Dealer installed items

[John H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Maybe terminology is wrong....Purchase order at dealership shows sidepipes ordered and paid for. Also documentation from the sidepipes supplier that they are also suppliers to GM.

Nope, full deduction for the missing original exhaust system, clamps, and hangers the car left St. Louis with, plus deductions for cobbled quarter panels on 69's); removing one exhaust system and installing a different one isn't part of "normal dealer preparation".

[Michael H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

One more comment... A former RMC Judging Chairman remembers working a regional meet where the NTL was a guy named Roy Sinor. The RMC judge had taken a full deduction for a particular car having a locking gas cap. He went to the team leader (also the then current NTL, Roy) for sign-off approval on the full deduction item.

Roy, instructed him to change the score from a full deduction to a partial deduction because there WAS a functional gas cap present and it was covered by the JRM's standard deduction rules.

Now, different division, different Corvette, different time frame, but the tale reinforces my point. We're treating the same part differently depending on who's doing the judging, and what his/her knowledge is of our judging rules...

What about the "CONFIGURATION" part of the judging? I agree it fits into a few of the other categories but the locking cap sure isn't configured like a correct fuel tank cap. Not even close.

What if someone showed up for judging with a GM tissue dispenser hanging under the dash or a set of tire valve extensions? Same deal, right? Would he get a full deduct for the dispenser but 1/2 credit for the extensions because the kinda sorta do the same thing as a regular valve stem cap?

Where exactly do we draw the line? GM sold a LOT of accessories, most of which were never available factory installed.

What about a day/night inside mirror for a 66, an item that was never available in production but WAS available as an over the counter GM accessory? If the accessory locking fuel cap is ok, does that mean the mirror is too? No, it doesn't. You have to draw a line somewhere and zero is the most logical place to put it. That way it's fair for everyone.

"As delivered to the dealer plus the "NORMAL new car get ready" is the ONLY fair way to go about this.

Hey, GM sold tents and sleeping bags once upon a time but I don't think that's gunna fly at any NCRS event. (except maybe on Roy's 55)

[Kenneth B.]

Re: Dealer installed items

This has been a very interesting conversation. I have stayed out of the discussion partly because we have had this topic before. It also could be that after my wife Kathy died last month that I am going to not get bent out of shape about the little things. I agree with Terry & John. If it was not installed at the Corvette plant it should get a deduction end of story. The next thing someone will say is that they ordered a 435 instead of a 300 horse & the dealer changed it. I do understand the other side though. My 19,000 70 LT-1 has a dealer luggage rack. Remember people it's just a game we play & all games have rules. In life sometimes there are no rules or fair play just the luck of the draw.
KEN

[Patrick H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

In my opinion, the undercoating SHOULD be a full deduction item because it was dealer/owner inspired, a deviation from how the car left the factory and it's NOT one of the items listed as a legitimate dealer accessory.

So where's the line item for judging the undercoating?

[Edward M.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Since this thread ain't dead yet, I'll chime in with this piece of advice that was given to me at my very first NCRS meet (way too many years ago).

Burt Lukens told me that "in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, give the owner the benefit of the doubt."

If we are not sure if it is a dealer installed accessory, let it go with the strandard deduction.

[William M.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Wow, just checked back on this thread to find it grew a bit over the last couple of days!
When my car was flight judged last September, I had a factory correct gas cap, not a locking one. I only asked the question because I recently tracked down the original owner, who confirmed he took delivery of his first new car on his 23rd birthday with a locking gas cap and undercoating. In his mind, he ordered it this way when it was put in writing on the bill of sale 3 months before his car arrived. 36 years later, the car still has the original paint, original interior, original glass and original drivetrain.
While I understand the point many of you have made about the locking gas cap and undercoating not being there when it left St Louis, in respect to the original owner I'll keep the undercoating and install a NOS locking gas cap. I'll just replace the cap next time you NCRS guys look at it
Polaroid the original owner took when it was brand new:

[Jack H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Well, re-read the text of the JRM judging rule. It addresses SPECIFICALLY those items that were GM approved for that model year car in the then current Corvette sales literature.

The locking gas cap goes back to 1964 (yep, having one on a '63 WOULD constitute a full deduction) and the list of legitimate accessories changed just about every year. So, it's a matter of knowing what items were on the list for the particular car you're judging...

It's not my fault the NTL's don't list those items in the JG books with an appendix/table. But, at least MF Dobbins does list them for most of the car/years he covers. Actually, laying the data down side-by-side for the various years is rather interesting...

Did you know the radio antenna alone was a legitimate dealer accessory for '63, but NOT for '64 and later? Looks like the marketing guys felt it was OK to help a buyer install an aftermarket, non-GM, radio...

The day/nite mirror is listed as a dealer accessory for 1964 cars but NOT for '63, '65 or '66 cars. So, that speaks further to one of your questions....

[Jack H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

There is no line item on the score sheets for non-standard/non-factory items. You have to make a place to put the deduction(s). I'd consider the car's chassis judged body panels as being the correct place to take the deduction(s). It's certainly a Finish issue for those parts affected...

[Jack H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Re-read the specific text of Rule 8. It does NOT apply to any/all items that were dealer installed! It specifically points to those items that were specified by GM/Chevy as being bona fide Dealer Accessories for Corvette.

That list changed from year to year, so it's a dynamic issue. But, I can assure you the 435 HP, tripower, engine option was NOT on the official list!

From MF Dobbins, here's the list for 1969. The 1968 list was different and so was the 1970 list...

[Michael H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Well, re-read the text of the JRM judging rule. It addresses SPECIFICALLY those items that were GM approved for that model year car in the then current Corvette sales literature.

The day/nite mirror is listed as a dealer accessory for 1964 cars but NOT for '63, '65 or '66 cars. So, that speaks further to one of your questions....

But isn't it also stated that the car is to be judged "as delivered to the dealer plus NORMAL get ready", which completely eliminates ANY/ALL non factory installed items/options?

The accessory books do list day/night mirrors as a dealer installed accessory for some/most years. However, if JUST the day/night mirror is installed on, say, a 64 coupe without backup lamps, it would not be correct for that car. The only way the mirror would have been available would have been with the B/U lamp package. It wasn't available separately from the factory.

There was/is NO such thing as a day/night mirror for any 66. It wasn't available in production.

[Michael H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Re-read the specific text of Rule 8. It does NOT apply to any/all items that were dealer installed! It specifically points to those items that were specified by GM/Chevy as being bona fide Dealer Accessories for Corvette.

That list changed from year to year, so it's a dynamic issue. But, I can assure you the 435 HP, tripower, engine option was NOT on the official list!

From MF Dobbins, here's the list for 1969. The 1968 list was different and so was the 1970 list...

The only item on that list that could be accepted as a legit option, in my opinion, is the engine block heater, depending on the year. If I remember correctly, the block heater was an available assembly line installed or dealer installed option in the late 60's.
I don't remember any cars going down the line with "child safety seats" though.

[Jack H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

As the rule is currently written, I don't see you have the discretion to decide which items are 'acceptable'. The rule specifically covers ALL of the items on the list. That was my point.

It's not like an NTL guidance isssue in a Judging Guide (guides are intended to supplement the judge's personal knowledge and their provisos MAY be set aside at the judge's discretion). This is a hard rule in the Judging Reference Manual that's maintained by the NCRS National Judging Chairman. It's supposed to govern all judging activity regardless of Corvette specific division.

I don't see ANY judging discretion/lattitude to set aside items ennumerated in the JRM... It shouldn't be a surprise because this rule has LONG been in print. That was my point...the locking gas cap has been on those list(s) of authorized dealer accessories since 1964!

[Jack H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

Yes it is (our rules state the car is to be judged as manufactured by the factory without dealer/owner inspired option addition/deletion).

But, go back and re-read the specific text of Rule 8. You'll see it starts with a pre-amble explaining this is a specific set aside to our other judging rules...

It's not an issue of whether or not this/that dealer accessory WAS listed at one time, it's an issue of whether or not the accessory was listed for that specific model year Corvette in the then current sales literature.

Plus, there is no requirement for the D/N mirror to accompany the T86 (backup lamp) option in 1964. It's a standalone, bona fide, dealer accessory for 1964 only...

It was in 1965 that option Z01 (comfort and convenience) became a factory option that bundled the D/N mirror with backup lamps as a package. And, according to Dobbins, the D/N mirror 'disappeared' from the bona fide dealer accessory list at that time...

That was my point. According to Dobbins, the Day/Nite mirror is ONLY called out for 1964 and not for '63, '65-67 cars. Even though the D/N mirror was already in the service system as a bona fide part and could be purchased by owners for their mid-year cars, the way Rule 8 is written, it's NOT a legitimate dealer accessory for cars other than 1964 models. That's if you believe MF Dobbins as the source...

[Michael H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

As the rule is currently written, I don't see you have the discretion to decide which items are 'acceptable'. The rule specifically covers ALL of the items on the list. That was my point.

It's not like an NTL guidance isssue in a Judging Guide (guides are intended to supplement the judge's personal knowledge and their provisos MAY be set aside at the judge's discretion). This is a hard rule in the Judging Reference Manual that's maintained by the NCRS National Judging Chairman. It's supposed to govern all judging activity regardless of Corvette specific division.

I don't see ANY judging discretion/lattitude to set aside items ennumerated in the JRM... It shouldn't be a surprise because this rule has LONG been in print. That was my point...the locking gas cap has been on those list(s) of authorized dealer accessories since 1964!

I think it should be rewritten/corrected. There's way too much open space the way it's currently written.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Dealer installed items

There is no line item on the score sheets for non-standard/non-factory items. You have to make a place to put the deduction(s). I'd consider the car's chassis judged body panels as being the correct place to take the deduction(s). It's certainly a Finish issue for those parts affected...

Yes, but since you're the one splitting hairs I thought I'd point out your mismatch.

I'd rather judge a rusty car than an undercoated one. Undercoating gets deductions in several spots and in my experience few of the locations result in a "full deduction" as you describe.

Patrick