show field to be sure it is restored exactly the way it was built and that it has all its numbers in order. Again, a task of Herculean proportions. Perhaps you're volunteering for that job?

 

Nobody's disputing the Super Duty's credentials. Nobody is missing your point. We get it. Really, we do. The factory built it for combat, therefore it was intended to be raced. On some Asperger-grade technical level, it can probably be considered a "race car." We're all acknowledging that part of the equation. But given the realities of a club like the AACA, it simply makes more sense from every reasonable angle to classify them as factory production cars with high performance equipment rather than shoehorning them into a class designed expressly (and exclusively) for cars that were actually raced in-period. Currently, there is no class for "cars that were built to race but never did."

 

Perhaps we're merely arguing over the definition of "race car." The club thinks it's for cars that were actually raced. You think it's for cars that were intended to be raced. An important distinction but I don't think you'll get too much debate over which is the correct definition.

 

So don't worry, we're staying on point. We understand what you're saying. We're not being deliberately obtuse. What nobody is saying, because they're all being diplomatic, is that the rules aren't going to change because one guy thinks cars that weren't raced should be called race cars.

 

/back to the ignore list with you! Woosh!

 

 

[trimacar]

Matt did stay on topic.  You can't call a turnip a potato, and argue with those who differ from your opinion.....

 

[real61ss]

I'm hesitate to bring this topic back up but I did not have a problem with what the owner was doing and I wonder if the car is complete and will it possibly be at Hershey. PM me if you like

Edited August 12, 2016 by real61ss (see edit history)