Rather than cluttering up some other threads with this issue, maybe we can kick around some ideas and post some things that support and explain a little more about the 1969 Charger Daytona's origins and history.
Going back pre-Charger 500 and such?
Whatever's of interest, and the Daytona certainly has a huge tie-in with the 69 C500.
:popcrn:
Hmmm, the origins of the Daytona.
Well the nose cone was origionally tried and fitted to an existing C500. Which was Cotton Owens C500, which was also a car that was in California and was stolen off of the dealers lot new. Car then had the motor yanked, and body left in a parking lot. Body was then sold to Cotton Owens I believe, and then he loaned it back to Chrysler to test fit the nose cones to the Daytona's on. Then the car went back to cotton owens, who eventually sold it to another individual, who still owns the car and has it restored.
Is that what you were looking for? Something along those lines? Or were you more interested in the nascar history? Which I personally love the Daytona't but they weren't really necessary for Chrysler to be competitive in NASCAR. As the first race for the 500, it was the fastest car on the track that day but lost the race in the pits.
When you say that they fitted the nose to the 500, was it with the 69 fenders or the 70 fenders? I've always been a little hazy on the early attempts to install that nose. I vaguely remember there being a big problem at the very beginning of that whole conversion process. I was a stock car junkie back then and always bought every stock car magazine that I could get my hands on and I remember reading something about the conversion problems. I probably still have that magazine with that article somewhere in all of those boxes of magazines in the attic.
As far as the fenders go I'm not positive but I'm going to say it was 1970 fenders. I belive they realized the nose wouldn't mount up to a 69 fender from the mock ups they had tried before.
I recall reading that a 69 hemi charger 500 from Ca That was stolen and found sitting on crates .In the watts section of CA.Was taken back and became the #88 dodge daytona research car.I still have that book and or magazine somewere I read that in
Fenco (Autozone)PN# M1475 (rebuilt) is for a 1970 B Body disc/drum power application with lines "inboard" (engine side) if that helps you?
NAPA also uses the 10-1475 part number for it's line of Truestop master cylinders, they are listed as "NEW"...again lines are inboard (engine side)
So you think the test fit car was the #88 car? Isn't the #88 car a known car now? I had heard that it was a stolen 500 also, but that the car was later recovered and sold to Cotton Owens. I believe there was an article about it in MCG last year.
The #88 car was found and is owned by a friend of mine from work. I recall he mentioned it was stolen early in it's life, as seems to be the fate of many of the aero cars. Mine was stolen 3 times from the original owner between '69 and '71; the third time, right from his driveway in the daytime...
:popcrn:
Greg K got the# 88 car from racer Don white
If you are talking about the origins of the Daytona, is it pertinent at this point in your thread to bring up the fastbacks? I would argue they were Chryslers first NASCAR entries with an eye to aerodynamics and they never had to chance to be really battle tested.
1966 went to David Pearson but Ford sat out most of the year. There was the business with the 1st gens lifting off at 180mph but even after they retrofitted the spoiler to the decklid, Pearson had his mind made up and hated the car. Even though Chrysler promoted the Charger as Pearsons ride, am I not correct that most of his 66 season was won in a Coronet?
Sam McQuaig and Don White had better luck with the fastback I believe.
BTW, how many have seen the video of the guest speakers at the last Wing Car Reunion and Rathgeb (I think it was him, a while since I last watched it)was talking about spoiler testing with Don White?
They kept adding a little bit to the decklid of the fastback and he kept insisting it wasn't making any difference so they finally gave up and took it off. When he came back in, he was madder than hell because they were trying to kill him.
I found this to be an interesting read on some Nascar history and the 500s and Daytonas
Source is the TDC web site
**Inactive Link Removed** PAGE 1
**Inactive Link Removed** PAGE 2
**Inactive Link Removed** PAGE 4
Ah so if you bring up 66 and 67 cars with a wing? anyone going to post a picture of the Charger that had a Daytona wing on it that was at quite a few shows a year or so ago?
The first generation Chargers were doing quite well on the track, the 68's with the sunk in grille and recessed rear window were the ones that demanded a modification. The 68's were fine on the smaller tracks and road courses, but not very fogiving on the superspeedways.
I took a lot of pics and video of that car. I actually thought it was a very interesting exercise along the lines of soemthing they'd dream up at Dayclona.
I, of course, only meant the lip spoiler on the back of the 1st gen decklid. There is a fairly small frontal area on those cars too in spite of it's massive appearance. I'm not sure if it's a smaller window than the 2nd gen or not but that recessed grille more than made up for any styling gains based on area. IIRC, the 66-67 frontal area is around 21 sq.ft.
Yeah I knew what you meant, I was only stretching.
I think that if Ford hadn't come out with the Talladega, or mercury with the Cyclone Spoiler II then we would never have seen a Daytona. Because the 500 would have pretty much dominated the other cars on the superspeedways. However it was a pretty neck and neck between those 3 cars, the Daytona was just the icing on the cake.
I for one am glad they built them because to me the Daytona is still the most beautiful car ever produced.
QuoteDaytona is still the most beautiful car ever produced
:iagree:
and the superbird
I read that originally they were testing with a 9 inch nose cone, but then eventually changed that to 18. The rear wing was originally quite a bit shorter but due to the deck lid needing to be openable (is that a word?) on the street versions they made it higher to what it is today, which ended up adding quite a bit more downforce at high speeds, kind of like the tail on an airplane. The vents on top of the fenders were added because the tires rubbed the fenders at high speeds. I think the first time they tested one at the Chrysler proving grounds in michigan it ran 249mph.
As far as the rear spoiler is concerned, I believe it was stated that they could have produced just as much downforce if the spoiler was only 6 inches tall, but there wouldn't be any way to open the trunk then. So they raised it to allow access to the trunk.
The whole scoops on the front fenders has always baffled me. Heard stories from years ago about how some believed them to be there to allow the brakes to cool off on the track. Heard others about how they were there for tire clearance. Now on the race versions I think they might have achieved both, but then someone needs to explain why even the street versions have a hole in the top of the feder under the scoop with a mesh over it? What is its purpose? Can't be for tire clearance as the hole is covered by steel mesh, and the hole isn't as big as the scopp. So if it isn't for tire clearance, then why even cut a hole in a street version?
I have a video interview with Charlie Glotzbach that I offer on DVD where we discusses going 243 mph at the 5 mile oval in Michigan in a Daytona when they were testing it.
The reason the hole is there on the street version is the very fact that they needed/wanted it on the race version. Chrysler was afraid that if they put the scoop on the street car with no hole, NASCAR wouldn't allow them to have the cutout on the race version. So, they put that little hole (about 4" diameter, if I remember right) and screen on the street cars whereas the race cars had almost the whole area beneath the scoop cut out. If you look at a Daytona at a carshow sometime and see a sponge stuffed in each scoop, they're trying to keep rocks and crud from flying up out of the wheelwell onto the fender. Chrysler got a little more brave on the Superbird, and took the chance that NASCAR wouldn't say anything about the lack of a hole on the street cars, so the 'Bird's fenders have no holes (maybe too many street Daytona owners complained??)
I don't know if I buy Chrysler's rationale about tire clearance. It's possible that's the case, but why didn't they just put a bump in the fender? It would have allowed the same tire movement. I personally think there's a tie-in with the evacuation of air from the wheelwell that allows the front end of the car to be lower to the track. The official "corporate" explanation is tire clearance though.
i read the same thing about them finding the spoiler was the same at 6inches high or 3 feet high, so they asked the high ups and he opened the truck and said right there.
thats what i had read, but that was along time ago and i cant remember where it was.
I found this discussion/webpage from Aerowarriors.com (credit goes to Ken Noffsinger) a few years ago:
The Scoop on The Scoops (http://aerowarriors.com/tsots.html)
Will look and see what I have to share .I do have that SAE engineer book on the daytona and racing programs and stacks of racing press pictures .From the me who raced daytona press kit.etc.As earlier mentioned the rear spoiler was effective at cetain levels.But was raised to raise trunk to wing clearance.a certain racer had doubted the tall daytona spoiler effectiveness.And either took it off or flipped the center around .And his backend got air born at speed.I thought the scoops and holes on the fenders bleed out air going under the car.That made it handle better at high speeds
This#88 daytona has early wingcars origins history.The number #88 research daytona .And its origins .Are The early history of the machine is a fascinition as its speed.Originally the car was a (68 charger).Said by Frank Wylie retired director of public relations for dodge division.He states we loaned that car to a magazine in los angeles for testing.It was stolen striipped of everything.and the car was found in the Watts section of LA.That car was taken back to Nichels engineering in Highland IN and converted into what is known as the prototype dodge daytona .The other car that 69 500 mentioned was the cotton owens car that was first to be fitted with the wingcar body parts.It was not this car.But the other one of Cotton Owens.And also 69 500 Brian Hargrove owned your dads 69 hemi vinyl top 500 in Aug 1976 .Before Pete H
So it was a 68 Charger that was converted huh? News to me.
thanks for the update.
Another detail that involves the origins of the 69 500 and 69 daytona.Is the number of produced.Which is always in discussion.I have here this muscle car enthusiast magazine that did a overall coverage of the last unsold 69 daytona reported by Frank Badalson from Dressler motors in VA.They show a clear copy of the Manafactures Statement of Origin.For this 69 daytona motor vehicle from the factory .For a car that is yet to be titled in any state .Till its bought from the dealer .This one has never been sold or the MSO surrendered after 34 years or so .And has the XS in both places on it.and Not the XX.Which is a factory mistake. Or they used these XS29 numbers needed to fabricate numbers of cars they needed .By combining the XS and XX vins.Either scenario it causes a incorrect number amount discrepency for the cars to be accounted by
Seems to be a lot of 500's and Daytona's with XS on the title, or insurance cards from the past and the such. Also a lot of 500's with XS in the fender tag, at least everyone I've seen built before November 14th anyways.
That Charger 500 Hemi car,was one of the two magazine test cars,there was an automatic,and a four speed,both were red,with a white stripe,and black interiors. Chrysler,gave tthe test car to Cotton Owens,after it was stolen,and recovered,missing its drivetrain! Cotton used the car to test fit the Daytona nosecone for the racecars. When the car was restored,it was sold from Cottons shop,with no fenders,and no engine,and trans.I believe that the car was fitted with 70 fenders,and the original 69 fenders,were probably used on one of the 500 race cars!
I got the road test of a red hemi 69 500 on VHS .That Bud Lindenman did on that automatic car.By some twist of fate it seems if this is accurate by the accounts reported .Both cars were hemi chargers the 68 to the #88 car and the other 69 hemi 500 that made the sacrifice .By being stolen.That paved the way for the daytona development
While looking up on 434780 .I had this 2 page WW newsletter submitted daytona vin list by GG as of 11-89 .It has 468330 and 500564 as recorded daytonas.Also a friend of mine currently has one of the daytonas owned by a chrysler exec.It is a very well optioned out car.To believe it I had to get a copy of its buildsheet from him.Im also still looking for further info on the 287 daytona
Was the car that Cotton Owens had an AT car or a 4 speed? I was under the assumption it was a 4 speed, but I could be wrong. I haven't ever seen the car up close, and only saw a few photo's of it, I don't recall any showing the inside of the car.
If it is an automatic it would be interesting to see if it was the car in the Bud Lindenman Video, because I was always under the impression that car was stolen before it was off the dealership lot. Unless the dealership allowed the magazine to test drive it. I just had always figured it to be another car.
I believe that the Cotton Owens 500,was the four speed car,and was stolen,and recovered without its engine,and trans! If I remember the story correctly,the car was given,to one of the journalists to test the next day,and was stolen,from the street in Detroit,where he had parked it the night before. The automatic car was tested for the Car,and Track show,and if I remember correctly, they called it the best Hemicar, they had tested to date!There wasn't much they didn't like about the car!There was some impressive footage of the car doing full blown four wheel drifts under hard acceleration! They were ahead of there time with the drifting!
Hmmmm, well I'm still trying to get some verification as to if the Cotton's car was an AT or a 4 speed. I remember it being in a magazine not too long ago, but can't seem to find it in my stack of magazines.
If it is a 4 speed, then I'm pretty sure that I know what car was the AT car they tested.
I'm pretty sure it was Mopar Action and you're right, it wasn't very long ago. This summer just past?
The Cotton Owens 500 - Power windows-6 way bucket seat and a 4-speed. MCG Feb 04.
Thanks for the post there 65. I'll try to dig up the magazine today.
OK, here's a slightly different twist I dug up today in a book written by an author whom I know has done a fair amount of research into the development of the Daytona. Just because he's done a lot of research doesn't make it true, but here's what he says:
Quote
He (John Pointer, test engineer at the Chelsea Proving Grounds) used a Charger that had been raced by Bobby Isaac in the 1968 Firecracker 400, one of three Chargers that had been channeled 2 inches to lower the Charger's overall height. Predictably, NASCAR frowned on such bodywork and the car never raced again. The car was, in one sense, useless on the Grand National circuit, but it was a perfectly useable testbed, so Pointer chose this car as the development mule. Work on the nose began in January 1969. By the time of the Daytona 500 that year, Pointer had the first crude prototype completed, and he gave a Polaroid snapshot of the car to (Dale) Reeker before he took off to the Daytona race.
"I sold it to Bob McCurry on the way back from Daytona where we got tromped by the Ford guys," Reeker said. "It was a pretty crude-looking device, but if you got back far enough it was a pretty mean-looking automobile. McCurry seized the thing as something he wanted to do."
Whether the author of this book got the drivers mixed up (you can see Al Unser's name above the door on the #6 car) or not, he does confirm that one of these modified and outlawed Chargers was used for developing the Daytona's nose. It was probably used for testing the Charger500 modifications too, but that's just an educated guess based on the fact that the pictures from Cotton Owens shows the car having been fitted with Charger500 mods. Al Unser only drove the #6 car for Cotton Owens at Riverside ('68) and the 1968 Daytona 500 (where he finished 4th, the highest-finishing Dodge). It would not have been a '69 Charger500 at the time, but a '68 Charger entry.
I wonder if the lowered cars were outlawed after the '68 Daytona 500 rather than the July '68 Firecracker 400 - otherwise, why would Al Unser's name still be on a car that he never drove after that year's Daytona 500? Interestingly enough, the next time Cotton's #6 car was entered in a race, it was at Richmond, (the second race after Daytona) with Charlie Glotzbach as the driver. They raced a '67 Charger that time... Hmmm... Maybe their '68 Chargers were all lowered, and they didn't have time to get a new '68 Charger ready for the track so they went with the previous years' model??
At any rate, there's a pretty good chance the #6 Unser car (the one in the picture) was used as the Daytona (and I think, for the Charger500's too) mule/test car. Definitely being used for testing by somebody.
I'm trying to round up even more documents, as I found a source who says he has a few documents related to this subject. Hope to find out more real soon...
Hemigeno;;;;A suggestion for Daytona facts;;;contact Doug S, of Daytona Superbird Club. He might be able to tell you what you want to know himself,(he is big race fan) If he cant answer your questions,, He could get you in touch with George Wallace. He is the man that Richard Petty called a human computer,, he is also the guy who rode with B, Baker at 200 MPH holding on to the roll bars reading instruments. He is a very nice, walking encyclopedia of the Daytona.
3--Daytona
Jim,
Thanks for the heads-up. I bug Doug quite regularly already, sent him two emails earlier this afternoon as a matter of fact. I was hoping some folks like him and others who know about the development history will weigh in sooner or later. While I already know a fair amount about the subject, there's always more to learn. This "history" topic was also dragging down some other threads, so I thought we could start one to talk about the subject.
Do you think we could chip in and buy George Wallace a computer, so he could join in?? ;D
I hope to meet Mr. Wallace sometime - Charlie Glotzbach said he was fearless, couldn't make him flinch, even being inches from the wall at Daytona... Maybe I'll meet him at Talladega in '09, unless there's a big meet he attends between now and then.
When they interviewed the former engineers.As both wing car club have done its recorded on VHS tape or in a newsletter.Maybe some of the questions we asked.Can find some answers in those archives
Interesting reading there Gene.
I was watching the interview with Charlie again today, and was listening to him talk about Wallace riding along with him. Sitting on the floor reading his gauges, and holding on to the roll bar. I don't know if I'd be that trusting of anyone else's driving.
I read that Charlie went 243 MPH in the # 88 mule @ the Chrysler proving ground 5 mile track! that was the fastest speed I ever heard for a wingcar! The Daytona was also the first car to break 200 MPH in any form of organized racing!
That is what he said when we were at the Monster Mopar in St. Louis this year. I believe it was a shade under 243, but was within .20 or something of it. I believe they have that speed posted on the Winged Warriors site somewhere, maybe it is in the trivia section.
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 26, 2006, 08:57:36 AM
While looking up on 434780 .I had this 2 page WW newsletter submitted daytona vin list by GG as of 11-89 .It has 468330 and 500564 as recorded daytonas.Also a friend of mine currently has one of the daytonas owned by a chrysler exec.It is a very well optioned out car.To believe it I had to get a copy of its buildsheet from him.Im also still looking for further info on the 287 daytona
Dave,
I did some more thinking about those very-high VIN's you pointed out. The most logical explanation for 500564 is that it was misread and/or misreported by someone. There is already a XX29L9B400564, #479 on the Shipping List. It would not be a hard thing at all for the first digit of the Sequential Production Number to be off. 400564 was already on the list from before, so it is/was a known car. Someone probably saw the car at a show and just wrote down or remembered the VIN as 500564. That's my best guess. Maybe Chris or someone else can tell us if there were Hamtramck cars into the 500xxx's, but it always seemed really high to me.
I don't know about 468330 though. Nothing jumps out at me as being a transcription error. Strangely enough, I do not have a single Daytona in my spreadsheet with the number 3 in the fourth digit spot (xxx3xx) --- not a single car...
Thats the list and numbers from 89 that are listed on it .I sent you.I can see a typo occuring.Ive written down and recorded cars .And trusted my memory when asked and have been close and one number off
Hemi Geno here is the numbers from a old 70-s newsletter
[Auto 342] [4 speed 161] [Auto 440-4 375 HP 294] [4 Speed 440-4 375 HP 139] [Auto 426-8 425 HP 48] [4 Speed 426-8 425 HP 22] Giving a total of #503 though he have a serial number list with #501 car but the list has some errors as same car by vin at different dealers
Yep, seen all those totals before.
I still disagree with the total number of cars that everyone lists. Unless there are VIN's out there that are not recorded on the Shipping List, I can only account for 499 cars.
That total even includes Dale Reeker's 287970 car which is outside the normal Daytona production range. I seriously wonder if that car even has A11 on its fender tag. It may indeed have been converted into a Daytona by Creative, but it was built at Hamtramck after the C500 production stopped and before the Daytona was greenlighted as a 69 model year offering. In other words, when Hamtramck built 287970 there wasn't an active Sales Code A11. IMHO it's still a Daytona if Creative did the conversion, but I'll also bet the fender tag (and maybe the VIN?) says or did say XS29. Of course, a Product Planner (top brass) like Mr. Reeker probably had the clout to have something re-tagged. There's almost certainly a story with that 287970 car.
I'll have to go back and look, but I think I have a picture of that cars VIN and fender tag. Its not on my computer, but in a pile of old photo's my dad took back in the late 70's and early 80's. If I find it I'll post what I find.
Ive heard it might be a SE but its suppose to be F6 green 4 speed car.From what Ive read
I hadn't ever heard of it being an SE, I believe that one of the first shipped Daytona's was reported as being an SE.
I havent found anything else of Les Bowmans old 287 daytona as of yet .But I did find some documentationfrom when it was new paperwork .For a 69 charger RT.That happens to be XS29L[287]758.As the daytonas were first 69 charger RT's.Maybe this first was a pilot car.Like the 68 side marker 69 hemi charger 500
That could be a possiblity, but then again to me I always considered Cotton Owens HEMI 500 to be the test mule for the Daytona's like the 68 500 was. I mean it was the first car to get the nose cone test fitted on it and all.
Wasn't the 287 car listed as being a Chrysler Ex car? Always wondered why it was built in February but one of the last ones shipped. Was it because the Ex. got the car, drove it for 6 months then let them sell it later? Isn't that what alot of EX did back then, drive a new car for 6 months or so and then sell it?
It was almost certainly built in February, but it couldn't have been sent over for conversion for quite a while. They didn't have anything but a conceptual drawing in early Feb '69. It wasn't until the plane trip home from the 1969 Daytona500 that Dale Reeker (the exec who was listed as getting the 287 car) sold Bob McCurry on the concept of the Daytona, and as a '69 model year entry as well. The 287 car was already built by then - that's what I was alluding to earlier.
Mr. Reeker was probably driving that car (as an R/T) while the Daytona's design work was ongoing. He may have sent it over later on in the summer to Creative, but I am fairly confident the conversion of 287970 was an afterthought. I don't think it could have been built at Hamtramck as a planned Daytona like the others were. You should definitely see an R/T badge on its tailpanel, & things like that.
I hope you can find pictures of that car, and especially the fender tag/VIN.
Jim Radke been around along time in the wingcars .We should shot him a email
I wonder if it possible the green daytona used in sept 69 playboy recharging the charger article .Was the early 287970 daytona .For one it has MI manafacture plates it appears. 2 lack of fender scoops .3 black handle door buttons.That or not usually on a daytona.I see alot of the chrome door push buttons on daytona.Not the black ones
I've often wondered about the Daytona in the playboy add. That car is missing the fener scoops completely.
Is Jim still a member of either of the aero clubs? I know he is the one who told my dad about the HEMI 500 he bought. My dad was staying with Jim while out in California looking at a Daytona and then they went and looked at the 500.
So if the 287 car was an R/T to begin with like all of the others, what is to say that it wasn't in the first batch that was sent to Creative. If Mr.Reeker wanted a Daytona badly enough he probably could have pulled some strings and got his current R/T turned into a Daytona as well right?
I met and knew Les Bowman that owned 287970 from buying parts from him over the years at various shows .He must have had some in side chrysler connection.As he also owned the wild painted mystery factory kept superbird .I was told he painted that daytona red
I don't think that it was in the first batch, as it should then have had a much earlier ship date. That's an educated guess, but his was the last car listed as being shipped from C.I. Either his car would have taken the longest of any of them to convert, or the ship date would have had to be reported wrong. The target date to begin conversions at Creative was June 1st, long before 9/8.
Makes you wonder if Chrysler realized on their ACCUS/NASCAR reporting list they would be a car or two short (I still count only 499 VIN's even with 287970) and they added Mr. Reeker's car to the tail end of the list. Of course he would have consented to having his car converted to keep the racing program on track for its Talladega debut. He also would have vouched that the car was shipped then, whether it was actually converted by that time or not. That's just a guess too.
I wouldn't begin to say that 287970 was never converted - I just flat don't know. But the car doesn't fit the pattern of the rest of these cars, and something unusual happened - that's for sure.
I had asked about this car before on other boards.And was brought up in the vintage wingcar posts that run for some time.I did get this reply in dug up from 10-21-03
Daytona L287970. Was owned many years by Leslie Bowman he would never let me see the fender tag or broadcast .He changed the car to R4 red with black interior and drilled holes into the C pillars for the charger nameplate.Car was originally F6 black leather interior SE V6W.He knew it was the first one .But tried to hide his modifications.That was how Leslie done it ,Jim Radke saw the tag and the sheet and said they were real.But I not sure if Jim actually saw the car
It was brought up in this post aswell I recall .
http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=585449&an=0&page=0#585449
Here is a thought. If it was an Executives car, and he wanted a Daytona, and was willing to let them convert his current on loan car which would have been the 287 car. Then who is to say they didn't convert it early on in the production run with the first batch, and that he just continued to drive it after the conversion. Then allowed it to be shipped to a dealership for sale. I mean if he had the car from the date it was built, to when it could have been convereted in say June. That would mean rought 3 months of driving. Then you figure they would have taken what 4-6 weeks probably converting it. So that leaves him another month and a half to drive the car. Figuring that after 6 months which would put it right around the Shipment date listed, he let it be shipped off to a dealership for sale.
What do you guys think of that? Its a long stretch, but just a thought. I know a lot of dealerships that allow workers to drive cars for a few months then they sell them on their lots later. At a reduced price of course, but not much of a reduction. That is typically the car they want you to test drive if you want to drive one of that model too.
Might be true, but the car is listed as being shipped to Chrysler Corporation - Dale Reeker. It wasn't shown as being sent to a Dealer at that time. It probably hung around for a while. From what Dave B. is saying, Les Bowman had connections with someone, which is how he ended up with the car. It's strange that the car is being kept under wraps. Makes me even more curious, although I greatly respect Jim Radke's knowledge and experience with Wing cars.
Okay so just change that last part from being shipped off in September, to being brought back to Mr. Reeker in September. Because it wouldn't have been shipped being that he probably would have just went and picked it up himself.
And in regards to the Playboy Daytona, does it appear ANYWHERE else? I haven't seen it. What is the earliest press release info we know of and how does it compare to the Playboy car?
Quote from: hemigeno on February 02, 2006, 11:47:31 AM
Might be true, but the car is listed as being shipped to Chrysler Corporation - Dale Reeker. It wasn't shown as being sent to a Dealer at that time. It probably hung around for a while. From what Dave B. is saying, Les Bowman had connections with someone, which is how he ended up with the car. It's strange that the car is being kept under wraps. Makes me even more curious, although I greatly respect Jim Radke's knowledge and experience with Wing cars.
I wouldn't say the car is being kept under wraps, or deliberately out of the public eye. It's been in the same family for years and has passed to one of the sons via the estate. There's absolutely nothing secret about it. Like a lot of other cars, it just hasn't been out.
There seems to be quite a few of these wing cars that have been in garages for the past 10-15 years. It seems that some people just stopped taking the cars out after say 1988 or so.
Les also ended up owning the mystery superbird AKA Hewitt superbird.That had been kept by Chrylser since 1972
Quote from: 69_500 on February 21, 2007, 01:36:14 PM
There seems to be quite a few of these wing cars that have been in garages for the past 10-15 years. It seems that some people just stopped taking the cars out after say 1988 or so.
Hmmm, around the time of the first "musclecar boom". I wonder if the owners of these cars just got sick of opportunists trying to buy the cars all the time? I don't mean the usual offers, but the ones that you just know are coming from flippers. Or maybe the sudden rising values started making everyone worry about their "investment"? Or some combination of all of those?
Could be. There are people I know with multiple cars, that have taken the same car to every event since the mid to late 80's. Only due to they only want the majority of people to know that they have that one.
I would also think that if you had more than one, you likely get a favorite in there too that becomes the preferred car to show.
Besides Les old 287970 .This other car of his is hidden away somewhere ,Maybe out west
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/superbirdmysterycar.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/Hewittsuperbird.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/Mysterysuperbird1.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/Mysterysuperbird.jpg)
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 26, 2006, 08:57:36 AM
While looking up on 434780 .I had this 2 page WW newsletter submitted daytona vin list by GG as of 11-89 .It has 468330 and 500564 as recorded daytonas.Also a friend of mine currently has one of the daytonas owned by a chrysler exec.It is a very well optioned out car.To believe it I had to get a copy of its buildsheet from him.Im also still looking for further info on the 287 daytona
Sorry to bring this old thread up but an engine & 4spd with this VIN (4347xx) has surfaced as a 68 red Charger. Any other info of this car being a possible 68 Charger 500? Could this be the engine from the press car stolen in LA years ago?
:think:
Steve
There a few stolen car stories that surround these cars Ive read and heard over the years And cars went back to Chrysler and became re purposed.One we know was Cotton Owens 500.That became the model for wearing daytona parts was recovered after being stolen .And retrieved by Cotton Owens .I got a old article around here where a Chrysler supplied the press either a HEMI 500 or a 68 426 Charger.I got to find that article. Which that car was stolen and found stripped in Watts CA found sitting on milk crates.That car became the #88 as it said in the article.
Do you have the VIN from the #88 car to tie it to this engine Dave?
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 07, 2010, 12:46:51 PM
Sorry to bring this old thread up but an engine & 4spd with this VIN (4347xx) has surfaced as a 68 red Charger. Any other info of this car being a possible 68 Charger 500? Could this be the engine from the press car stolen in LA years ago?
:think:
Steve
434xxx is too high numerically to be from a 1969 Charger 500, and could not be from the press Charger that allegedly became the #88 race car.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 07, 2010, 05:04:16 PM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 07, 2010, 12:46:51 PM
Sorry to bring this old thread up but an engine & 4spd with this VIN (4347xx) has surfaced as a 68 red Charger. Any other info of this car being a possible 68 Charger 500? Could this be the engine from the press car stolen in LA years ago?
:think:
Steve
434xxx is too high numerically to be from a 1969 Charger 500, and could not be from the press Charger that allegedly became the #88 race car.
Hi Doug, the engine in question is from a 68 Charger per the VIN, and would fit a build for a late 68 in June Or July .............just found it interesting Dave was checking a VIN with the first 4 digits matching it and I thought he was checking the #88 car built from a 68 Charger?? I know of no HEMI 4spd Chargers built after June 1st for the public, not that there weren't any............Do you know the VIN that was on the Charger used to develop the 88 car and was it a 68 as Has been discussed previously?
Thanks,
Steve
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 07, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Hi Doug, the engine in question is from a 68 Charger per the VIN, and would fit a build for a late 68 in June Or July .............just found it interesting Dave was checking a VIN with the first 4 digits matching it and I thought he was checking the #88 car built from a 68 Charger?? I know of no HEMI 4spd Chargers built after June 1st for the public, not that there weren't any............Do you know the VIN that was on the Charger used to develop the 88 car and was it a 68 as Has been discussed previously?
Thanks,
Steve
What I was trying to say was that the #88 was not built from a 1968 Charger. The stolen press car was reported to be a 1969 Charger 500.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 07, 2010, 11:47:07 PM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 07, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Hi Doug, the engine in question is from a 68 Charger per the VIN, and would fit a build for a late 68 in June Or July .............just found it interesting Dave was checking a VIN with the first 4 digits matching it and I thought he was checking the #88 car built from a 68 Charger?? I know of no HEMI 4spd Chargers built after June 1st for the public, not that there weren't any............Do you know the VIN that was on the Charger used to develop the 88 car and was it a 68 as Has been discussed previously?
Thanks,
Steve
What I was trying to say was that the #88 was not built from a 1968 Charger. The stolen press car was reported to be a 1969 Charger 500.
Thats what I originaly thought a HEMI 500 .Thanks now I dont have to hunt for that article.Gotta admit 2 different isolated incidents where 2 69 charger 500s are stolen and repurposed by Chrysler :2thumbs:
Quote434xxx is too high numerically to be from a 1969 Charger 500
.Going by the known 68 Charger 500 vin which as I recall going by memory XS29J9B36071X 089708 J # April 25th.And later following cars have the #925 and starting in the 110-s.That another similar pre production car would be in this vin sequence :Twocents:.I met a guy who bought a 69 426 charger 500 in the 80-s .Long before these cars were being rebodied as to the worth .In every respect the car had everything you expect on a 500.But the vin as I recall I wrote it down somewhere was 310XXX
:Twocents: Typical Chrysler dont know whats outhere till it shows up.For all we know they used protypes for these tests
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/cib69chargercrash2fdg-2.jpg)
Quote from: Aero426 on January 07, 2010, 11:47:07 PM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 07, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Hi Doug, the engine in question is from a 68 Charger per the VIN, and would fit a build for a late 68 in June Or July .............just found it interesting Dave was checking a VIN with the first 4 digits matching it and I thought he was checking the #88 car built from a 68 Charger?? I know of no HEMI 4spd Chargers built after June 1st for the public, not that there weren't any............Do you know the VIN that was on the Charger used to develop the 88 car and was it a 68 as Has been discussed previously?
Thanks,
Steve
What I was trying to say was that the #88 was not built from a 1968 Charger. The stolen press car was reported to be a 1969 Charger 500.
Great Doug , so who is Frank Wylie and what does this statement mean?
"Originally the car was a (68 charger). Said by Frank Wylie retired director of public relations for dodge division. He states we loaned that car to a magazine in Los Angeles for testing. It was stolen, stripped of everything and the car was found in the Watts section of LA. That car was taken back to Nichels engineering in Highland IN and converted into what is known as the prototype Dodge Daytona. The other car that 69 500 mentioned was the Cotton Owens car that was first to be fitted with the wing car body parts"
Is one of these the 88 car and the other a test mule. Just need clarification as I had talked with several people over the years, and always heard a 68 Charger was used for one of the first Daytonas if not the 88, a test mule.............???
What car is 434780 and is there a Daytona with this VIN as well as a 68 HEMI Charger with 4347xx this late of a VIN??
Steve
Thats what I recall reading but wasnt sure unless I had the article in front of me a 68 and returned to Nichols for repurposing and became the #88 car.But later Greg discovered there was 2 #88 cars .Greg K currently owns the real #88 and its under restoration last we heard of it
And something I found on a older post high 434 vin.To high for a 69 500 and as for it being a daytona??
Re: Repro wing car metal nose tech ?
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2006, 07:55:18 AM » Quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While looking up on 434780 .I had this 2 page WW newsletter submitted daytona vin list by GG as of 11-89 .It has 468330 and 500564 as recorded daytonas.Also a friend of mine currently has one of the daytonas owned by a chrysler exec.
hemigeno
Global Moderator
Old Timer
Offline
Posts: 4,316
'69 HemiCharger R/T 4-speed
Re: Repro wing car metal nose tech ?
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2006, 08:05:28 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, those are some high VIN's, especially that last one. It had to be at the very tail end of '69 model year production.
What info was given about those cars (by Galen, or whoever told Galen about them)?
Being Frank Wylie name got brought up and who is he he played a part in development .I had this and furnished the club this document unrelated to this subject
http://wwnboa.org/factorydocjpgs/factorydoc1.jpg
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,8684.0.html
If this guy still on the board he might know the vin and that the #88 car was a 68 or not
69Charger500
Junior Member
Offline
Posts: 167
Re: The Origins of the Daytona Charger Thread
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2006, 02:46:33 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The #88 car was found and is owned by a friend of mine from work. I recall he mentioned it was stolen early in it's life, as seems to be the fate of many of the aero cars. Mine was stolen 3 times from the original owner between '69 and '71; the third time, right from his driveway in the daytime...
This sounds like a guy Ive heard of before Mike Milliam that worked at Chrysler.
Found this quote from Geno, maybe the 68 4347xx is 434780 on the shipping list???
"Not that it makes that much difference, but 434780 (#464 on the list) was built on 6/26, and there were two others with SPD's of 6/16 (#362 and #382).
I'm still trying to get to the bottom of the 780 car, which is the highest recorded VIN for a Daytona. I suspect it was built to replace one for Lenox Dodge that may have been damaged during assembly or conversion. There's some things I'm trying to understand on the SO numbers and how they are re-assigned, and the WW newsletter series on the Dealer Invoice Lists hasn't gotten that far yet. Way too early to say whether that's the case or not."
Built on 6/26 in "1968" as a promo 500 would make since, stolen and converted to a Daytona later maybe????
:shruggy:
Steve
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 09:21:50 AM
Built on 6/26 in "1968" as a promo 500 would make since, stolen and converted to a Daytona later maybe????
:shruggy:
Steve
Not with an XX29L9B VIN it wasn't... Incidentally, that's a known car (albeit not by many folks).
Quote from: hemigeno on January 08, 2010, 09:33:35 AM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 09:21:50 AM
Built on 6/26 in "1968" as a promo 500 would make since, stolen and converted to a Daytona later maybe????
:shruggy:
Steve
Not with an XX29L9B VIN it wasn't... Incidentally, that's a known car (albeit not by many folks).
Thanks Gene, you took all the fun out! Funny thing is that build date would fit a 68 Charger perfectly if any HEMI 4spds were built after June 1st. Have you seen the car and could it have been rebuilt as a 69 VIN??
Cheers,
Steve
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 09:51:02 AM
Thanks Gene, you took all the fun out! Funny thing is that build date would fit a 68 Charger perfectly if any HEMI 4spds were built after June 1st. Have you seen the car and could it have been rebuilt as a 69 VIN??
Cheers,
Steve
:lol:
Well, it wasn't my plan to take anyone's fun away from them - but the story on that car is indeed the case. I have not seen the car in person, but have heard about it from two different heavy-hitters in the wing car hobby. One of those gents has spoken with the current owner, and that's how what I had heard about it elsewhere was confirmed.
I would be flabbergasted if they re-assigned a 1968 car to have a 1969 VIN. That would bring up a whole host of Federal Safety Standards issues, as there were tangible differences between the two model years. It's even harder to believe they would wait until the latter part of the '69 model year before doing so. The only Daytona I know to have had any modifications done to its VIN was 287970 - whose dash VIN plate was changed out to read XX29 even though the fender tag was not changed from XS. Not nearly as big of a deal to do that. Plus, why would they bother with changing the model year for this supposed prototype, when they never did so for Jerry Service's '68? Personally, I don't see it happening, but that's just my opinion. Worth every penny too... well, maybe half a penny...
:cheers:
Gene
Quote from: hemigeno on January 08, 2010, 10:06:02 AM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 09:51:02 AM
Thanks Gene, you took all the fun out! Funny thing is that build date would fit a 68 Charger perfectly if any HEMI 4spds were built after June 1st. Have you seen the car and could it have been rebuilt as a 69 VIN??
Cheers,
Steve
:lol:
Well, it wasn't my plan to take anyone's fun away from them - but the story on that car is indeed the case. I have not seen the car in person, but have heard about it from two different heavy-hitters in the wing car hobby. One of those gents has spoken with the current owner, and that's how what I had heard about it elsewhere was confirmed.
I would be flabbergasted if they re-assigned a 1968 car to have a 1969 VIN. That would bring up a whole host of Federal Safety Standards issues, as there were tangible differences between the two model years. It's even harder to believe they would wait until the latter part of the '69 model year before doing so. The only Daytona I know to have had any modifications done to its VIN was 287970 - whose dash VIN plate was changed out to read XX29 even though the fender tag was not changed from XS. Not nearly as big of a deal to do that. Plus, why would they bother with changing the model year for this supposed prototype, when they never did so for Jerry Service's '68? Personally, I don't see it happening, but that's just my opinion. Worth every penny too... well, maybe half a penny...
:cheers:
Gene
OK Gene, this car was rebuilt? Is it in Canada probably?? You know how many rare cars show up out of Canada............... :smilielol:
Steve
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 08:24:41 AM
Great Doug , so who is Frank Wylie and what does this statement mean?
"Originally the car was a (68 charger). Said by Frank Wylie retired director of public relations for dodge division. He states we loaned that car to a magazine in Los Angeles for testing. It was stolen, stripped of everything and the car was found in the Watts section of LA. That car was taken back to Nichels engineering in Highland IN and converted into what is known as the prototype Dodge Daytona. The other car that 69 500 mentioned was the Cotton Owens car that was first to be fitted with the wing car body parts"
Is one of these the 88 car and the other a test mule. Just need clarification as I had talked with several people over the years, and always heard a 68 Charger was used for one of the first Daytonas if not the 88, a test mule.............???
What car is 434780 and is there a Daytona with this VIN as well as a 68 HEMI Charger with 4347xx this late of a VIN??
Steve
The story as I know, is that a 1969 Charger 500 Hemi car press car was stolen in California, and upon recovery, sent to Nichels to be turned into a race car. It is believed that this car became the Engineering #88 Daytona. All of this is hearsay, but I believe it to be true. There is the quote from Dodge exec Frank Wylie, and I have heard the story relayed by George Wallace, formerly of Chrysler Engineering. The real #88 chassis still has evidence of some factory blue paint down on the rocker panels. This supports the idea that it started out as a street body, painted metallic blue.
Now... as to determining which VIN the #88 race car started out with, I am afraid that will never be known. There is no smoking gun paperwork known to document what happened to the original stripped car. All we have are 40 year old recollections. The original 1969 sheet metal was pulled off the car after the 1972 racing season when the car was rebodied to newer metal. So any chance of finding numbers are gone. probably in a landfill near Keokuk Iowa. Greg K. who owns the #88 car does not know the original VIN.
The '68 Charger that WAS used as a Daytona mule is the car Bobby Isaac raced at Daytona in July '68. The car was illegal and sent to the proving grounds. It kept the Bobby Isaac #71 paint and got the hand made nose and wing and did the low speed testing at the Proving Grounds. This car was later painted up Corporate Blue as the #88 test car and donated to NASCAR for their museum. It is now at the hall of fame at Talladega. There is a 1970 Chrysler memo that says this is what they did.
That was one of the two by two cars, correct?
Quote from: Ghoste on January 08, 2010, 10:28:41 AM
That was one of the two by two cars, correct?
Yes the #71 Isaac car at the Proving Grounds was the 2" x 2" car. This was the 68 1/2 race car chassis program that had Chrysler separating the body off the chassis to modify it the way they wanted. They went a little too far, took it to Daytona and were caught. They were told to raise it and not bring it back. So it went to the P.G.
There was just the single 2X2, not a second one?
Quote from: Aero426 on January 08, 2010, 10:21:14 AM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 08:24:41 AM
Great Doug , so who is Frank Wylie and what does this statement mean?
"Originally the car was a (68 charger). Said by Frank Wylie retired director of public relations for dodge division. He states we loaned that car to a magazine in Los Angeles for testing. It was stolen, stripped of everything and the car was found in the Watts section of LA. That car was taken back to Nichels engineering in Highland IN and converted into what is known as the prototype Dodge Daytona. The other car that 69 500 mentioned was the Cotton Owens car that was first to be fitted with the wing car body parts"
Is one of these the 88 car and the other a test mule. Just need clarification as I had talked with several people over the years, and always heard a 68 Charger was used for one of the first Daytonas if not the 88, a test mule.............???
What car is 434780 and is there a Daytona with this VIN as well as a 68 HEMI Charger with 4347xx this late of a VIN??
Steve
The story as I know, is that a 1969 Charger 500 Hemi car press car was stolen in California, and upon recovery, sent to Nichels to be turned into a race car. It is believed that this car became the Engineering #88 Daytona. All of this is hearsay, but I believe it to be true. There is the quote from Dodge exec Frank Wylie, and I have heard the story relayed by George Wallace, formerly of Chrysler Engineering. The real #88 chassis still has evidence of some factory blue paint down on the rocker panels. This supports the idea that it started out as a street body, painted metallic blue.
Now... as to determining which VIN the #88 race car started out with, I am afraid that will never be known. There is no smoking gun paperwork known to document what happened to the original stripped car. All we have are 40 year old recollections. The original 1969 sheet metal was pulled off the car after the 1972 racing season when the car was rebodied to newer metal. So any chance of finding numbers are gone. Greg does not know the original VIN.
The '68 Charger that WAS used as a Daytona mule is the car Bobby Isaac raced at Daytona in July '68. The car was illegal and sent to the proving grounds. It kept the Bobby Isaac #71 paint and got the hand made nose and wing and did the low speed testing at the Proving Grounds. This car was later painted up Corporate Blue as the #88 test car and donated to NASCAR for their museum. It is now at the hall of fame at Talladega.
Thanks Doug, this is the info I'm sure I have heard before. It's Just that this new 4347xx VIN with the HEMI 4spd for a 68 Charger that would have been built late June early July 68 has me wondering again......... :pullinghair:
Steve
Quote from: Ghoste on January 08, 2010, 10:34:52 AM
There was just the single 2X2, not a second one?
I thought there was a second one, seems like a Cotton Owens car. Doug will know.
Quote from: hemigeno on January 08, 2010, 10:41:26 AM
Quote from: Ghoste on January 08, 2010, 10:34:52 AM
There was just the single 2X2, not a second one?
I thought there was a second one, seems like a Cotton Owens car. Doug will know.
George Wallace recalled that there was one Dodge and one Plymouth in the program. Petty did not have the Plymouth. When they were caught at tech, both cars had to be raised and were not competitve in the race.
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 10:35:57 AM
Thanks Doug, this is the info I'm sure I have heard before. It's Just that this new 4347xx VIN with the HEMI 4spd for a 68 Charger that would have been built late June early July 68 has me wondering again......... :pullinghair:
Steve
Steve, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this 1968 VIN stuff as it relates to Charger 500 or Daytonas.
Couldn't that VIN be for any old 1968 Charger Hemi car?
Quote from: Aero426 on January 08, 2010, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 10:35:57 AM
Thanks Doug, this is the info I'm sure I have heard before. It's Just that this new 4347xx VIN with the HEMI 4spd for a 68 Charger that would have been built late June early July 68 has me wondering again......... :pullinghair:
Steve
Steve, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this 1968 VIN stuff as it relates to Charger 500 or Daytonas.
Couldn't that VIN be for any old 1968 Charger Hemi car?
Doug, I have seen a factory bulletin (and have a copy hidden from myself somewhere) sent out to Dodge dealers that essentially told them all orders for a 68 Charger HEMI with a 4spd would be only accepted as the new Charger 500. Whether this meant you would receive the 69 Charger 500 when it came out or you would get a 68 with this package I don't know. The VIN on the HEMI with a 4spd 68 Charger of 4347xx would put its production date well after this deadline, the order date could have been before June 1st but unlikely. The Engine came from a Red Charger and it apparently was destroyed or parted out due to a fire. I saw this VIN and thought this may be another 68 500, not just any old HEMI car. :scratchchin:
Steve
My honest opinion is that the intent of the letter was to force 69 model 500's into as many hands as possible in order to homologate the car. I don't think the intent by June of 68 was ever to begin building Charger 500's as extremely late 68 models. By June they are emptying out the factories for the new model turnover and you would have been lucky to still get an order in on any 68 Charger by that point. Never mind trying to throw an new version into the mix in which you HAD to get a minimum number out in time to qualify it. The 69 cars would have already been on the drawing boards for months and parts changeover beginning to take place form vendors by June.
Quote from: Ghoste on January 08, 2010, 01:04:40 PM
My honest opinion is that the intent of the letter was to force 69 model 500's into as many hands as possible in order to homologate the car. I don't think the intent by June of 68 was ever to begin building Charger 500's as extremely late 68 models. By June they are emptying out the factories for the new model turnover and you would have been lucky to still get an order in on any 68 Charger by that point. Never mind trying to throw an new version into the mix in which you HAD to get a minimum number out in time to qualify it. The 69 cars would have already been on the drawing boards for months and parts changeover beginning to take place form vendors by June.
I agree Ghoste, another reason to question a late 68 Charger HEMI with 4spd VIN built after the letter was sent. All 500's were originally to be a HEMI & 4spd, then a later memo stating HEMI with automatic would be accepted, then another memo accepting the 440. All this was to get the 500 homologated for the year.
Terribly cold here in Florida, hasn't been out of the 50's for a week and nothing else to do............ :cheers:
Steve
Well then, you'd just love Canada.
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 01:39:38 PM
All 500's were originally to be a HEMI & 4spd, then a later memo stating HEMI with automatic would be accepted, then another memo accepting the 440.
I don't recall a bulletin that mandated a 426/A833 combo. Bulletin #1 (dated 7/18/68) did have a 426 stipulation, but it mentioned both auto and manual would be available. Bulletin #4 (dated 9/9/68) opened the door for the 440 option - again, with either transmission.
Is there another one?
:shruggy:
Quote from: hemigeno on January 08, 2010, 02:03:35 PM
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 08, 2010, 01:39:38 PM
All 500's were originally to be a HEMI & 4spd, then a later memo stating HEMI with automatic would be accepted, then another memo accepting the 440.
I don't recall a bulletin that mandated a 426/A833 combo. Bulletin #1 (dated 7/18/68) did have a 426 stipulation, but it mentioned both auto and manual would be available. Bulletin #4 (dated 9/9/68) opened the door for the 440 option - again, with either transmission.
Is there another one?
:shruggy:
Geno, there is a memo or bulletin earlier than your 1st one for June 1st, but it was directed to Dodge dealers and not actually announcing the 500. It basically said not to accept any more 68 Charger R/T HEMI with 4spd orders or anyone ordering a HEMI and wanted a 4spd would receive the new Charger 500. Some how I might have taken it to mean all 500's would be 4spd, I'm not sure of the exact wording. You'll be the first to receive a copy of this memo or bulletin when I find it............I can't imagine no one else on this board hasn't seen or doesn't have this memo.............
Cheers,
Steve
Chrysler was known for misinformation the 69 500 was only to be a 426 in letter form and brochure
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/Charger500Bulletin2.jpg)
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/Charger500Bulletin.jpg)
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/chargerssk.jpg)
Steve, can I be second?
Guess all you can do is search through whatever archive material on the #88 for clues to what year it is.Before it went through all its metal changes.If any are there to find :popcrn:
There was all kinds of promo bulletins put out to dealers this one is not for a aero car but was signed off by father of the daytona .Bob McCurry.If your bulletin exists wonder who signed off on it.Frank Wylie Bob Mc Curry or ?
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/hotones.jpg)
Thanks to Dave Wingcars69/70 from Moparts for the Salesman Ad
Looked for a bulletin you mentioned there are 28 69 charger press releases or so on here.
http://www.1969chargerregistry.com/gallery/press/pr_photo_69_charger_500
http://www.1969chargerregistry.com/gallery/press
Quote from: Ghoste on January 08, 2010, 04:47:37 PM
Steve, can I be second?
I'm sure I'll post it like Dave did. The one I'm talking about is similar to the 1st bulletin but doesn't describe the other items you couldn't get with the 500. After seeing the bulletins Dave posted I know the one I'm talking about is much earlier, need a 68 tech line........ 1-800-68HELLP :lol:
Steve
Have you tried Hamtramck historical Barry washingtons site he might have 68 bulletins.Or maybe Wayne Wooten of TDC charger registry
http://www.hamtramck-historical.com/library-2.shtml
http://www.hamtramck-historical.com/index.shtml
The only archive 68 charger material I found was on a 68 Hemi charger RT roadtest.And topless charger before it was the supercharger and once its named beig a Hemi .Even though the 440 is on the hood
http://www.fendertagshop.com/index.php?q=node/19
http://www.fendertagshop.com/index.php?q=node/20
just my 2 :Twocents: .As mentioned the original #88 car went through various years of metal changeouts.And exact year of vin cant be determined.Wonder if the under chassis would yield any particular year clues .I know on 68 cars the the bolts retaining the transmission crossmember and the holes in the frame accepting them are larger .And got smaller in 69-.And a original color should exist on the car somewhere
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 10, 2010, 10:05:36 AM
just my 2 :Twocents: .As mentioned the original #88 car went through various years of metal changeouts.And exact year of vin cant be determined.Wonder if the under chassis would yield any particular year clues .I know on 68 cars the the bolts retaining the transmission crossmember and the holes in the frame accepting them are larger .And got smaller in 69-.And a original color should exist on the car somewhere
Posted on Friday: "The real #88 chassis still has evidence of some
factory blue paint down on the rocker panels. This supports the idea that it started out as a street body,
painted metallic blue."
How many 500's are alleged to have been stolen from Chrysler? I'm starting to get confused with this whole thing. There was one car stolen from the press fleet and recoverd and sent to Cotten Owens correct?
Quote from: Ghoste on January 10, 2010, 03:43:53 PM
How many 500's are alleged to have been stolen from Chrysler? I'm starting to get confused with this whole thing. There was one car stolen from the press fleet and recoverd and sent to Cotten Owens correct?
The stolen press 500 was reportedly sent to Nichels for conversion into what became the #88 Daytona. Cotton had nothing to do with the 88 car.
Okay then, so what is this one he was supposed to have changed? (I don't know why I'm having so much trouble keeping up with this but I am)
Okay now I'm totally confused. I was under the impression that the HEMI 500 that was stolen out of California and that eventually went to Cotton Owens (missing engine and trans if I remember correctly) and then was later loaned to Creative to use for Daytona mock ups was then sent back to Cotton who sold it to a gentleman locally. Who by my information still owns the car. It is a R4 red, black interior (cloth insert seats), power windows, car with a white tail stripe. Identical to the 110610 car as far as options are concerened. If I can find the magazine article that shows the car I would scan it in, but I'm pretty sure it was in the MCG.
Okay found the article but not sure about scanning it as it mention the owners name and I don't feel confortable mentioning it as I don't know the person personally. If you do a simple search on Ebay for Cotton's Charger 500 there are plenty of ads for the article for sale.
FWIW Danny, you don't know how much I like hearing that you are confused. You cited all of the things that were running through my mind and I figure if you are confused about it then I needn't feel so bad.
Quote from: hemigeno on January 31, 2006, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 26, 2006, 08:57:36 AM
While looking up on 434780 .I had this 2 page WW newsletter submitted daytona vin list by GG as of 11-89 .It has 468330 and 500564 as recorded daytonas.Also a friend of mine currently has one of the daytonas owned by a chrysler exec.It is a very well optioned out car.To believe it I had to get a copy of its buildsheet from him.Im also still looking for further info on the 287 daytona
Dave,
I did some more thinking about those very-high VIN's you pointed out. The most logical explanation for 500564 is that it was misread and/or misreported by someone. There is already a XX29L9B400564, #479 on the Shipping List. It would not be a hard thing at all for the first digit of the Sequential Production Number to be off. 400564 was already on the list from before, so it is/was a known car. Someone probably saw the car at a show and just wrote down or remembered the VIN as 500564. That's
my best guess. Maybe Chris or someone else can tell us if there were Hamtramck cars into the 500xxx's, but it always seemed really high to me.
I don't know about 468330 though. Nothing jumps out at me as being a transcription error. Strangely enough, I do not have a single Daytona in my spreadsheet with the number 3 in the fourth digit spot (xxx3xx) --- not a single car...
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/DTALIST.jpg)
I dont now if these 2 cars exists but therev are the 2 highest numbers to last
Quote from: 69_500 on January 11, 2010, 07:46:06 PM
Okay now I'm totally confused. I was under the impression that the HEMI 500 that was stolen out of California and that eventually went to Cotton Owens (missing engine and trans if I remember correctly) and then was later loaned to Creative to use for Daytona mock ups was then sent back to Cotton who sold it to a gentleman locally. Who by my information still owns the car. It is a R4 red, black interior (cloth insert seats), power windows, car with a white tail stripe. Identical to the 110610 car as far as options are concerened. If I can find the magazine article that shows the car I would scan it in, but I'm pretty sure it was in the MCG.
Okay found the article but not sure about scanning it as it mention the owners name and I don't feel confortable mentioning it as I don't know the person personally. If you do a simple search on Ebay for Cotton's Charger 500 there are plenty of ads for the article for sale.
We do know the Cotton Owens retrieved 500 and Repurposed for daytona parts was a red car.And knowing the # 88 car shows to be originally blue.The real #88 chassis still has evidence of some factory blue paint down on the rocker panels. This supports the idea that it started out as a street body, painted metallic blue." ..And what are the chances of 2 stolen cars both found in CA and repurposed .Is what the blue car now the #88 was previously is hard to pin down.Nichels took that secret with him I guess :Twocents:
Did find the Cotton Owens 500 story check out page 3
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/featuredvehicles/mopp_0405_1969_dodge_charger/index.html
Those were just the changes made during the Charger's first trip to Creative Industries. Remember, after it was stolen and stripped of its engine and transmission, it eventually found its way back to the Detroit shop to be fitted with a prototype Daytona nose for wind tunnel testing. To get the new sheetmetal to fit,
It doesnt say it went to Nichels .It went to Detroit.Also doesnt say it was found it Watts Calif stripped and sitting on milk crates .As the story associated with the #88 cars origins.And this car isnt blue
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 12, 2010, 06:11:05 PM
Nichels took that secret with him I guess
I'm thinking Cotton probably took a lot of secrets with him. :icon_smile_wink:
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 12, 2010, 06:27:12 PM
Did find the Cotton Owens 500 story check out page 3
http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/featuredvehicles/mopp_0405_1969_dodge_charger/index.html
Those were just the changes made during the Charger's first trip to Creative Industries. Remember, after it was stolen and stripped of its engine and transmission, it eventually found its way back to the Detroit shop to be fitted with a prototype Daytona nose for wind tunnel testing. To get the new sheetmetal to fit,
It doesnt say it went to Nichels .It went to Detroit.Also doesnt say it was found it Watts Calif stripped and sitting on milk crates .As the story associated with the #88 cars origins.And this car isnt blue
That is the car I was thinking of and its the only one I have linked in my list as being tied to Cotton Owens. And its also the only one I have as being stolen early in California and its definitely not a blue car.
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/EightyEight.jpg)
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 12, 2010, 09:17:56 PM
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/EightyEight.jpg)
What publication is this Dave? Is this a press release Charger 500? Any chance of having pics from the Magazine that lost it? Is the VIN available? Could it be 4347xx? I remember hearing that the reason they repainted the Jerry Service 500 orange or red, was because it didn't photograph as well in Burgundy and they had lost the "Show Car"
Also Dave, Did you take the pics of the white Charger 500 in the 68 Charger HEMI 4spd Post and do you have the VIN? Was it as HEMIDOUG Said, all 68 except the tailpanel?
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,65345.20.html
More questions than answers again.......... :brickwall:
:popcrn: :popcrn: :popcrn:
Steve
This might help with the white 69 500 in link bellow .I think I have somehere more info it was at one time on ebay .I might have printed the auction out before it ended .Im not sure what magazine lost the car.I wonder if it went thru all channels of being a stolen car back in the day .That it might be onfile in CA DMV if they have a accesable archive section .It would have the vin and a police report collaberating the stolen and stripped story.The other thing is to find out what magazine it was loaned to and lost it.And see if they have any pictures .Tom M was a old friend .I met at shows he had several 69 charger 500s .When I had wingcars.I remember buying parts from a 69 500 he parted out.I got the trunk lid and hinges for a few hundred.And later Ted Janak got these parts off me
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,60667.0.html
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 13, 2010, 11:17:01 AM
This might help with the white 69 500 in link bellow .I think I have somehere more info it was at one time on ebay .I might have printed the auction out before it ended .Im not sure what magazine lost the car.I wonder if it went thru all channels of being a stolen car back in the day .That it might be onfile in CA DMV if they have a accesable archive section .It would have the vin and a police report collaberating the stolen and stripped story.The other thing is to find out what magazine it was loaned to and lost it.And see if they have any pictures .Tom M was a old friend .I met at shows he had several 69 charger 500s .When I had wingcars.I remember buying parts from a 69 500 he parted out.I got the trunk lid and hinges for a few hundred.And later Ted Janak got these parts off me
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,60667.0.html
Wonder if he kept records of VIN and other docs?? Wonder if he knows what happened to my buds 69 #144166 500?
:scratchchin:
Steve
Wonder if he kept records of VIN and other docs?? Wonder if he knows what happened to my buds 69 #144166 500?
Was that the one stolen in 82 from NY with side pipes
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 13, 2010, 11:51:09 AM
Wonder if he kept records of VIN and other docs?? Wonder if he knows what happened to my buds 69 #144166 500?
Was that the one stolen in 82 from NY with side pipes
Yes....................... :shruggy:
:/(http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/42524/2123342890102337541S600x600Q85.jpg) (http://http/rides.webshots.com/photo/2123342890102337541yCaFFY)
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,9741.60.html
I do recall seeing that stolen 500 story on here on several posts .Ive seen alot of 500s from junkyards to cars shows and friends archive photos.When I saw it on here and read about it was new to me.The #88 story was reprinted in a Oct/Nov 1990 WW newsletter
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/1969_500_ARTICLE_01.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/1968_500_RED_05.jpg)
Im looking up various magazine road tests for 69 500
http://cgi.ebay.com/Hot-Rod-February-1969-Hemi-Charger-500-Sox-Martin_W0QQitemZ350296501517QQcategoryZ280QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp4340.m263QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DSIC%26its%3DI%252BC%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA%252BUA%252BFICS%252BUFI%252BDDSIC%26otn%3D10%26ps%3D63
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,59879.0.html
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 13, 2010, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 13, 2010, 11:51:09 AM
Wonder if he kept records of VIN and other docs?? Wonder if he knows what happened to my buds 69 #144166 500?
Was that the one stolen in 82 from NY with side pipes
Yes....................... :shruggy:
:/(http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/42524/2123342890102337541S600x600Q85.jpg) (http://http/rides.webshots.com/photo/2123342890102337541yCaFFY)
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,9741.60.html
From what I had marked down the white car should be 210701 or 700 .Its close to another 500 I know from Houston TX T Mintz cars should be and as I recall where all project cars.And a 217 198 or 199 144170 or 171.The green 500 I got rescued from a NJ junkyard was 210549 or 749 but here is its picture
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/charger500junkyard.jpg)
Quote from: hemigeno on January 24, 2006, 01:26:37 PM
I don't know if I buy Chrysler's rationale about tire clearance. It's possible that's the case, but why didn't they just put a bump in the fender? It would have allowed the same tire movement. I personally think there's a tie-in with the evacuation of air from the wheelwell that allows the front end of the car to be lower to the track. The official "corporate" explanation is tire clearance though.
I agree. After you read Gary Romberg's (Chrysler engineer) comments about the aerodynamics of the Daytona you can see the need for the fender scoops. He talked about how a car by nature is not very aerodynamic. Among other things the airflow that comes into the engine bay (to cool the engine) that is traditionally evacuated underneath the car gets all "chewed up" causing turbulence. They chose to direct some of the air flow out the top of the car. The shape of the scoop actually helps to draw air out as well as giving an alternate evacuation point. One of the advantages of the Daytona was not just the aerodynamics that made the car go through air faster but it added to the handling of the car by how they used the dynamics of air flow, as they said, the car "rode on a rail in the corners."
Remember that these cars did not have inner fender wells. If you look at the width of the tire and where the tire would end up even after the car was dropped down the tire would not hit where the hole is. The tires did rub but on the side of the fender – most of the fenders were flared to prevent this. Also, the suspension was designed to bottom out before the tire could get as far as the top of the fender. If the tire could travel that far it could be sliced up by the sharp opening in the top of the fender.
If you look at the Daytona test mule it proves the motive, or that the original intent was an alternate evacuation point of the engine bay air. It is hard to prove the holes are for tire clearance.
(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/5531/milef.jpg) (http://img36.imageshack.us/i/milef.jpg/)
(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/4648/69dodgedaytonachargerdv.jpg) (http://img36.imageshack.us/i/69dodgedaytonachargerdv.jpg/)
Quote from: moparguy01 on January 24, 2006, 01:32:10 PM
i read the same thing about them finding the spoiler was the same at 6inches high or 3 feet high, so they asked the high ups and he opened the truck and said right there.
thats what i had read, but that was along time ago and i cant remember where it was.
My personal opinion in studying some aerodynamics is that having the wing about 3 inches above the roof line of the car is to gain cleaner and consistent airflow across the wing; it is not as turbulent as the airflow that is closer to the body. Having the wing that high (25") would also create more drag, so the height of the wing is intentional for good reason. Engineers are not into aesthetics but efficiency. That is why architects and engineers do not get along.
Quote from: XS29J8 on January 13, 2010, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: nascarxx29 on January 13, 2010, 11:51:09 AM
Wonder if he kept records of VIN and other docs?? Wonder if he knows what happened to my buds 69 #144166 500?
Was that the one stolen in 82 from NY with side pipes
Yes....................... :shruggy:
:/(http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/42524/2123342890102337541S600x600Q85.jpg) (http://http/rides.webshots.com/photo/2123342890102337541yCaFFY)
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,9741.60.html
Steve it doesnt appear you buddys missing 500 sold new in NJ .Though he lived in Clark N.J. .Do you know its prior origins before he owned it
COAST DODGE INC 1201 Main Street Ashbury Park NJ XX29L9B152199
ED VAN NESS MOTORS INC 770 Fairview Avenue Fairview NJ XX29L9B210711
FREEHOLD DODGE INC Lakewood Road Freehold NJ XX29L9B152198
NEMITH CIRCLE DODGE INC 821 New Loudon Rd Latham NJ XX29L9B199669
NEWARK DODGE INC 11-21 Sussex Avenue Newark NJ XX29L9B162292
XX29L9B21710
NORTH PLAINFIELD DODGE INC 555 Somerset Street North Plainfield NJ XX29L9B144160
XX29L9B146045
XX29L9B162291
DE MAIO OODGE INC 36 Main Street Orange NJ XX29L9B162292
LABRIOLA MOTORS INC 120 E. Newman Springs Road Red Bank NJ XX29L9B150548
FOWLER MOTORS INC. Route #15 Searta NJ XX29L9B144173
RIDGE DODGE INC 85 Route #17 Woodridge NJ XX29L9B162294
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 15, 2010, 03:00:42 AM
Quote from: moparguy01 on January 24, 2006, 01:32:10 PM
i read the same thing about them finding the spoiler was the same at 6inches high or 3 feet high, so they asked the high ups and he opened the truck and said right there.
thats what i had read, but that was along time ago and i cant remember where it was.
My personal opinion in studying some aerodynamics is that having the wing about 3 inches above the roof line of the car is to gain cleaner and consistent airflow across the wing; it is not as turbulent as the airflow that is closer to the body. Having the wing that high (25") would also create more drag, so the height of the wing is intentional for good reason. Engineers are not into aesthetics but efficiency. That is why architects and engineers do not get along.
Ah but there is another advantage to having the wing so high:
........as they said, the car "rode on a rail in the corners." The vertical stabilizers!!!!!!!
Does some one know how to contact Tom Hoover-you know the father of the hemi guy?
He talked about the wing height during a group healing session [NEHOA meet] in the early 90's but I can't remember what he said... Actually he gave a slide show and afterwords we had a q&a session and sat there spellbound with awe.
I believe I have a paper around here somewhere explaining the wing height, and I'll see if I can find it but to sum it up it goes like this. The wing car effective at speeds but was just as effective when mounted only 5-6" higher than the deck lid. However when mounted there one could not open the trunk. So therefore they mounted it as high as they did purely to gain access into the trunk.
Another issue the engineers solved by putting the vertical stabilizers/uprights on top of the quarterpanels was how negative lift (downforce) transferred to the frame of the car. Utilizing a short wing would have meant mounting it to the decklid just like they did in '70+ Go-Wings. Fine for street, but at 200mph there was not going to be a way to adequately reinforce the decklid without making said decklid non-functional and also taking up space in the middle of the trunk compartment. Quarterpanel mounting allowed them to put the bracing off to the side, keeping some semblance of a functional trunk.
http://www.allpar.com/racing/200-mph-Daytona.html
http://www.allpar.com/corporate/chelsea-proving-grounds.html
When the crew left Talladega the whole racing world knew about the record. Eventually, #88 came back to Talladega, where it rests to the present day, on permanent display at the Talladega MotorSports Museum.
Not bad for a car that had been left a derelict on the mean streets of Los Angeles. Chrysler had sent a Dodge Charger Hemi out to California for testing by a major auto enthusiast magazine. It was stolen one night and was lost for quite a while. Finally, L.A. police found the stripped out derelict body on the mean streets of Watts. There wasn't much left except the body, which had been left sitting on cement blocks. The police hauled it into their impound lot. Notifications were made, of course. At first, nothing was going to happen. However it was the time of the Riverside race. One of the guys involved had taken a car out to Riverside to sell. His trailer was empty for the return trip, so he was asked to pick up the hulk from the L.A.P.D. lot. He did so. That car became the #88 engineering mule and the 200 mile an hour record holder.
However it was the time of the Riverside race. One of the guys involved had taken a car out to Riverside to sell. His trailer was empty for the return trip, so he was asked to pick up the hulk from the L.A.P.D. lot. He did so. That car became the #88 engineering mule and the 200 mile an hour record holder.
Wonder who the guy was that picked up the hulk.The now #88 daytona research car. Cotton Owens ? ?? Or
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/EightyEight.jpg)
There is still either a 68 charger controversy was converted to the #88 car or as this reads a 69 hemi charger 500
Second was the "high speed" car, which was phased into service as testing at racing speeds became necessary. This car reportedly began life as a '69 Hemi Dodge Charger 500, one which Chrysler loaned to a magazine for testing. The car was stolen while the magazine was using it, stripped and left on a Los Angeles street. Chrysler brought the shell back to Michigan and earmarked it for Proving Grounds use. Charlie Glotzbach and Buddy Baker were eventually chosen to drive the high speed car, as they were among the most experienced and winning drivers in the Dodge stable. The first high speed tests were conducted with the prototype Daytona on July 20, 1969 - the day of the first moon walk. Additional testing was conducted in August of 1969 at Daytona and Talladega, and also later in the year at Rockingham
I am not buying what that article says. The C500 that was stolen is still a HEMI C500 it is by no means the #88 car.
Fender scoops -
They've gotta be for air evacuation. If they weren't, then any aero guy with half a brain would've tapered the rear of the bumps down in a fastback/teardrop style rather than leaving them to end in a vertical cutoff. And like others have said, the front wheels never got stuffed far enough into the wheelwells to need a clearance hole on the top.
Although I can't figure out all the cloak & dagger stuff with those things. Why not just use normal vents on the fenders? If NASCAR was gonna let that huge goofy-looking wing and nosecone through then I don't see why a few slatted vents on the fenders would have raised NASCAR's eyebrows any farther. And there's no point in trying to keep their purpose a secret from the Ford guys very long. As soon as they got a look at the Daytona they surely would have started experimenting with the same thing on a Torino and discovered the real purpose right off the bat. It was only ever going to be an edge for the Dodge guys until Ford got its next aero model built (if that had gone on to happen.)
If I was running the Daytona project I would have said screw the fender scoops, just modify the hood panels to have cutouts in the existing pair of indented scallops.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about the purpose or benefit of the fender scoops, one has to understand that their origin really goes back to the 1968 1/2 Charger race car where they WERE experiencing contact issues with the right front tire and fender when the suspension was loaded in the corner. This all goes back to how they were detaching the body shell from the chassis and repositioning it where they wanted it.
I think perhaps an experiment to correct one issue exposed a benefit previously not expected. :Twocents:
If you buried the front tire far enough into the chassis to rub on the underside of the fender's top surface, then the lower edge of the fender (at the rocker panel height, down where the pentastar emblem would be) would be literally almost scraping the pavement. Even on a chopped up & lowered NASCAR leaning in a turn, I'm not convinced they ever got that low. We're talking about having the tire's whole sidewall buried up behind the fender's arch at the top of the wheel.
BTW: This pic is interesting to me. That fender must've been cut in two during the process of shaping it. Looks like the cut would have been right there along the rear edge of the big "tire clearance" hole. It was probably mostly about the fender flaring job, or maybe even a repair job at some point along the line. But it might have been tempting to also cheat the size of the fender flare/hole in the process. NASCAR would probably never have caught it at the time if they enlarged those scoops & smoothed them out more than stock. We already know they grew the hole as big as they could get it underneath the scoops, and the scoops on a few of the racers don't look like the stock plastic items to me.
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/101_1314.jpg)
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 22, 2010, 06:30:26 AM
... We're talking about having the tire's whole sidewall buried up behind the fender's arch at the top of the wheel.
Kind of like this one... This is the 1968 Isaac Firecracker 400 car, better known as the 1968 1/2 chassis design (2 by 2 car). Look how far that right front tire is sucked up inside the wheelwell at rest. They have already flared the fender halfway up into the Goodyear decal.
This is the car that became the first Daytona at the proving grounds with the handmade nose and stilt rear wing. This car was being discussed on the Baker Daytona thread.
The 2+2 cars were the ones where the body was mounted 2" lower on the chassis at the rear end of the rockers, and 4" lower at the front end of the rockers, right?
I never really understood that whole story about those cars.
I know NASCAR outlawed them for being too low on the chassis, I've heard that part. But every GN racecar in that era already looks several inches lowered on the chassis compared to a truly street-production unibody. It looks to me like every racer on the track was 2"/4" lower at the very least, and the 2+2 cars were lowered even more than that.
I mean, look at this pic (It's the debated #6 Canepa show car from the other thread):
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63521.0;attach=120702;image)
Look at how the rear subframe rail is even-height with the rocker panel just outside of it. The outer body is well below street height right there, and that chassis seems to be the standard NASCAR-legal Charger height for the era.
2 + 2 Was the standard. It was the 2 + 4 that was caught & banned :yesnod:
So NASCAR let them drop the bodywork down 2" at both ends of the chassis, but cried foul when Cotton dropped it 2" in back and 4" in front? Is that what happened?
To be honest I'm surprised that the difference was achieved with only a 2" drop on the standard cars. I would have guessed more like 3+ inches at least on the front end if not the back.
I believe it was a Chrysler experiment not a Cotton innovation and they were all trying various things in NASCAR to lower the cars as much as they could without running afoul of tech. Think of it as the NASCAR version of the altered wheelbase drag cars.
Stories abound of things like extending shocks and packing them in dry ice to have them raise the car for tech and thaw out to a race height by go time or wadding styrofoam into the top of the t-bar adjusters to let it get pounded out after a couple of laps. There are more.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 23, 2010, 02:45:58 AM
So NASCAR let them drop the bodywork down 2" at both ends of the chassis, but cried foul when Cotton dropped it 2" in back and 4" in front? Is that what happened?
To be honest I'm surprised that the difference was achieved with only a 2" drop on the standard cars. I would have guessed more like 3+ inches at least on the front end if not the back.
Cotton had nothing to do with the 2 by 2 project. It was an in-house job done at Nichels under the supervision of Larry Rathgeb.
My understanding is all the 1968 cars had a 2" modification to start with. Then the 1968 1/2 car had an additional 2" modification in the front which was caught. Now keep in mind that there was a fixed ground clearance. But it was how they played with the body,
and how they positioned it over the chassis that they got caught on. On the 68 1/2 car, because the hood was now so low relative to the engine, Chrysler developed a special intake manifold that sunk the carb down a little bit more to gain some clearance. Yes, they did that all for a couple of cars. They put a lot of effort into those two particular cars for that one race. When they got caught, it was all for naught.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 23, 2010, 12:27:12 AM
I know NASCAR outlawed them for being too low on the chassis, I've heard that part. But every GN racecar in that era already looks several inches lowered on the chassis compared to a truly street-production unibody. It looks to me like every racer on the track was 2"/4" lower at the very least, and the 2+2 cars were lowered even more than that.
You really cannot compare much of anything on a GN car compared to a street car. In the case of the Chrysler stuff, about all they have in common is the general torsion bar suspension layout, and that they both started with a body shell. There sure isn't much that interchanges with production, and the body shell was just a starting point for the GN car.
Just to illustrate, look at the amount of dedicated body fixturing that is in place at Nichels in this car under construction. There was a whole lot of cutting and pasting going on. Those underbody fixtures are also how Nichels could repair a car quickly, or build identical car after car.
This is some cool stuff......... Maybe one option for my future C500 could be the 2x2 version........
Here is Isaac's 1968 Firecracker car, compared to its later configuration as the low speed mule Daytona at the proving grounds. Notice that the vertical discoloration marks on the aluminum tail panel are identical.
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8829.0;attach=121006;image)
(http://aerowarriors.com/jpgs/gk2.jpg)
some great pictures guys , some i have never seen before , awesome stuff :coolgleamA: :popcrn:
Quote from: Aero426 on February 23, 2010, 10:18:02 AM
Here is Isaac's 1968 Firecracker car, compared to its later configuration as the low speed mule Daytona at the proving grounds. Notice that the vertical discoloration marks on the aluminum tail panel are identical.
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8829.0;attach=121006;image)
(http://aerowarriors.com/jpgs/gk2.jpg)
WOW !!! You're right....... The power of observation.........
I dunno, I vaguely recall reading suggestions somewhere else that those sort of petty details were meaningless. :D
QuoteYou really cannot compare much of anything on a GN car compared to a street car. In the case of the Chrysler stuff, about all they have in common is the general torsion bar suspension layout, and that they both started with a body shell. There sure isn't much that interchanges with production, and the body shell was just a starting point for the GN car.
Just to illustrate, look at the amount of dedicated body fixturing that is in place at Nichels in this car under construction. There was a whole lot of cutting and pasting going on. Those underbody fixtures are also how Nichels could repair a car quickly, or build identical car after car.
Yeah, I realize that by 1968 they were cutting those cars apart like giant plastic models, and ending up with a new body shell that had no floor and could be slipped over another car's floors/subframes/rollcage. (Weren't some of the 68-70 NASCAR Chargers known to have 66-67 undercarriages that were carried over during construction? The B-body's underside didn't change in a significant way from 66-70 so I'm sure it would have been tempting.)
I've read about the engine issue before too. They mounted the outer skins of the cars so low on the chassis that they barely had enough distance between the K-frame and the hood to fit the motor.
The whole thing always seemed strange to me. Why would NASCAR let them do it 2" but not 4"? Seems kind of arbitrary. Those cars were visibly not stock anymore just from the lowering that they did allow. (Remember how high a truly STOCK Charger's ride height really was. Today most of our near-stock street cruisers already have the torsion bars cranked down at least a couple inches lower than prescribed in the FSM.)
And this was a racing league that was trying to slow down the cars at the time. It seems kind of dumb to me that they didn't just demand the cars remain stock-height, or at least pick a measurement that was high enough to take away any motivation for the builders to split the cars in two trying to lower them. It would have been easier for the inspectors to police, too.
Arbitrary sums up NASCAR right through to the present day though Mike. France has always tried to balance his show between fairness (as he saw it), packing the stands, safety, and keeping the racing exciting. Looking through his sometimes mystifying rule changes over the years you find him wanting the good press that records bring, the safety that needs no explanation, wanting certain brands to win based on the demographics in the stands and above all doing what he thinks necessary to keep the franchise healthy.
Yeah, that's about the size of it. The old GN Chargers sure looked badass all raked & lowered like they were, I gotta give him that.
I don't give NASCAR a ton of credit on safety though. Plenty of people have brought obvious things to their attention over the years, only to be brushed off year after year until someone actually dies over it.
I doubt that Big-E's crash would have resulted in very much new scrutiny of the car's safety if he hadn't been a star of so much stature in the sport. They care about every driver's life in the broad sense, but they only look for fixable problems at their end of the system when it's a big name.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 23, 2010, 01:10:59 PM
(Weren't some of the 68-70 NASCAR Chargers known to have 66-67 undercarriages that were carried over during construction? The B-body's underside didn't change in a significant way from 66-70 so I'm sure it would have been tempting.)
Yes, many teams that were not factory backed would have updated the sheet metal on their 66-67 cars. These chassis of course did not have the latest tweaks and even with equal power, they would be at a disadvantage handling wise.
Quote
And this was a racing league that was trying to slow down the cars at the time. It seems kind of dumb to me that they didn't just demand the cars remain stock-height, or at least pick a measurement that was high enough to take away any motivation for the builders to split the cars in two trying to lower them. It would have been easier for the inspectors to police, too.
Until the cars started flirting with 200, there really was no intent to slow anything down. As far as the height thing goes, there was a fixed height block on a stick that had to clear the oil pan (5") and the rocker panels (6 1/2"). That never changed. But they didn't say you couldn't section the forward part of the rocker panels and rotate the body forward, thus maintaining the checked dimensions. It ain't cheatin' unless you get caught. Well eventually NASCAR got wind of this, and that was at Daytona in July of '68
I would recommend anyone interested in the development of the chassis side to take a look at the Chrysler Document Archive on Aerowarriors.com Ken has put a lot of time into posting up the various test reports and memos in order of date.
The June 1968 test results of the 68 1/2 cars has more information on the genesis of the fender scoops. Read down the text a couple pages until you get to "suspension" and it will discuss the famously disputed tire to fender contact - and the creation of a bubble in the fender to help.
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html)
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 22, 2010, 06:30:26 AM
If you buried the front tire far enough into the chassis to rub on the underside of the fender's top surface, then the lower edge of the fender (at the rocker panel height, down where the pentastar emblem would be) would be literally almost scraping the pavement.
This bottom of the fender scraping becomes less pesky of a problem when you cut 1 1/2" out of the forward part of the rocker panel and the bottom of the fender. Look how thin the rocker panel appears and how the bottom of the fender looks tucked in at the bottom.
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8829.0;attach=121006;image)
Click on the link below. This is George Wallace's excellent report on what happened at the July '68 Firecracker 400. It details how the cars were modified, and how both Chrysler and Ford got caught. This was a direct catalyst for the street Talladegas and Spoiler IIs being designed with special sectioned rocker panels right from the factory.
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_072568.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_072568.html)
Thanks Doug - I love this stuff. I have read quite a few docs from Ken's site - don't remember this one.
Reading about Mopar John's wife Linda getting a Shelby reminded me of something.
"Carroll Shelby terminated his agreement with Ford in the summer of 1969. The GT350 and GT500 for the 1969–70 model years received extensive facelifts, the body alone increasing in length by 4 inches. Ford was heavily involved with design and style decisions, with Shelby having very little input. Production of Shelby Mustangs ceased with the 1970 model year. The 1970 models were in fact left over 1969 models. VIN tags from 1969 Shelby's were removed and replaced with 1970 Shelby VIN's with careful supervision from FBI agents."
Makes you think that the change from a 68 to 69 VIN is possible, but highly unlikely, and it would be well documented if true.