Why were all SuperBirds built before January 1 1970?

[learical1]

"Completion of dealer survey by ACCUSFIA covering the Plymouth SuperBird indicates that Chrysler Plymouth has complied with the production requirements established for 1970 stock car racing. The Plymouth SuperBird as delivered to dealers is therefore eligible for competition as of this date."

An excerpt from the Automobile Competition Committee for the United States' telegram officially notifying Chrysler on January 14, 1970 that they had produced and delivered a sufficient number of SuperBirds to make them eligible for competition.

Above swiped from Aerowarriors.com.

The first race of the 1970 season was the Motor Trend 500, at Riverside, CA on January 18, 1970.  There were 'Birds competing in this race.  As quoted above, the SuperBird was approved for stock car racing four days earlier, on January 14.  
There appears to be 4 schools of thought as to why all the SuperBirds had to be built before Jan 1, 1970:

1.  Enough built to qualify in time for the Motor Trend 500.

2.  New emission regulations that went into effect Jan 1, 1970.

3.  New lighting regulations that went into effect on Jan 1, 1970.

4.  New bumper regulations that went into effect on Jan 1, 1970.

Anybody have documents to support any of the these (or other) reasons?

[pettybird]

it's not emissions because no other B body got changes for Jan 1 that would have been impossible to do for the superbird.

it's not vacuum headlights as Corvette had them until 1982.

not entirely helpful but it's a little clearer

[Aero426]

The bottom line is they had to be done by 1/1/70 to be able to race.

[rainbow4jd]

"Completion of dealer survey by ACCUSFIA covering the Plymouth SuperBird indicates that Chrysler Plymouth has complied with the production requirements established for 1970 stock car racing. The Plymouth SuperBird as delivered to dealers is therefore eligible for competition as of this date."

An excerpt from the Automobile Competition Committee for the United States' telegram officially notifying Chrysler on January 14, 1970 that they had produced and delivered a sufficient number of SuperBirds to make them eligible for competition.

Above swiped from Aerowarriors.com.

The first race of the 1970 season was the Motor Trend 500, at Riverside, CA on January 18, 1970.  There were 'Birds competing in this race.  As quoted above, the SuperBird was approved for stock car racing four days earlier, on January 14.  
There appears to be 4 schools of thought as to why all the SuperBirds had to be built before Jan 1, 1970:

1.  Enough built to qualify in time for the Motor Trend 500.

2.  New emission regulations that went into effect Jan 1, 1970.

3.  New lighting regulations that went into effect on Jan 1, 1970.

4.  New bumper regulations that went into effect on Jan 1, 1970.

Anybody have documents to support any of the these (or other) reasons?

I thought there was a vacuum change requirement that went into effect 1/1/1970?

[hotrod98]

If it was due to the new bumper regs, that would have been a major problem. I don't think that little corvette bumper idea would have met the tougher regulations.

[Arnie Cunningham]

Greetings All,

Does anyone else have "Public Law 89-563" sticker on the driver's door jam of their Superbird?
http://www.performancecargraphics.com/Small_Decals/Export.htm
I had one but it was scraped off when the jams were repainted.  Some of the adhesive is still there.

What was Public Law 89-563?  Did something change in it on 1/1/70?

The sticker can be seen in this photo.

Brennan

[learical1]

"In 1966, with the backing of President Lyndon Johnson, Congress unanimously enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Public Law 89-563, as amended), which created a limited federal authority to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. A companion statute, the National Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564), expanded the scope of federal activity in support of state and local efforts to improve highway and driver contributions to the reduction of vehicle crash injuries.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is administered by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Its intent, as described by President Johnson at its signing, is to ensure that every new car is as safe as modern knowledge can make it. Whether that intent has been achieved is arguable, but there is no doubt that the Act has somewhat reduced motor vehicle hazards. The Act requires the federal government to do the following:

Set Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for New Motor Vehicles and Equipment. The standards may specify minimum performance levels but not specific designs. For instance, a standard may set the minimum forces that a seatback must withstand in an impact, but it may not specify the design of seatbacks. Manufacturers self-certify their compliance with the standards. NHTSA spot-checks by buying and testing randomly-selected vehicles.
Require Manufacturers to Recall and Repair Vehicles and Equipment with Safety Defects. Failure to comply with safety standards can result in vehicle safety defects and injurious hazards. In addition, vehicle hazards can result from defects beyond the scope of the standards, such as seat belts that meet the minimum standard requirements but nonetheless become unbuckled in crashes. The law provides that unless a manufacturer voluntarily recalls and repairs a defective vehicle, NHTSA may move to force the recall.
Research and Development. Research, development, testing, crash investigation and data collection and analysis activities related to motor vehicle injuries and hazard reduction are carried out by NHTSA and its contractors in support of the agency's statutory mission.
Consumer Information. NHTSA publishes the results of vehicle testing in formats that provide comparative information about vehicle hazard levels. Its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) assigns crashworthiness and rollover proneness ratings to selected new vehicles."

From:
http://www.mvhap.org/introduction3.php

[moparstuart]

  I bet it had something to do with ralph naders crying  .

[learical1]

My Theory by Anne Elk [Miss]

I hope some 1970 Charger expert can help me out with this.  I know the 70 Chargers have electric motors for the headlamp covers.  Is there some method on the motor or linkage that, with the pull of a lever or the twist(s) of a knob, you can expose the headlights and keep them exposed?  I believe that this is the change in the law for January 1st, 1970.  I know that, starting for the 1970 model year, Ford headlamp covers (vacuum held in the covered position) had a 2 in/2 out vacuum connector. Twisting this connector 90 degrees prevented the vacuum from reaching the headlamp motors (without causing a vacuum leak) so the lamps stayed exposed, even with the engine running and the headlamp switch in the 'off' position.  Thus, your headlamps couldn't be 'frozen shut' during winter.  The SuperBird's headlamps could not "easily" be left in the exposed position. 

What do you think, people?

[moparstuart]

 yes you can turn a knob on the bottom of the motor to slowly crank open the 70 hlps

  my first mopar was a 70 R/T

[Arnie Cunningham]

The 70 Imperials also had the large knob on the electric headlight motor and an instruction sticker on how to use it.  The Superbirds have the heavy window regulator type spring to hold the headlight buckets open as the default position.

1970 saw significant headrest and seat belt changes from the 69 models - maybe those were some of the Public Law issues.  But those changes are found on the Superbirds so they would not have been a reason to build all the cars prior to 1/1/70

[learical1]

The 70 Imperials also had the large knob on the electric headlight motor and an instruction sticker on how to use it.  The Superbirds have the heavy window regulator type spring to hold the headlight buckets open as the default position.

Yes if you lose vacuum the 'Bird's headlamps will open.  But, in a perfectly sealed system, the headlamps stay down even when the lights are off and the engine hasn't been run for days (hint hint, Stuart).  So how do you have the headlights come up and stay up, even with the engine running and the switch in the off position?  Sure, you could disconnect the vacuum lines and cap them off, but that's not the same as turning a knob or twisting a vacuum connection. 

[talkiemopar]

My 6-pack,4 speed bird never had a public law sticker,or a vehicle emission control sticker with the idle settings. It does have the tire pressure sticker F70-14 when the car came new with F60-15      Rick 

[learical1]

     TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

                           OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents

           Subpart B--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Sec. 571.112   Standard No. 112; Headlamp concealment devices.

   S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for headlamp
concealment devices.
   S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles.
   S3. Definitions.
   Fully opened means the position of the headlamp concealment device
in which the headlamp is in the design open operating position.
   Headlamp concealment device means a device, with its operating
system and components, that provides concealment of the headlamp when it
is not in use, including a movable headlamp cover and a headlamp that
displaces for concealment purposes.
   Power means any source of energy that operates the headlamp
concealment device.
   S4. Requirements.
   S4.1  While the headlamp is illuminated, its fully opened headlamp
concealment device shall remain fully opened whenever either or both of
the following occur--
   (a) Any loss of power to or within the headlamp concealment device;
   (b) Any disconnection, restriction, short-circuit, circuit time
delay, or other similar malfunction in any wiring, tubing, hose,
solenoid or other component that controls or conducts power for
operating the concealment device.
   S4.2  Whenever any malfunction occurs in a component that controls
or conducts power for the actuation of the concealment device, each
closed headlamp concealment device shall be capable of being fully
opened--
   (a) By automatic means;
   (b) By actuation of a switch, lever or other similar mechanism; or
   (c) By other means not requiring the use of any tools.

Thereafter, the headlamp concealment device must remain fully opened
until intentionally closed.
   S4.3  Except for cases of malfunction covered by S4.2, each headlamp
concealment device shall be capable of being fully opened and the
headlamps illuminated by actuation of a single switch, lever, or similar
mechanism, including a mechanism that is automatically actuated by a
change in ambient light conditions.
   S4.4  Each headlamp concealment device shall be installed so that
the headlamp may be mounted, aimed, and adjusted without removing any
component of the device, other than components of the headlamp assembly.
   S4.5  Except for cases of malfunction covered by S4.2, each headlamp
concealment device shall, within an ambient temperature range of -30
degrees Celsius to +50 degrees Celsius be capable of being fully opened
in not more than 3 seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in
S4.3.

From http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi

[learical1]

Above is FMVSS 112, as last updated in 1996, before it was rolled into FMVSS 108 on October 24, 1996.  I couldn't find an older version on the web anywhere.  FMVSS (federal motor vehicle safety standard) 112 is strictly concerned with concealed headlamp, it was superceeded by FMVSS 108, which is all lighting (headlamps, side markers, tail lamp etc.)

[learical1]

The bottom line is they had to be done by 1/1/70 to be able to race.

Doug, I agree that the SuperBirds had to be built by 1/1/70 to be able to race in the Motor Trend 500 at Riverside.  I believe that Plymouth didn't really care if the 'Birds were available for Riverside, as long as they were eligible for Daytona in February.  If a change in the FMVSS kept Mopar from building SuperBirds after 1/1/70, that just forced them to complete the cars earlier, and allowed the extra race in January.  I'd bet that, if a change in the FMVSS hadn't forced Plymouth to complete the 1935 (or whatever number) by 1/1/70, Chrysler would have used the extra month to 'tweak' the 'Bird a bit more.  (the qualifying races for the Daytona 500 were held 2/19/70, so completion by 2/1/70 should have meant approval by 2/14/70, assuming the same factors that allowed the 1/1/70 completion giving approval on 1/14/70)

[maxwellwedge]

The bottom line is they had to be done by 1/1/70 to be able to race.

I agree and...

Two more reasons:  

1) Richard
2) Petty



I do not discount learical1's hard work and research - Thinking deeper is a great trait!

[nascarxx29]

  The Nascar holmagation rules number of cars based on number of dealers or your were not a eligible car entry able to race.Race on Sun sell on Monday

[learical1]

Quote from NASCAR's 1969 rule book:

(1) It is mandatory that a street version engine be produced by the manufacturer as a regular production option for installation and sale to the public in a regular product offering, and that 500 of the type car and engine must be available to the public before it will be eligible for competition.

(2) Production models and production engines introduced by January 1, 1969, will be classified eligible for competition in 1969. New models or engines introduced after January 1, 1969, will not be eligible for competition until April 15, 1969. Any equipment introduced after April 15 will not be eligible during 1969.


Quote from NASCAR's 1970 rule book:

1) It is mandatory that a street version engine be produced by the manufacturer as a regular production option for installation and sale to the public in a regular product offering. For 1970 the eligibility quantity for bodies will be 1000 minimum or a figure equal to one-half the number of franchised dealers, whichever is the higher. Engine production requirements will continue to be 500 engines installed in cars before approval to compete is granted.

(2) Production models and production engines introduced by January 15, 1970, will be classified eligible for competition in 1970. New models or engines introduced after January 15, 1970, will not be eligible for competition until April 15, 1970. Any equipment introduced after April 15 will not be eligible during 1970.

So, the Torino Talladega was introduced by January 1, 1969, and certified by ACCUS by early February, so it was therefore eligible for the 1969 Daytona 500.  The Spoiler II and Boss 429 first ran March 30,1969 at Atlanta. I believe that they were introduced in time, but ACCUS didn't certify enough had been built until late March.  The way I read the rules, the Charger Daytona had to be "introduced" before 4/15/69 to have been eligible at all in 1969.

By the same logic, the SuperBird was introduced before 1/15/70, so it would be eligible for racing as soon as ACCUS certified enough had been built and shipped.  The 'Bird was actually certified prior to 1/15/70, so it was eligible for the Motor Trend 500 in January.  But everybody knows that the Daytona 500 is the race of the year.  It is my opinion that Plymouth wanted the SuperBird race eligible for Daytona.  So why hurry and finish in time to have it for Riverside?    That's the purpose of this thread.

[learical1]

Continued from above

Now, if Plymouth didn't have a 'racing' need to have the SuperBirds built by 12/31/69 (and that's a big "if".  Maybe they knew they might have a problem selling them, and wanted an early west coast introduction to help ), why rush?  Well, if there was a change in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that went into effect on 1/1/70 that the 'Bird wouldn't meet, Ma Mopar would have to finish before that. 

I admit that this is a lot of guesswork, but look at FMVSS 112 S4.2 above, highlighted in red.  Does anybody disagree that the SuperBird will not meet this standard?  Does every other 1970 model year Mopar with concealed headlamps meet this standard?  How many 1969 cars can meet this standard?  I can't prove it, but I believe that FMVSS 112 was amended for 1970 by adding S4.2.  Most changes to the FMVSS's go into effect on January 1 (as in 1969 headrests).  IF everything I'm insinuating is correct, the SuperBirds had to be completed before 1/1/70 because they wouldn't meet the new standard.
(I'd love to put Q.E.D. here, but this is not a proof, only a hypothesis.)

[pettybird]

The 70 Imperials also had the large knob on the electric headlight motor and an instruction sticker on how to use it.  The Superbirds have the heavy window regulator type spring to hold the headlight buckets open as the default position.

1970 saw significant headrest and seat belt changes from the 69 models - maybe those were some of the Public Law issues.  But those changes are found on the Superbirds so they would not have been a reason to build all the cars prior to 1/1/70

shoulder belts went mandatory 1/1/68
headrests went mandatory 1/1/69

[Arnie Cunningham]

shoulder belts went mandatory 1/1/68
headrests went mandatory 1/1/69
[/quote]

AH!  I assume that is why half the 69 cars I see have headrests and the other half don't - all this time I thought it was a 69 option.

Wasn't there something different about 70 seatbelts - particularly convertibles?  What did the seatbelt light under the dash (like the 70 reverse light) indicate?  Or was that just part of the "deluxe" package?

[pettybird]

just part of the deluxe package.  those were awful looking belts...

my friend has a '70 satellite convertible and he has the standard ones. 

[moparstuart]

just part of the deluxe package.  those were awful looking belts...

my friend has a '70 satellite convertible and he has the standard ones.  

and i do too , no shoulder belts either , wonder how they got around that regulation
?

[pettybird]

just part of the deluxe package.  those were awful looking belts...

my friend has a '70 satellite convertible and he has the standard ones. 

and i do too , no shoulder belts either , wonder how they got around that regulaton
?

I know they're not mandatory in 1969, either--they're an extra cost option on Camaro/Firebird.

[learical1]

"At the peak of the SuperBird manufacturing process, more than 50 cars per day were being completed to meet Plymouth's January 1 deadline- the date that a new, restrictive government headlight ruling was to take effect." (italics added)
Frank Moriarty, Supercars, The Story of the Dodge Charger Daytona and Plymouth SuperBird, Chapter "Wild in the Streets".

Alright, now we're getting somewhere.  Anybody have a contact for Frank Moriarty?

[learical1]

OK, I found an email address for him, and wrote to ask him if he knows any more on the topic.  Let's hope he answers.

[Redbird]

Bruce, nice thoughts on why Superbirds were completed by a date certain. When you look at the 1920 list I think it is interesting that production ramped up, the first days they were learning how to put cars together before they got to full production. I had posted this last year:

New found Superbird production information
« on: July 06, 2009, 09:28:50 PM » Quote Modify  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The www.aerowarriors.com/new.html page has a lot of new found information on Superbird production.

The 10/21/69 minutes item #9 says there will be 5 pilot cars and 1 body in white at that time. The NASCAR 1920 serial # list (available from the Daytona Superbird auto club) shows 5 cars delivered 10/17, 10/24 and 10/29. All the later cars on the 1920 list come in larger groups. My thought is that the 5 cars could have been the pilot cars. Brennan Cook has just sorted the 1920 list on dodgecharger.com (aero cars). He has identified RM23?OA149855, the potential 5th car built in serial # to be possible. A thought would be that could have been the BIW car (I know BIW cars didn't have serial #'s) but it would have the modifications started.

The 10/30/69 meeting minutes. Item #3)a) says there was interference between the air cleaner and hood (question here why would this happen if the '70 Coronets already worked since the back of the Coronet hood was used for the Superbird?) First 22 parts to be reworked.

Item #3)f) A pillar moulding fit problems. First 160 sets to be reworked. (note: I have one of the first 130 cars plus a mid production car and 1 set of parts counter mouldings from 1977, 3 sets of mouldings. The 3 passenger sets are identical, the early driver one has differences)

Item 3)g) the first 31 hood character lines different those hoods to be used.

Items 3)a&b) first 100 valances to be used but need changes.

Item 7) 5 tools and gages missing (David Patik I believe called them fixtures) So on the early cars were some things hand drilled and fitted?

Item 2) first 500 cars had late show up of decals (wing, nose or quarter?) Where were these cars fitted with decals in a field? (from the memo it doesn't look like the dealers put them on)

11/13/69 minutes. 1)on schedule 2)Decals stop and go shipments-overtime 4)defects-especially scoops (again my thought is what do we see on early cars?).

11/13/69 Milestones Memo there was a proposed Belvedere Body in White to Creative proposed 9/10-actual 9/15. From the Nascar 1920 list the 1st. Superbird was received at Clairpointe 10/17. So these are probably not the same cars. Was the process to send a car to Creative before the pilot cars to fit things?

Same 11/13/69 Milestones Memo says the first production cars were shipped to Clairpointe 11/13. The NASCAR 1920 list shows car #6 shipped to Clairpointe 11/3. I believe this reinforces that the first 5 cars were pilot cars.


After reading this info I think it would be very interesting to look at the very early cars, especially 1-5,1-22,1-31,1-160 to see what was different from the later cars, and especially to have the early car owners look at their cars.

[nascarxx29]

I met Frank Moriarty and got my copies signed sometime ago .He still maybe in NJ.I think the town was Somerdale

[learical1]

Here's my email to Frank Moriarty:

Mr. Moriarty,

In you book Supercars, The Story of the Dodge Charger Daytona and Plymouth SuperBird, you stated that all the SuperBirds had to be completed before January 1, 1970 because of a new government headlamp regulation.  Do you know what headlamp regulation was introduced or modified that went into effect on that date that pertains to the SuperBird?  Would it possibly have anything to do with the concealment of headlamps?  If you have the time, please refer to the following thread on dodgecharger.com:

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,71811.0.html

(I'm learical1)

Anything you can add to the subject would be appreciated.  Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely,

Bruce Lear



And here's his response:
Hi there Bruce -

Hmmmm, let's see - sadly, I think you're asking this question a few years too late. I am certain I was told this by someone (as opposed to making it up!), but cannot recall exactly by who. And it may have been a case where, when I was told this, it was in the midst of some production problem story and we never got around to circling back to ask, "Exactly what was this headlight mandate?" I am guessing this info came from Larry Rathgeb, but that is just a guess.

If I can recall this in greater detail or come across something in the files to shed more light, I'll be sure to pass it along.

I did review the message thread you referred to, and my suspicion would be in the neighborhood of yours, that the regulation had to do with the concealment mechanism.

I am also going to forward this message to a friend/Daytona-owner who knows as much - actually, probably quite a bit more - than I do about this realm, so if anything interesting comes from that I'll be sure to pass it along.

Sorry I can't be more definitive...

Cheers -

Frank

[68pplcharger]

 

[nascarxx29]

Frank might be refering to his daytona friend Paul Kaufmann very well known daytona owner.On another note would the superbird engineering manual for the superbird have any or additional info on headlight requirements .Another place I recall 70 mandated dated headlight info was on the 70 daytona discussion existence

[moparstuart]

Frank might be refering to his daytona friend Paul Kaufmann very well known daytona owner.On another note would the superbird engineering manual for the superbird have any or additional info on headlight requirements .Another place I recall 70 mandated dated headlight info was on the 70 daytona discussion existence

that also goes back to the bumper issue and why the water melon car had a tube bumper  ?
  for 70

[nascarxx29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Superbird
. Due to increasing emissions regulations, combined with insurance hikes for high performance cars, 1970 would be its only production year.Also came across this on 1970 federal safety regs for headlights
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN108

Standard No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and Motorcycles (Effective 1-1-68 for vehicles 2,032 mrn (80 or more inches) in width and Effective 1-1-69 for all other vehicles)
This standard specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Its purpose is to reduce traffic crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility

This standard Fmvss 108 did affect affect chrysler cars.If it played a part on the superbird and its timeline restraints??
http://www.allpar.com/model/charger-sidelights.html

[learical1]

This standard Fmvss 108 did affect affect chrysler cars.If it played a part on the superbird and its timeline restraints??
http://www.allpar.com/model/charger-sidelights.html

FMVSS 108 and it's effects on Chrysler's is in the side marker lamps.  68 style round side marker lamps have no reflectors, 69 side markers have reflectors but no illumination.  70's have both.   The SuperBird met this standard.

[Aero426]

By coincidence, Larry Rathgeb called the other night and I asked him the question about the cars being done by January 1st.    He did not remember a headlight law, but mentioned the possibility of a bumper law.   However, it was clear he had not thought about this for a long time.    My opinion is this was more of an issue the product planning people would have been responsible product planning issue, where Larry was on the "making race cars go fast" side. 

[nascarxx29]

Some parts of the Federal 108 vehicle safety standards pertained to headlights .Looking for the 1970 bumper regulation standards and timeline .I recall many states lke Maryland and others couldnt sell the superbird lack of no front bumper.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/49cfr571.108.htm section /page 240
And 1970 required to take a 5MPH crash test

In the early 1970's, there was a standard for bumpers to be able to
withstand an impact into a barrier at 5 mph without sustaining
damage. This requirement was dropped in 1975 and was replaced with
the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 581.1 -
581.7 - Bumper Standards.

[learical1]

The 5 MPH bumper standard for the front bumper went into effect for 1973, the rear for 1974.  If you ever get confused, remember what year 3rd generation Chargers have the big-ass bumper guards.

[nascarxx29]

I had a 74 Rallye Challenger with those big rubber bumper guards.And recall seeing them on 72 Challenger . With other Chrysler cars and Other brand makes .They had front bumpers.Both the aero cars
69-70 someway go away with it no front bumpers.The 70 superbird rubber bumper strip across the nose might yield damage from a shopping cart but a 5MPH crashtest .When I had owned Corvette Stingrays the front chrome bumper didnt disappear off the front of the car until 73 .Then it had the energy absorbing type front bumper 73 74 - And this seems to be saying that it was ineffect in early 70s and dropped in later years?
 http://www.insurorsservicebureau.com/ISB%20technical/Bumpers_.pdf

[learical1]

I distinctly remember GM having commercials for their 1972 full size cars, pushing the fact that they had 5 mph bumpers 1 year before the government mandated all cars to have them.  72 Challengers should not have the big bumper guards, that started in 73.  The rub strip on the nose of the 'Bird may have been Plymouth's attempt at a 'front bumper' to get around the various state's laws.

[nascarxx29]

The 72 had bumper guards chrome and rubber bumper strip as seen on page 196-198. I believe they were optional.The bigger massive rubber one were on the 73 -74
http://books.google.com/books?id=-Nq_KTNYEEEC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=72+challenger+front+bumper+guards&source=bl&ots=HgSGeYTETo&sig=ztpLz3kziFJ1by0m2_punEEYKRw&hl=en&ei=aLpUTPT6PIH88AbL58SxBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

[learical1]

Let's try this:  72 Corvette tiny chrome front and rear bumpers

http://www.google.com/images?q=1972%20corvette&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1272&bih=821

73 Corvette rubber 5 mph front bumper, tiny chrome rear bumpers

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1272&bih=821&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=1973+corvette&aq=f&aqi=g3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

74 Corvette rubber 5mph bumpers front and rear

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1272&bih=821&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=1974+corvette&aq=f&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I am unaware of any bumper law changes that went into effect on 1/1/70, but that doesn't mean there weren't any.

[nascarxx29]

Good info thanks
I am unaware of any bumper law changes that went into effect on 1/1/70, but that doesn't mean there weren't any.

If I could find both the 1969 and 1970 regs.The difference might be in the comparision from year to year?? I see the Corvette changes .But if you check 72 to 73 Camaros theres no drastic change .The 1974 one took on a big bumper change in the front engery absorbing bumper and rubber strip.As we know automakers are always looking for a way to cost cut if they had he opportunity to delete front chrome bumpers as seen on other vehicles.But insurance safety crash test institude and Federal regs.Mandated something .That the aero car apparently didnt have to comply with .I just find that fascinating .And that they never crashed test a aero car.But seen pictures of a 69 RT charger folded up

[learical1]

Broke out my 65-72 Ford car parts catalog.  69 and 70 full size Fords (LTD, Galaxie) take the same front bumper brackets.  Cheap versions use the same bumper, fancier ones do have different bumpers from 69 to 70.  Fairlane/Torino had a major redesign in 70, so nothing in front is the same as 69.  69 and 70 Mustangs use identical bumper brackets and bumpers up front.  Thunderbird was restyled for 70, so that's different.  Falcoln became a Fairline model for 70 1/2.  Makes me think that there was virtually no change in bumper standard for 1970 model year.