Chop Cut Rebuild is doing a 69 charger this season.......

[tan top]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headllight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

that motor found in the car !! if 440 is not going to match the cars  vin number !! well i  doubt  it  very much !!  ( miss  type two letters on vin #  )... if it were a 383 motor that was found in it , then i would say it could !! reinforcing the fact that the J in the vin is a typo ! , but this car has torque boxes ,  although would not be the first time  cars that should not have them ! had them &  cars that should did not or only got part of !!
one i can think of  , off the top of my head is the chromed out red 440 daytona !! & all documentation shows an L code , i believe !!
  its been documented  that a number of ebodys  , have torque boxes where they should not &   not fitted when they should have  
  , headlight bezels , can easily fitted at a later date , i have fitted them to mine !!  68 gas cap !!  could of been fitted also , original one broke off, this was the only one available at the time !!
 hard to to really say what has gone on through a cars life as we all know !!
 when i asked a while back about torque boxes & it was said (yes)   did the car have chassis rail to leafspringer hanger & pinion snubber  reinforcement plates fitted!?  ,

this mystery could even be something as simple as the vin should read XS29J9B & the P being a typo  , which i think this is the case 
awesome car & work gone in to it none the less !!  
but my own personal view !! for what its worth !  


i think there is something going on with these J code XP cars , weather this is one or not  

[Richard Cranium]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headllight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

We enthusiasts tend to snit-pick just the muscle cars, which is only a small portion of the total production of any given vehicle. Can you imagine how many more factory screw ups could be found if one were able to scrutinize the whole run of vehicles built? 

Here's a perfect example of quality control, or lack thereof: One wiper is up and one is down and yet Mr. Pocket Protector is reading the funny papers.   



And these guys don't exactly look like Rhodes Schollars...

[Chris G.]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headllight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

You mention '68 headlight surrounds...the car was wrecked back in the day and got a whole new front. It was also mentioned that the previous owner had multiple Chargers. Well everyone knows that guys with a collection of Chargers will mix and match parts all the time. This was back in the 80's when nobody cared.

To think this car had a legit XP VIN because of those two reasons you mentioned above is reaching don't 'ya think? I have no doubt this is a real Hemi car, but had a typo on the VIN. Still a rare Charger.

I am also curious if VIN's were stamped into the new engine and tranny that was put in the car? I am not sure what a 440 found in the car would have anything to do with anything???

And your thoughts on the VIN tag I posted above? It's a Slant 6 '70 R/T according to the VIN.

[TUFCAT]

One wiper is up and one is down and yet Mr. Pocket Protector is reading the funny papers.    

Now that's funny!  

[Khyron]

for what it's worth. My Charger was in an accident back in the day and received a 68 front end... it was put on back when they where plentiful, I installed the 68 bezels because I love the look of em, and they just screw right on....hmmm, maybe because I have a 68 rad support now? I installed the torque boxes because they added strength...

I'm sure others have done the same, they are old cars.

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

How about this for a VIN typo?

[TUFCAT]

I am not sure what a 440 found in the car would have anything to do with anything???

If a "numbers matching" 440 was pulled... then an actual vin error occured. Without the numbers matching block, (hemi or otherwise) nobody knows.

[Khyron]

How about this for a VIN typo?

LMAO! thats great, must have been a Friday night build at around 4:55pm heheh

[KEISLER]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headllight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

You mention '68 headlight surrounds...the car was wrecked back in the day and got a whole new front. It was also mentioned that the previous owner had multiple Chargers. Well everyone knows that guys with a collection of Chargers will mix and match parts all the time. This was back in the 80's when nobody cared.

To think this car had a legit XP VIN because of those two reasons you mentioned above is reaching don't 'ya think? I have no doubt this is a real Hemi car, but had a typo on the VIN. Still a rare Charger.

I am also curious if VIN's were stamped into the new engine and tranny that was put in the car? I am not sure what a 440 found in the car would have anything to do with anything???

And your thoughts on the VIN tag I posted above? It's a Slant 6 '70 R/T according to the VIN.

Chris - I think it was stamped this way on purpose, as we have yet to find one bit of poof of it being an R/T.  The rear decal was hand drilled, and there is no evidence of the stripe.  Plus the filler cap, and numerous other things like the rear view mirror, door handles, etc.  WHO KNOWS? But one thing is for sure.  You cannot deny what the VIN says, nor can you say it is an R/T because there is NO proof that it is.

Shafi Keisler

[KEISLER]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headllight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

Dan - check Galen's report and you will find the numbers and his statement that the engine is an unstamped 1970 warranty block.  Also check the 727 auto to see if there is any mention of the VIN.  We can still get them if needed.

[TUFCAT]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headllight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

Dan - check Galen's report and you will find the numbers and his statement that the engine is an unstamped 1970 warranty block.  Also check the 727 auto to see if there is any mention of the VIN.  We can still get them if needed.

At this point....with an unstamped block and no buildsheet - nobody can prove what engine it was actually built with.

The car is still surrounded in mystery "typo" or not. It's just like any other undocumented car. It's missing the "rock-solid" well documented paper trail.

Sorry to be the heavy.

[Richard Cranium]

Sorry to be the heavy.

There's that word again... heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?
-Doc Brown

[Chad L. Magee]

Sorry to be the heavy.

There's that word again... heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?
-Doc Brown

[ccr-host]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headllight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

Dan - check Galen's report and you will find the numbers and his statement that the engine is an unstamped 1970 warranty block.  Also check the 727 auto to see if there is any mention of the VIN.  We can still get them if needed.

At this point....with an unstamped block and no buildsheet - nobody can prove what engine it was actually built with.

The car is still surrounded in mystery "typo" or not. It's just like any other undocumented car. It's missing the "rock-solid" well documented paper trail.

Sorry to be the heavy.

Tufcat,

You're not being a heavy. I'm not going to be disappointed no matter which way it goes; brochure/promo car/odd-ball. The beauty in this car is the look and how well it recreates the 69 brochure photo. The value of the car is a given, in that there were only 227 Hemi 4 speeds made in 69. The mystery just adds to its value. IMO.

[FlatbackFanatic]

 

[1969chargerrtse]

OK... So typo's aside. In all that fuss over the engine block numbers (I'll have them next week) and the possibility of the VIN being a typo, we did briefly mention the torque boxes. But, no one commented on why the XP has a 68 gas cap or the 68 headlight surrounds. That can't have anything to do with a typo on the tag (which I doubt it is).

We enthusiasts tend to snit-pick just the muscle cars, which is only a small portion of the total production of any given vehicle. Can you imagine how many more factory screw ups could be found if one were able to scrutinize the whole run of vehicles built?  

Here's a perfect example of quality control, or lack thereof: One wiper is up and one is down and yet Mr. Pocket Protector is reading the funny papers.    

Can't help but wonder if that is on purpose? Like they do in a car wash line, leave the lights flashing etc... to tell others down the line what needs to be done?

[thedodgeboys]

[quote author=ccr-host link=topic=72866.


You're not being a heavy. I'm not going to be disappointed no matter which way it goes; brochure/promo car/odd-ball. The beauty in this car is the look and how well it recreates the 69 brochure photo. The value of the car is a given, in that there were only 227 Hemi 4 speeds made in 69. The mystery just adds to its value. IMO.

Dan could your car be number 228 ? Maybe only the r/t's were counted for that 227 number or maybe there were  only 226 hemi r/t's built with a 4 speed and your car is number 227???

Who counted them and how were they counted?         Did someone add up all the j codes in the vin numbers, no that wouldnt that work no trans code in a vin number...            

[resq302]

Dan,

The only thing I can say about the fuel filler cap is that my 69 charger had the 68 style also when I got my car.  It was obviously changed out at one point.  Same could be possibly true with that car.  Same with the headlight surrounds.   Just a thought.

Either way, still a cool car!

[nvrbdn]

the door handles were 68 also wern't they. not an item that gets changed frequently

[tan top]

the door handles were 68 also wern't they. not an item that gets changed frequently

yep early build 69 , with an SPD of late 68  cars had black button door handles 

[resq302]

 

the door handles were 68 also wern't they. not an item that gets changed frequently

yep early build 69 , with an SPD of late 68  cars had black button door handles 

[Magnumcharger]

Being a Charger enthusiast, I am aware of other Chargers that exist, but were never supposed to "be"....

The first would be the 1968 Hemi Charger 500 that we all are infinitely aware of. Obviously, this was a pre-production "prototype" for the upcoming 1969 Grand National Stock Car crowd.
It's just as unusual as any XP Charger could be, and it too was used for promotional purposes and advertising. In fact, not only is it a 1968 model instead of 1969, it's an XS instead of the later 500's XX.
(Yes, I know some '69's were XS too.)

And then, there is the XP 1970 Hemi Charger. It's been mentioned on this blog several times over the years, and it too survives.

Also, was there not a particular 1970 Hemi Road Runner found a couple of years ago that was verified as being the actual car used in the Rapid Transit Ads?

Why are we questioning the possibility of this car being produced for what may well be exactly what we surmised all along?
It could very well be what we think it is.

You are correct....never say "never" when it comes to Chrysler vehicle history.

Nobody can say 100% without a doubt that a production 1969 XP (factory Hemi equipped) Charger was ever built....

We DO know for sure that Chrysler built and sold a 1969 Charger with this VIN number because it absolutely exists today.  

Yes, you are also correct that other mystery cars have been found and "solved" over the years...but it doesn't help solve this case. This car could actually be the only real XP29J - and that would be totally cool!    It already has the VIN....and would be rock solid if the original numbers matching Hemi was still sitting between the frame rails.   Unfortunately, this hasn't been proven.

Claiming authenticity based on the fact that other factory oddity's have been found to exist just isn't enough anymore.  

BTW, you mentioned the 1968 Hemi Charger 500 pre-production "prototype" shown in the picture. Does it still exist today?

Engineering cars should not have been sold to the general public unless they could returned to "new model" condition. Obviously a 1968 Charger dressed as a 1969 Charger 500 could not have been easily returned to "new model" condition.  These cars were supposed to be shipped to the proving grounds and then crushed/scraped. At least those were the rules....nobody knows for sure if the rules were always followed?    

In fact, the 1968/69 Charger 500 prototype does still exist, and is owned by Mr. Jerry Service in Detroit, Michigan.

[OneofNoneRT]

Ahhh! Just nother OneofNoneRT!! Never say it can not be...

[Blakcharger440]

It seems to me that the CCR Charger could have been a 383 car. There is just as much probability (if not more) of it being a 383 Charger rather than a hemi charger.

Nobody knows because there is such a lack of documentation. One thing for sure is that it is a Charger. 

[Ghoste]

It's been an excellent showcase for the products used and provided much better tv entertainment than most of the crap out there.  It has also been an excellent topic of debate and Charger history.  It's done better in the world of today than Dodge likely ever thought it would.