Daytona Clones From Around the World - Post Your Pics

[hotrod98]

The Daytona hood and fenders are more like 70 pieces than 69 pieces are they not? My 69 R/T SE will be a clone, but I have to use 70 parts to make it a clone. My vin won't say xx even though it has a 9. I don't see the importance of whether it's a 69 or a 70 or even a 68. I like them all.
My 71 cuda clone is actually a 71 Gran Coupe. My wife's 73 cuda has gilled fenders. My 69 bee and my 69 runner have non matching numbers 383's. My 70 318 Chal convert now has a 426 hemi. I'm proud of all of my cars even though they aren't worth as much as some. Just my 2 cents worth.

[dayclona]

Burnt70 r/T... What in the hell are you talking about? Crack a Websters and get back to us.

Almost every '69 Daytona Clone, is based off of a 1970 Charger. Do I still need the Webster? Check the VIN's next time you see a "so called" clone.

Just in case you don't understand, a clone can only be a replica of a car that existed for the year that car was produced. No car with an "0" in the VIN could be a cloned Daytona.   I can create a 440 '73 Challenger R/T, but can I clone one? Can you understand that?

My 70 daytona clone has an "0" in the VIN, so did the original 70 DAYTONA  that I  copied/cloned mine from; "never say never when it comes to mopar",  WATERMELON owner Mike; at DAYCLONA ENTERPRISES

[Daytona Guy]

This is funny. It sure got me thinking. If I clone a car, can I also clone the year too? Mine looks like the 69. If the vin needs a 9 then would it also need the XX? - Well, that would not make it a clone, would it? I will say this...I am cloning the year too. Now I can sleep tonight.    One is cloning the car, not the year. Personally, I think when one gets as close as possible to the original "Type" car, it becomes a better clone, "Dolly". Then again, what if you are making a custom clone? As far as I know there is no Bible for cloning, so I guess we get to make up our own cloning laws. Just have fun. Way to make us think Burnt70R/T

[Daytona Guy]

Dayclona cloned the mystery car that has little to no evidence that is was an original dealer installed 70 Daytona. So what would that be? It is all fun. It is what keeps the fun in the hobby and the interest up and discussion going.

[Stormhammer]

amen brotha, preach on

so now shut up and go your own ways 

I swear... and I thought the SQC board was bad

[Chris G.]

Guys, I'm just one guy with one opinion. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I don't see what the big deal is of calling a car a "creation". it's not an insult. I think everyone's cloned Daytona on here looks great. Dane, I think your current Daytona is one of the baddest cars I have ever seen. It's much more than a clone IMO. 

As far as Dayclona is concerned, all of their wingcars are "creations". The Waltermelon car is represented as a '70, while the other 3 wingcars are basically a "what could have been" creation. They all look outstanding, and when you see them, you really wish Chrysler built them back in the day.

[G-Series]

Thanks Burnt , let's look at it this way;  A 'clone' would be a copy of an original, which necessarily indicates that one existed before it.  Mike's Watermelon(sorry Dane, the name fits so well) by all evidence that exists today and through reasonable deduction, was a local MI dealer built car, is also a 'clone', but maybe more appropriately sub-classified as a recreation, since no original examples exist.    Or maybe it's just an exercise in artistic license.      The 71's,  well they're just hastily built prototypes, no place for them in this discussion.     They don't exist, just a figment of our imagination.   Have a great weekend guys.   

[BigBlockSam]

replica

[Old Moparz]

[Stormhammer]

 

[Daytona Guy]

tr]topic=1955.msg28943#msg28943 date=1125661964]
Thanks Burnt , let's look at it this way;   A 'clone' would be a copy of an original, which necessarily indicates that one existed before it.   Mike's Watermelon (sorry Dane, the name fits so well) by all evidence that exists today and through reasonable deduction, was a local MI dealer built car, is also a 'clone', but maybe more appropriately sub-classified as a recreation, since no original examples exist.      Or maybe it's just an exercise in artistic license.       The 71's,    well they're just hastily built prototypes, no place for them in this discussion.       They don't exist, just a figment of our imagination.   Have a great weekend guys.   

I think you guys did a great job on your Watermelon 70 Daytona that you cloned from the "Mystery Car".   It is kind of like debating evolution, you can only look at the evidence and draw conclusions, and therefore it is only a theory. My concern is that the Mystery 70 Daytona should not be accepted definitively as a Dealer installed Daytona when there is no factual evidence for it. These parts where available for carry out from any dealer and could have been Dealer installed, Shop installed or home installed.   The fact is, no one knows. Look at all the proof that Jerry had to go through for his Dealer installed 70 Daytona and he has the car and all the paperwork, and people today still do not believe it. The only evidence we have on the Mystery 70 Daytona is 4 pics.  I could draw many reasonable conclusions from the evidence of those pics. I will leave us with what MCG said in their article on this car…"Just who this car was built for and who built it remains a genuine mystery".   

I love the daring move Dayclona did to make this car. I think it is great and it keeps bringing more attention to this hobby. Please do not get me wrong, because people tend to jump to all kinds of conclusion on what is said on these posts, but your car is great and I cannot wait to see the next car you guys & girl make.

[G-Series]

Take a look at the license plate....that "D" stands for dealer.     I know you don't have the b&w pix I do(I will scan them for you), but if it walks like a duck....Whether the dealer's shop did it, or was done for the dealer by an outside shop, like the purple one, does remain a mystery, but use caution when quoting any rag, MCG or otherwise, and remember, we uncovered soooooooooo much more than anyone else ever has regarding the details of it's construction and plausible theory of it's intended use.   Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.   Yes, it does generate some interesting conversation.

[BigBlockSam]

thats a weird looking clone   

[Daytona Guy]

I guess I am hijacking my own thread, and I know these pics are big, but so that you can read it and then I do not have to quote it, I will post it.

I think what I quoted from MCG stands on it's own. It was quoted carefully. Even in his article Randy Holden said one can draw many conclusions of this cars origin. About the plates, that was covered in his article. Let me give an example why we have to be careful in drawing definitive conclusions from such little evidence.

On the folder at Chrysler that held those pics said "Bob McCurry's Daytona". If Bob was not arrowed to say that he knew of nothing about that car and it was never his, everyone, including me, would believe that it was his car. But it was not.   We have no evidence that the dealer had it done, even if the plates where dealer plates, and there is even a debate of whether those are dealer plates, expired as they are. What Dealer? No one knows. In my mind those pictures pose more questions than answers.

I hope you guys do not think I am a thorn in your side. I love what you are doing. You have motivated me to build a 71 Daytona using the 18" nose from the G-Series study. But with these boards so many things get started and they run like crazy. It is healthy to have as much information at everyone's fingers so that people can draw their own conclusions. Here is the artical from MCG

[Daytona Guy]

I know you don't have the b&w pix I do(I will scan them for you)

You mean these… Are you saying you own the originals? I thought Greg Kwiatkowski owns them.

[G-Series]

Having done enough interviews with a variety of mags, what is told to them doesn't always end up accurately on the pages.  Sometimes it's all out fabrication.       Not those pix, I mentioned earlier that someone came up to us at Carlisle and showed us a pic from a 1970 Super Stock mag depicting a Dodge 'dealership' display with many new 70 models along with a Daytona funny car, and what appears to be the Melon.  How many other 70 Chargers with a white top and Daytona wing do you think were out there in 70, in Michigan, wearing a "D" dealer plate(that much is known regardless what MCG says) in the midst of a Dodge dealer's display...how many more pieces to this puzzle do we need to at least reasonably conclude this was a dealer commissioned car.  RE: McCurry, maybe he's a senile old man and doesn't remember what he had for lunch, maybe someone wrote that down on the folder as a joke, maybe once he saw the car, thought it was the ugliest thing he'd seen and told the commissioned dealer to take it away....  the possibilities are endless, but the probabilities are not.  How would you explain the horizontal tubes under the chrome bumper?  Isn't our explanation reasonable for the times? 

[Daytona Guy]

If you have that pic of the "Mystery car", in that mag - post it, I would like to see it. Is it color?

<<<"How many other 70 Chargers with a white top and Daytona wing do you think were out there in 70, in Michigan, wearing a "D" dealer plate (that much is known regardless what MCG says) in the midst of a Dodge dealer's display" >>>-

I do not know, I cannot respond to something I have never seen. Was that car in that Super Stock mag clearly the green mystery car? Does it show in that Mag a picture showing the license plate? I know that there where 3 cars mentioned in a Winged Warriors newsletter back in the late 70's that talked about three 70 Daytona's made for people in Michigan. I have a pic of one with a white vinyl top and a wing.

<<<How would you explain the horizontal tubes under the chrome bumper?  >>> 

The question is...what is your explanation? You can't believe they're assembly toe hooks? I am not here to disprove or prove anything. People can make up their own minds. I am just saying that when one does not have any factual documentation - we have to say that this is "My opinion" or "My educated conclusion".  I believe you have said that in so many words. I have no qualms with you guys, but we cannot say definitively that it was a "Dealer sanctioned car". If one had some documentation from the dealer or something - then it would help. If there was anyone anywhere that could come foreword from the dealer or Chrysler that could give us something ... anything ... it would help. But right now we have four pics, and apparently a Mag  picture, that I have never seen to go by. I found truth is stranger than fiction. For me personally, there are too many questions that do not add up to draw a definitive conclusion. I simply have not come to a conclusion as of yet to what I believe about this "Mystery 70 Daytona".  The more the debate goes on - the better, for something may turn up. I am routing for it to be a dealer installed 70 Daytona, because if it is, it may turn up, and that just makes all this - all the more fun.

[THE CHARGER PUNK]

well as dayclona said in mcg the car looked to be origianlly fj5 sublime becuase they could see traces of fj5 in trunk lip and fender areas so it was originally a 1970 440-6pack car with white interior and white roof nothing relli rare there so any car htat combo in michigan was probably it-MATT

[Daytona Guy]

well as dayclona said in mcg the car looked to be originally fj5 sublime because they could see traces of fj5 in trunk lip and fender areas so it was originally a 1970 440-6pack car with white interior and white roof nothing really rare there so any car that combo in Michigan was probably it-MATT

This gets more confusing. I did not get that MCG and have not read their article. Does anyone have it or could post it. I thought there was only one color pic of this car and that pic is from the front. How can someone see lime green in the trunk lip from a front pic?

[jmanscharger]

My replica

[jmanscharger]

Side View

[jmanscharger]

One More

[hotrod98]

I like.

[jodaddy1]

OK here's mine from the old WWNBOA site and the article about it.  Yes I've verified it with Drake Motors. and bottom is current condition.  Lots of work to do!!!

[Charger_Fan]

That bottom pic looks like it's on HELLPAG's lot.