Severe Rust Damage?

I guess thanks are in order for publicizing this, but it would be of much more value if you would reveal a website to view this auction and more importantly a VIN number to allow this information to go into the registry.

Larry

Here is the car.  The VIN is in the ad.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1972-...f:g:RMkAAOSwfhlgPpl~

Wow I wonder what lurks underneath all the undercoating?  At that price best to avoid this one IMO.  If one could inspect the car on a lift to assess the required work at least one would know what he was getting into.

The VIN is: THPNMK03724

Imagine having payed $89000 for it only to discover an underside like that. It looks like someone did a lot of rough bracing to keep the chassis from falling apart.

No mentioning of rust issues in the add - run.

There is one more photo of the bottom of the car and it is also disturbing.  Additional bracing has been welded along the bottom of the engine firewall.  But they had to bend the bracing to make it fit (or it bent after installation). Maybe the car has been in an accident?   Extra bracing has been added along the outside seat rails as well.

Here is a regular Pantera for comparison:

Hi everyone I just joined the forum and I am the owner of this pantera. One thing I want to clarify is that I didn't authorize @stevebuchanan to share my pictures anywhere. These are my photos and he has no right to post them anywhere else without my permission. This car is not pretty underneath I  know.   As far as rust it is not a rusty car I put almost 6K miles on it since owning it the way it is. It had a lots of undercoat when I purchased it and we tried to scrape clean but it was taking enormous amount of work and it was not going to change anything but the looks. So it was coated one more time. It may look suspicious but if somebody wanted to take time to inspect it will find out what really is.If any rust was found underneath I would have addressed it but didn't find  any rust. Assumption is a bad thing and I sent those pictures myself but I do NOT APPRECIATE stevebuchanan posting photos and devalue my car. He asked for the pictures and did not even contact me after. But took the extra effort to come here and talk about it.  This tread is very unproductive and should be removed. IF someone wants a value car there is some out there but please don't devalue my car.

Administrator, please remove this thread as requested by  Chn82

Chn82,

Due to a lack of full disclosure in the ebay listing, I think this thread is productive to help people not waste time when considering cars since it provides information that is currently missing from the listing. 

Note that BaT won't even list a car that doesn't have underside pictures.  Why have a problem with them being shared, since they represent the actual state of the car, correct?   Why not put the pictures in the ebay listing or at least state in the listing "This car is not pretty underneath" as you state above? 

Are you going to state there is missing front valance sheet metal in the ebay listing, now that you are aware its an issue?

FYI, you voluntarily sent the images out for review in connection with a public listing and lost control at that point. These images fall under fair use for criticism and comment under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. 

Chn82

no visible rust because it has been covered up by scrap bedframe metal and then doused in a flood of undercoating. This car is a structural disaster or it would not have all of that homebrew, redneck reinforcement slathered onto its underside. IMHO

if there’s nothing wrong with the underside of this car it is very strange that you would not post any photos of the underside in your eBay auction. You obviously know this is an issue with the car and you are not being upfront in marketing this car.

you appear to be someone that flips cars when the money looks good, not like the rest of us, owners who cherish these cars and value them as rare and classic supercars.

Your flimsy little protest will not gain any traction in this forum

Larry

One of the main purposes of a public forum such as ours, is to assist potential buyers in making informed purchases. When someone puts a Pantera up for sale, fair commentary is expected. Pointing out odd, obviously non-stock chassis reinforcements and visible rust perforations, in areas known to rust from the inside out, is our obligation. Ask yourself who is harmed and who is helped by this information? Well done Steve, for bringing this Pantera to the attention of the market and for providing an example of what the undercarriage of a Pantera should look like.

I, for one, think this thread belongs here.

Getting my popcorn......

Once a message has been posted on a public domain it's fair game for it to be distributed by others. Don't post on E-bay or anywhere else if you dont want the information to be distributed.

Recently I posted an image of an advertised Pantera and asked 'do you know this car?' on the Forum. Steve Puchanan knew it's location and offered to look it over for us. The car was nice enough in appearance but had many issues not identified in the advertisement. Thats what this Forum is all about, and thank you Steve.  I hope that the rough looking underside of the Pantera in question is no more than poorly applied undercoating.

Larry ,You've seen this car before.     Rust Repair? THPNMK03724 3724 | The De Tomaso Forums (infopop.cc)

Dennis,

My post you just referenced was the one I posted shortly after Steve started this thread.

by including the VIN number in the title of my thread, I knew it would appear in a Google search for any potential buyer  who was performing due diligence on the cars history.

Larry

Images posted on the internet are copyright protected and the property of the person that took the picture.  There are exceptions to this law, but you should read up before stating that once a picture is posted on the internet, "it's fair game".  A post is not a picture.  I believe the owner of the pictures is questioning the use of his pictures.  

Well, if that's so, I stand corrected. However, I see many images that have been passed on by others without crediting the original author. Are we all flaunting the law?

You own the copyright to photos you take from the moment you take them. When you post them online through a third party website or social media platform, you agree to the terms of service of that website.

I just found the statement above, but am not a lawyer nor factchecked the statement. To me it make sense.

So my question to you all and The Forum, are your own photos posted on this website automatically copywritten?

What you create - music, pictures, art are yours the minute you create them.  Not saying you are "copyrighting them" is irrelevant.  This is why so many photographers deny you the ability to download their material - Flickr is a classic example of most of the content blocked from downloading without consent of the owner.  All I am saying is do not think that because a photo is on the internet, you can take it and do whatever you want with it.  Most times you can because the owner doesn't care.  But then there are the times that someone does car what is done with their work.  Nobody is "flaunting" the law - you are technically breaking it but the owning parting isn't pursuing you so you are "good".

Your point, and I fully agree with you, is if someone was attempting to sell a used car (of which any Pantera is ) one would think they would want their pictures to reach the largest exposure possible and not hidden from the buying audience on this forum.  The problem is when you call their baby ugly(ash). :-)

If that car sells for 89K mine should be worth 200K!

I can see that is a rust bucket from San Diego!

This is a year old thread.  I don't know why somebody brought it back.  We already addressed this and these images fall under fair use for criticism and comment under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.