Another one of the rare '68 383 4-bbl 4-speeds on eBay!

[Dans 68]

Guys,

Some of the more astute observers on this forum probably know that I keep my eyes  out for these cars.   (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___1968-Dodge-Charger_W0QQitemZ160297194669QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item160297194669&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=72%3A727|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318#ebayphotohosting) This one is missing it's original engine (has a 440) but otherwise is in pristine shape, with a 999 paint code. The fender tag is attached. It will be interesting to see how high the bidding goes in this rapidly depressing (sick) (sic) economy. I would guess about 25k is the reserve.

Anyway, nice car. Interestingly, the build date is April 19 and it has an inland shifter!

Dan

Edit - The tag has the number "6" under the letter "V"...I have not seen that before and have no clue what it means. 

Edit #2 - I have attached my tag for comparative purposes.

[Chris G.]

Is there any way to tell a repop '68 tag from an original?

Cool car either way.

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

Not sure how to read the 68 tags correctly but doesn't "XS29" indicate its a 440 R/T car?

[Ghoste]

So now the question becomes, will e-bay bidders be wary?

[tan top]

hmmmm 999 & orange ..... tag from a Bengal  or a original xp bengal charger & a error on a re pop tag 

nice looking charger though !

[Troy]

Not sure how to read the 68 tags correctly but doesn't "XS29" indicate its a 440 R/T car?

Yep. Not sure what's up with that tag. The partial VIN listed in the ad is "XP29H8B". It's also missing the code for the wheel lip mouldings (which *should* be on all 68 Chargers). The tag calls for a buddy seat and the car clearly has a console. That may explain the Inland shifter (the console or the tag was swapped).

Troy

[PocketThunder]

The bucket seats have headrests.  Will that code show up on the fender tag?

[Dans 68]

Not sure how to read the 68 tags correctly but doesn't "XS29" indicate its a 440 R/T car?

Wow...I missed the "XS" designation on the tag. I must have been really tired last night...   And yes, it means an R/T.

I attached the partial vin number that the owner sent me, and have asked for the full vin for the registry (yeah, I know, "What registry?".  I'm dreaming  ). It does look like a repop fender tag. 

Not sure how to read the 68 tags correctly but doesn't "XS29" indicate its a 440 R/T car?

Yep. Not sure what's up with that tag. The partial VIN listed in the ad is "XP29H8B". It's also missing the code for the wheel lip mouldings (which *should* be on all 68 Chargers). The tag calls for a buddy seat and the car clearly has a console. That may explain the Inland shifter (the console or the tag was swapped).

Troy

The code for the seat type is under the "a" on the top line of the fender tag, while the number "6" designates bucket seats. Which code are you referring to?

The bucket seats have headrests.  Will that code show up on the fender tag?

I have never seen a fender tag decoder that lists a code for that. Of course, before Jan 1, 1968 they were an option while after they were required.



Dan

Edit - I'm 100% sure that the fender tag is a repop. The "XS" designation and the engine code designation "62" (meaning a 4-bbl 383) would never be together on the same fender tag. I've asked the owner to clarify....

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

Dan, headrests mandatory after Jan 1, 1969
Headrest code would more than likely be on the BS & not the tag

I see it lists the "925" special order SO# as well....I know they used that in 69 but not sure about 68???

[Dans 68]

Dan, headrests mandatory after Jan 1, 1969
Headrest code would more than likely be on the BS & not the tag

I see it lists the "925" special order SO# as well....I know they used that in 69 but not sure about 68???

Chris, I do believe you are correct. I was thinking of shoulder belts. I need to go back to bed....

Dan

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

I hope he's not selling to fund whats in the background....

[Dans 68]

I just finished a long conversation with the owner...I believe it is as advertised.  I'll post my conversation a little later...I really need to get to work! 

Dan

[PocketThunder]

I hope he's not selling to fund whats in the background....

Clever placement dont you think....

[bakerhillpins]

I just finished a long conversation with the owner...I believe it is as advertised.  I'll post my conversation a little later...I really need to get to work! 

Dan

Gawd this fender tag stuff gets confusing. I am very interested in hearing the results. I am stuck on the XS and the 383 engine and how that could be correct???   

[moparstuart]

  very cool and nice car , but that fender tag and no broadcast sheet would make me run away fast !

[Dans 68]

Per my conversation with the owner, the tag is a replacement for the lost original. And it does have errors, the most obvious being the "XS" designation. The vendor that made the tag really messed up...

I will post more of my conversation with the owner a bit later today...suffice to say that between he and a friend they have owned this particular car for over 35 years.

Dan

[Troy]

Whoops! I can't read. This morning I swear that first number on line 1 was a 5. Never mind...

I'll still stand by the wheel lip moulding  statement though. The headrests won't be listed on the fender tag.

How'd he make a fender tag without a build sheet (other than guessing)? Did they guess at the build date too? The SON should have been easy enough to get right. There's not really any way to prove what the car is other than their word.

Troy

[OldGuy]

I agree with Troy.  No build sheet, a fender tag that has been repopped and doesn't match the car description, wrong engine, 355 gears when most of them had 323's (is there a gear tag on the rearend?)  I don't see any way that the owner can prove that this was ever a 383, 4-speed, 4-bbl.  Nice car - but clearly questionable as to what they are trying to pass it off as.  I wonder if they first tried to pass it off as an R/T and when that didn't work they switched to the next best thing for value purposes .

[Dans 68]

All right...here is what the current owner told me.

First, he is probably not going to sell it. He, like a lot of us has money issues and a surplus of cars (nice cars, as I hear it  ) and another will probably sell before this one. I doubt anyone will meet the reserve.

Between he and a friend they have owned this car for about 35 years. It came from California (and he has no idea if it was originally sold there) and has always been garaged. He has a rubbing of the original fender tag and had a duplicate tag made, albeit poorly. It erroneously was made with an "XS" and not "XP", and the wheel lip moldings fender tag designator (8 under the number 7) had a screw hole it that location so it was missed. The rubbing was missing the 8 and there is a matching screw hole on the fender where the original tag went. Aside from these two blemishes the reproduction tag should be accurate.

The original 383 motor was gone by the time he and his friend took ownership. A Hurst shifter was installed by the new owner and the original inland shifter handle modified to fit. The Inland shifter is still in his possession.

I have obtained the complete vin number, and per the owners request will not release it.

So, it apparently is a special order "999" car, with orange the original color. I attached a shot of the undercarriage with the undercoating scraped off. Looks original to me. 

The owner is a Mopar guy, has a bunch of these cars and knows a lot about these cars. Maybe it is one of the Bengal Chargers? Time (and authentication) will tell. Either way I am happy another '68 383 4-speed car has been found. Anything else is just icing on the cake.

Dan

[Troy]

The axle code says 3.23 as well. I don't think he ever said the 3.55s were original but, if he did, that's another discrepancy. If I recall correctly, the 3.23 Sure Grip was standard for 383 4-speed cars. What about the build date and SON (VON? I get them mixed up)? If it were originally orange...

I just noticed he is in Ohio. How close to Cincinnati? Wonder if I could get a better look... 

Troy

[Dans 68]

The axle code says 3.23 as well. I don't think he ever said the 3.55s were original but, if he did, that's another discrepancy. If I recall correctly, the 3.23 Sure Grip was standard for 383 4-speed cars. What about the build date and SON (VON? I get them mixed up)? If it were originally orange...

He didn't say it was an original 3.55 rear end. Mine has the original 3.23 non-sure grip. The Sure Grip was an option.

Dan

[tan top]

The axle code says 3.23 as well. I don't think he ever said the 3.55s were original but, if he did, that's another discrepancy. If I recall correctly, the 3.23 Sure Grip was standard for 383 4-speed cars. What about the build date and SON (VON? I get them mixed up)? If it were originally orange...

I just noticed he is in Ohio. How close to Cincinnati? Wonder if I could get a better look... 

Troy

..........

[BrianShaughnessy]

Seems more likely to me that

I agree with Troy.  No build sheet, a fender tag that has been repopped and doesn't match the car description, wrong engine, 355 gears when most of them had 323's (is there a gear tag on the rearend?)  I don't see any way that the owner can prove that this was ever a 383, 4-speed, 4-bbl.  Nice car - but clearly questionable as to what they are trying to pass it off as.  I wonder if they first tried to pass it off as an R/T and when that didn't work they switched to the next best thing for value purposes

    Most likely story to me.   

I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

[Dans 68]

The axle code says 3.23 as well. I don't think he ever said the 3.55s were original but, if he did, that's another discrepancy. If I recall correctly, the 3.23 Sure Grip was standard for 383 4-speed cars. What about the build date and SON (VON? I get them mixed up)? If it were originally orange...

I just noticed he is in Ohio. How close to Cincinnati? Wonder if I could get a better look... 

Troy

You have a pm.

I have been out of computer range for the last 5 days (had to go fishing... ) but I did get a call from the owner of the above mentioned car while journeying up to the mountains on Wednesday. He was a bit miffed about the negative comments on his car and was looking to blow off some steam. I think I helped him in that regard (please don't ask...    )

I feel responsible for the negative comments as I posted the obviously re-popped fender tag (without looking too closely at it) and thus opened up a pandoras box of speculation on why the error ridden re-popped tag existed. I think I have covered the reasons for the tag appearing as it does...

All right...here is what the current owner told me.

...Between he and a friend they have owned this car for about 35 years. It came from California (and he has no idea if it was originally sold there) and has always been garaged. He has a rubbing of the original fender tag and had a duplicate tag made, albeit poorly. It erroneously was made with an "XS" and not "XP", and the wheel lip moldings fender tag designator (8 under the number 7) had a screw hole it that location so it was missed. The rubbing was missing the 8 and there is a matching screw hole on the fender where the original tag went. Aside from these two blemishes the reproduction tag should be accurate.

Additionally, he told me he bought the car those years ago with a different installed gear set (I believe 5.11's but don't quote me) and installed the 3.54's himself.

He is not looking to represent the car as something it is not. Based upon what I have learned from him I would give him the benefit of the doubt on his car. He is strongly considering getting the pedigree of the car verified by an expert. I really think that someone from here should go look at it.... 

Dan