No trunk gasket!
Omg 1973 BMW 3.0 CSL golf yellow
- Thread starter scottevest
- Start date
What a great opportunity to get some education on what's correct and incorrect on this car (based on the provided pics). Perhaps a comprehensive list of what should be corrected?
Great list @Markos - Anything additional to add from the resident experts? I for one would love to get more educated on the particulars - @HB Chris @Keshav @giannicsl
Great list @Markos - Anything additional to add from the resident experts? I for one would love to get more educated on the particulars - @HB Chris @Keshav @giannicsl
@tferrer,
Not everyone can love a car and critique it at the same time. There are bunch of other items like this all throughout the car. The car is still for sale so I'm personally hesitant to pick over it publicly with a fine tooth comb. I'm also not a CSL expert, know little about engine bays, sticker placement, etc. The exercise is academics at the owner's expense and many non-owners will also take offense. My car is such an undriveable POS, that nobody can really say "yeah but what about your car?". I know my baby is ugly and may never see the light of day. As long as it isn't a convertible, I like all e9's from bone-stock survivors to Robert Downey Jr's and the crazy Ceylon with multiple bumpers in Iran. I enjoy discovering what makes these cars both unique and sometimes out-of-place, but I separate the observation from the sentiment. Happy to brainstorm via PM with the things that I know about.
I personally draw the line short of this one.
I personally draw the line short of this one.
One might ask if it is more cruel to point out design choices on a custom car, or point out a shop's inability to recreate something for which the blueprints and reference material already exists.
Not sure where you are going with this. My point wasn't to be "cruel". Rather, I was simply stating that I personally don't care for the custom design choices on that particular car (given it is popping up everywhere on insta and web articles right now). I don't think I am alone - and clearly it is not going for originality. But as long as Mr. Downy likes it...
My point was that it is generally considered "ok" to critique the design and execution of a hotrod, but it is considered in poor taste to point out execution errors in a period restoration. It's just and odd set of standards. I'm not using you as an example, as you quite simply stated that you you didn't like the RDJ car. The RDJ e9 comments around the internet are mean spirited, despite that the vehicle having a great motor, visible spot welds, nicely done leather work, etc. If I listed the 100 things that I see "wrong" with the CSL I would be a dick. If I said the RDJ car was ugly AF, I would get a nod.
Ha ha, I missed that completely. I just read "Stephen is cruel". And I haven't read any internet comments about the RDJ car, just a couple of articles that allowed me to form my own personal opinion. Sorry to learn it is getting nasty grams. Thanks for the clarification. Now back to the regularly scheduled post.
You are cruel btw. You seemed like a nice guy until you posted your garage pictures.
I hear you and agree to a certain degree. The other side of that coin is the owner likely spent quite a bit of time and money on a "correct" restoration that wasn't correct. Not to get anyone into a jam legally but IF that's what the owner paid for, perhaps he would be thankful for the information so he can get it corrected and avoid going through another public dressing down (so to speak). There will be others looking at restoring a CSL that would also like to have some finer reference points to determine whether their effort and dollars were well spent. It's my opinion (not worth much) that if the knowledge and reference points exist, then perhaps it should be less guarded and more available. The truth will set you free!
Jeezzee - talk about hiding in plain sight.
I looked over those pics several times. Didn't see that. Went back to BaT and... yep - no truck seal.
I mean... really? I have to then ask what else is not right that I can't see.
I hate to be the grouchy Gus... But... as someone who is getting to the closing stages of a restoration of an E9 myself - and putting a fair bit of change into it - if I later found out something like that was overlooked or missing or forgotten or whatever- I would not be happy. And that doesn't get to all those other details that were not quite right. Granted, not any one of them a big deal in itself, but - all together... Yeah - kind of a big one.
It would have been one thing if the seller had been up front on what they were, but this was presented as a 'restored car'. Then again - if they didn't know ..... Oh well.... Still - the missing trunk seal ... I just shake my head at that.I'm just glad that my car is in good hands in Alameda. Now... where are those seats? LOL
There is also no seal on the forward bulkhead (or area in front of the rad) -- Actually there is but only two portions which honestly look 'hideous' which to me is what this car is. This one's lost its soul but would still make a nice driver for some ultra rich trend-seeking buyer.
Just my .02 cents of course
Just my .02 cents of course
Last edited:
Wanted: Large group of ultra rich, trend seeking buyers for online, classic auto auctions.
How I read your post:
I like E9s and I cannot lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a car drives in missing that pillar
And a birdcage in your face,
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough 'cause you notice the engine bay's stuffed
Deep in the design its wearin'
I'm hooked and I can't stop starin'
Oh, baby, I wanna get wit'cha
And take your picture ....
I'm a CSL noob, but are the front and rear bumper lower valances be black like that? And why no air dam on the front? City pack car?
Just comparing to pics like here:
classicregister.com
Just comparing to pics like here:
1973 BMW New Six E9 3.0 CSL
Rob,
On certain Csl’s yes, on RHD Csl’s not. The description that Lightweight Csl‘s had Alloy doors, hood, trunk and thin roofs implies that non lightweight Csl’s didn’t, is a sales pitch distortion of the facts.
On certain Csl’s yes, on RHD Csl’s not. The description that Lightweight Csl‘s had Alloy doors, hood, trunk and thin roofs implies that non lightweight Csl’s didn’t, is a sales pitch distortion of the facts.
Pretty quick article about the subject car.
www.bmwblog.com
Why the 1973 3.0 CSL is worth the $200,000
Just today, a 1973 BMW 3.0 CSL was bid to almost $200,000. Though the top bid ($180,000) isn’t exactly bargain-bin pricing
Pretty quick article about the subject car.
Why the 1973 3.0 CSL is worth the $200,000
Just today, a 1973 BMW 3.0 CSL was bid to almost $200,000. Though the top bid ($180,000) isn’t exactly bargain-bin pricing
God what a terrible article. The pictures used in the article are BMW classic’s golf yellow carb CSL. Worth closer to $350/$400k, despite their $200K title. They keep referring to “this car”, but it isn’t the same car in the pics.
The article mentions the BaT taiga batmobile which hit RNM at $280K - well short of market rate for a restored batmobile. Without going into details, the Taiga batmobile and this golf 2275 have a lot in common.
I also love this “notable” quote:
“Notably, this car retained its original factory paint – although a full bare-metal respray was performed”
that quote is too funny. i am sure it was retained, just removed from the car ... they have it saved in a big jar. so they could do a full bare-metal respray