original 68 Charger R/T with an orange 440???

[maxwellwedge]

not wanting to hijack this thread by posting another ad for a 68 , but check this out  ,,original 68 R/T unrestored  man what a awesome time capsule 
seeing as we are debating whats  original   
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1968-DODGE-CHARGER-R-T-440-4-SPEED-ORIGINAL_W0QQitemZ260427262373QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item3ca2aca9a5&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A10%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Yup - A nice piece - Master Cylinder has been changed and it has electronic but that's minor stuff. I love un-screwed with cars like these. 

yep me to ! only original once !! i'm still amazed they keep turning up    after all this time , makes you wonder what still could be out there hidden in a lock up , barn etc   .... would love that car . i would not  do  any thing except !!  like you say not correct master cyliner , get the correct bendix one  ,

still no way that other 68 came with a orange motor  ,  unless the original motor was granaded early on  late 68 early 69 & the orange one is a waranty motor !  ,  that might be causing the confusion 

True but warranty motors were never painted. 

[tan top]

   oh right i never new this         

[maxwellwedge]

No probs.....I have fallen for that in the past. 

[teamroth]

Yes, all '68 440's were turquoise.

I'm not sure about the headrests, but I thought that it was an option in '68.

The other thing that I noticed is that the fendertag is optioned for a Y-6 BLACK vinyl top.   White would be Y-7.

But it does have the option codes for the tachometer, 26" radiator, rear seat speaker, 4 speed and the Dana rear.  It's a cool car, but doesn't appear to be all original.

I was thinking the same thing. I have a feeling the tag is a repop. Anyone else think maybe?

[1970Moparmann]

Funny thing is I did the same.  The owner came back with -

Mike, hello the engine color and top were both changed just for cosmetic reasons.I'll work on getting you some more photos tomorrow.
Regards,
John

[Ghoste]

And yet, it's still advertised as all original. 

[hemi-hampton]

There was a new trend a few years ago to try a pass off a older worn looking 80's/90's resto as original. It's fooled people before if you dont know what to look for. I'd guess this is one of those. LEON.

[teamroth]

There was a new trend a few years ago to try a pass off a older worn looking 80's/90's resto as original. It's fooled people before if you dont know what to look for. I'd guess this is one of those. LEON.

I just got into a bit of an arguement with his guy saying this XP car was an R/T all the way through the ad. I asked him how is an XP vin and R/T car? He said "Easy,  it was made an R/T during the resto. I never said it was an original R/T. I told him it was false advertising and clearly meant to deceive someone who may not be in the know. I also reported his item to ebay. All I wanted him to do is say it was a clone so people who may be unaware of the particulars don't get taken.

Your thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1968-Dodge-Charger-RT-Rotisserie-Resto-440-375hp-4spd_W0QQitemZ170343481537QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item27a94340c1&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A317%7C240%3A1318

[Troy]

There was a new trend a few years ago to try a pass off a older worn looking 80's/90's resto as original. It's fooled people before if you dont know what to look for. I'd guess this is one of those. LEON.

I just got into a bit of an arguement with his guy saying this XP car was an R/T all the way through the ad. I asked him how is an XP vin and R/T car? He said "Easy,  it was made an R/T during the resto. I never said it was an original R/T. I told him it was false advertising and clearly meant to deceive someone who may not be in the know. I also reported his item to ebay. All I wanted him to do is say it was a clone so people who may be unaware of the particulars don't get taken.

Your thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1968-Dodge-Charger-RT-Rotisserie-Resto-440-375hp-4spd_W0QQitemZ170343481537QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item27a94340c1&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A317%7C240%3A1318

There are sooooo many things wrong with that car. Yes, I'd say it is misleading (at the very least) to continually refer to the car as a "Charger RT" when they obviously know it isn't. I could see hoping to catch someone looking at NADA values for a price reference but if they had to finance the car it would get kicked back fairly quickly. I suppose their "out" is the fact that they are giving out the VIN and the buyer should have the sense to check.

Troy

[teamroth]

There was a new trend a few years ago to try a pass off a older worn looking 80's/90's resto as original. It's fooled people before if you dont know what to look for. I'd guess this is one of those. LEON.

I just got into a bit of an arguement with his guy saying this XP car was an R/T all the way through the ad. I asked him how is an XP vin and R/T car? He said "Easy,  it was made an R/T during the resto. I never said it was an original R/T. I told him it was false advertising and clearly meant to deceive someone who may not be in the know. I also reported his item to ebay. All I wanted him to do is say it was a clone so people who may be unaware of the particulars don't get taken.

Your thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1968-Dodge-Charger-RT-Rotisserie-Resto-440-375hp-4spd_W0QQitemZ170343481537QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item27a94340c1&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A317%7C240%3A1318

There are sooooo many things wrong with that car. Yes, I'd say it is misleading (at the very least) to continually refer to the car as a "Charger RT" when they obviously know it isn't. I could see hoping to catch someone looking at NADA values for a price reference but if they had to finance the car it would get kicked back fairly quickly. I suppose their "out" is the fact that they are giving out the VIN and the buyer should have the sense to check.

Troy

Agree completely Troy. It is a nice looking enough car with a description to boot clearly meant to deceive. I told the guy that our Mopar community was vast and the word would spread about his shennanigans. Either they don't have the fender tag or it was left off on purpose. Who's to say that it's not a rebody?

[Ghoste]

I can pretty much promise he doesn't give a rats ass about the Mopar community or how we feel about him.  The BK's and HLPAG's and Premier Plastics of the world are thieves and we happen to be their target demographic.

[Dans 68]

I have had a few communications with him also. He says that the car is an original 383 4-bbl 4-speed, so "technically" the care is rarer than a R/T 4-speed.    He told me he doesn't have the fender tag, and wants $38K for it. And another XP bites the dust....

Dan

[teamroth]

I can pretty much promise he doesn't give a rats ass about the Mopar community or how we feel about him.  The BK's and HLPAG's and Premier Plastics of the world are thieves and we happen to be their target demographic.

My thoughts exactly.

I have had a few communications with him also. He says that the car is an original 383 4-bbl 4-speed, so "technically" the care is rarer than a R/T 4-speed.    He told me he doesn't have the fender tag, and wants $38K for it. And another XP bites the dust....

Dan

38K and no fender tag? Smoke crack much?