production number question

[cbrestorations]

 yes i did, i pretty much already knew the answer, i figured there were charger fans that might of had an inside as to the count. thanks all for the responces guys  

[Troy]

You could come to a reasonable guesstimate by extrapolating 2.5% in black to get about 69 cars. And assuming the large majority of black cars had a black interior you'd get maybe 60? And probably 60% or better odds of them having a black top so maybe 35-50?

It's my understanding that color production was not kept - at least it's not displayed in the current info that Galen, etc. that floats around. The exception would be the buffed silver. Color info starts to appear in '70.

So I don't give much credence to "guesstimating" anything. And applying one statistic to another, such as 60% onto 2.5%, is statistically incorrect - for the sake of example, assuming the 60% is real, that percentage would be derived from total R/Ts so it could not be applied to a smaller sample.

Additionally, I don't know what "survival rate" means. The 10% number popped up a long time ago and people use it here'n there, but how should it be applied? To all cars built in a certain year? Okay, so wouldn't that mean applying that percentage to a certain model also be statistically incorrect?

All I know is that black seems to have a different connotation in 1968 and today. Back then, black was for 4-door sedans like Newports and Cadillacs, not performance cars like today. And comparing 1968 to 1971, for example, may show a shift in color preferences because people's preferences evolve with what's going on culturally. From numbers I have for several other brands, black is at best a MOR color. Break it down to minutiae, like 1970 Hemi'Cuda ragtops, and it seems to be quite popular, but that's just a micro view that requires macro judgment because, in the end, black was not a terribly popular color for the 'Cuda.

The information was "lost" in a fire. And I don't put nearly as much trust in Galen as others.

As for guesstimating, my answer is a whole lot closer than yours. It would have been easy to say "no one knows for sure" and make that be the end of it but that doesn't help anyone. But seriously, you can use the available percentages in this case to get a reasonable idea (I know it's not scientifically valid) because there are enough "known" cars to show that the likelihood of a giant anomaly (50% of all R/Ts being triple black console 4-speeds with rear window defrosters and 8 track radios for example) is pretty slim AND because the resulting number starts to get so small that "real" numbers are the only way to be truly accurate. We're talking about a starting point of less than .3% of the cars produced so does it matter if the "guess" is +/-10% of the actual figure? For this discussion a reasonable attempt is perfectly fine.

i just purchased an original triple black 68 r/t 4 seed. always wanted one but never thought ide find one in project car condition. i was just wondering as an educated guess how many were produced.

That's very cool! You should tell us more about it.

Troy

[diego]

The information was "lost" in a fire. And I don't put nearly as much trust in Galen as others.

Every brand has the fire story. Not sure which is true and which is not.

But I have several of the same docs Galen has, so it really doesn't get more accurate than Chrysler paperwork (aside of the human error inherent with any tabulation). Who are the "others" you speak of?

As for guesstimating, my answer is a whole lot closer than yours. It would have been easy to say "no one knows for sure" and make that be the end of it but that doesn't help anyone. But seriously, you can use the available percentages in this case to get a reasonable idea (I know it's not scientifically valid) because there are enough "known" cars to show that the likelihood of a giant anomaly (50% of all R/Ts being triple black console 4-speeds with rear window defrosters and 8 track radios for example) is pretty slim AND because the resulting number starts to get so small that "real" numbers are the only way to be truly accurate. We're talking about a starting point of less than .3% of the cars produced so does it matter if the "guess" is +/-10% of the actual figure? For this discussion a reasonable attempt is perfectly fine.

My what? I didn't post an estimate because "that doesn't help anyone," which is why "no one knows for sure" or "that information doesn't currently exist in the public domain" (my quote) is a better explanation.

I just don't understand why guessing - and, hence, promoting misinformation - is "perfectly fine."

[Troy]

Because most of us are here to discuss and help others. By you're logic I can claim that there are no triple black 68 Charger R/T 4-speeds because there's no Chrysler supplied documents to prove that any were made. However, we know some exist and we know they don't exist in large numbers. We know what the least/most common colors and options of 68 Chargers are. It's not that freaking hard to come up with a number that's pretty dang close (except in the case of a true oddball combination). If you've got something positive to add then I'll be glad to hear it.

Troy

[diego]

Not sure why offering counterpoint is not seen as "discuss[ing] and help others." 

By you're logic I can claim that there are no triple black 68 Charger R/T 4-speeds because there's no Chrysler supplied documents to prove that any were made

How did you arrive at that logic? 

We know what the least/most common colors and options of 68 Chargers are.

Well, the option numbers come from the list that Galen has sold, but what about the colors? Some registry? How big is the sample? Are they statistically significant?

It's not that freaking hard to come up with a number that's pretty dang close

But how do you know a number would be close? I could use statistics to come up with a 1970 B5 Hemi'Cuda ragtop, as it was one of the most popular colors that year, but for the life of me I don't think any were built.

[69CoronetRT]

As for guesstimating, my answer is a whole lot closer than yours. It would have been easy to say "no one knows for sure" and make that be the end of it but that doesn't help anyone. But seriously, you can use the available percentages in this case to get a reasonable idea (I know it's not scientifically valid) because there are enough "known" cars to show that the likelihood of a giant anomaly (50% of all R/Ts being triple black console 4-speeds with rear window defrosters and 8 track radios for example) is pretty slim AND because the resulting number starts to get so small that "real" numbers are the only way to be truly accurate. We're talking about a starting point of less than .3% of the cars produced so does it matter if the "guess" is +/-10% of the actual figure? For this discussion a reasonable attempt is perfectly fine.

Troy, we're all here to help. Sometimes the truth is more helpful than an erroneous answer.

"No one knows for sure" is the truthful answer and a more honest answer than guessing.

I have to agree with Diego.

Guestimating production or, anything for that matter, based on sole personal experience and no verifiable  and credible source of data is a limited sample size and rarely reliable.

Statistically, you CANNOT combine percentages of options and derive another answer. If you do, you are basing your answer on erroneous mathematics. You can know how many exist but not how many were produced with any degree of certainly. And, yes, an accurate number DOES matter.

To try and derive any sort of guestimate is actually doing a disservice to the poster or the hobby. Guestimates set up expectations that cannot be accurately verified. Too much of our hobby is based on guestimates and little fact.

[Alaskan_TA]

Well stated Doug.

If the facts are not known, there is no reason to make stuff up out of thin air.

[cbrestorations]

i agree with troy, yes it is an educated guess but im sure he is within 10 percent. that sounds a whole lot better than just going or trying to say you have the only triple black r/t or saying " hell they made a bazillion of them". we know the percentages of the later years so we can just assume that 1968 wasnt much far off of those numbers. its a trend...business's use them in marketing and sales all the time. 

[Brock Lee]

I find Charger owners tend to underestimate how many of these cars survived. They are not nearly as rare as most would like to believe. I think in the grand scheme of things, the second generation Charger had a better than usual survival rate. And the better optioned cars seem to have even better survival rates than lower end Chargers. Sometimes I cannot believe the production number of 1969 R/T SE's based on the number I have encountered in the world over the past 15 years. It is likely right, and they just had a great survival rate.

[lloyd3]

Perception is reality when it comes to these old cars.  "Rare" is also a word that has different meanings to different people. As the 50-year milestone approaches for all the 2-Gen cars, "rare" is fair word to use because on a day-to-day basis you simply don't see them anymore, at least in a fast-paced urban setting.  I appreciate what Troy has attempted to do here, which is a relative comparison of first, production, to then, perceived survival.  I agree that it's all speculation, but in his case it's fairly educated speculation.  

On the subject of "survival", the assertion that many more of the "more desirable" cars have survived can be misleading.  When any version is evaluated for restoration I'm sure that's a factor, but what I suspect is even more common is how often a car is restored to more-closely resemble the more desirable version.  I see lots of RT/SEs that seem to have survived, but in reality, a large number of them began life much differently.  If I had to guess, I'd say that at least half of the R/T cars I see driving around (or even for sale) are clones, and that percentage might be even higher.

[69CoronetRT]

i agree with troy, yes it is an educated guess but im sure he is within 10 percent. that sounds a whole lot better than just going or trying to say you have the only triple black r/t or saying " hell they made a bazillion of them". we know the percentages of the later years so we can just assume that 1968 wasnt much far off of those numbers. its a trend...business's use them in marketing and sales all the time. 

Of course you would agree with Troy. It's human nature to want to align ourselves with others that reinforce our belief system even when that believe is not based on fact.

It's human nature to want absolutes even when none exist.

You've gone from wanting an absolute answer to accepting an answer based on some person on the Internet, admittedly, guessing for you that reinforces your belief .

Diego, Barry or I could have given you a guess based on our own numbers crunching/estimating/guessing and you probably would have accepted it. We chose to be truthful.

Dan gave you some real facts based on his research.

In the end, the answer is still "no one knows the answer and, probably, never will". The shruggy is appropriate.

Good luck with the car and I encourage you to be honest with yourself and others.

[cbrestorations]

ur right...instead of using production numbers from 1970 @4.3 percent black cars (thats not triple black, just black in general) and assume it was close to that in 1968 then we could get a guesstimate in the number of black chargers in 68 as a trend....naw, lets just go  that sounds more professional 

[diego]

I can't really add to what 69CoronetR/T or Barry has said, but I feel I should address something:

im sure he is within 10 percent.

How can you be sure?

its a trend...business's use them in marketing and sales all the time. 

Do you know how marketing and sales project future numbers? Through mathematical models and logarithms created by people who went to school for this stuff. This is much more sophisticated than a guy on the Internet making an "educated" guess. And guess what happens when there's something like a 2009 recession? Do these mathematical models predict economic downturns?

Sorry, but you give no valid reason why any of us should be speculating from a position of expertise.

[cbrestorations]

ur right, im just gonna say all of the 2,743 r/t 4 speed cars were triple black, or ill say i have the only one...instead of guesstimating from the 1970 production figures, because no one looks more like an expert when they go 

[Troy]

Ok, how's this: There were 47.

That's misinformation. There is a difference between saying that and being very clear that I'm making a guess based on data that is known AND showing how/why I think that is valid. If you don't like my calculation then explain why it's so wrong. We're all aware that you can't get a 100% exact number that way but I refuse to believe you can't come closer than "there are somewhere between 1 and 2,742 (mine is obviously not triple black so I took it out)". Actually, I can prove it (I do predictive analytics as part of my job - but I use much smarter computer simulations to do it). Would you prefer it if I stated things in terms of "probability"?

For the sports fans: if football team had 112 rushing yards last week and they have two running backs can you tell me how many yards each had? What if the primary (power) back averages 80% of the carries and 60% of the yards per game? Closer? You can't account for a quarterback sneak or a reverse to a receiver but over the course of a season that difference would be almost negligible (assuming no injury). If I said the team ran to the right 65% of the time could you come to a reasonable assumption about how many yards each back carried to each side? Don't tell me you can't combine those seemingly unrelated numbers and get close. Will you get it exactly? No, probably not 1 in 1,000 times. Does that make the results useless? Nope.

Much like the random trick play, 1-of-1 cars or cars that were never made (but could have been) doesn't count. The accuracy of any calculation based on the numbers we have just won't stand up to it.

I have no problem with being told I'm wrong. That's how we learn. But you better have something to back it up other than "you can't calculate an exact number". Gee thanks. I'm pretty sure I actually said that first. If I'm truly hurting the "hobby" then I need to find a new hobby.

And I just saw this story about a guy in Norway finding a Viking sword.

Archaeologists have identified Olsen’s find as a type of Viking sword made circa A.D. 750. That makes it some 1,265 years old, though the scientists have warned this is not an exact date.

Didn't keep them from saying "1,265 years" (with conditions) instead of "sometime between yesterday and the beginning of time". I can't believe they'd mislead the public like that!

Let me quote myself from my very first post in this thread:

As mentioned, there's not a definitive answer.

Troy

[cbrestorations]

Well said troy

[69CoronetRT]

Ok, how's this: There were 47.

That's misinformation. There is a difference between saying that and being very clear that I'm making a guess based on data that is known AND showing how/why I think that is valid. If you don't like my calculation then explain why it's so wrong. We're all aware that you can't get a 100% exact number that way but I refuse to believe you can't come closer than "there are somewhere between 1 and 2,742 (mine is obviously not triple black so I took it out)". Actually, I can prove it (I do predictive analytics as part of my job - but I use much smarter computer simulations to do it). Would you prefer it if I stated things in terms of "probability"?

For the sports fans: if football team had 112 rushing yards last week and they have two running backs can you tell me how many yards each had? What if the primary (power) back averages 80% of the carries and 60% of the yards per game? Closer? You can't account for a quarterback sneak or a reverse to a receiver but over the course of a season that difference would be almost negligible (assuming no injury). If I said the team ran to the right 65% of the time could you come to a reasonable assumption about how many yards each back carried to each side? Don't tell me you can't combine those seemingly unrelated numbers and get close. Will you get it exactly? No, probably not 1 in 1,000 times. Does that make the results useless? Nope.

Much like the random trick play, 1-of-1 cars or cars that were never made (but could have been) doesn't count. The accuracy of any calculation based on the numbers we have just won't stand up to it.

I have no problem with being told I'm wrong. That's how we learn. But you better have something to back it up other than "you can't calculate an exact number". Gee thanks. I'm pretty sure I actually said that first. If I'm truly hurting the "hobby" then I need to find a new hobby.

And I just saw this story about a guy in Norway finding a Viking sword.

Archaeologists have identified Olsen's find as a type of Viking sword made circa A.D. 750. That makes it some 1,265 years old, though the scientists have warned this is not an exact date.

Didn't keep them from saying "1,265 years" (with conditions) instead of "sometime between yesterday and the beginning of time". I can't believe they'd mislead the public like that!

Let me quote myself from my very first post in this thread:

As mentioned, there's not a definitive answer.

Troy

Troy, I appreciate the response.

If you know the answer is unknowable, why even guess?

Your sports analogy is interesting but the answer is unknowable based on the facts presented. You have left out variables that affect the answer.

[69CoronetRT]

...instead of guesstimating from the 1970 production figures, because no one looks more like an expert when they go 

That methodology is flawed because you are presuming a constant when we know the selection of colors increased (a variable) plus you assume equal production.

IF the color palate was the same for the years AND the same number of cars was produced, then the information may have some use.

Introducing additional colors to the existing selection will dilute the percentages for each of the colors carried over. What you do not know is how much percent the new colors affected the individual percentage. (Did the introduction of FM3 dilute the percentage of TX9 cars by 1, 5, or 15% compared to 1968?) Plus you have to take into account a change in the buying public and a shift of purchase trends. The percent of black cars produced in 1970 may or may not higher than 1968.

Without having the numbers from 1968, which we don't, there is no way to know.

Once again, you can rationalize and justify a lot of things but in the end, there is no way to know no matter how you try and derive the number. Each method is flawed.

The best answer is still

[ws23rt]

The original question is/was about production numbers. It has been asked and answered many times.---The information that exists is incomplete so we are left with speculation from then to forward.

Until (or unless) a document surfaces all we have to play with are estimates and speculation. I see practical value with estimation as getting close to reality. To dismiss estimations as having value is silly.

An estimation or probability is an easy target to shoot at. After the shooting is over where are we?  

Since accurate production numbers are not currently to be had--the debate about the numbers seems a cycle of semantics and methods used to estimate. It will go around but their is no end.

What we do have to fuel the interest of those that seek the rare animal is "known to exist"  I admit that is not as good as "Known to have been produced" but it is what we have that can be documented for those that have that need.

[Troy]

Ok, how's this: There were 47.

That's misinformation. There is a difference between saying that and being very clear that I'm making a guess based on data that is known AND showing how/why I think that is valid. If you don't like my calculation then explain why it's so wrong. We're all aware that you can't get a 100% exact number that way but I refuse to believe you can't come closer than "there are somewhere between 1 and 2,742 (mine is obviously not triple black so I took it out)". Actually, I can prove it (I do predictive analytics as part of my job - but I use much smarter computer simulations to do it). Would you prefer it if I stated things in terms of "probability"?

For the sports fans: if football team had 112 rushing yards last week and they have two running backs can you tell me how many yards each had? What if the primary (power) back averages 80% of the carries and 60% of the yards per game? Closer? You can't account for a quarterback sneak or a reverse to a receiver but over the course of a season that difference would be almost negligible (assuming no injury). If I said the team ran to the right 65% of the time could you come to a reasonable assumption about how many yards each back carried to each side? Don't tell me you can't combine those seemingly unrelated numbers and get close. Will you get it exactly? No, probably not 1 in 1,000 times. Does that make the results useless? Nope.

Much like the random trick play, 1-of-1 cars or cars that were never made (but could have been) doesn't count. The accuracy of any calculation based on the numbers we have just won't stand up to it.

I have no problem with being told I'm wrong. That's how we learn. But you better have something to back it up other than "you can't calculate an exact number". Gee thanks. I'm pretty sure I actually said that first. If I'm truly hurting the "hobby" then I need to find a new hobby.

And I just saw this story about a guy in Norway finding a Viking sword.

Archaeologists have identified Olsen's find as a type of Viking sword made circa A.D. 750. That makes it some 1,265 years old, though the scientists have warned this is not an exact date.

Didn't keep them from saying "1,265 years" (with conditions) instead of "sometime between yesterday and the beginning of time". I can't believe they'd mislead the public like that!

Let me quote myself from my very first post in this thread:

As mentioned, there's not a definitive answer.

Troy

Troy, I appreciate the response.

If you know the answer is unknowable, why even guess?

Your sports analogy is interesting but the answer is unknowable based on the facts presented. You have left out variables that affect the answer.

That's like saying if you know you can't cook why try? No problem is ever solved by saying "that's impossible so I won't bother". We'd still be in the dark ages if everyone had that attitude.

More data makes better guesses. It doesn't mean the first guess with less data is wrong - it's just less likely to be right. I have made car buying decisions before based on whether I knew a car was reasonably rare. I didn't care if there were 50 or 1,000 as much as knowing that I wasn't likely to run across another. A "ballpark figure" as my boss used to say (which drives me insane by the way) is sometimes enough to make an "informed" decision.

Whether the real data exists or not, the guys who meticulously track every car possible (you included) can realistically tell the likelihood of something. Even if it's a gross overestimation (say 20% being PP1) it is helpful. Not wanting to give an "exact" answer is perfectly fine but refusing to narrow down the probability seems sort of like a cop out (but that's still ok with me). If I called any expert tomorrow and said I had 10 Hemi Daytonas in my possession and all were B5 blue with white interiors and console 4-speeds do you think their first thought would be "wow, 10 in the same place is really cool"? Heck, most casual Mopar fans would be like "uh, yeah, pass the crack pipe". By the same token, you hear about a rusted out green column shift Belvedere 4-door do you get all excited? Even without knowing the exact figure, a reasonable assumption can be useful.

Troy

[diego]

Can you give a reasonable estimate of 1970 R/Ts in silver?

[Troy]

Can you give a reasonable estimate of 1970 R/Ts in silver?

Charger, Challenger, or Coronet? I know little about 70s but... since the color (A4 I presume) wasn't available on B or E bodies in 1970, it would have to be special ordered. So, if any existed, it would be a fairly small number. That's outside the range of predictability because the number of "known" cars is ridiculously small. Again, if you were at a show and saw one would you just walk by and say "gee, nothing special here, they could have made 50,000 of them"?

Just like all those bright orange 68 Chargers...

Troy