Unrestored daytona anyone heres

[nascarxx29]

http://justacarguy.blogspot.hu/2012/10/an-unrestored-1969-dodge-daytona.html

[JB400]

Wish it was mine   Maybe someday

[nascarxx29]

Seat belt clips on top of console Brake lines facing fender 

[maxwellwedge]

Never, ever seen those seat belt clips on a console....looks sorta homemade. Anyone else?

[hemi68charger]

Never, ever seen those seat belt clips on a console....looks sorta homemade. Anyone else?

Yeap,,, seen them on C-bodies with console........  Wow.... I'm marking this day in my calender !  

I used to ( or maybe still do up in the attic ) a black version I got out of a '70 Polara convertible with a console automatic ( A long time ago !! )

[moparstuart]

Never, ever seen those seat belt clips on a console....looks sorta homemade. Anyone else?

Yeap,,, seen them on C-bodies with console........  Wow.... I'm marking this day in my calender !  

I used to ( or maybe still do up in the attic ) a black version I got out of a '70 Polara convertible with a console automatic ( A long time ago !! )

[Ghoste]

So now the question becomes, did that car somehow get a C-body console from new or was it modified later on? 

[nascarxx29]

Ive seen those on front of the seats and pair on front edge of backseat.I knda recall seeing them on C Bodys .But C  body console were longer I think back half came off
http://compare.ebay.com/like/150244718268?_lwgsi=y&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar

[WINGIN IT]

Not only that, how does the dashpad and instrument cluster get so baked ( it almost looks melted    ) and the seats are pristine?  Seat covers?

[nascarxx29]

http://www.cbodydrydock.com/forum_viewtopic.php?5.24158.0 Those on the unrestored car show rivets or screws on the top C body doesnt

[JB400]

Considering the Daytona was an upscale of an upscale car, it wouldn't surprise me if c body parts ended up on them

[Ghoste]

I disagree.  It was an homologation car slapped together as quickly as possible to get them on the "shipped" list and if anything a money loser for Dodge on a unit basis.  Unlikely they would add upscale parts from an unrelated car line.

[nascarxx29]

The superbird did get a C body hood latch

[JB400]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with your disagreement.  The 500 was just thrown together at the last minute.  The Daytona was more refined.  While racing was more on the minds of most, I'm sure the sales department had their fair share in what went on in these cars.  They had to know right off the bat they would be a flop sales wise.  So why not throw in a few luxury touches to make it more appealing.  Besides, these cars cost a little bit more to buy than a standard Charger or even a 500.  More luxury for the money?

[cdr]

notice the lic plate 668 AMD,THE DAYTONA WAS NOT A FLOP IN SALES ! only the copy cat was 

[pettybird]

Machado will know whose car this is...it's a SoCal owner.  Those pics are at Spring Fling.


It's a cool car.  The couple times I'd seen it they had Mopar "driver's education" placards on it. 

[Golden-Arm]

chrome shift knob.

[hemigeno]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with your disagreement.  The 500 was just thrown together at the last minute.  The Daytona was more refined.  While racing was more on the minds of most, I'm sure the sales department had their fair share in what went on in these cars.  They had to know right off the bat they would be a flop sales wise.  So why not throw in a few luxury touches to make it more appealing.  Besides, these cars cost a little bit more to buy than a standard Charger or even a 500.  More luxury for the money?

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

[JB400]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with your disagreement.  The 500 was just thrown together at the last minute.  The Daytona was more refined.  While racing was more on the minds of most, I'm sure the sales department had their fair share in what went on in these cars.  They had to know right off the bat they would be a flop sales wise.  So why not throw in a few luxury touches to make it more appealing.  Besides, these cars cost a little bit more to buy than a standard Charger or even a 500.  More luxury for the money?

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

I'm in Missouri as well. I'm not one that is obsessed with these cars either.  I don't know where which car was made or what not or the fender tag code for every option, but I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me what options came on certain cars.  But, sense factory documents are a little rare on some subjects, it wouldn't surprise me if there are factory oddballs, especially if it was originally built for a exec or some other official.  .

[Aero426]

Machado will know whose car this is...it's a SoCal owner.  Those pics are at Spring Fling.

Correct.  He was standing in one of the photos of the car I saw somewhere.     I think he commented it was a "known about" car, just unrestored is all.       

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

If you guys need bigger pictures, my friend grabbed the pictures of the car and has the full size ones on his flickr page.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8193/8110896363_910bcf72bd_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54867420@N08/sets/72157625247714594/with/8110896363/

Ryan

[Ghoste]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with your disagreement.  The 500 was just thrown together at the last minute.  The Daytona was more refined.  While racing was more on the minds of most, I'm sure the sales department had their fair share in what went on in these cars.  They had to know right off the bat they would be a flop sales wise.  So why not throw in a few luxury touches to make it more appealing.  Besides, these cars cost a little bit more to buy than a standard Charger or even a 500.  More luxury for the money?

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

I'm in Missouri as well. I'm not one that is obsessed with these cars either.  I don't know where which car was made or what not or the fender tag code for every option, but I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me what options came on certain cars.  But, sense factory documents are a little rare on some subjects, it wouldn't surprise me if there are factory oddballs, especially if it was originally built for a exec or some other official.  .

I don't need to be from Missouri, I just plain don't think it is the factory one.

[JB400]

In Missouri tradition, Show Me that it's not the original   Anything is possible

[Ghoste]

Well I can see where this is going so you are right, its likely factory.

[JB400]

For the record, I rescued a console out of a 70 Fury 3 that had those on there at one point. I'll probably fill the holes in before I stick in my 69 unless I can find a pair.

[odcics2]

Want to start a list of what's been "restored" on this unrestored car?

Washer fluid bottle opens up backwards - old repop part from years ago.  

[hemigeno]

In Missouri tradition, Show Me that it's not the original  

Au contraire...

Show Me that it IS the original.  Just because one can postulate an unorthodox theory does not mean it is valid until disproven.  You've made the statement you think it's original.  Fine.  I'll go along once it can be proven true.  Even with my own car's idiosyncrasies, I kept a neutral stance until outside/independent verification could be obtained.  Anything short of that is pure supposition - which you'll have to debate alone (i.e. without my participation).

For the record, I rescued a console out of a 70 Fury 3 that had those on there at one point. I'll probably fill the holes in before I stick in my 69 unless I can find a pair.

Assuming you can find some replacement stowage clips, will you be telling people that it's a correct console for a '69 B-body?

[hemigeno]

Want to start a list of what's been "restored" on this unrestored car?

Washer fluid bottle opens up backwards - old repop part from years ago.  

Saw that... it also has one black and one chrome door button too.

[JB400]

No, I will not be trying to pass my console off as original.  It would make a nice conversation piece though for the local car guys around here.  Besides, it's different.  Most haven't seen anything like it.


Like you, I'm keeping an open mind on whether it's original or not.  Like I said, anything is possible.  Until rock solid proof comes along, it's all heresay.  I fit it in the same category as the converted Superbirds to Roadrunners.

Done some checking, C15 is for Deluxe seatbelts.  Possible code on this car with the clips

[hemigeno]

Done some checking, C15 is for Deluxe seatbelts.  Possible code on this car with the clips

That's not a valid sales code for 1969, based on the factory documents I have.  Also... according to Galen, it is an applicable code only for '70-1 (I did some checking too).

[JB400]

Any idea what code they might be under?  I'm not fortunate enough to have a GG library at my bedside. Just the net.

[tan top]

  good find  ,  looks pretty straight & rot free from the pictures ,  thanks for posting  

Not only that, how does the dashpad and instrument cluster get so baked ( it almost looks melted    ) and the seats are pristine?  Seat covers?

yes something looks iffy with the dash  ,  look at the condition of the rear package tray too , compared to interior ,

i'm betting the  seatbelt clips might of been owner added at one time  ,  he Polly had a C body before &  got tired of the buckle falling down & jamming up down the side of the seat in the daytona  , better on the console , than front of seat i think for stowing the belt

[hemigeno]

Any idea what code they might be under?  I'm not fortunate enough to have a GG library at my bedside. Just the net.

I went through the entire littany of 1969 Passenger Car Sales Codes that begin with "C", which is where anything to do with seatbelts would fall.  There are only three of them shown in the E-Series (1969) C.A.G. Production Engineering documents that address seat belts, which are as follows:

C04 - Delete All Standard Belts
C13 - Shoulder Belts - Front - Right & Left  (this was available only for convertibles, since front shoulder belts were standard equipment otherwise)
C14 - Shoulder Belts - Rear - Right & Left  (this was optional on all models EXCEPT convertibles, since the top mechanism prevented their use)


Galen's white books are OK, but they have their drawbacks.  The editions I have are over 10 years old, so he may have updated them several times since.  They are still worth adding to the collection on your nightstand.

[Ghoste]

So far I haven't been able to locate any mention of the console belt clips in factory literature on any model prior to the 70 C-bodies.  Still looking though.

[hemigeno]

I tried posting the '69 parts book page from the .pdf version, but can't make it happen (encryption stuff  ).  If anyone wants to look it up on their own, it's shown on Illustration Page 23-66.  Again... that page shows both B- and C-Body applications combined on one illustration, whereas the console belt stowage clips are listed elsewhere in the parts manual listings as C-body ONLY.

[Ghoste]

Was it available prior to 69?

[hemigeno]

Was it available prior to 69?

I don't know, but I did find it in some '69 literature (see below) - just in photographs of a Polara/C-body, of course.

[Ghoste]

As wildly off the original topic as we're getting... evidence indicates the Deluxe Seat Belt option did not exist prior to 1970 but seat blet clips on C-body consoles did exist at least as early as the 69 models.

[hemigeno]

As wildly off the original topic as we're getting... evidence indicates the Deluxe Seat Belt option did not exist prior to 1970 but seat blet clips on C-body consoles did exist at least as early as the 69 models.

That'd be my conclusion too.



As for the thread's diversion, it's my fault.  You (initially) took the high road on this sidetrack, but I took the bait.   

[/hijack]

[tan top]

I tried posting the '69 parts book page from the .pdf version, but can't make it happen (encryption stuff   ).  If anyone wants to look it up on their own, it's shown on Illustration Page 23-66.  Again... that page shows both B- and C-Body applications combined on one illustration, whereas the console belt stowage clips are listed elsewhere in the parts manual listings as C-body ONLY.

 

not that clear  , had to take a pictures off the  monitor  ,

[hemigeno]

 

not that clear  , had to take a pictures off the  monitor  ,

Thanks, TT!

[69hemidaytona]

I have seen these consoles with the seat belt clips quite often on ebay. They are usually if not always identified as coming out of a C body. I've never seen one in a B body. Governor Scott Walker is calling I better answer it. I have a feeling he won't be calling again after the presidential election is over!

[WINGIN IT]

Console aside, there are other items already mentioned that point this car is not completely "unrestored" .

[JB400]

Sometimes it's good to be from Missouri  This is what I actually like seeing.  Instead of 20+ pages of bickering about this is right or wrong, we have people with factory information posting it and letting everyone see for themselves on whether it's right or wrong. Honestly, I'm convinced that the seatbelt clips are from a C body.  I also checked my B body  service manual, no sign of them.  As far as why this car has them, we need some more info from the owner on the history of it.  Thank you everyone for taking the time to post the info   You know, they could be a dealer add on.

[held1823]

is this pdf found on the web, or from someone's personal cd?

that car is awesome. i sure hope we hear the details about it, at some point.

[C5X DAYTONA]

LOL.   Yes it is a Buddy's car.   355154.     They have owned it since 87.    The right fender has been replaced and the front repainted at one time.   The seats have been redone.   The cars did a lot of sitting out in the So Cal sun.  That is why the dash is cracked like it is and the paint baked.   The console is from a C-Body.   Here is a the add he purchased the car from.    

Machado will know whose car this is...it's a SoCal owner.  Those pics are at Spring Fling.


It's a cool car.  The couple times I'd seen it they had Mopar "driver's education" placards on it.  

[tan top]

is this pdf found on the web, or from someone's personal cd?

that car is awesome. i sure hope we hear the details about it, at some point.

found on web ,

LOL.   Yes it is a Buddy's car.   355154.     They have owned it since 87.    The right fender has been replaced and the front repainted at one time.   The seats have been redone.   The cars did a lot of sitting out in the So Cal sun.  That is why the dash is cracked like it is and the paint baked.   The console is from a C-Body.   Here is a the add he purchased the car from.     

Machado will know whose car this is...it's a SoCal owner.  Those pics are at Spring Fling.


It's a cool car.  The couple times I'd seen it they had Mopar "driver's education" placards on it. 

good find   

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

 The Bill Card Daytona seems to be built the same way (355153)

Minus the console seat belt clips

[C5X DAYTONA]

Here is a pic of the tag from 355154 and 155.   Identical cars.   Even in condition.

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

153 is almost the same as well....add the Super Track pack & minus the condition  

[hemigeno]

355152 and 355156 are also 440/auto, B5 w/ blue interior - but I don't have complete tag information on those cars yet.  Their options will be really close to the three cars already posted, more than likely.  Supposedly 355151 is also B5 but I have very little info on it apart from Galen reportedly having the B-sheet.

[pettybird]

Holy central office laziness!

[mauve66]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with your disagreement.  The 500 was just thrown together at the last minute.  The Daytona was more refined.  While racing was more on the minds of most, I'm sure the sales department had their fair share in what went on in these cars.  They had to know right off the bat they would be a flop sales wise.  So why not throw in a few luxury touches to make it more appealing.  Besides, these cars cost a little bit more to buy than a standard Charger or even a 500.  More luxury for the money?

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

i knew i liked you for some reason

[nascarxx29]

1978 Ithaca NY Billy Card car back in the day posted by BTP racing
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,54359.0.html
After
http://rides.webshots.com/album/548783709LfOZzj

[hemigeno]

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

i knew i liked you for some reason

That's just my diplomatic way of saying I'm stubborn, skeptical and hard-headed. 

[moparstuart]

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

i knew i liked you for some reason

That's just my diplomatic way of saying I'm stubborn, skeptical and hard-headed.  

me too  and missouri born and raised also    
   it really pisses my wife off to no end that i question everything

[JB400]

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

i knew i liked you for some reason

That's just my diplomatic way of saying I'm stubborn, skeptical and hard-headed. 

me too  and missouri born and raised also   

Add me to that list as well.

[WINGIN IT]

1978 Ithaca NY Billy Card car back in the day posted by BTP racing
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,54359.0.html
After
http://rides.webshots.com/album/548783709LfOZzj

I rather liked the patriotic scheme it once wore.   

[mauve66]

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it does not at all coincide with what I've researched of the Daytona's developmental process.

As for the seatbelt clips, console stowage clips were mounted on 1969 C-body consoles but not on B-body versions.  You have to dig into the parts book to see the distinction, but it's there.  While it might suit some folks' argument to say "you never know what might have happened with Chrysler back then", the problem with arguing that this is a factory-installed console has to get around the fact that Hamtramck did not make C-body cars in '69.  So... not only would there had to have been a shortage on the Hamtramck line of blue B-body consoles at the exact moment this car's interior was being installed, but a shipment of C-body consoles would had to have been mis-directed to Hamtramck and accepted by the plant's parts procurement employees.  Maybe it's because I'm from Missouri and all, but I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that car before signing on to the "It's a factory-installed console" petition.

Cool car nonetheless!!!

i knew i liked you for some reason

That's just my diplomatic way of saying I'm stubborn, skeptical and hard-headed. 

mine says something about my pic being in the dictionary under those very words

[Ghoste]

Not from Missouri, just skeptical enough after looking at these cars for so many years to have an extremely difficult time believing that one ever came from the factory with seat belt clips on the console.

[JB400]

The Missouri deal only means we're playful enough to get the information out while others think we're serious

[Ghoste]

Yeah, okay.

[odcics2]

Not from Missouri, just skeptical enough after looking at these cars for so many years to have an extremely difficult time believing that one ever came from the factory with seat belt clips on the console.

Since "C" bodies were not made at the same plant, it would be strange for a belt clip console to show up among normal consoles and be installed on the line without question.
Then the dealer would have seen it and not questioned it.  Then the original owner would not have questioned it.  Finally - all these years later, it gets questioned!! 

[held1823]

curious as to why the c body console was added. it would seem that used b-body pieces would have been more plentiful, so perhaps the owner already had it on hand.  did they both mount to the same brackets?

[ksquared]

Holy central office laziness!

I have thought of that many time too.  Like why do they choose an exterior color with an optional interior color choice, then put in the basic black?

Does anybody know about the percentage of cars ordered by dealers/customers who chose their options vs. cars made by the Dodge central office where somebody just checked boxes?

[moparstuart]

curious as to why the c body console was added. it would seem that used b-body pieces would have been more plentiful, so perhaps the owner already had it on hand.  did they both mount to the same brackets?

its blue

[hemigeno]

did they both mount to the same brackets?

AFAIK, they did mount to the same brackets.