The Origins of the Daytona Charger Thread

[Aero426]

Hi Doug, the engine in question is from a 68 Charger per the VIN, and would fit a build for a late 68 in June Or July .............just found it interesting Dave was checking a VIN with the first 4 digits matching it and I thought he was checking the  #88 car built from a 68 Charger?? I know of no HEMI 4spd Chargers built after June 1st for the public, not that there weren't any............Do you know the VIN that was on the Charger used to develop the 88 car and was it a 68 as Has been discussed previously?


Thanks,
Steve

What I was trying to say was that the #88 was not built from a 1968 Charger.    The stolen press car was reported to be a 1969 Charger 500. 

[nascarxx29]

Hi Doug, the engine in question is from a 68 Charger per the VIN, and would fit a build for a late 68 in June Or July .............just found it interesting Dave was checking a VIN with the first 4 digits matching it and I thought he was checking the  #88 car built from a 68 Charger?? I know of no HEMI 4spd Chargers built after June 1st for the public, not that there weren't any............Do you know the VIN that was on the Charger used to develop the 88 car and was it a 68 as Has been discussed previously?


Thanks,
Steve

What I was trying to say was that the #88 was not built from a 1968 Charger.    The stolen press car was reported to be a 1969 Charger 500. 

Thats what I originaly thought a HEMI 500 .Thanks now I dont have to hunt for that article.Gotta admit 2 different isolated incidents where 2 69 charger 500s are stolen and repurposed by Chrysler

[nascarxx29]

434xxx is too high numerically to be from a 1969 Charger 500

 .Going by the known 68 Charger 500 vin which as I recall going by memory XS29J9B36071X 089708 J # April 25th.And later following cars have the #925 and starting in the 110-s.That another similar pre production car would be in this vin sequence .I met a guy who bought a 69 426 charger 500 in the 80-s .Long before these cars were being rebodied as to the worth .In every respect the car had everything you expect on a 500.But the vin as I recall I wrote it down somewhere was 310XXX

Typical Chrysler dont know whats outhere till it shows up.For all we know they used protypes for these tests

[XS29J8]

Hi Doug, the engine in question is from a 68 Charger per the VIN, and would fit a build for a late 68 in June Or July .............just found it interesting Dave was checking a VIN with the first 4 digits matching it and I thought he was checking the  #88 car built from a 68 Charger?? I know of no HEMI 4spd Chargers built after June 1st for the public, not that there weren't any............Do you know the VIN that was on the Charger used to develop the 88 car and was it a 68 as Has been discussed previously?


Thanks,
Steve

What I was trying to say was that the #88 was not built from a 1968 Charger.    The stolen press car was reported to be a 1969 Charger 500.  

Great Doug ,  so who is Frank Wylie and what does this statement mean?

"Originally the car was a (68 charger). Said by Frank Wylie retired director of public relations for dodge division. He states we loaned that car to a magazine in Los Angeles for testing. It was stolen, stripped of everything and the car was found in the Watts section of LA. That car was taken back to Nichels engineering in Highland IN and converted into what is known as the prototype Dodge Daytona. The other car that 69 500 mentioned was the Cotton Owens car that was first to be fitted with the wing car body parts"

Is one of these the 88 car and the other a test mule. Just need clarification as I had talked with several people over the years, and always heard a 68 Charger was used for one of the first Daytonas if not the 88, a test mule.............

What car is 434780 and is there a Daytona with this VIN as well as a 68 HEMI Charger with 4347xx this late of a VIN??

Steve

[nascarxx29]

Thats what I recall reading but wasnt sure unless I had the article in front of me a 68 and returned to Nichols for repurposing and became the #88 car.But later Greg discovered there was 2 #88 cars .Greg K currently owns the real #88 and its under restoration last we heard of it

And something I found on a older post high 434 vin.To high for a 69 500 and as for it being a daytona??

Re: Repro wing car metal nose tech ?
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2006, 07:55:18 AM » Quote Modify  

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

While looking up on 434780 .I had this 2 page WW newsletter submitted daytona vin list by GG as of 11-89 .It has 468330 and 500564 as recorded daytonas.Also a friend of mine currently has one of the daytonas owned by a chrysler exec.


hemigeno
Global Moderator
Old Timer

Offline

Posts: 4,316


'69 HemiCharger R/T 4-speed


    Re: Repro wing car metal nose tech ?
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2006, 08:05:28 AM » Quote  

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

Boy, those are some high VIN's, especially that last one.  It had to be at the very tail end of '69 model year production.

What info was given about those cars (by Galen, or whoever told Galen about them)?
 

[nascarxx29]

Being Frank Wylie name got brought up and who is he he played a part in development .I had this and furnished the club this document unrelated to this subject
http://wwnboa.org/factorydocjpgs/factorydoc1.jpg


http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,8684.0.html

[nascarxx29]

If this guy still on the board he might know the vin and that the #88 car was a 68 or not


69Charger500
Junior Member

Offline

Posts: 167


    Re: The Origins of the Daytona Charger Thread
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2006, 02:46:33 AM » Quote  

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

The #88 car was found and is owned by a friend of mine from work.  I recall he mentioned it was stolen early in it's life, as seems to be the fate of many of the aero cars.  Mine was stolen 3 times from the original owner between '69 and '71; the third time, right from his driveway in the daytime...


This sounds like a guy Ive heard of before Mike Milliam that worked at Chrysler.

[XS29J8]

Found this quote from Geno, maybe the 68 4347xx is 434780 on the shipping list???

"Not that it makes that much difference, but 434780 (#464 on the list) was built on 6/26, and there were two others with SPD's of 6/16 (#362 and #382).

I'm still trying to get to the bottom of the 780 car, which is the highest recorded VIN for a Daytona.  I suspect it was built to replace one for Lenox Dodge that may have been damaged during assembly or conversion.  There's some things I'm trying to understand on the SO numbers and how they are re-assigned, and the WW newsletter series on the Dealer Invoice Lists hasn't gotten that far yet.  Way too early to say whether that's the case or not."

Built on 6/26 in "1968" as a promo 500 would make since, stolen and converted to a Daytona  later maybe?


Steve

[hemigeno]

Built on 6/26 in "1968" as a promo 500 would make since, stolen and converted to a Daytona  later maybe?


Steve

Not with an XX29L9B VIN it wasn't...    Incidentally, that's a known car (albeit not by many folks).

[XS29J8]

Built on 6/26 in "1968" as a promo 500 would make since, stolen and converted to a Daytona  later maybe?


Steve

Not with an XX29L9B VIN it wasn't...    Incidentally, that's a known car (albeit not by many folks).

Thanks Gene, you took all the fun out! Funny thing is that build date would fit a 68 Charger perfectly if any HEMI 4spds were built after June 1st. Have you seen the car and could it have been rebuilt as a 69 VIN??

Cheers,
Steve

[hemigeno]

Thanks Gene, you took all the fun out! Funny thing is that build date would fit a 68 Charger perfectly if any HEMI 4spds were built after June 1st. Have you seen the car and could it have been rebuilt as a 69 VIN??

Cheers,
Steve

Well, it wasn't my plan to take anyone's fun away from them - but the story on that car is indeed the case.  I have not seen the car in person, but have heard about it from two different heavy-hitters in the wing car hobby.  One of those gents has spoken with the current owner, and that's how what I had heard about it elsewhere was confirmed.

I would be flabbergasted if they re-assigned a 1968 car to have a 1969 VIN.  That would bring up a whole host of Federal Safety Standards issues, as there were tangible differences between the two model years.  It's even harder to believe they would wait until the latter part of the '69 model year before doing so.  The only Daytona I know to have had any modifications done to its VIN was 287970 - whose dash VIN plate was changed out to read XX29 even though the fender tag was not changed from XS.  Not nearly as big of a deal to do that.  Plus, why would they bother with changing the model year for this supposed prototype, when they never did so for Jerry Service's '68?  Personally, I don't see it happening, but that's just my opinion.  Worth every penny too... well, maybe half a penny...



Gene

[XS29J8]

Thanks Gene, you took all the fun out! Funny thing is that build date would fit a 68 Charger perfectly if any HEMI 4spds were built after June 1st. Have you seen the car and could it have been rebuilt as a 69 VIN??

Cheers,
Steve

Well, it wasn't my plan to take anyone's fun away from them - but the story on that car is indeed the case.  I have not seen the car in person, but have heard about it from two different heavy-hitters in the wing car hobby.  One of those gents has spoken with the current owner, and that's how what I had heard about it elsewhere was confirmed.

I would be flabbergasted if they re-assigned a 1968 car to have a 1969 VIN.  That would bring up a whole host of Federal Safety Standards issues, as there were tangible differences between the two model years.  It's even harder to believe they would wait until the latter part of the '69 model year before doing so.  The only Daytona I know to have had any modifications done to its VIN was 287970 - whose dash VIN plate was changed out to read XX29 even though the fender tag was not changed from XS.  Not nearly as big of a deal to do that.  Plus, why would they bother with changing the model year for this supposed prototype, when they never did so for Jerry Service's '68?  Personally, I don't see it happening, but that's just my opinion.  Worth every penny too... well, maybe half a penny...



Gene

OK Gene, this car was rebuilt? Is it in Canada probably?? You know how many rare cars show up out of Canada...............

Steve

[Aero426]

Great Doug ,  so who is Frank Wylie and what does this statement mean?

"Originally the car was a (68 charger). Said by Frank Wylie retired director of public relations for dodge division. He states we loaned that car to a magazine in Los Angeles for testing. It was stolen, stripped of everything and the car was found in the Watts section of LA. That car was taken back to Nichels engineering in Highland IN and converted into what is known as the prototype Dodge Daytona. The other car that 69 500 mentioned was the Cotton Owens car that was first to be fitted with the wing car body parts"

Is one of these the 88 car and the other a test mule. Just need clarification as I had talked with several people over the years, and always heard a 68 Charger was used for one of the first Daytonas if not the 88, a test mule.............

What car is 434780 and is there a Daytona with this VIN as well as a 68 HEMI Charger with 4347xx this late of a VIN??

Steve

The story as I know, is that a 1969 Charger 500 Hemi car press car was stolen in California, and upon recovery, sent to Nichels to be turned into a race car.    It is believed that this car became the Engineering #88 Daytona.   All of this is hearsay, but I believe it to be true.   There is the quote from Dodge exec Frank Wylie, and I have heard the story relayed by George Wallace, formerly of Chrysler Engineering.    The real #88 chassis still has evidence of some factory blue paint down on the rocker panels.  This supports the idea that it started out as a street body, painted metallic blue.  

Now...  as to determining which VIN the #88 race car started out with, I am afraid that will never be known.  There is no smoking gun paperwork known to document what happened to the original stripped car.   All we have are 40 year old recollections.    The original 1969 sheet metal was pulled off the car after the 1972 racing season when the car was rebodied to newer metal.  So any chance of finding numbers are gone. probably in a landfill near Keokuk Iowa.     Greg K. who owns the #88 car does not know the original VIN.  

The '68 Charger that WAS used as a Daytona mule is the car Bobby Isaac raced at Daytona in July '68.    The car was illegal and sent to the proving grounds.  It kept the Bobby Isaac #71 paint and got the hand made nose and wing and did the low speed testing at the Proving Grounds.  This car was later painted up Corporate Blue as the #88 test car and donated to NASCAR for their museum.  It is now at the hall of fame at Talladega.    There is a 1970 Chrysler memo that says this is what they did.  

[Ghoste]

That was one of the two by two cars, correct?

[Aero426]

That was one of the two by two cars, correct?

Yes the #71 Isaac car at the Proving Grounds was the 2" x 2" car.    This was the 68 1/2 race car chassis program that had Chrysler separating the body off the chassis to modify it the way they wanted.    They went a little too far, took it to Daytona and were caught.  They were told to raise it and not bring it back.  So it went to the P.G.

[Ghoste]

There was just the single 2X2, not a second one?

[XS29J8]

Great Doug ,  so who is Frank Wylie and what does this statement mean?

"Originally the car was a (68 charger). Said by Frank Wylie retired director of public relations for dodge division. He states we loaned that car to a magazine in Los Angeles for testing. It was stolen, stripped of everything and the car was found in the Watts section of LA. That car was taken back to Nichels engineering in Highland IN and converted into what is known as the prototype Dodge Daytona. The other car that 69 500 mentioned was the Cotton Owens car that was first to be fitted with the wing car body parts"

Is one of these the 88 car and the other a test mule. Just need clarification as I had talked with several people over the years, and always heard a 68 Charger was used for one of the first Daytonas if not the 88, a test mule.............

What car is 434780 and is there a Daytona with this VIN as well as a 68 HEMI Charger with 4347xx this late of a VIN??

Steve

The story as I know, is that a 1969 Charger 500 Hemi car press car was stolen in California, and upon recovery, sent to Nichels to be turned into a race car.    It is believed that this car became the Engineering #88 Daytona.   All of this is hearsay, but I believe it to be true.   There is the quote from Dodge exec Frank Wylie, and I have heard the story relayed by George Wallace, formerly of Chrysler Engineering.    The real #88 chassis still has evidence of some factory blue paint down on the rocker panels.  This supports the idea that it started out as a street body, painted metallic blue.  

Now...  as to determining which VIN the #88 race car started out with, I am afraid that will never be known.  There is no smoking gun paperwork known to document what happened to the original stripped car.   All we have are 40 year old recollections.    The original 1969 sheet metal was pulled off the car after the 1972 racing season when the car was rebodied to newer metal.  So any chance of finding numbers are gone.     Greg does not know the original VIN.  

The '68 Charger that WAS used as a Daytona mule is the car Bobby Isaac raced at Daytona in July '68.    The car was illegal and sent to the proving grounds.  It kept the Bobby Isaac #71 paint and got the hand made nose and wing and did the low speed testing at the Proving Grounds.  This car was later painted up Corporate Blue as the #88 test car and donated to NASCAR for their museum.  It is now at the hall of fame at Talladega.    

Thanks Doug, this is the info I'm sure I have heard before. It's Just that this new 4347xx VIN with the HEMI 4spd for a 68 Charger that would have been built late June early July 68 has me wondering again.........

Steve

[hemigeno]

There was just the single 2X2, not a second one?

I thought there was a second one, seems like a Cotton Owens car.  Doug will know.

[Aero426]

There was just the single 2X2, not a second one?

I thought there was a second one, seems like a Cotton Owens car.  Doug will know.

George Wallace recalled that there was one Dodge and one Plymouth in the program.   Petty did not have the Plymouth.  When they were caught at tech, both cars had to be raised and were not competitve in the race.

[Aero426]

Thanks Doug, this is the info I'm sure I have heard before. It's Just that this new 4347xx VIN with the HEMI 4spd for a 68 Charger that would have been built late June early July 68 has me wondering again.........

Steve

Steve, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this 1968 VIN stuff as it relates to Charger 500 or Daytonas.

Couldn't that VIN be for any old 1968 Charger Hemi car?

[XS29J8]

Thanks Doug, this is the info I'm sure I have heard before. It's Just that this new 4347xx VIN with the HEMI 4spd for a 68 Charger that would have been built late June early July 68 has me wondering again.........

Steve

Steve, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this 1968 VIN stuff as it relates to Charger 500 or Daytonas.

Couldn't that VIN be for any old 1968 Charger Hemi car?

Doug, I have seen a factory bulletin (and have a copy hidden from myself somewhere) sent out to Dodge dealers that essentially told them all orders for a 68 Charger HEMI with a 4spd would be only accepted as the new Charger 500. Whether this meant you would receive the 69 Charger 500 when it came out or you would get a 68 with this package I don't know. The VIN on the HEMI with a 4spd 68 Charger of 4347xx would put its production date well after this deadline, the order date could have been before June 1st but unlikely. The Engine came from a Red Charger and it apparently was destroyed or parted out due to a fire. I saw this VIN and thought this may be another 68 500, not just any old HEMI car.

Steve

[Ghoste]

My honest opinion is that the intent of the letter was to force 69 model 500's into as many hands as possible in order to homologate the car.  I don't think the intent by June of 68 was ever to begin building Charger 500's as extremely late 68 models.  By June they are emptying out the factories for the new model turnover and you would have been lucky to still get an order in on any 68 Charger by that point.  Never mind trying to throw an new version into the mix in which you HAD to get a minimum number out in time to qualify it.  The 69 cars would have already been on the drawing boards for months and parts changeover beginning to take place form vendors by June.

[XS29J8]

My honest opinion is that the intent of the letter was to force 69 model 500's into as many hands as possible in order to homologate the car.  I don't think the intent by June of 68 was ever to begin building Charger 500's as extremely late 68 models.  By June they are emptying out the factories for the new model turnover and you would have been lucky to still get an order in on any 68 Charger by that point.  Never mind trying to throw an new version into the mix in which you HAD to get a minimum number out in time to qualify it.  The 69 cars would have already been on the drawing boards for months and parts changeover beginning to take place form vendors by June.

I agree Ghoste, another reason to question a late 68 Charger HEMI with 4spd VIN built after the letter was sent. All 500's were originally to be a HEMI & 4spd, then a later memo stating HEMI with automatic would be accepted, then another memo accepting the 440. All this was to get the 500 homologated for the year.

Terribly cold here in Florida, hasn't been out of the 50's for a week and nothing else to do............

Steve

[Ghoste]

Well then, you'd just love Canada.

[hemigeno]

All 500's were originally to be a HEMI & 4spd, then a later memo stating HEMI with automatic would be accepted, then another memo accepting the 440.

I don't recall a bulletin that mandated a 426/A833 combo.  Bulletin #1 (dated 7/18/68) did have a 426 stipulation, but it mentioned both auto and manual would be available.  Bulletin #4 (dated 9/9/68) opened the door for the 440 option - again, with either transmission.

Is there another one?