Superbirds converted back to Road runners when new.

[nascarxx29]

  This Daytona has the honeycomb grille material

[ECS]

As you can see here Gene, there seems to be a slight change with the perceptions that were originally expressed about this subject matter.  As I told you on the phone (Tom saw this car too) when I went to look for a Challenger with my Son, the interior of the car he liked was completely ripped apart to "borrow" parts in order to sell another Challenger.  This red vehicle had the passenger seat removed, the dash torn apart and the transmission shifter/console removed.  It was a wiring mess!  I'm not sure what parts they were swapping but I didn't want a brand new car that had been treated like a junkyard parts car.  I guess it was put back together because it has been sold!  Someone bought a vehicle that has been MAJORLY messed with and probably has no idea what it went through.  The point is that things like this (though they might be few) STILL take place even today.  I would almost guarantee that the "story" of this new Challenger will remain unknown and the reality its "ordeal" lost over time.  I guess a few of us who know about this or have read about it here will be considered "hear sayers" if we repeat the story about the car in the year 2052.

[ECS]

I don't think there has been anything controversial about Gene's car that would alter the thought process of how Daytonas in general were built or sold.

The point was not to suggest anything being "controversial" with Gene's Daytona.  The point was that ANY of the information conveyed by Gene's in his thread could be considered "hearsay" according to the definition that was used to counter the "story" that Ralph Weidner told about the white Daytona.  For the record, I believe everything Gene presented!  I was simply pointing out the selective hypocrisy that some have exhibited throughout this thread.  I am very happy for Gene and the reunion that he was able to experience & enjoy a few weeks ago.  He was even kind enough to sign a beautiful photo taken of his car that I am framing and showcasing in my office!

[held1823]

au contraire, monsieur walden.

regardless of time or location, a prior owner's story is a first hand recollection. this does not guarantee the accuracy of anything, but it sets the bar at a level that is unobtainable by your expert witness. by his own words, mr. weidner's recollection is a retelling of information passed on to him, from someone else. as with first hand recollections, accuracy is not guaranteed. the opportunity for misinformation, however, is effectively doubled, as there are now two people telling the tale.

you are certainly not a stupid man, so to continually ignore the fallacy of your own argument has to be intentional.

[A383Wing]

[ECS]

au contraire, monsieur walden.

regardless of time or location, a prior owner's story is a first hand recollection. this does not guarantee the accuracy of anything, but it sets the bar at a level that is unobtainable by your expert witness. by his own words, mr. weidner's recollection is a retelling of information passed on to him, from someone else. as with first hand recollections, accuracy is not guaranteed. the opportunity for misinformation, however, is effectively doubled, as there are now two people telling the tale.

You really can't be serious?  Are you so narrow minded that you can't understand the analogy for what it is?  Gene Lewis is in the same position as Ralph Weidner in the comparison!  Wasn't Gene "retelling information" passed along to him on this forum?  Gene passing along "stories" told by the original owners (where he was not personally present to confirm) is no different than Ralph passing along information told by those who said they took the parts off of the car that you guys claimed HE couldn't confirm.  Did I really need to explain that?

[Aero426]

You really can't be serious?  Are you so narrow minded that you can't understand the analogy for what it is?  Gene Lewis is in the same position as Ralph Weidner in the comparison!  Wasn't Gene "retelling information" passed along to him on this forum?  Gene passing along "stories" told by the original owners (where he was not personally present to confirm) is no different than Ralph passing along information told by those who said they took the parts off the car that you guys claimed HE couldn't confirm.  Did I really need to explain that?

The differences are the repeated posts that attempt to discredit the St Ann car by courteously (just as a public service...)  passing along the story of, and I am paraphrasing here: "Hey boys and girls, I  know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows another guy who took the parts off this car when it was new."     But yet the photos of the car as found in a feral state, don't seem to reflect that this took place.   It's not hard to see that the real intent of story time is to damage the reputation of 390018, even though there is no photographic proof or original paperwork to back the claim up.     In my opinion, it is as our esteemed Vice President recently said, a bunch of "loose talk".  

[held1823]

now i might have to disagree with doug. i don't think dave's primary concern is the car itself. he said so himself, in these very words

Who cares what parts were changed or replaced?  It doesn't diminish the restoration or make this car any less of a "real" Daytona!  It actually adds to the uniqueness of the car's past.  So why lie and spin a bunch of garbage about its history?

as ghoste has already alluded to, this seems more like a personal axe being ground against the car's owner and/or restorer. the rest of the diatribe is just fuel for the fire.

i'm amused just enough to toss on a few logs.

[ECS]

But yet the photos of the car as found in a feral state, don't seem to reflect that this took place.   It's not hard to see that the real intent of story time is to damage the reputation of 390018, even though there is no photographic proof or original paperwork to back the claim up.

Wow!  When you guys can't defend your logic, you switch subject matter in mid stream.  Thats okay, I can substantiate the facts in any area you choose to run to.

You must have seen different pictures of the car than everyone else.  The pre-restoration vehicle I have seen doesn't have a panel that hasn't been repainted, touched up or manipulated.  Suddenly, a car that had three years of damage and repairs is being represented as the original that rolled off the assembly line!  If the situation were reversed and I was trying to claim similar things about one of MY cars, you guys would be ridiculing me to high Heaven!  You might also want to re-phrase your depiction of trying to "damage the reputation" of the car.  What you should have stated is that the truth about the car is threatening to expose the lies that are being told about its past.  Don't worry, I WILL have a video interviewing one of the Dealership guys who converted the car.  Lets see your "spin" on the subject matter then.

You are correct about the "original paperwork" however.  I certainly was not provided with the "original" they claim to have had.  I was given a hand written sheet to make the Build-sheets that they requested for the car.  Lets see......they had the original, wanted 2 copies but submitted a hand written example for me to use as a format.  I see no contradiction in that scenario....do you?      

[richRTSE]

You really can't be serious?  Are you so narrow minded that you can't understand the analogy for what it is?  Gene Lewis is in the same position as Ralph Weidner in the comparison!  Wasn't Gene "retelling information" passed along to him on this forum?  Gene passing along "stories" told by the original owners (where he was not personally present to confirm) is no different than Ralph passing along information told by those who said they took the parts off of the car that you guys claimed HE couldn't confirm.  Did I really need to explain that?
 

I can see where you're coming from on this Dave, and yes, essentially Gene coming on here and relaying previous owners' stories is hearsay too. But, right or wrong, I think most people (at least me anyway) put more "faith" in the story of a person/persons who actually owned and drove a car for years than a mechanic, salesman, area rep, etc who may have spend a few hours with it 40+ years ago. And Gene seemed find evidence to support alot of what the original owners told him (such as glass he found inside the door that previous owner said was broken by the firemen, etc). And as of right now no one is disputing the history of Gene's car...

The white car, on the other hand is a different story. I don't know the car or owner personally (or you either   ), but it seems there are 2 very different stories on the history of this car. And it also seems there is some bad blood between you and the owner and/or restorer of the car. I'm not ready to go "all in" on either side of the arguement yet, there is just not enough evidence to convince me one way or the other...I don't think this is a personal attack on you or Mr Wiedner, I think all most of us are asking for is "more"....

[70Sbird]

The white car, on the other hand is a different story. I don't know the car or owner personally (or you either   ), but it seems there are 2 very different stories on the history of this car. And it also seems there is some bad blood between you and the owner and/or restorer of the car. I'm not ready to go "all in" on either side of the arguement yet, there is just not enough evidence to convince me one way or the other...I don't think this is a personal attack on you or Mr Wiedner, I think all most of us are asking for is "more"....

I think this statement pretty much sums it up for all of us following along at home!

[ECS]

And as of right now no one is disputing the history of Gene's car...

Again, I agree with you 100%.  Gene's car was not intended to be the focus of my comment.  The only point I was trying to make is that "hearsay" seems to be defined (around here) by one's feelings about a particular subject matter or the person telling the story.  When the analogy is the same but people react completely different towards the examples, they are contradicting their own positions and views.

I hope to get in touch with the person who did the conversion on the "winged" car later today.  Stay tuned!

[ECS]

INFO KEEPS CHANGEING AND ATTACKS ON ALL THAT DISAGREE WITH HIS PERSONAL AGENDA?

If you are referring to me, find ONE place where my story has changed.  And regarding people getting "banned" for personal attacks, there would be no less than 7 people (including you now) who fall into that category.

........friends with or part of the shysters camp I presume?

[djcarguy]

I live on west coast and have never met anyone of the owner ,restorer and defenly  NOT YOU ,,ECS-DARRYL OR WHO EVER YOUR POSTING AS,AS OF THIS MOMENT???   I LOVE MOPARS and have owned and enjoy driving and repairing them for 37 years. sure not on anyoneS team and dont give a damn about numbers and paper work.. the CAR title is all i care about and enjoying MY rideS .

 Will spend more time and interest in cars that are driven and enjoyed.with personal mods and paint then any bone stock,factory TRailer QUEEN.    have a nice day and chill out,THE WORLD AND GUYS HERE ARE NOT BAD GUYS OR OUT TO TEAM UP ON YOU.        
 THREE AWESOME DAYTONAS AT A SHOW AND THIS IS WHAT IT IS REDUCED TOO.   MUCH LATTER,OR NEVER. DJ CANT WE BEE FRIENDS AND ALL GET ALONG

[C5X DAYTONA]

I live on west coast and have never met anyone of the owner ,restorer and defenly  NOT YOU ,,ECS-DARRYL OR WHO EVER YOUR POSTING AS,AS OF THIS MOMENT???   I LOVE MOPARS and have owned and enjoy driving and repairing them for 37 years. sure not on anyoneS team and dont give a damn about numbers and paper work.. the CAR title is all i care about and enjoying MY rideS .

 Will spend more time and interest in cars that are driven and enjoyed.with personal mods and paint then any bone stock,factory TRailer QUEEN.    have a nice day and chill out,THE WORLD AND GUYS HERE ARE NOT BAD GUYS OR OUT TO TEAM UP ON YOU.        
 THREE AWESOME DAYTONAS AT A SHOW AND THIS IS WHAT IT IS REDUCED TOO.   MUCH LATTER,OR NEVER. DJ CANT WE BEE FRIENDS AND ALL GET ALONG

West Coast here too.    I drive the piss out of all my cars too.  But I am also heavy into the paper work.   Time slips and build sheets.   

[Aero426]

That variation (supposedly) came out as a service replacement sometime around 1972.

As I am sure you also know, the material was used on Superbirds constructed in late 1969.    

I am not suggesting it was installed new on the Daytona.    But it is a vulnerable part and could have been changed at any point in time.  

[held1823]

i'd like to see if i'm up to speed on the original topic, that being that daytona #390018 was sold new, without its aero parts, by st. anne dodge.

if i am correct, the evidence presented thus far is as follows:

1. a zone rep's secondhand accounting of the parts being removed. this has not been shown to be right or wrong, at this time.

2. photographs show this car will all of its parts intact. it has been noted by some that the nose cone patina does not match the rest of the car, and that white paint is seen on the fender to nose seal. to them, this "proves" that the cone was painted at a different time than the rest of the car. this is the part of the "proof" for those people that the car was indeed stripped of its parts when new.

to others, especially those aware of the massive amount of paint issues found on these cars when new, it does not seem uncommon for mismatched paint to be found on any daytona. at least one car was completely repainted under warranty, for this very reason. for all anyone knows, the nose cone on 390018 could have been spray painted by anyone, and at any time, which could explain the patina concern and the paint seen on the seal. to these people, this is not proof that the car was sold new with those parts removed.

3. buildsheet font spacing has sidetracked the thread. this discourse was offered to "prove" that the current owner of the car is misrepresenting it. it should be noted that buildsheets for other daytonas have been presented, which show the same "incorrect" spacing as seen on 390018. regardless of the outcome here, this has absolutely nothing to do with the car when it was sold over forty years ago.

4. the grille screen on 390018 is a type not normally found on daytonas. this has also been suggested as "proof" that the car did have its parts removed prior to being sold new. whether this screen material was first available in 1969 or 1972 will not establish the removal of the parts from the car. the screen itself is easily damaged, and could have been replaced at any time.

if i am missing anything, please bring me up to speed, as we await the proverbial smoking gun that will prove that the car sold new, without the aero parts installed.

[nvrbdn]

i was going to ask the same thing about the screen. if it had been damaged wouldnt it be replaced with whatever was available?

[richRTSE]

if i am missing anything, please bring me up to speed, as we await the proverbial smoking gun that will prove that the car sold new, without the aero parts installed.

Thats is a pretty good summary Ernie. If I'm not mistaken, the honeycomb grille has been claimed to be original equipment on this car...please someone correct me if I'm wrong about that? To me it wouldn't make sense to put a part like that on an OE GOLD-level restoration unless that is the claim...

[moparstuart]

i was going to ask the same thing about the screen. if it had been damaged wouldnt it be replaced with whatever was available?

yup I'll even go the other way  when i got my Superbird nose cone it had Daytona  mesh in the grille .

  I'm sure back then you would put what ever the dealer could get you in your grille if it got damaged .  I'm surprised we havent seen pictures of chicken wire or what ever someone could find at the local hardware or farm and home store .

[nascarxx29]

I ve seen a handfulls of original daytonas with the honeycomb screen material

[djcarguy]

    HELLO ECS,  I would like to sign up to meet and have lunch with your people.  As i am retired,divorced with no young kids i can pack and head out on short notice.As i love mopars and the truth and never owned a real wing car or t\a-aar. And on west coast and have never met the people invalved with this daytona or you,i have no team or dog in this topic and will be swayed only by the TURTH.
   Have owned  and repaired my own rigs for 40 years now,iam 53. had over 100 cars and showed and won sence 1985 with my 67 Belvedere ragtop mild custom.   but never been invalved on either side of the oem ,show or judge events.
 

Well  i think i would be a indepenant ear and have only met 4 members from this site in person,all from out west . To save some cost for all expence trip. i can fly out and take AM-track back to make a few stop to see family.will cover my own rental car and meals.        PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THIS WILL WORK FOR YOU.SINCERELY A LONG TIME MOPAR FAN AND OWNER.  THANKS FOR LISTENING. DAVID J,FROM OREGON-WEST COAST.

P.S. Full disclosure i was in Kansas,15 years ago with wife and kids to see her family. now divorced with only family in indana and nevada,wash and my native state of OREGON. LATTER DJ   

[maxwellwedge]

Creative painted the noses etc. - usually (if not always) with lacquer....installed on the car. This can cause different shades etc. between the original factory painted areas vs. the Creative painted parts. Super original cars show paint on the nose seals in areas where the masking was done sloppily. Everything Creative did was fairly sloppy.

Over the counter NOS grilles were usually the incorrect mesh pattern.

[Aero426]

Creative painted the noses etc. - usually (if not always) with lacquer....installed on the car. This can cause different shades etc. between the original factory painted areas vs. the Creative painted parts. Super original cars show paint on the nose seals in areas where the masking was done sloppily. Everything Creative did was fairly sloppy.

Over the counter NOS grilles were usually the incorrect mesh pattern.

Jim, by mentioning Creative and painted on the car, you are speaking of Daytona noses, correct?   

[maxwellwedge]

Sorry - Yes - Daytona's.