4 Door Plymouth Barracuda

[TUFCAT]

Gratified you got my point. Wouldn't want to waste your valuable time if you didn't get the point.


I think your a bit harsh on the "mail room" employee there......I sense some negativity.....or perhaps a subconscious fear is driving your feelings.....


Of course, from your previous posts.....if the "mail room" employee goes on to a career as an automotive journalist, then he becomes trustworthy......with a perfect memory......

I'm guessing Roger Johnson wished he kept that "little secret" to himself right about now.  

[Aero426]

I see photos of the car sitting on the scaffolding being worked on.    As you are taking on the ambitious project of building the car up from components, how did you maintain the unibody dimensions as you are building out from the center section?     Are there more photos of that process?   I checked on FBBO and did not see anything else.  

[Ram07]

This is an interesting thread, awesome build, great talent for sure building it! I kinda like the car, will be interesting to see how it looks once completed.

As far all the bickering, it seems like a case of he said/she said.

Both parties are going off of hearsay...One guys say, so and so saw it, so it must be true (although a very credible source it seems, even though he was a low level employee back in the day), if I were that man in question, I'd be kinda ticked off, gotta start somewhere, and I'm sure he had his mind set on advancing to higher positions somewhere along the line...so he would soak in everything he could, to advance...no?

Other Guy says his Father(another credible source) worked there, never saw it...but, did he see everything that was going on everywhere?

It will be a never ending argument between you guys...no one can win!

I'm sure back in 1969, spy photos were a little tricky to take.

One question, is there pics out there of every prototype made, ever?

ECS...Good build, awesome talent on your part...really wish I could go see a shop like yours...just to watch for a little while.

By the way, you must have expected a huge amount of backlash when you started this build....no?

[ECS]

Gee what a shock another train wreck of a thread with ECS involved  

Hey..... it's my good buddy Stu!  Below is the first post I made in this thread.  As you can see it was HORRIBLY rude in content and full of trouble making context.  After reading my comment, go to the first page of this thread and look at your friend (tufcat's) ensuing response which was so KIND and RESPECTFUL.    After getting your facts straight, come back here  and tell us who was guilty of trying to derail the thread into becoming a "train wreck".............as usual.  

"We're building the "real" version of the only Concept that was actually made in 1969.    We are updating pictures of the project on 3 other Forums.  Below is a link to one of those venues.  We can post updated pictures (here) for those who are interested."

[Homerr]

Might have been cool to see these instead of Satellites and Polaras.  Plus there would be more E-body spare parts now.

[ECS]

I see photos of the car sitting on the scaffolding being worked on.    As you are taking on the ambitious project of building the car up from components, how did you maintain the unibody dimensions as you are building out from the center section?     Are there more photos of that process?   I checked on FBBO and did not see anything else.  

Great question!  The car was originally set up on a level floor and later moved to the scaffolding for assembly.  Bill Embree was a career Employee at the St.Louis Chrysler Plant.  He and Steve worked out the engineering and design features once the B Body "shell" was stripped to the bare minimum.  Measurements were taken from the center out (in a cross pattern manner) to make sure that the design would be symmetrical and all attaching components fit properly as it was being built.  Bill was involved with Body assembly at the St. Louis Facility and they sat the car up the same way that he claimed they did it back in the day.  I didn't get a photo of him when he worked on the cars back then so I just had to take him at his word.    As the process was taking place, it did appear that he had done this before and knew what he was doing.  

[dyslexic teddybear]

First......if I may clarify.

Not my intention to in any way mock the persons building this, or the "mailroom guy". Just skeptical of the memory. Very much regret if any offence was taken.

The work speaks for itself. Needs no embellishment. Looks to be quality work, and I expect to learn from whatever is posted. Thank you.

My intention was solely to mock the embellisher.

[off line for the week......expect more here to see when I get back. Have a good one everyone.]

[ECS]

......did he see everything that was going on everywhere?.....ECS...Good build, awesome talent on your part...really wish I could go see a shop like yours...just to watch for a little while.  By the way, you must have expected a huge amount of backlash when you started this build....no?

Thanks for your input!    Earlier in the thread I posted a story on the Barracuda SX.  (I wonder if the naysayer's Father saw that car when it was built?)  Some Concept cars were built by Independent Coach Work Companies......OFF SITE.  You can reference that information in the upper right corner of the verbiage posted below.  How could Chrysler Employees see some of these cars if they were not built on Chrysler property?  Tom Barcroft works for me at ECS.  His Father was a 30 year Executive for Chrysler as was he.  His Brother is currently the CEO of the South Africa Chrysler.  When I showed Tom the information on the Barracuda SX, he said that he had no idea they ever built that car! Keep in mind that he and his entire Family are/were Career Employees for the Chrysler Corporation!

Roger Johnson may have seen a 4 Door Barracuda that had been altered by one of these Companies (off site) and then returned to the area he claimed he saw it at.  I am trying to contact him to get a first hand account of what he wrote about.  What reason would the  guy have had to lie about it?  Just to clarify things, I do not have a Shop.  All of my projects have been done at Steve Been's Shop.  As far as the "backlash" it is nothing new.  It happens with EVERYTHING we do.  There is always someone who acts as if we have done them a personal injustice by restoring or working on these cars. 

[Ram07]

.

[TUFCAT]

Gee what a shock another train wreck of a thread with ECS involved  

Hey..... it's my good buddy Stu!  Below is the first post I made in this thread.  As you can see it was HORRIBLY rude in content and full of trouble making context.  After reading my comment, go to the first page of this thread and look at your friend (tufcat's) ensuing response which was so KIND and RESPECTFUL.    After getting your facts straight, come back here  and tell us who was guilty of trying to derail the thread into becoming a "train wreck".............as usual.  

"We're building the "real" version of the only Concept that was actually made in 1969.    We are updating pictures of the project on 3 other Forums.  Below is a link to one of those venues.  We can post updated pictures (here) for those who are interested."

This is an interesting thread, awesome build, great talent for sure building it! I kinda like the car, will be interesting to see how it looks once completed.

As far all the bickering, it seems like a case of he said/she said.

Both parties are going off of hearsay...One guys say, so and so saw it, so it must be true (although a very credible source it seems, even though he was a low level employee back in the day), if I were that man in question, I'd be kinda ticked off, gotta start somewhere, and I'm sure he had his mind set on advancing to higher positions somewhere along the line...so he would soak in everything he could, to advance...no?

Other Guy says his Father(another credible source) worked there, never saw it...but, did he see everything that was going on everywhere?

It will be a never ending argument between you guys...no one can win!

I'm sure back in 1969, spy photos were a little tricky to take.

One question, is there pics out there of every prototype made, ever?

ECS...Good build, awesome talent on your part...really wish I could go see a shop like yours...just to watch for a little while.

By the way, you must have expected a huge amount of backlash when you started this build....no?

[TUFCAT]

They serve some very tasty popcorn on this site.

[AKcharger]

While interesting I don't get why that barracuda SX article keeps getting posted? I THINK it's supposed to show that there were all kinds concept cars produced, thus showing the 4 door E-body could have existed...but a multi-page magazine article also serves to show that when those different concept cars are made they get documented/highlighted to stir interest from the public...so it seems a 2 edged sword to me


But, if nothing else it has served to push the thread over the 10 page mark...Bravo!

[TUFCAT]

While interesting I don't get why that barracuda SX article keeps getting posted? I THINK it's supposed to show that there were all kinds concept cars produced, thus showing the 4 door E-body could have existed...but a multi-page magazine article also serves to show that when those different concept cars are made they get documented/highlighted to stir interest from the public...so it seems a 2 edged sword to me


But, if nothing else it has served to push the thread over the 10 page mark...Bravo!

Apples and Oranges.

[AKcharger]

Apples and Oranges.

Oh, well that explains it then 

[TUFCAT]

How could Chrysler Employees see some of these cars if they were not built on Chrysler property?  Tom Barcroft works for me at ECS.  His Father was a 30 year Executive for Chrysler as was he.  His Brother is currently the CEO of the South Africa Chrysler.  When I showed Tom the information on the Barracuda SX, he said that he had no idea they ever built that car! Keep in mind that he and his entire Family are/were Career Employees for the Chrysler Corporation!

Chrysler was a huge Corporation.  As you can see by the picture posted of Highland Park engineering, I guess it would have depended on where these people actually worked, as to what exposure they might have had on early product development in 1969-70.  

[TUFCAT]

Hey, has anyone thought about calling Mark Worman from Graveyard Carz?  Who knows, maybe we could put this whole mystery to bed with just one call  

[ECS]

While interesting I don't get why that barracuda SX article keeps getting posted?

I explained it on page 6. (I reposted that explanation below.)  You also posted on page 6 so I am surprised you continue to ask questions about things that have already been answered.  The Barracuda SX completely trumps the "opinions" about how Chrysler "NEVER" would have manufactured or wasted money on a Concept vehicle with a "sporty short wheel base design vehicle".  Below is the original quote made by Tufcat on why Chrysler would have "NEVER" made certain Concept cars. 

Tufcats Incorrect Assessment about Concept Cars:
"the process of "styling a vehicle" was not as simple as grafting an existing front and rear onto another body.  Chrysler would NEVER have gone through "such an exercise" in those days......ESPECIALLY to its sporty short wheel base design vehicle.... "


My explanation from page 6:
Chrysler made COMPLETE Concepts that never made it into production.  They "wasted" money just like the other automobile Manufacturers.  It can no longer be said a 4 Door prototype wasn't feasible due to the fact that Chrysler didn't have sufficient funds.  They obviously did!  It can no longer be said  that they wouldn't design something that wasn't logical with respect to certain design features.  They obviously designed them and then completely destroyed them!
 
This 1967 Concept Barracuda (shown below) dismisses any of those objections even if you choose not to believe that a 4 door Barracuda was actually built.  The possibility does however exist that there was a 4 Door Barracuda as described in Roger Johnson's commentary.  If Chrysler could afford to engineer, build and destroy a newly designed vehicle then they could afford to have commissioned their Coach-work affiliates to add two doors to a 1970 Barracuda that was engineered around their "new" 1971 B Body design.

[pettybird]

This build being based on a real car seems unlikely to me simply by looking at how much work is having to get done to make it come together.  

By that I mean there is a TON of fabrication being done to make it a pillared car.  If we repost the chunk of concept cars, you can see that no hardtop car got the stretch and had to deal with door frames.  If this was a hardtop car, it would seem pretty plausible since they already had pillarless C body four doors...why build the "dowdy" body shape?  

That ugly Corvette 4 door was a stretch built by a coachbuilder who probably did limo stuff.  The AMX is also a hardtop, too.  The T/A wagon is simply 'glass grafted onto the steel body, as were the Diamonte, the '71 Camaro wagon and the Formula SX.  The Motorama shot features ALL concept cars, and again they're all fiberglass.

More power to you, and I hope pics surface--

[ECS]

This build being based on a real car seems unlikely to me simply by looking at how much work is having to get done to make it come together.  

That ugly Corvette 4 door was a stretch built by a coachbuilder who probably did limo stuff.  The AMX is also a hardtop, too.  The T/A wagon is simply 'glass grafted onto the steel body, as were the Diamonte, the '71 Camaro wagon and the Formula SX.  The Motorama shot features ALL concept cars, and again they're all fiberglass.

More power to you, and I hope pics surface--

This is one of the reasons I keep posting the information on the Barracuda SX.  If you read the information at the top right corner of the page, it addresses exactly what you mentioned.  I posted it (again) for those who keep missing it.  Chrysler used some of the same "Coach-builders" to manufacture their Concept Cars from their engineering designs.  The 4 Door Barracuda may have also been one of those subcontracted designs and not a "real" car.

I'll try this again since there seems to be confusion regarding the purpose for this this car.  First, I would like to say that I should not have said the car that Roger Johnson saw was a running driving prototype.  I have no idea if it even had an Engine or Drive Train installed.  It could have been a rolling Concept just like the Barracuda SX.  If my presumptuous assessment caused confusion with this topic, I apologize for that.  

Steve and I talked about doing something different and when we read Mr. Johnson's commentary, we thought it would be interesting to bring to life a Concept car that never made it to production.  We chose to make it a running driving car with all of the details that one would find on an Assembly Line vehicle.  It is suppose to represent what might have been built by the Factory if the Concept would have been given the green light.  If you don't believe the story written by Roger Johnson.....great.....don't!  I do!  Believe me when I say it would have been easier and less expensive to have dismissed his story as fiction.  We are building this car based on the depiction of what he claims to have seen at the Chrysler World Headquarters in November of 1969.

[pettybird]

I don't think it's going very far out on a limb to say that that Formula SX didn't change any "hard points" of the car's structure.  you'd probably find A body floors, A body inner fender structures, A body door pillars, etc.  You're doing a TON more work to make it a sedan. 

You might be 10000% right, but using the Formula SX, or any other car you've posted as an example as to why doesn't really hold water.

[TUFCAT]

Doug, the article actually referred to the fact that the only thing under fiberglass shell of the Barracuda SX that even resembled a Chrysler automotive chassis (or a Flintstone Chassis for that matter), was the turnable front wheels, and they were probably turned by hand.  

Thanks for posting that point.

[ECS]

I don't think it's going very far out on a limb to say that that Formula SX didn't change any "hard points" of the car's structure.  you'd probably find A body floors, A body inner fender structures, A body door pillars, etc.  You're doing a TON more work to make it a sedan. 

You might be 10000% right, but using the Formula SX, or any other car you've posted as an example as to why doesn't really hold water.

You must have a lot more information about the Barracuda SX than what the article expressed.  I read where it was designed and built by Chrysler. It was made of fiberglass and reinforced plastics.  I have no knowledge of any existing parts that may have been used for its construction.

AGAIN, I am not saying the Barracuda SX proves anything other than its own existence!  I was simply using it as an example to negate all the hypothetical objections that were being given on why Chrysler "NEVER" would have built or wasted money on something that was not intended to be manufactured.  As mentioned in the article, Chrysler had no plans to bring the car to production. Chrysler was no different than their Competition who also wasted money manufacturing weird Concept cars.

[TUFCAT]

I don't think it's going very far out on a limb to say that that Formula SX didn't change any "hard points" of the car's structure.  you'd probably find A body floors, A body inner fender structures, A body door pillars, etc.  You're doing a TON more work to make it a sedan.  

You might be 10000% right, but using the Formula SX, or any other car you've posted as an example as to why doesn't really hold water.

You must have a lot more information about the Barracuda SX than what the article expressed.  I read where it was designed and built by Chrysler. It was made of fiberglass and reinforced plastics.  I have no knowledge of any existing parts that may have been used for its construction.

AGAIN, I am not saying the Barracuda SX proves anything other than its own existence!  I was simply using it as an example to negate all the hypothetical objections that were being given on why Chrysler "NEVER" would have built or wasted money on something that was not intended to be manufactured.  As mentioned in the article, Chrysler had no plans to bring the car to production. Chrysler was no different than their Competition who also wasted money manufacturing weird Concept cars.

..... (continued): that were photographed for magazines and shown to the general public at auto shows. - Fixed.

[ECS]

..... (continued): that were photographed for magazines and shown to the general public at auto shows. - Fixed.

You're making progress Tuffy!  You have went from complete denial of ANY Manufacturers building Concept 4 Door Cars to at least acknowledging their existence! 

[TUFCAT]

..... (continued): that were photographed for magazines and shown to the general public at auto shows. - Fixed.

You're making progress Tuffy!  You have went from complete denial of ANY Manufacturers building Concept 4 Door Cars to at least acknowledging their existence!  

Nope.  I never said that.  I acknowledged they're existence! However I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a 4-door Barracuda built by Chrysler (as a running/driving prototype) without solid proof other than hearsay.....that's quite a different story.  I'm sure you (or Resq302) will be back to disagree.  The floor is yours.