Seen this picture before?

[Drache]

Can't be a real Daytona unless I'm mistaken in seeing '70 R/T Door Louvers 

[tsmithae]

It looks like a clone to me, trunk lid looks full-length... I could be mistaken tho.

[Drache]

Just happened across another picture of a different car

[Drache]

Found a picture of another '70 Daytona Clone

[A383Wing]

the first pic may be a real Daytona with 70 door scoops...notice pillar chrome...and I don't see the trunk lid leading edge cut out like a full lid..also, no 70 rear side marker light

[65post]

That was posted on facebook not long ago.If I am not mistaken by a previous owner?

[hemigeno]

Can't be a real Daytona unless I'm mistaken in seeing '70 R/T Door Louvers  

Is the front sway bar the '69 or '70 style?



While originals may not have been quite as impossible to obtain "back in the day", the front wheel lip mouldings do not look short enough to have been regular Charger mouldings straightened to fit the Daytona valence contour/profile.

[6bblgt]

good call, that's a '69 sway bar!

[Moparpoolman]

Just happened across another picture of a different car

looks like the "watermelon Daytona" in black and white

[hemi68charger]

There have been many occassions back in the day where people put '70 sccops on '69's because they look cool........... My guess it's an original XX29..........

[daytonalo]

On the first pic the right rear sail panel can be seen clearly showing no plug

[wingcar]

On the first pic the right rear sail panel can be seen clearly showing no plug

That's what I was thinking.....

[TUFCAT]

There have been many occassions back in the day where people put '70 sccops on '69's because they look cool........... My guess it's an original XX29..........

I agree. Those '70 door scoops were just plain cool.....and I can totally understand why somebody would add them to a '69 Charger back in the day.  

the first pic may be a real Daytona with 70 door scoops...notice pillar chrome...and I don't see the trunk lid leading edge cut out like a full lid..also, no 70 rear side marker light

I think A383Wing might have nailed it.    Take a close look at the position of the decklid on the red car.

It appears to be a Daytona lid when viewing the rear position of the decklid, and perhaps looks like a Daytona lid "should look" when open?  And one more thing... wouldn't a Daytona decklid appear to end a bit past the sail panel from this angle (like the photo shows) rather than hidden by the sail panel on a normal Charger....?

[FJMG]

I am not convinced that is the right rear sail panel but more a reflection of an roofline/ fascia of an adjacent building. Seems too low to me?
You can almost believe you see the top corner of the aero window though.

[FJMG]

But..........
I do wear glasses.

[daytonalo]

Get better glasses as orange paint can clearly be seen on passenger side inner sail panel 

[hemigeno]

I'm with Robert/FJMG on this one.  What might otherwise look like red paint on that passenger's side area is, IMHO, a reflection of the guy's shirt standing next to the car.  If it was red paint from the inner face of the flying buttress/sail panel, the size of the sail panel area for the tunneled rear window would be much larger than a normal Charger's.  That would be disproportionate, to me anyway.

Because of the contrast between black interior and the lighter-colored house siding in the background, the reflection does still give us the boundary of the window opening -- which from that angle/viewpoint would be about the same profile for a Daytona/C500 back glass window opening.... and (admittedly) something close to what a non-fastback Charger's sail panel profile would be... which is why I won't criticize Larry or anyone else for disagreeing.

[daytonalo]

Notice the black headliner ? It stops @ orig non aero  backlite

[hemigeno]

Notice the black headliner ? It stops @ orig non aero  backlite

In my opinion, that's too big of an area for it to be the inner face of the sail panel, which wasn't that large... again that's just my opinion.  I think it's just the reflection of the guy's shirt.  If they'd only have had digital cameras back in the day...

While it's not exactly the same angle/perspective, below is a picture in which you can see the sail panel area.  Visible, but not as large as what is inferred by the original photo.

[DAY CLONA]

I'm with Robert/FJMG on this one.  What might otherwise look like red paint on that passenger's side area is, IMHO, a reflection of the guy's shirt standing next to the car. 

Agreed, just blow the pic up and you'll see it's a reflection of the guys shirt in the window, nothing more.....it's a "Daytona", or possibly a 500 modified, or..?

[GOTWING]

i have this pic on my FB page also under "back in the day pics". I also wondered if it was the real deal.

[odcics2]

Just happened across another picture of a different car

looks like the "watermelon Daytona" in black and white

It is.  One of the set of 3-4 different angles out there. 

[DAY CLONA]

Just happened across another picture of a different car

looks like the "watermelon Daytona" in black and white

It is.  One of the set of 3-4 different angles out there.  

Yep...there's the large color poster with the Chrysler photo studio logo, 2 black and white front and rear shots of it in the Hamtramck holding yard (above photo), one over exposed black and white shot where the car appears almost black in color, and there's 2 black and white photos (drivers side front and passenger rear) of the car outside at Cobo Hall, plus I was given another pic of it at an ISCA event in Michigan (late 69/early 70) on display with the "new for 70" panther pink Dodge promo Challenger convertible display, along with some Mr Norms cars and assorted other "new for 70" Chrysler factory displays/cars...so that makes about 7 vintage photos of the car to date...it fell off the "radar" shortly after February 1970 according to those that saw it last at Dodge Main in the Executive parking lot

Mike

[TUFCAT]

Mike, did you ever find out why (or who) it was originally built for?    A car like that had to have a purpose - at least you would think.  Have you ever tracked down the plate numbers to find out who might have had those numbers in '70. Sometimes dealer plates can tell a story based on the numbers, like when issued, possibly where, and to what company.

For example, the 395 may have been issued to a particular dealer or company, and the suffix numbers "33" would ascend for each plate issued to that dealer

[DAY CLONA]

Mike, did you ever find out why (or who) it was originally built for?    A car like that had to have a purpose - at least you would think.  Have you ever tracked down the plate numbers to find out who might have had those numbers in '70. Sometimes dealer plates can tell a story based on the numbers, like when issued, possibly where, and to what company.

For example, the 395 may have been issued to a particular dealer or company, and the suffix numbers "33" would ascend for each plate issued to that dealer

Tufcat,
You are correct as to the plate identification, I just never found anyone with records that far back, the plate was a Michigan 1969 issue


Mike