The Origins of the Daytona Charger Thread

[Aero426]

I know NASCAR outlawed them for being too low on the chassis, I've heard that part.  But every GN racecar in that era already looks several inches lowered on the chassis compared to a truly street-production unibody.  It looks to me like every racer on the track was 2"/4" lower at the very least, and the 2+2 cars were lowered even more than that.    


 

You really cannot compare much of anything on a GN car compared to a street car.    In the case of the Chrysler stuff, about all they have in common is the general torsion bar suspension layout, and that they both started with a body shell.   There sure isn't much that interchanges with production, and the body shell was just a starting point for the GN car.    

Just to illustrate, look at the amount of dedicated body fixturing that is in place at Nichels in this car under construction.    There was a whole lot of cutting and pasting going on.   Those underbody fixtures are also how Nichels could repair a car quickly, or build identical car after car.    

[hemi68charger]

This is some cool stuff......... Maybe one option for my future C500 could be the 2x2 version........

[Aero426]

Here is Isaac's 1968 Firecracker car, compared to its later configuration as the low speed mule Daytona at the proving grounds.    Notice that the vertical discoloration marks on the aluminum tail panel are identical.

[tan top]

some  great pictures  guys ,  some i have never seen before  , awesome stuff  

[hemi68charger]

Here is Isaac's 1968 Firecracker car, compared to its later configuration as the low speed mule Daytona at the proving grounds.    Notice that the vertical discoloration marks on the aluminum tail panel are identical.

WOW !!!  You're right....... The power of observation.........

[Ghoste]

I dunno, I vaguely recall reading suggestions somewhere else that those sort of petty details were meaningless. 

[Mike DC]

You really cannot compare much of anything on a GN car compared to a street car.    In the case of the Chrysler stuff, about all they have in common is the general torsion bar suspension layout, and that they both started with a body shell.   There sure isn't much that interchanges with production, and the body shell was just a starting point for the GN car.    

Just to illustrate, look at the amount of dedicated body fixturing that is in place at Nichels in this car under construction.    There was a whole lot of cutting and pasting going on.   Those underbody fixtures are also how Nichels could repair a car quickly, or build identical car after car.

Yeah, I realize that by 1968 they were cutting those cars apart like giant plastic models, and ending up with a new body shell that had no floor and could be slipped over another car's floors/subframes/rollcage.  (Weren't some of the 68-70 NASCAR Chargers known to have 66-67 undercarriages that were carried over during construction?  The B-body's underside didn't change in a significant way from 66-70 so I'm sure it would have been tempting.)

I've read about the engine issue before too.  They mounted the outer skins of the cars so low on the chassis that they barely had enough distance between the K-frame and the hood to fit the motor.  



The whole thing always seemed strange to me.  Why would NASCAR let them do it 2" but not 4"?  Seems kind of arbitrary.  Those cars were visibly not stock anymore just from the lowering that they did allow.  (Remember how high a truly STOCK Charger's ride height really was.  Today most of our near-stock street cruisers already have the torsion bars cranked down at least a couple inches lower than prescribed in the FSM.) 

And this was a racing league that was trying to slow down the cars at the time.  It seems kind of dumb to me that they didn't just demand the cars remain stock-height, or at least pick a measurement that was high enough to take away any motivation for the builders to split the cars in two trying to lower them.  It would have been easier for the inspectors to police, too.  

[Ghoste]

Arbitrary sums up NASCAR right through to the present day though Mike.  France has always tried to balance his show between fairness (as he saw it), packing the stands, safety, and keeping the racing exciting.  Looking through his sometimes mystifying rule changes over the years you find him wanting the good press that records bring, the safety that needs no explanation, wanting certain brands to win based on the demographics in the stands and above all doing what he thinks necessary to keep the franchise healthy.

[Mike DC]

Yeah, that's about the size of it.  The old GN Chargers sure looked badass all raked & lowered like they were, I gotta give him that.



I don't give NASCAR a ton of credit on safety though.  Plenty of people have brought obvious things to their attention over the years, only to be brushed off year after year until someone actually dies over it. 

I doubt that Big-E's crash would have resulted in very much new scrutiny of the car's safety if he hadn't been a star of so much stature in the sport.  They care about every driver's life in the broad sense, but they only look for fixable problems at their end of the system when it's a big name. 
   

[Aero426]

(Weren't some of the 68-70 NASCAR Chargers known to have 66-67 undercarriages that were carried over during construction?  The B-body's underside didn't change in a significant way from 66-70 so I'm sure it would have been tempting.)

Yes, many teams that were not factory backed would have updated the sheet metal on their 66-67 cars.    These chassis of course did not have the latest tweaks and even with equal power, they would be at a disadvantage handling wise.

And this was a racing league that was trying to slow down the cars at the time.  It seems kind of dumb to me that they didn't just demand the cars remain stock-height, or at least pick a measurement that was high enough to take away any motivation for the builders to split the cars in two trying to lower them.  It would have been easier for the inspectors to police, too.  

Until the cars started flirting with 200, there really was no intent to slow anything down.    As far as the height thing goes, there was a fixed height block on a stick that had to clear the oil pan (5") and the rocker panels (6 1/2").   That never changed.  But they didn't say you couldn't section the forward part of the rocker panels and rotate the body forward, thus maintaining the checked dimensions.  It ain't cheatin' unless you get caught.    Well eventually NASCAR got wind of this, and that was at Daytona in July of '68   

[Aero426]

I would recommend anyone interested in the development of the chassis side to take a look at the Chrysler Document Archive on Aerowarriors.com   Ken has put a lot of time into posting up the various test reports and memos in order of date.   

The June 1968 test results of the 68 1/2 cars has more information on the genesis of the fender scoops.  Read down the text a couple pages until you get to "suspension" and it will discuss the famously disputed tire to fender contact - and the creation of a bubble in the fender to help.

http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html

[Aero426]

If you buried the front tire far enough into the chassis to rub on the underside of the fender's top surface, then the lower edge of the fender (at the rocker panel height, down where the pentastar emblem would be) would be literally almost scraping the pavement.  

This bottom of the fender scraping becomes less pesky of a problem when you cut 1 1/2" out of the forward part of the rocker panel and the bottom of the fender.   Look how thin the rocker panel appears and how the bottom of the fender looks tucked in at the bottom.



Click on the link below.    This is George Wallace's excellent report on what happened at the July '68 Firecracker 400.    It details how the cars were modified, and how both Chrysler and Ford got caught.     This was a direct catalyst for the street Talladegas and Spoiler IIs being designed with special sectioned rocker panels right from the factory.

http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_072568.html

[maxwellwedge]

Thanks Doug - I love this stuff. I have read quite a few docs from Ken's site - don't remember this one.

[learical1]

Reading about Mopar John's wife Linda getting a Shelby reminded me of something.

"Carroll Shelby terminated his agreement with Ford in the summer of 1969. The GT350 and GT500 for the 1969–70 model years received extensive facelifts, the body alone increasing in length by 4 inches. Ford was heavily involved with design and style decisions, with Shelby having very little input. Production of Shelby Mustangs ceased with the 1970 model year. The 1970 models were in fact left over 1969 models. VIN tags from 1969 Shelby's were removed and replaced with 1970 Shelby VIN's with careful supervision from FBI agents."

Makes you think that the change from a 68 to 69 VIN is possible, but highly unlikely, and it would be well documented if true.