Challenger T/A and 'Cuda AAR mandatory mileage

[70Sbird]

That guy doesn't look anything like me!  This is me............
(We really should consider having these discussions in person!  Much less typing of course.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Av76oxveQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk-AH1ntafw

WOW has this thread taken a turn.
Dave, so now your right because you lift weights and can hit a punching bag?
What possible relevance do these videos have to this topic or thread?

This is the internet so I guess anything is possible...

[pettybird]

That guy doesn't look anything like me!  This is me............
(We really should consider having these discussions in person!  Much less typing of course.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Av76oxveQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk-AH1ntafw

[moparstuart]

 

[ECS]

Just having a little fun!  The last post was hilarious.  

[Ghoste]

Stu can always be counted on for a laugh.

[moparstuart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=jo3m2ATiomY&NR=

[ECS]

While not 'documented and official', anecdotal 'evidence' from people who bought these cars new would be a good place to start.I know I would have lots of questions before buying a 'new' car that had 500 miles on it, and surely the dealerships had to show some kind of documentation on why this was happening to ease a potential buyer's mind?

Okay............who is willing to revisit and state their opinion concerning this information?  Lets place those bets about how ridiculous the information was regarding "mandated miles".  Is there documented paperwork from Chrysler proving this subject matter?  Who wants to commit to one particular side of the equation regarding this topic?    

[ECS]

How many miles a day did he drive?  Since he seemed to look down upon other reps that "cheated," he would have logged at LEAST 65,000 miles in T/A's.  That's 13 cars times "at least" 500 miles.  If he drove them to the higher end of his estimate, he'd be wheeling around for nearly 130,000 miles.  That's 20 to 40 trips from California to New York and back.  Doing more math, that's about 25 different T/A's being driven 500-1000 miles EACH DAY for three months straight.  Assuming about 50 zone reps, that's four hours behind the wheel for every rep, every day, 7 days a week, until they were approved.

Hey pettybird!  How have you been doing?  I was just wondering if you could provide us all with some additional statistics on things like "trips to the moon" or other genius logic concerning the impossibility of Chrysler Zone Managers driving their cars 500 miles in a short period of time.  Since you used a "7 days a week" in your quote above, lets stick with that number.  I know I am being absolutely ridiculous but please tell us how many miles you believe COULD have been driven in that 7 day period period IF there was a "mandated mileage" from Chrysler?  

[ECS]

All it takes is documentation stating all the cars need to be driven prior to delivery, and this will all be put to bed.

Is everyone who was following this thread a few weeks ago in agreement with the quote above?

[Ghoste]

Rather than a couple of baiting threads, since you obviously must have documentation now, why not just post it?  (I think for me personally anyway, the facts surrounding the matter are of more interest than which guy can trade the cleverest barb    )

[Ghoste]

Are you more interested in setting up and winning a stupid internet argument because some of us asked for proof on a previously unheard of and bizarre sounding claim or as a vintage car enthusiast would you like to see the shared knowledge on the topic grow so that we all benefit?

Just post the information man.

[Tom Q]

Ummmm there is an official document that details all of the homlogation requirements for the trans am cars.
It is quite extensive...in there would be this so called 500 mile requirement. As I  have no horse in the race I will leave it to one of the experts to find this document and review it to find the truth. If the requirement is not in the official homologation rules it it just hot air like other subjects.

[held1823]

All it takes is documentation stating all the cars need to be driven prior to delivery, and this will all be put to bed.

Is everyone who was following this thread a few weeks ago in agreement with the quote above?

not everyone. just because it was supposed to happen, does not mean it happened.

in fairness, however, we will give your theory equal consideration. let's assume that factory documentation is indeed flawless. that assumption would prove that the stray bolt seen in this photo would not be possible.

[Ghoste]

I get the impression that some sort of documentation has been found but I really wish it could just get posted instead of the "I dare you to still challenge me" opening salvo's.  There is a similar post in the aero forum where all of this started.

[BrianShaughnessy]

That sounds like a big bowl of crap to me.  The actual race cars were probably bodies in white for all I know.       340 6 packs were offered to jazz up the package for the showroom... IIRC the racers used destroked 305 cube 4 barrels.

The aars and ta's sold at a dealer have about as much in common with the racers as did the superbirds and daytonas.

[ECS]

All it takes is documentation stating all the cars need to be driven prior to delivery, and this will all be put to bed.

Is everyone who was following this thread a few weeks ago in agreement with the quote above?

not everyone. just because it was supposed to happen, does not mean it happened.

in fairness, however, we will give your theory equal consideration. let's assume that factory documentation is indeed flawless. that assumption would prove that the stray bolt seen in this photo would not be possible.

I dont' have a "theory" just the documented facts printed by Chrysler.  Ridiculous rationale and hypotheticals will not dismiss the facts.  The "debate" was over mandated milage on AAR's & T/A's.  It was plainly stated by a few here that this NEVER took place.  There was NO WAY that these cars would or could have been driven 500 plus miles in a short period of time by Zone Managers.  For the record, I discovered that this wasn't specific to just those type cars.  It was happening with MANY types of Chrysler vehicles across the board.  I will post the information on Monday.   Some of you can then start back peddling and explaining what you really meant during this debate.

[ECS]

Are you more interested in setting up and winning a stupid internet argument because some of us asked for proof on a previously unheard of and bizarre sounding claim or as a vintage car enthusiast would you like to see the shared knowledge on the topic grow so that we all benefit?

How could I possibly have have Documentation about something that never occurred?  You and your cronies spent days telling me how dumb and naive my comments were and now you want to frame that rudeness as an appeal for "shared knowledge" and/or a request "for proof"?  What a joke!  And yes, I received information late yesterday evening specific to the way Chrysler handled "mandated mileage" with their sales bank/warranted driven vehicles.  I will post it Monday.  Keep in mind that pettybird provided a few math scenarios about mileage that NEVER could be driven by the Zone Managers in a short period of time.  

I hope the big shots that have offered nothing more than fact less commentary will continue placing their foot further in their mouths.  How empowering it must be to call Chrysler Executives liars and mock their recollection of the duties they performed during their tenure.  Of course when this information is posted, those of you who are truly "in the know" will continue to argue and offer explanations about data that you claimed never existed in the first place.  Until then, keep those comments coming!

[cdr]

GHOSTE thankyou for trying to allow a civil discussion   

[Ghoste]

I won't need to back peddle, I have asked for the documentation or some sort of proof all along.  If you have it then I say fantastic!  No need to post challenges as we are all after the same thing here, just the provable facts.

[ECS]

GHOSTE thankyou for trying to allow a civil discussion   

Wow!  The hypocrisy and selective oversights around here are amazing!   Where was your supportive demeanor when I was being pelted with "civil" comments such as the ones below? 

"Please prove me wrong but this has to be one of the dumbest stories I've ever read."

"Even the assholes/retards at the FIA didn't make its teams do that.  To make the logical leap from a white car driven by a former employee logging 500 miles to the ENTIRE production run doing so requires a lot more faith than I have to offer."

"but by federal decree each converted car had a piece of moon rock sealed into the torsion bar crossmember.  You wouldn't doubt a NASA retiree if he told you that, right?"

"SCCA very much WANTED the oem participation in 1970 thats why the relaxed the cid rule so why on earth would they tack such a ridiculous add on to the rules?  It just doens't make any sense."

"you can save yourself some trouble. we non-believers are obviously beneath your station in life. feel free to go on with your witty, self-absorbed supremacy elsewhere, and leave us clueless minions to wallow in our own ignorance. we shall blame no one but ourselves, for missing out on our chance to rewrite history. you can tell everyone you told us so"

[ECS]

I won't need to back peddle, I have asked for the documentation or some sort of proof all along.  If you have it then I say fantastic!  No need to post challenges as we are all after the same thing here, just the provable facts.

I agree but it appears that many of you simply deem your typed words as "facts" while others have to provide notarized documentation.  As I said, I have exactly what I have been searching for but need to have it scanned, down loaded to our computer server and then it will be posted.  Until then, maybe some of you who have called my Chrysler Executive Friends liars, can post your documentation which supports your claims and views.  Isn't that what you just referenced in your quote above?  I hope this isn't a debate where the rules apply to only one side!  By all means, post your documentation so we can compare the two come Monday.

[Ghoste]

Well at least you are taking the high road.

[Ghoste]

You have an interesting way of viewing things.  In any case I am just happy that you are finally going to give something which can be accepted as fact more easily than hearsay evidence no matter which side it comes from and that the issue will finally be put to bed.

[mauve66]

this is supposed to be a discussion not a shouting match

[held1823]

I won't need to back peddle, I have asked for the documentation or some sort of proof all along.  If you have it then I say fantastic!  No need to post challenges as we are all after the same thing here, just the provable facts.

I agree but it appears that many of you simply deem your typed words as "facts" while others have to provide notarized documentation.  As I said, I have exactly what I have been searching for but need to have it scanned, down loaded to our computer server and then it will be posted.  Until then, maybe some of you who have called my Chrysler Executive Friends liars, can post your documentation which supports your claims and views.  Isn't that what you just referenced in your quote above?  I hope this isn't a debate where the rules apply to only one side!  By all means, post your documentation so we can compare the two come Monday.

i'll play along, first using my perception of dave walden's mentality

i hereby submit indisputable proof that all 1969 charger 500's were hemi cars.  below is a scan of the factory documentation proving this claim.