Charger myths, legends and unknown!

[DC_1]

I really wonder sometimes how a company with some of the best engineering, business and even financial minds of the world, could be so terrible at keeping records back in the heyday of late 60s early 70s. One issue that comes to mind currently is the XP-Hemi Charger that has been disussed in other threads recently. How can there be so many questions that can not be answered about not just how the car was equipped but what happened to it after it was used for the brochure. This is just one of so many examples of what appears to be a very terribly run organization when it came to asset and product inventory tracking. I undestand how on the production line options could be installed or things done at the factory level that were not accounted for. However, pre-production builds or media cars that have no information, history or first hand accounts are mind boggling. Again, this poor record keeping is not an isolated incident, other examples are: the C500 ship list and discrepancies and roomers of what the true numbers of built vehicles are. The Daytona ship list and things like duplicate VINs or cars that can't be accounted for actually being shipped somewhere. What about the mystical watermellon Daytona and the pictures supposedly taken in Highland park and rumours of it being a car built for an executive or it being a 70 pre-production car.

Anyone care to add to the list of Chrysler myths, legend and unknowns?

   

[Ghoste]

I think there are a variety of reasons for it not the least of which being that it really wasn't that important.  Not at that time anyway.  Remeber they were mainly concerned with only two competitors at the time and I wouldn't be surprised if both of them had a similar approach.  As to the XP Hemi, I think a car like that was something cobbled together for press purposes and never really meant to get out.  For that reason they would not have really inventoried it.  Plus, once cars were released to the marketing folks, they largely were ignored by the rest of the organization as they were really no more than a rolling billboard at that point.  The primary purpose of the beaurocracy was to sell the cars coming off the line and not worry about the ad folks.
As for the Charger 500, same thing.  It was a slam bang thing the race group did and the corporate high level likely didn't want to do it at all.  The conversion probably wasn't a big money maker but it was seen as a necessary evil to the sell on Monday theme.  My guess is that the only reason later shipping records on homologation cars were kept better was because of a crackdown by NASCAR.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

[Mike DC]

I think it's the result of 3 major factors:

1.  Everything about life in the USA was less well-recorded and redundantly tracked back then, automotive and otherwise. 

2.  Computers had not hit the main thrust of the business operations yet so everything they wanted to record was gonna be a handwritten paper trail. 

3.  Individual cars were less valuable back then for everybody including the factories.  Especially cars that were not brand new.  Nowadays a 3yo car is basically viewed as a "new" car to most people.  Back then it was time to trade it in.

     

[Tilar]

I have to agree with Mike on #2 and #3.

By todays standards, record keeping back then was horrendous at best, but there was no better way to do it than with a piece of paper and a pen or one of those card punch machines. I also think that "known" theft within the company wasn't as prevalent back then as in later days which added a reason to keep better inventory records, which probably made them realise that it was more rampant than they had expected.

I remember growning up in the 60's and a car that had 80k miles would nickle and dime you to death with starters and alternators and just general upkeep, plus it was probably starting to use some oil. Nowadays one with 200k miles is still running strong and pretty much as dependable as when it was new.

[DC_1]

I understand what your saying but there has to have been some anal excutive or manager that kept memos that were sent making requests or instructing individuals on some of these issues. I work in the machine tool industry and at the company I work for one of our Product Managers, who has been with the company 30 years, has not only memories but paper work from back before the days of the fax machine and computer. He can tell me about machines we brought to trade shows in the 80's and 90s when he was in the Service dept and had to install and repair machines. It just seems so hard to believe that with the amount of individuals that were involved and had first hand involvement, all these things are still unanswered. 

Are there similar question on vehicles and there history from either Ford or GM during this era?       

[Tilar]

There may be someone that kept notes, but I imagine to most of these people it meant no more than it does on todays assembly lines when it comes to changing from a red to a black car. It's just a passing thing.

[Ghoste]

Everyone's primary duty was to sell cars- period!  Their secondary task was to maintain their little kingdoms and keep outsiders off the wall while promoting your own invaluable contribution.
As for Ford and GM, Henry Ford II was notorious for not wanting a paper trail on anything and would mock executives who dealt in handwritten memo's.  Admittedly their productions records were well kept and that is why you can get those Marti Reports today.  I imagine hiring the "Whiz Kids" after WWII had something to do with that.  I would bet concepts and race vehicles are not so easily tracked.  The GTO had to be "snuck" past the executives on the top floor.  In fact GM's entire backdoor racing program had to be done on the sly so the higher ups wouldn't shut it down.  Saying that, Pontiac Historical is able to provide records on nearly everything built but the other GM divisions didn't seem to do so at all.   I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of myths to come out of those two operations.

[Brock Samson]

 I dunno about all that - but I have a couple of specific cars I'm a bit more than just a little curious about...
One is the one turbine charger mentioned in a couple interviews as per the turbine charger thread I've posted about a few times. Doesn't seem to be much interest in it round here however... I know of three illustrations of this 1966 car and two separate references to it in interviews. there were also supposedly 2 turbine engined Coronets BTW...  
The other specific car of intrest to me was the "Maximum Bob" Mc Clury (spelling   ) Charger which was in a Motor Trend article in 1969.  I've seen but one photo of it which accompanies the article, it has a sunroof, hood call outs with a 440 cutout, what looks like Hurst wheels and those pointy European side mirrors as seen on the 1st Supercharger or whatever it was called before it grew a nose cone... I'll try (to find) and attach my pics..
(There was also a sketch of a 1970 Hurst Charger made but no real car as far as I've ever heard... The quote was they decided to give the Hurst Edition to Chrysler as a 300 H instead).

[Ghoste]

The engineering group did a fair number of different turbine cars over the decades but I am pretty certain the Charger one was never more than a stylists sketch.

[Brock Samson]

The engineering group did a fair number of different turbine cars over the decades but I am pretty certain the Charger one was never moer than stylists sketch.

welp, it has been mentioned as having been built in two different interviews with Turbine Project engineers.

in light of the sketches from up top, these seem to have some basis as dodge a-body barracuda variant, thank God they went with the B-body instead. 

[Ghoste]

Is there a single photo?

[Brock Samson]

never seen a photo, but stuff does pop up from time to time from unexpected sources...  

[Ghoste]

Agreed, I will have to see it first in the case of the Charger.  I recall the Coronet and I have seen a pic of it somewhere but the only thing I have ever seen on the Charger was a sketch and a couple of interviews where parties involved were hoping that the Charger would be a turbine powered car but that it never came to pass.  Leon Dixon wrote an article for a magazine some years back claiming that two were built but it was a vague assertion IMO.
Probably my personal reason for skepticism on the Charger is just that it was such a last minute decision to produce it at all.  Remember it wasn't introduced until January of 1966 and was very much a bang together rush job.  The Coronet turbine car that I think recall seeing a pic of was a 66 IF and I stress IF my memory is right.  Were that the case, it seems quite plausible to me that the 66 Coronet is the car the interviewees are coonfusing with the Charger.  Remeber they weren't part of product development or styling, they were specialized experimental engine designers testing the feasiblity of using a turbine in a production car.  Why would they care much about the name of the car it was going in especially if it were a similar (to them) appearing car that was maybe loaned to them with the understanding it was the same platform as the car they might be installing it in?
My recollection could be way off too.  I'll have to try and locate a photo of that turbine Coronet.  Which begs the question, what happened to it?  My thoughts, crushed long long ago. 
But like you say Brock, you never know.

[Ghoste]

Found the Coronet and an interesting article with it claiming a Charger and Coronet were both fitted with the engine.  Again though, the assertion is vague.  With no other evidence of the Charger I remain of the opinion that it was two Coronets.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/chrysler-turbine-concept-cars3.htm

[Black Charger]

While we're on the subject of mythical Chargers, I would love to know the whereabouts of:

1. The 1970 Daytona "watermelon" car that was photographed in a Chrysler parking lot and never seen again.

2. The blue Charger from the movie "Christine."

3. The last remaining "Dirty Mary Crazy Larry" Charger. Yes, I know that the last known owner is a member here and his ex-wife wrecked it, but the car wasn't totalled in the crash. After he sold it, no one knows for sure what happened to it. Could it still be out there somewhere? Who knows.

4. The prototype LX-bodied DIESEL Charger. Rumor has it that there was a working prototype and an actual production model was going to be offered (a few Dodge dealers on Ebay a few years ago were even taking deposits for them), but I have heard nothing more about the project.

[Brock Samson]

 welp the "Watermelon" car was fully documented here and elsewhere... a search should show you the way to that non factory made - dealer made '70... did you know there was also a Plum crazy '70 R/T SE Daytona as well...   

[Ghoste]

But happened to the Watermelon?