Interesting car LB9 and t-tops but pretty base interior. The GTA's fooled me but I read the descrip

Located in Milan, IL


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Pontiac...3D232315960419

 

Nice, clean, well kept example. Like the color combination. Thanks for sharing!

 

Every time I see a very low mile car I get really sad when I discover that it is missing very key desirable options. Like lb9,ut4,uq7,cc1 but no ws6??? I hate that. Still Nice car though.

 

Wow, those are some really boring/base looking seats. Surprised you could get those in an '85 T/A. Looks like a stupid nice original car otherwise.

 

I wonder what happened to the 3rd brake light?

 

It's been relisted here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Pontiac...398708?vxp=mtr

Nice to see a low-mile Trans Am for a change. Beautiful car. Very nice color combo. I like the 140mph electronic speedo without kph, which was a characteristic of pre-1987 electronic 140mph speedos. A shame it didn't get all the performance options, and unfortunately its LB9 has the peanut cam, but it will still be a very nice car for its new owner.

But the wheels don't appear to be factory-original to this car. It's true that 1986 TAs could receive the 16" wheels eventually installed on GTAs, but this car's window sticker clearly lists 235/60-15 as its optional tire size. So unless those wheels are 15" Fiero wheels, which I don't think they are, then the wheels and tires are not factory original to this car.

Regarding the third brake light, which didn't become law until 1986, the car was built in late 1985, so perhaps there was a legal loophole for such 1986 models?

 

He states in the Ebay ad that the GTA wheels were added. All 86 F-bodies had a third brake light at the top of the hatch. Either the hatch was replaced, on this car or it's not an 86.

 

Yes, I know. Some 1985 GM cars even had the third brake light. But if the law was written to go into effect in calendar year 1986, then that would've given GM the loophole to build early 86 models(those being built in late 1985, as this car was) without a third brake light. And if there was a stockpile of glass hatches, then that would've given GM an opportunity to use them before being forced to install third brake lights. I really didn't figure I would need to explain all of that in my other post, but there it is now. And as I wrote it, that was just a guess.

But probably, the hatch was simply replaced.

 

Either way, this is a beautiful car

 

There was no loophole for the (1986) CHMSL, or 3rd brake light. This was federally mandated law.

Also, unless an 85 was retrofitted, or a mule/engineering car, it would not have a 3rd brake light.