They did a feature story on the Rizek Ex Dale Reeker dodge garage #501 daytona showing the dash vin with one of a kind dash rivets and 69 SE fender tag with XS29L9B287970 vin.They used my East Cleveland Dodge ad.Got into the Playboy daytona story some and more etc etc. Great read it was worth the wait.I always wanted to know the unique details behind this 1 off wingcar car .And $2.99.@www.moparcollectorsguide.com charge instead of waiting for the issue .Was worth it
Could of been a great story.
Instead - Just a ton of suppositions, speculation, guesses.....
It's the old - If you aren't sure - just make shit up.
...got it in the mail a few days ago...nice article I thought
I was hoping for a story of all the details of the conversion along with detailed pics of all the cool peculiarities of this special car....along with the verified history behind it. Not all of the guessing and speculating that is presented as fact. This car does not need all that - it stands on its own.
Changing license plates in the photo's? Changing the wing color for the parts book? Etc. Etc. Etc. It was presented as everything but the killer of JFK.
Not seldom seen.The Vin dash plate picture showed odd brass looking rivets.And a 69 Daytona fender tag picture with XS on it.No A11 and a out of sequence 207 Feb 07 SPD and 236200 Job # number instead of commonlly found #926 number .None of which you seen before :Twocents:
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/101_2808.jpg)
Stuff like this would have been cool.
Looks like fender scoops and dual mirrors here....
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 15, 2012, 12:07:07 AM
Not seldom seen.The Vin dash plate picture showed odd brass looking rivets.And a 69 Daytona fender tag picture with XS on it.No A11 and a out of sequence 207 Feb 07 SPD and 236200 Job # number instead of commonlly found #926 number .None of which you seen before :Twocents:
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/101_2808.jpg)
the superbird image, was a nice touch, by that dodge dealership. :smilielol:
If this F6 is supposed to be an SE, the one in the ad is definitely not a SE, don't see the "SE" emblem on the roof..
The dealer warranty book confirms same dealer
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,76676.0.html
More on Dale Reeker daytona
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=35172.0
Quote from: maxwellwedge on January 15, 2012, 01:56:57 PM
Stuff like this would have been cool.
Looks like fender scoops and dual mirrors here....
Hey I have seen the picture before. Where did ya get that Jim? I haven't seen the article yet. I don't subscribe to MCG anymore, so will have to wait until its on the newstand. having looked over the car quite a bit though it is definitely unique. And yes it is a F6 car that is an SE as well.
$2.99.@www.moparcollectorsguide.com charge instead of waiting for the issue
i got mine through my subscription about a week ago, but haven't gotten to read it yet :brickwall:
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 15, 2012, 08:07:02 PM
$2.99.@www.moparcollectorsguide.com charge instead of waiting for the issue
Dave - They paying you a commission? :lol:
Kidding buddy. :cheers:
Thanks for the kind endorsement Dave, appreciate you posting it here. As hopefully a lot of you guys know, I've always been a hardcore wing car guy. The reason we didn't use those design photos Maxwell is because they do not involve this car. We had good scans of those photos and blew them up on our Mac computers here and the two styling photos definitely show a regular Charger with a clay nose mocked up on it - that's why the jack stands are under the car, to support the weight of the clay. Using B/W to color programs, the car used for those styling mock ups was not green, thus, it was definitely not this car.
Yes, there are a lot of presumptions in our story, but I prefer to think of them as logical conclusions. Certainly there are gaps in the early history of this car, but if you read the story, I don't think I tried to hide the fact that there are gaps and they'll likely never be filled because unless we find somebody who worked on this car at Creative and remembers it, we'll never know all the answers.
About the newspaper ad, please remember, the Dodge dealership didn't create that advertisement, the newspaper did. They told them they had a Daytona for sale and wanted a photo of it in the ad. Stock photos were the norm in 1969 - look in any newspaper or phone book of the day. The paper simply grabbed a Superbird photo instead of a Daytona photo, that one is not a big conspiracy theory, it was just a newspaper quickly printing an ad. Take care! ;)
I was confused when I saw this photo because it is a Superbird prototype built on a 69 Road Runner, not a Daytona. Looks like a clayed up Daytona nose. There are other photos in the series showing the rear of the car.
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=88014.0;attach=166889;image)
And don't forget, $2.99.@ www.moparcollectorsguide.com you can read the issue. And if you act now....
You're correct, that photo is a Superbird styling clay. There's another photo out there showing the side of a Daytona styling clay that's long been mentioned as being the "Reeker" car, that was the one I was speaking of. However, this little group of three or four styling mock up winged cars always seems to crop up together. None of them ever made it out of the factory, they were just assembly line cars that had heavy clay noses worked onto them. :cheers:
Les Bowman lived less than 20 miles from me. I always remember when we was in Tiffin he had some kind of wing out and about to see including the Bluebird. I talked to his son this past fall at the Classic in Norwalk, he is on the prowl for a wing car. I told him to contact Doug. ;)
Quote from: RandyH. on January 17, 2012, 02:55:37 PM
Thanks for the kind endorsement Dave, appreciate you posting it here. As hopefully a lot of you guys know, I've always been a hardcore wing car guy. The reason we didn't use those design photos Maxwell is because they do not involve this car. We had good scans of those photos and blew them up on our Mac computers here and the two styling photos definitely show a regular Charger with a clay nose mocked up on it - that's why the jack stands are under the car, to support the weight of the clay. Using B/W to color programs, the car used for those styling mock ups was not green, thus, it was definitely not this car.
Yes, there are a lot of presumptions in our story, but I prefer to think of them as logical conclusions. Certainly there are gaps in the early history of this car, but if you read the story, I don't think I tried to hide the fact that there are gaps and they'll likely never be filled because unless we find somebody who worked on this car at Creative and remembers it, we'll never know all the answers.
About the newspaper ad, please remember, the Dodge dealership didn't create that advertisement, the newspaper did. They told them they had a Daytona for sale and wanted a photo of it in the ad. Stock photos were the norm in 1969 - look in any newspaper or phone book of the day. The paper simply grabbed a Superbird photo instead of a Daytona photo, that one is not a big conspiracy theory, it was just a newspaper quickly printing an ad. Take care! ;)
Hey Randy - I said stuff like those "kind of" photo's would have been cool.... :lol:
The story was good - I just thought there were too many presumptions....space where more pics would have suited me more. But, that's me. I love the technical part a little more - but a good story is important to your readers and that car is a good story any way you spin it. Don't get me wrong - I am a history buff for all this stuff too.
And - you put the Playboy car guy on suicide watch... :errr: :icon_smile_big:
I think the parts book thing sent me over the top. Climbing a water tower kind of stuff.
Anyway - I was just bitchin because I was expecting (anticipating) something a little different for this important car. I still love you guys. I'll break Rob's stones in Scottsdale! :lol:
Maxwellwedge - MCG Cover Boy May 2003 ;)
Quote from: maxwellwedge on January 17, 2012, 06:52:36 PM
Quote from: RandyH. on January 17, 2012, 02:55:37 PM
Thanks for the kind endorsement Dave, appreciate you posting it here. As hopefully a lot of you guys know, I've always been a hardcore wing car guy. The reason we didn't use those design photos Maxwell is because they do not involve this car. We had good scans of those photos and blew them up on our Mac computers here and the two styling photos definitely show a regular Charger with a clay nose mocked up on it - that's why the jack stands are under the car, to support the weight of the clay. Using B/W to color programs, the car used for those styling mock ups was not green, thus, it was definitely not this car.
Yes, there are a lot of presumptions in our story, but I prefer to think of them as logical conclusions. Certainly there are gaps in the early history of this car, but if you read the story, I don't think I tried to hide the fact that there are gaps and they'll likely never be filled because unless we find somebody who worked on this car at Creative and remembers it, we'll never know all the answers.
About the newspaper ad, please remember, the Dodge dealership didn't create that advertisement, the newspaper did. They told them they had a Daytona for sale and wanted a photo of it in the ad. Stock photos were the norm in 1969 - look in any newspaper or phone book of the day. The paper simply grabbed a Superbird photo instead of a Daytona photo, that one is not a big conspiracy theory, it was just a newspaper quickly printing an ad. Take care! ;)
Hey Randy - I said stuff like those "kind of" photo's would have been cool.... :lol:
The story was good - I just thought there were too many presumptions....space where more pics would have suited me more. But, that's me. I love the technical part a little more - but a good story is important to your readers and that car is a good story any way you spin it. Don't get me wrong - I am a history buff for all this stuff too.
And - you put the Playboy car guy on suicide watch... :errr: :icon_smile_big:
I think the parts book thing sent me over the top. Climbing a water tower kind of stuff.
Anyway - I was just bitchin because I was expecting (anticipating) something a little different for this important car. I still love you guys. I'll break Rob's stones in Scottsdale! :lol:
Maxwellwedge - MCG Cover Boy May 2003 ;)
great job daddy lol
There is a fine line between rant, diplomacy and kissing up my plotting son.
Quote from: maxwellwedge on January 17, 2012, 08:52:18 PM
There is a fine line between rant, diplomacy and kissing up my plotting son.
u are the master :2thumbs:
I have read all of the threads and I do not understand the the skepticism regarding the 1st built - last sold Daytona being the playboy car. The article has gathered together in one place as much information as possible and drawn reasonable conclusions 42 years later - just like a cold case. Understanding the car manufacturing culture of those times is important and keeps the information in perspective when working to conclusion.
Great story, well written and the best case of evidence so far 42 yrs later.
Y :popcrn: :hah: :popcrn:
I cant see how a daytona destined to a dealer from creative could have left without scoops :Twocents: Prototypes and engineering vehicle being the exception .And if 1 just happened to leave without scoops .What the odds of all available daytonas. Chrysler could have recruited from various sources .That one got used for the photo shoot.Also the proto daytona early car .That could have had black door button push buttons as a 68 and early 69 cars had as seen in the playboy picture.I never seen black button door pushes on later 69 built daytonas
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/WINGCARconversion2.jpg)
I am not trying to be disrespectful or start a squabble as this is a wonderful web site. However I am very interested in why there are non believers of the largest collection in facts in one place.
Based on the information [evidence] presented and a good understanding car building culture of those times they present a very compelling case. The car had 2 vins, clearly shown, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
it was the first built - last sold. They figured out how they got the daytona creators obtained the "mule" car and they show us the trail. Those of you who are wing car aficionados should already know of the confusion and poor workmanship these cars received to get them out the door in a timely fashion.
The rules listed in the previous post are for the "production" Daytonas, not the engineering Daytona in the story.
The fender scoop issues seems to be resolved in the article. Besides parading out the assembly sequence for the production cars what else do you have??
For those of you with differing opinions is it too much to request you go point by point against the story?
For me the story answered alot of questions. I had suspected on the double vin 287970 Dale Reeker daytona.
And even more convincing info its also the playboy car aswell
it's mcg. you don't need facts, just some pics, a half vast theory, and tie it all together with a swag. voila, you know have the "facts", fitted to print. speculation doesnt make it so. only PROVEN, DOCUMENTED FACTS make it so. see the difference? :lol:
The facts are the 287970 car had 2 vins and was engineered outside the regular daytona techniques.And that no writers embellishment.
Quote from: Golden-Arm on January 29, 2012, 07:03:39 PM
it's mcg. you don't need facts, just some pics, a half vast theory, and tie it all together with a swag. voila, you know have the "facts", fitted to print. speculation doesnt make it so. only PROVEN, DOCUMENTED FACTS make it so. see the difference? :lol:
reference the mod top fiasco for more 'proof.'
also, go ahead and fact check any of the 'enviro masochism' stories...it's the whole truth every month there, too.
Could we discuss the message and stop killing the messenger??
Repeating myself:
Based on the information [evidence] presented and a good understanding of the car building culture of those times they present a very compelling case. The car had 2 vins, clearly shown proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
it was the first built - last sold. [There is an official list] They figured out how they got the daytona creators obtained the "mule" car and they show us the trail. Those of you who are wing car aficionados should already know of the confusion and poor workmanship these cars received to get them out the door in a timely fashion.
The rules listed in the previous post are for the "production" Daytonas, not the engineering Daytona in the story.
The fender scoop issues seems to be resolved in the article.
Besides parading out the assembly sequence for the production cars and some long held opinions what else do you have?.
Leslie Bowman is a well known person in the winged car world
He took the car apart in 1975 and painted it red.
1975 it's a used car and nothing else.
Guy Rizik buys the car and later in life gives to his nephew John
John looks at the car pedigree and discovers it's a car that was reassigned a VIN by the FACTORY
Hard Evidence
The fender tag and bc sheet clearly show a scheduled build date of Feb 07,1969
NASCAR history of the daytona's clearly proves the hurry up, we need to get the cars built to meet the homologation requirements. Homologation is the approval process a vehicle, race track or standardized part must go through to race in a given league or series. The regulations and rules that must be met are generally set by the series' sanctioning body.
"Interviews with countless employees"
There is so much more. I am not going to list the rest of it
Come on let's fight over the facts.
I am calling you guys out to fight [discuss the facts] with no malice intended. ok??
Please let's discuss the facts
One question: How could the photographed Daytona be an "SE" if there is adored with "Charger" script on the roof and not the "SE" medallion? I doubt very seriously the Dodge and Creative would have "screwed" up so much on this car.
One observation: The color of the rear package tray in the photo is green, not black.. Can I prove it, nope... But, my "experiences" with looking at countless photo ads from the "day" say if the interior in the photographed Daytona was black, the package tray, even in the sunlight through the rear window, would have been darker......
Quote from: Tom Q on January 30, 2012, 07:05:06 AM
Leslie Bowman is a well known person in the winged car world
He took the car apart in 1975 and painted it red.
1975 it's a used car and nothing else.
Guy Rizik buys the car and later in life gives to his nephew John
John looks at the car pedigree and discovers it's a car that was reassigned a VIN by the FACTORY
Hard Evidence
The fender tag and bc sheet clearly show a scheduled build date of Feb 07,1969
NASCAR history of the daytona's clearly proves the hurry up, we need to get the cars built to meet the homologation requirements. Homologation is the approval process a vehicle, race track or standardized part must go through to race in a given league or series. The regulations and rules that must be met are generally set by the series' sanctioning body.
"Interviews with countless employees"
There is so much more. I am not going to list the rest of it
Come on let's fight over the facts.
I am calling you guys out to fight [discuss the facts] with no malice intended. ok??
Please let's discuss the facts
what facts support it being the car used in the Playboy photo shoot?
and
what the hell are you arguing for? I don't mean 'do you have a point' I mean 'what IS your point?'
We havent seen its buildsheet .What does it say for interior color.And what it shows for tire rim combo.Playboy car shows redlines
:Twocents: Looking around researching I have found more early 69 cars with the black door button pushes .And they are on the playboy article car.
http://wwnboa.org/jpgs/specfeatbh1.jpg
here is a photo of the Rizek Ex Dale Reeker dodge garage #501 daytona I have.
I I I me me me.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2315/2070235655_e5d14f81c9.jpg)
Another Dale Reeker daytona picture
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/DaleReekercar-1.jpg)
repost of a photo by Doug S at the Ford Museum. might as well post this one in the thread with the blue daytona at best of show, too.
Here's a fresh one:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2334/2070263575_ae8456c34b.jpg)
Quote from: pettybird on January 31, 2012, 11:47:17 AM
here is a photo of the Rizek Ex Dale Reeker dodge garage #501 daytona I have.
I I I me me me.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2315/2070235655_e5d14f81c9.jpg)
its always about you doug always :icon_smile_big:
I am happy to announce that this car will be shown at the upcoming Muscle Car and Corvette Nationals show in fully restored form November 17-18, 2012.
As many of you know, the car was featured in the center of the Finer Details display at our show last November. Ken Mosier and his crew are now well into the restoration of this car.
We look forward to hosting this car, along with many more Wing cars, Charger 500's, Talledega's, Cyclone Spoilers and Spoiler II's in our Aero Warriors Invitational display, hosted by Doug Schellinger and Jason Thompson.
If you own one of these cars or any related memorabilia, please consider joining us.
bashton426@gmail.com
Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com
Quote from: Bashton on March 01, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
I am happy to announce that this car will be shown at the upcoming Muscle Car and Corvette Nationals show in fully restored form November 17-18, 2012.
As many of you know, the car was featured in the center of the Finer Details display at our show last November. Ken Mosier and his crew are now well into the restoration of this car.
We look forward to hosting this car, along with many more Wing cars, Charger 500's, Talledega's, Cyclone Spoilers and Spoiler II's in our Aero Warriors Invitational display, hosted by Doug Schellinger and Jason Thompson.
If you own one of these cars or any related memorabilia, please consider joining us.
bashton426@gmail.com
Bashton
MCACN Managing Member
www.mcacn.com
The car is still in my garage. I have talked to Ken but no commitment has been made to restore the car.
just a tad of a disconnect there, eh?
I was about to send you a note and ask if that was true. I certainly hope you keep it the way it is. That however is just my opinion.
Oop's _