Wow what a car!!!

aerodynamic · Post by **aerodynamic** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:46 pm

Now this is the cleanest unrestored 73/74 B-Body I've ever seen! Car looks like it rolled out of the factory a year ago!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1974-Ply ... dZViewItem

landon1 · Post by **landon1** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:33 am

one word...B-E-A-UTIFUL

TeeWJay426 · Post by **TeeWJay426** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:41 am

It's a beauty. If anyone is seriously interested, that's pretty close to me- I'd be willing to check it out for any interested members and shoot some pics if requested.

Post by **bruce** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:45 am

Beautiful car to be sure, BUT, something's fishy on the underside. Mopars didn't get painted that well underneath--it should be primer in the trans tunnel and on the underside of the floors, and essentially just hit with overspray.

The components--rear axle housing, u-bolts, springs, shocks, driveshaft, etc, etc, should all be differing colors--whether they were painted or natural metal. Nice, NICE car, but it's a tad mis-represented in the auction.

1972RM23 · Post by **1972RM23** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:39 pm

I noticed that too. That paint looked too clean and shouldn't it be undercoated for 1974 Plymouths.

landon1 · Post by **landon1** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:01 am

that's what kinda caught my eye, too was no undercoating in the fenderwells...never seen a car without it...it just doesn't look right when they're painted...unless they were black that is

Post by **bruce** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:24 pm

It SHOULD be undercoated in the fenderwells at LEAST. Even non-undercoat cars got undercoating in the fenderwells to deaden the sound of rocks and things thrown up from the road. The undercoating there was also a rust preventative because without it all the stone chips would quickly turn to rust.

Once again, it's a NICE car, just not 100% correct.