There were four DMCL cars.

[404NOTFOUND]

There has been speculation about this before but, I'm not sure it was resolved. There were four Chargers in Dirty Mary Crazy Larry. I ran the DVD on my 72" TV and took photos of a few scenes.

Pic 1 shows the standard Charger with long bumperettes. This is the car that hit the train.

Pic 2 shows the R/T clone with short bumperettes used in most scenes. This is the one that Bert owned.

Pic 3 shows the car with the weird looking '69 tailights. There are no backup lights so, it is a '68 model.

So far, I think we all agree.

Pic  4 is the interesting one. It shows a car with '68 tailights. This has been mentioned before as a possibility but, it is hard to verify as the filming is distant and unclear. The proof lies in the valance panel. No backup lights thus confirming a '68. We all know there was a '68 used to ram the cop car off the road. I believe it was the same '68 tailight car used in the scene on the high dirt road. The reason? Because the known '68 car had a roll bar and an aggressive stunt driver. It would make sense to use the same roll bar car and driver during the high speed portion way up high on that road.What do you guys think?

[69 OUR/TEA]

Somebody just call Peter Fonda ,and ask him .

[RIDGERACER383]

Pic 4 is definitely a 68.pic one,I never took notice to the standard grille with no R/T badge

[nvrbdn]

good shots

[DAY CLONA]

possibility one of the cars was repaired with different parts during filming, giving the illusion of 4 cars?

[RGA]

Whats with the big and small bumperettes ? different option or what ? How do you know that RT is a clone?

[RIDGERACER383]

I think I know why the bumperettes look bigger in pic 1.looks like the valance was pushed up and broke the bolts that hold the bumperette to the bumper but there still bolted to the cross member underneath

[kikgas01]

Big bumperetts come on Charger SE. It was a option. I have a set of long ones and short ones.

[jaak]

The third pic (converted '68) still has the 68 tailpanel trim w/69 taillights, looks funky.

I think the tall bumperettes where added later in the 69 model year.

Jason

[69bronzeT5]

Big bumperetts come on Charger SE. It was a option. I have a set of long ones and short ones.

They came on late production '69s. My '69 has them (built on June 20th, 1969) and it's not a SE.

[Brock Lee]

I am thinking 3 cars, the 2 1968's are the same car. Some shots as a 68, then later converted with parts, perhaps with the non-train hit Charger parts to look like a 1969.

[1969 Dodge Charger R/T]

I laughed so much when I saw the '68 

[404NOTFOUND]

Getting the pic of the '68 on the high road wasn't easy. I couldn't get enough clarity by freezing it. I had to take the pic while the movie was running. I felt like I was standing on the side of the highway waiting for the car to fly by. To answer some questions, we know the '69 R/T was a clone or at least R/T badged because one of our members here once owned the car and it had a 318 in it. This is the same reason why we know the '68 car was not repaired with tailights from the '69 R/T. The taillights from the '69 train car were burned up so, they weren't used either. We never saw the back of the '68 in the cop car ramming scenes so, there was no reason to conceal or fake the tailights so then why did they need the '68 car with the funny looking '69 tailight conversion when it was only used in the one walnut grove scene? Possibly they used it or wanted to use it in the cop car ramming scenes just in case the rear of the car got shown. You know how movies are made, spare cars, lots of takes, lots of editing and in the end, we only get to see a small percentage. I still see four cars here.

[Tilar]

I'd say 4. The theory that the bolts broke holding the bumperettes might be valid but they sure look like they are even where they stick up above the bumper. The way the valence is bent they should be at different heights if that were the case.

[404NOTFOUND]

I'd say 4. The theory that the bolts broke holding the bumperettes might be valid but they sure look like they are even where they stick up above the bumper. The way the valence is bent they should be at different heights if that were the case.

Yup. No doubt at all about about the bumperettes. Late '69 cars had them as others here have mentioned. A buddy of mine has them on his late car. My early car has the short ones.

[RIDGERACER383]

I've never seen long bumperettes on a charger until now.

[nvrbdn]

i had never seen the big bumperettes either.

[69charger2002]

the bumperettes are in fact different on various 69 cars. so that explains that part. i am inclined to think that 68 got transformed during filming to the 69 tail panel. they could have gotten 69 taillights from anywhere back then, local junkyard, etc.. they were everywhere in 1974. it definitely was a 68 converted because of that taillight trim and how they used the existing 68 tail holes to begin the mounting of the 69 taillights(a little higher) which is part of the reason it looks so funky. i learned during watching them film during dukes of hazzard here in 2004 they can totally transform a car in a few hours in the shop and have that same car ready for more filming that afternoon. i still think 3 cars, and the 68 just got transformed mid-filming. we may never know now, i highly doubt Peter Fonda was involved in the transportation department side of filming enough to know how many cars were used or which one underwent changes during filming..   

[RIDGERACER383]

I found a restored one with big bumperettes...I kinda like them...I wonder if they did it in 68?

[jwramc]

Those of you that have mentioned adding 69 tail lights to a 68 are correct- it's the same '68, thus, 3 cars. If you have the 2005 DVD (Supercharger Edition), Director John Hough specifically states they had just three of each car- Impala and Charger. Being a Brit and not a motorhead, he can be forgiven for not recalling how different the three Chargers were from each other... so he never elaborates on those details. He also incorrectly states 'all three' were destroyed in collisions with the train. But Bert's car (which I call #1 as it's the only '69 R/T in the film...even tho it is a 'fake'...and is the car used most often for close-ups like that long look at the rear and driver side as they approach the pool hall) was sold after filming with only the damage shown in the film- the driver's fender and hood from the red pickup crash, the driver's rear quarter pushed in by the hi-po interceptor, and another dent on the passenger quarter that is never seen in the film. If it were used to hit the train, it would have looked far worse up front.

From speaking with two of the guys who were on the film crew the weekend of the train crash filming, on Saturday they hooked the '68 up to the tow cable that ran under the tracks on Archerdale Road in Linden, CA, around a pulley to go left down Ketcham Lane, then around another pulley that sent the cable back toward the intersection, and that cable was attached to the train. This way, no matter what speed the train moved at, the cable would assure the Charger got to the crossing at the exact right moment. I always thought that was brilliant.

Cameras rolled, the train (ST&E #506, an ALCO S1 switcher loco) started moving, causing the un-manned Charger to roll as well. As planned, the '68 collided into the front corner of the locomotive just right... but the explosives didn't go off. There was no way to go for a second take as the '68 was destroyed by the impact. The director called for the '69 SE to be hooked up next. This car (which I call #2) is the first Charger seen in the film, at the flea market when Larry looks over and says "There she is!". In that scene, the front valance is warped upward in the middle (damage from previous filming where the car bottomed out). Also visible in that shot is the welded steel rig that the cable attached to for the train crash scene.

The '69 SE was ready to die next, chock full of explosives...but a second problem came up. The pulley on Ketcham Lane (the one that reverses the cable's direction) was torn out of the asphalt when the train hit the '68 and both went eastward. With no time to repair the pulley, the crew decided to instead use their El Camino (sorry, year unknown, but I'm told it was silver) to tow the Charger. The Chevy would face west from the intersection, pulling the cable around the remaining pulley so that the Chevy stayed out of the shot. Problem here was timing. Since the train wasn't pulling the Charger, the train and Chevy had to time their start and acceleration precisely so that the train and Charger would meet at the right moment. They also had to rig the cable to disconnect from the El Camino just before impact or it would be dragged backwards as far as the Charger might get dragged. Trains don't stop on a dime!

By the time all this was planned out and practice runs were done, daylight was fading and they called it a day. The crew was then informed that the #506 loco could not come back the next day as the railroad needed it elsewhere...but they were offered it's sister, #505- same age, same model, same paint job. No big deal, right? Wrong. These locos were already 30 years old, built right after World War II! No two ran exactly the same anymore. So, much of Sunday was wasted practicing the timing again, now with the different, slightly rougher loco.

Finally, somewhere in the early afternoon on Sunday, the cameras rolled again, and the train and El Camino...and the Charger started to roll. If it didn't go as planned but the SE was clobbered, they'd have one last shot using Bert's car, which was standing by. As some luck and lots of skill would have it, everything went exactly as the director wanted- they met exactly where they were needed (in range of the cameras), the explosives tripped as they should, obliterating the interior (and the dummies)...and the car didn't get dragged off by the train- she just jumped up in the air when colliding (the train and car were NOT crawling), settled to ground turned slightly to the right, and just burned and burned.

No need to destroy the last car if it could instead be sold off to recoup a little of the investment. One boo-boo and Bert was never gonna buy the car he did.

As to why the '68 needed '69 lights...I don't have a specific answer, but as that car died first, it isn't because the other cars were no longer viable to use for that one short scene entering the walnut grove. And where did those tail lights come from? The two real '69s were still needed, so they didn't give up that tail panel. It may have come from a junker, but again, what the need was to create that car's configuration is a total mystery.

The '68 is also interesting because when it shows up for the 'good sailor' chase, it signals the only sequence in the film where all three Chargers were used. It's first shown atop the dirt siding with the cop car running next to it, but the 69 RT appears in time to get on the asphalt and cut the cop off. Then the '68 returns for all the exterior shots of the front of the car as it and the cop trade paint. All the shots of the rear use the '69 SE. All the interior shots of Larry and Mary reacting and talking are inside the '69 RT. Sounds like a mess, but the way to look at it is that they filmed the same chase at least 3 times: Once using the '68 with the '69 RT carrying the cameras up ahead, looking back. The next run, the '69 RT carries cameras looking forward and follows the SE (for it's tail lights) as they all repeat the same moves. Then, because it had the cleanest interior, the '69 RT runs the same stretch of road with the actors aboard, cameras mounted to the passenger door, looking in, all being towed by either the SE or the El Camino. When all that footage gets to the editing room, they slice it up, jumping from one run to the next and back again to create what we see in the film. Oh- and the rear shots are not the '68 with the '69 lights installed...note the '69 reverse lights are present and the C-pillar emblems are missing..so it's the SE from behind.

Sorry that was nearly as long as one of Bert's grousing posts!    

[jwramc]

OK, now I've watched this film a few hundred times, and about 4 times this month (research for the diecast), and at no time in any scene, from inside the cars or from the outside looking, do we see any trace of a rollbar. If I'm wrong and you can point me to a shot of either of the cars WITH a visible rollbar, please do!

There was never a plan for a scene where the car rolls, and if there was, I would think they'd have at least a six-point cage in the car. But it's just a 4-point...so it's there just in case something unplanned happens. But it seems it got no use at all...taken out before filming even began?

Best place to see it: The DVD cover!! Check it out...

[nvrbdn]

great stuff. ive gotta watch this again this weekend and check some of this stuff out. one thing i love to do is with the dvr slow the train crash scene down frame by frame. pretty friggin cool.

[404NOTFOUND]

Ok, thanks for that very detailed explanation. If the director says it's three cars then,  three cars it is. Can't argue with that. As for the '68, it was shown on the high road with '68 tailights. My guess as to why they installed '69 tailights in it was because they wanted to sacrifice the most battered and worthless car first and they needed to show the rear of the car with '69 lights.  There would have been plenty of time to do the install while they worked on the train pulley setup. The rear of that car was also shown limping into the walnut grove with a damaged wheel. It could have been damaged for real in an earlier take and was therefore undriveable but still a perfect candidate for the train scene or they simply loosened the lug nuts to make it look like it was crippled. So three cars it is but a fun debate anyway and we all learn more.

[jwramc]

great stuff. ive gotta watch this again this weekend and check some of this stuff out. one thing i love to do is with the dvr slow the train crash scene down frame by frame. pretty friggin cool.

For me the best part of that is the rear wheels leaping up off the road. That car hit HARD! The very next shot is at normal speed- the one with the train coming toward camera, passing to the right. THAT is how fast the train was going. Makes the crash that much more impressive that the crew had to 'wing it'.
When you get to the first Charger chase (the one with the billboard), note that everytime we see Fonda, he's driving the SE (silver wiper frames) and has the gloves on. But every shot of the stunt driver in the RT (black wiper frames), he's bare handed. Same thing occurs with the hi-po interceptor later on- Close-ups have the actor wearing black gloves, but looking back from inside the Charger, you see the stuntman is bare handed. OK, there's your homework. Have fun! 

Ok, thanks for that very detailed explanation. If the director says it's three cars then,  three cars it is. Can't argue with that. As for the '68, it was shown on the high road with '68 tailights. My guess as to why they installed '69 tailights in it was because they wanted to sacrifice the most battered and worthless car first and they needed to show the rear of the car with '69 lights.  There would have been plenty of time to do the install while they worked on the train pulley setup. The rear of that car was also shown limping into the walnut grove with a damaged wheel. It could have been damaged for real in an earlier take and was therefore undriveable but still a perfect candidate for the train scene or they simply loosened the lug nuts to make it look like it was crippled. So three cars it is but a fun debate anyway and we all learn more.

I love a civil debate myself. I love digging to hammer out the facts.

Re: the '68 tail lights, they can be made out just barely as the car crosses the bridge when the cop goes in the channel, too, tho it kinda appears they've painted the chrome rings black to reduce reflections that make it obvious its a '68. Ya gotta look HARD and freeze-frame is almost no help at all (see pic below)...

As for your theory of the tail lights for the train crash- makes perfect sense, I totally agree that is WHY they altered the car. But I'm still left befuzzled by the fact they used that configuration for that one short shot of the car crawling away with the damaged wheel. I recall the director also said that at times, there were two crews operating at times in different areas. As a theoretical example, while he was directing shots of the actors going through the motions of the Interceptor chase (all the inside-the-Charger shots) in the RT, the other crew might have been using the '68 for the dirt siding run, with the SE carrying the cameras, driving next to the cop car on the roadway. So, imaging both the RT and SE were busy elsewhere with the actors, that shot of the '68 crawling into the grove might have been done by the 'second unit', using the only car available to them that hour or day.

It's a question I never asked of the two guys I met with, but after all these years, such a minor shot might be long gone from memory anyway. Even the director recalls a few things that simply make no sense and could not have been (examples escape me at the moment), so in reality, yes, we CAN 'argue with that' in some instances. 

Oo, I was just going through behind-the-scenes photos, and noticed a car in the background (second pic). Seems to match the inserted shot of a '59 Chevy, yes? I think I found the El Camino! 

The last attached photo is for Bert. Who the frak are those people sitting all over your car, and why is that proper British woman flipping you the finger??? Note the antenna is extended all the way up, as it is in only one scene in the film (when it turns right and passes the farm truck while fleeing the imaginary police cars).

[404NOTFOUND]

Good eye on the '68 tailights on the bridge. Yes I like digging too. In the old days they expected us to watch the movie once or twice at the theatre and never imagined we would one day be pausing the movies on big TVs. I'm sure there is more than one old actress out there that now regrets that flash nude scene she did. Now if we can only get someone to release DMCL in Bluray.