1969 Chevrolet Kingswood Estate

Alleged 43k original miles, but the woodgrain and outside mirror are wrong for a 1969 model.

http://www.autotraderclassics.com/c...et-Caprice-971272.xhtml?conversationId=418590

 

The factory woodgrain looked like this.

 

Nice looking car, that's for sure, even if the mirror and grain are incorrect. Still prfer these with the optional hidden headlamps.

 

Interior pics would be nice.

 

hmmm

Like the ad jw posted shows, the woodie on the outside is supposed to match the woodie on the inside of the doors. Looks like Buick woodie to me. I may be wrong, but I've noticed, down thru the years, Buick woodie has a tendency to be paler than other woodie. Those Dodge Chargers proved influential on both GM and FoMoCo; both this year Chevy and a this year Mercury, I do believe, came with the "ring-around-the-grille" bumpers, too.

 

I know where there are some hidden headlamps for this wagon.

David

 

Wow. That front clip also has the fender mounted lamp monitors - another rare option for 1969.

 

I know, this had to have been a loaded wagon, probably had most every option if it has these. I probably would have bought the entire carcass out of the junkyard if it had not been thrown away. Love these '69's!

David

 

Wonder what that front clip is going for............?
My guess - $2,000

 

:confused: $200.00 ?????? :confused:

 

The '69 Charger had a regular bumper, the '70 had the bumper surrounding the grill.

GM started the modern bumper surrounding the grill/s and body color bumper styling.
The '67 Firebird had that type bumper first and then the same type bumper molded in Endura and painted the body color was a first on the '68 GTO.

 

trye enough

I was making reference to the car wide "smile" around the headlights too. One of the reasons we ended up with superbumpers, according to news reports I remember watching at the time, was that GM's Firebirds and Camaros had those only or mostly in the middle bumpers. Also, in 73, when Ford was "breaking it to us easy" by giving us a whole model year of cars with a superbumper in front and a regular bumper in back, activists complained about that. Because, on some models of their cars the two bumpers didn't line up with each other.

 

I think the way the federal laws phased in the impact absorbing bumpers were that they were required only for the front bumpers for 1973 models but for both front and rear beginning model year 1974, which was also the first year that seat and shoulder belts were required to be linked together as a one piece unit. If I remember right, the federal bumper laws came about because of some incredibly weak and delicate "bumpers" that both Detroit and foreign car makers were putting on some models by the late '60s and and early '70s. "Bumpers" that allowed damage to occur with even the most modest of impact, which made both car owners and (especially) insurance companies very unhappy.

 

One thing I'll have to say - those ugly chrome bumpers mounted on real shock absorbers, common on a lot of '74-'77 (or so...) Detroit iron usually did their job. A lot of the crashed vehicles I inspected from that period sustained minimal damage - dings in the chrome, bent bumper guards, partially collapsed shocks. Also remember getting indications of secondary impact damage though, wherein a rear-ender the front vehicle acttually bounces off the rear vehicle and into a stopped vehicle in front, or the rear vehicle continues forward motion and hits the vehicle in front again.