4 Door Plymouth Barracuda

[TUFCAT]

"Some of you know that ECS is involved with building a "ONE of a KIND" Plymouth Concept Vehicle that involves both Chrysler and the DMV. We are assembling an OE type Four Door 1970 Plymouth Cuda. The concept was taken from the ONLY red vehicle that was ACTUALLY built (and later destroyed) by Chrysler in 1969.     (  how do you know "it" was destroyed BTW.)
We're building the "real" version of the only Concept that was ACTUALLY made in 1969.
Chrysler ACTUALLY made a running/driving prototype of this car and we are building a tribute to that particular vehicle.

Thanks for the input!  I have said quite a few times that this car is being built around the comments made by Roger Johnson and his recollection of a 4 Door Concept Barracuda.  We decided to undertake the project based on his story regardless of whether a picture exists!  It is a "What If" scenario that I have stated from the very beginning.  We are not saying that this is the car that Roger wrote about or that it is an exact representation of what he says he saw.  "
YOUR QUOTES

Now it is just a "what if" scenario?

you have problems with NEVER, I have problems with ACTUALLY!!

I have no problems with the build. I kinda like the idea, actually.  I am not in favor of  the fake VIN number as that passes it off as something it isn't. i.e. that 4 door was not built at Hamtramck Ass'y as the VIN code suggests.

dave, one simple question. how is YOUR backtracking any different than other people that you keep rehashing over and over and over and over? you make an apology for your "assumption", and come across like it's somehow different than other assumptions that you keep grinding on about.

you continually repost articles/photos/etc to "prove" others wrong, while ignoring the possibility that the same articles/photos/etc do more to build their case against johnson's observation, rather than build credibility to back it.

you create fantastic projects, second to none according to the judging sheets. you offer incredible reproduction pieces, yet repeatedly end up banned from the very places that could showcase them. i've seen you say you don't care, but what about the guy who might need one of those pieces, yet won't know you offer it, if you/ecs are persona non grata on the forum the guy looks to for help.

Has anyone ever thought of the idea that Roger C. Johnson is a "wee bit" of an embellisher?  Do ya think he wished he "never wrote" that story?  Real or fictitious, we haven't seen anything more from Mr. Johnson.  Apparently he's rolled up his sleeping bag long ago, and has disassociated himself from what he wrote.

[ECS]

dave, one simple question. how is YOUR backtracking any different.....

It wasn't "backtracking"!  It was being able to admit I was WRONG about an assessment and statement that I shouldn't have made.  Too bad the arrogance of others here will not allow them to admit when they have been wrong.  They continue to make excuses for why they are still "right" even while contradicting what they originally said.  THAT is "backtracking".

[resq302]

We also haven't seen anything more from Lawrence Taylor either, (retired Giants football player), but that doesn't mean he isn't still alive and out there doing what he does.  Same went for John Delorean up till his passing almost 10 years ago.  Still regret not going up and saying hi to him when he was at Morristown Memorial Hospital back in 2001.  Then again, you nay sayers would say he was never there or that I saw him since I don't have a pic.  

[DAY CLONA]

We also haven't seen anything more from Lawrence Taylor either, (retired Giants football player), but that doesn't mean he isn't still alive and out there doing what he does.  Same went for John Delorean up till his passing almost 10 years ago.  Still regret not going up and saying hi to him when he was at Morristown Memorial Hospital back in 2001.  Then again, you nay sayers would say he was never there or that I saw him since I don't have a pic.  

It's the "mentality" that the web has created, "No pic, it didn't/dosen't exists", and if/when a pic is produced, it then becomes a suspected "photoshop", or if the pic can't be disputed, then the cry for written text, docs, certificates, etc, become the next on going form for denial...it'll never end, just human nature

Example: over the last few years I've uncovered more info, pics, and locations/events that the 2 tone green 1970 Daytona has been present at, but I don't bother sharing information/pics anymore because I tire of the same BS redirect.......same for the current project I have in the works, I'm sure I'll stir more poo, and hopefully shake some more info from the automotive history buffs, but I don't look forward to the redirect....I'm too old for it carry on


Mike

[TUFCAT]

It's the "mentality" that the web has created, "No pic, it didn't/dosen't exists", and if/when a pic is produced, it then becomes a suspected "photoshop", or if the pic can't be disputed, then the cry for written text, docs, certificates, etc, become the next on going form for denial...it'll never end, just human nature

Example: over the last few years I've uncovered more info, pics, and locations/events that the 2 tone green 1970 Daytona has been present at, but I don't bother sharing information/pics anymore because I tire of the same BS redirect.......same for the current project I have in the works, I'm sure I'll stir more poo, and hopefully shake some more info from the automotive history buffs, but I don't look forward to the redirect....I'm too old for it carry on


Mike

Mike, don't become so jaded to think the world isn't interested in reading more chapters of interesting Mopar history.  

[dyslexic teddybear]

I actually hope documentation IS found.

Not to prove anyone right or wrong......just Mopar history interests me.

Mopar history is fascinating.........I have seen the watermelon car.....it's great work


The mentality of the internet works another way......a lot of fraudulent stuff is posted......thus the "prove it" mentally.

Still skeptical
Still waiting for documentation of some kind[like the pic of the watermelon car]
Still hope it's found


And to add to everything......in future searches, Ethel Mermerm will be linked to a 4dr Barracuda.

The thread is still going......it can get better.

[ECS]

Then again, you nay sayers would say he was never there or that I saw him since I don't have a pic.  

I don't understand why they don't practice what they preach!  Where is the documentation for their side of the equation?  When the "clique" posts their typed words about Concept Cars, their followers INSTANTLY agree with the OPINIONS posted by their fraternal friends.  When I post my typed words with pictures to accompany the verbiage, they ask for more "proof".  It's not the 4 Door barracuda Concept that is on trial here, it is more about who is posting the information!  By the way Brian, did you happen to read what Automotive Historian and Chrysler Employee Roger Johnson had to say about the 4 Door Barracuda Concept Car?  Here it is in case you missed it:

4-Door Barracuda
As an employee of Chrysler Corporation in 1969-70, I had the opportunity to see many things the "general public" never
did.  Not because I was that  important, but because I worked in the mail room and delivering the mail was that
important. One such sight was a bright red 1970, 4-door Barracuda.  It was parked for only about two days on a kind of  
loading dock attached to the back of Chrysler's World Headquarters building in their Highland Park complex.  This was
around November of 1969.  The dock seemed to be a temporary holding cell for an assortment of interesting cars.  It was
the same building Lynn Townsend, Virgil Boyd and more importantly Tom Hoover worked in. Naturally, Chrysler never
made a 4-door Barracuda but the one I saw looked surprisingly good.  I always assumed it was created around a B-body
chassis because the proportions still looked just right despite the obvious body stretch necessary  to pull it off. Having
seen this car is even more significant now since the Autoweek story about Ford using their new Mustang platform to
build other, less sporty cars - like a 4-door.

[TUFCAT]

By the way Brian, did you happen to read what Automotive Historian and Chrysler Employee Roger Johnson had to say about the 4 Door Barracuda Concept Car?  Here it is in case you missed it

Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson isn't talking anymore.  If he did, his reply might be something along the lines of "all I remember about this car is what I wrote about...have a nice day"

 

[JB400]

I'm still wondering if this is the car he seen   Not this car exactly, but this body style.  It looks like it could be mistaken for a Cuda esque body style.

[ECS]

NO, NO NO listen to me, PLEASE. NOT going to happen. Concept cars were and are being done by Design studios that the public never sees. But the corporation, only, thru Design Office, gives the go ahead for such projects. the corp would not sanction or put their name and reputation on a project that they knew nothing about. there is nothing done off site that they would back unless they had control.

With all this DEMAND for documentation, please provide written proof for what you stated above.  My position is that the Auto Manufacturers DID have all kinds of Concepts manufactured without anyone knowing about them.  I believe there were MANY Concept/s and Prototypes built without having to go through the typical protocol you described above.  Unless you provide something other than your typed words, it doesn't prove anything.  Again, here is the third party information (referenced in the high-lighted areas below) that supports my view on the topic.  Keep in mind that Pontiac was NOT the Corporation.  General Motors was the Corporation in charge of EVERY entity under their Corporate Brand.  Could you please provide a similar "proof" to support what you stated in your quote above?



   

[ECS]

I'm still wondering if this is the car he seen  Not this car exactly, but this body style.  It looks like it could be mistaken for a Cuda esque body style.

You would have to ask him!

[JB400]

I'm still wondering if this is the car he seen Not this car exactly, but this body style.  It looks like it could be mistaken for a Cuda esque body style.

I guess ol' Roger was also color blind.  He seemed to think the car he saw was red.

What part of this bolded part don't you understand?

I'm still wondering if this is the car he seen   Not this car exactly, but this body style.  It looks like it could be mistaken for a Cuda esque body style.

You would have to ask him!

Glad to see you got it the 2nd time

[ECS]

What part of this bolded part don't you understand?

With that same train of thought, what part of Roger Johnson's depiction don't you understand?

4-Door Barracuda
As an employee of Chrysler Corporation in 1969-70, I had the opportunity to see many things the "general public" never
did.  Not because I was that  important, but because I worked in the mail room and delivering the mail was that
important. One such sight was a bright red 1970, 4-door Barracuda.  It was parked for only about two days on a kind of  
loading dock attached to the back of Chrysler's World Headquarters building in their Highland Park complex.  This was
around November of 1969.  The dock seemed to be a temporary holding cell for an assortment of interesting cars.  It was
the same building Lynn Townsend, Virgil Boyd and more importantly Tom Hoover worked in. Naturally, Chrysler never
made a 4-door Barracuda but the one I saw looked surprisingly good.  I always assumed it was created around a B-body
chassis because the proportions still looked just right despite the obvious body stretch necessary  to pull it off. Having
seen this car is even more significant now since the Autoweek story about Ford using their new Mustang platform to
build other, less sporty cars - like a 4-door.

[JB400]

I understand all of it just fine, thank you.  But, since there is no further evidence presented that this car existed, I'm merely opening up the possibility that what he saw was in fact a red 71 Satellite 4 dr. instead of a Cuda 4 dr.   Both cars have similar body styles and both are from Plymouth.  Even you and your crew, are starting with the sister car to the Satellite as your base vehicle.  Coincidence? 

The Cuda nameplate was more heavily advertised, and is more popular than the Satellite nameplate.  Therefore, instead of saying that the car in question never existed, I'm sticking with my hypothesis that maybe it was just a matter of confusion between the 2 nameplates.

[ECS]

I'm sticking with my hypothesis that maybe it was just a matter of confusion between the 2 nameplates.

All I know is that I was chastised for saying it was a "running/driving" Concept based on the speculation that it didn't make it to the loading dock via teleportation.  I guess some of you in the "clique" are at liberty to add your hypothetical conclusions and some of us are not.  If your unprovable synopsis makes you feel better about the scenario, then by all means stick with it.    

[JB400]

I'm sticking with my hypothesis that maybe it was just a matter of confusion between the 2 nameplates.

All I know is that I was chastised for saying it was a "running/driving" Concept based on the speculation that it didn't make it to the loading dock via teleportation.  I guess some of you in the "clique" are at liberty to add your hypothetical conclusions and some of us are not.  If your unprovable synopsis makes you feel better about the scenario, then by all means stick with it.    

I'm glad you now understand where you made a misassumption.  No where in Mr. Johnson's statement did it ever say it was a running/ driving car.  However, that was one that you made, in which Tuffy the tiger and others pounced on.  Unfortunately, we'll probably never know exactly what Mr. Johnson seen.  That's why I can only offer a hypothesis, and this is what you should have done.  Doesn't matter really, it's been a fun debate.

It's a cool "What if" project and will be fun to see the outcome.  I, for one, am ready to see more progress pix of it coming together  

BTW, I'm not in a clique.

[odcics2]

What part of this bolded part don't you understand?

With that same train of thought, what part of Roger Johnson's depiction don't you understand?

4-Door Barracuda
As an employee of Chrysler Corporation in 1969-70, I had the opportunity to see many things the "general public" never
did.  Not because I was that  important, but because I worked in the mail room and delivering the mail was that
important. One such sight was a bright red 1970, 4-door Barracuda.  It was parked for only about two days on a kind of  
loading dock attached to the back of Chrysler's World Headquarters building in their Highland Park complex.  This was
around November of 1969.  The dock seemed to be a temporary holding cell for an assortment of interesting cars.  It was
the same building Lynn Townsend, Virgil Boyd and more importantly Tom Hoover worked in. Naturally, Chrysler never
made a 4-door Barracuda but the one I saw looked surprisingly good.  I always assumed it was created around a B-body
chassis because the proportions still looked just right despite the obvious body stretch necessary  to pull it off. Having
seen this car is even more significant now since the Autoweek story about Ford using their new Mustang platform to
build other, less sporty cars - like a 4-door.

I don't understand what exact building he saw the car on a dock.
There were 20 buildings at HP and a dozen docks.  Some buildings had two docks.

The three gentlemen listed did not work in the same building.

If Roger believes he saw it in the back of the Keller Building, that would make no sense.  If he would have said Bld. 128, that
would make sense since at that time the 3rd floor had some styling guys up there.
Just outside that building they had turntables which they would put cars on, rotate and take pics.

That area was closed off from the general population of Highland Park, like a mail guy.   

[TUFCAT]

If your unprovable synopsis makes you feel better about the scenario, then by all means stick with it.    

By the same token, if adding a Chrysler Vin makes you feel better about the scenario, then by all means rivet it to the dash.    

Edit:  If you want to get real authentic you can add "Property of Chrysler Corporation"

[ECS]

No where in Mr. Johnson's statement did it ever say it was a running/ driving car.  However, that was one that you made, in which Tuffy the tiger and others pounced on.....

That was not the premise for which the debate started.  They said the ENTIRE possibility for the 4 Door Barracuda was a "fantasy" and never existed. 

[ECS]

By the same token, if adding a Chrysler Vin makes you feel better about the scenario, then by all means rivet it to the dash.    

I'd say that is a foregone conclusion!

[charger Downunder]

 Get over it lets sit back and watch the pics of this 4 door Cuda being built by a real craftsman. The more time ECS is on hear the longer it will take to build and i want ECS to spend the time loading more pics.  

[chargerjy9]

I support the theory that the property seen by the mail clerk MAY have been a 4 door Plymouth Satellite, Same platform as the E body et al.

Mr. ECS, listen to what others have said, regarding the physical layout of the Highland Park complex. Those 3 gentlemen did not work in the same building, so that was probably speculation on the mail clerks part as well. Building 128 was where   Styling was located. No mail clerk would have access to the loading  dock, Period. Classified area.

The comments re GM heirarchy still stand, Each division was like a corporation unto itself. Those guys had huge budgets, they obviously did stuff on their own at times. If you know any thing about GM, as i stated before they did stuff on the QT from the other divisions because they didn't want to tip their hand. but at the end of the day they HAD to answer to the Brass at HQ. If the brass gave the thumbs down the project was  scrapped. Chrysler was too small, no one had a budget big enough to be able to bring a car to prototype stage with out knowledge and OK from the top. I worked there, if we needed a new NC mill, Sergio Marchione himself signed off on it, and that was just a few million dollars. That is the way things worked at Chrysler.

[resq302]

I support the theory that the property seen by the mail clerk MAY have been a 4 door Plymouth Satellite, Same platform as the E body et al.

Mr. ECS, listen to what others have said, regarding the physical layout of the Highland Park complex. Those 3 gentlemen did not work in the same building, so that was probably speculation on the mail clerks part as well. Building 128 was where   Styling was located. No mail clerk would have access to the loading  dock, Period. Classified area.

The comments re GM heirarchy still stand, Each division was like a corporation unto itself. Those guys had huge budgets, they obviously did stuff on their own at times. If you know any thing about GM, as i stated before they did stuff on the QT from the other divisions because they didn't want to tip their hand. but at the end of the day they HAD to answer to the Brass at HQ. If the brass gave the thumbs down the project was  scrapped. Chrysler was too small, no one had a budget big enough to be able to bring a car to prototype stage with out knowledge and OK from the top. I worked there, if we needed a new NC mill, Sergio Marchione himself signed off on it, and that was just a few million dollars. That is the way things worked at Chrysler.

And yet if everyone at GM did stuff on the QT, then how did the Pontiac 2 door prototype that was almost an identical twin to the Corvette come about? 

http://www.barrett-jackson.com/images/carjpg/2006bjcca/2/1311/2006BJCCA2_1311_34.jpg

[ECS]

Get over it lets sit back and watch the pics of this 4 door Cuda being built by a real craftsman. The more time ECS is on hear the longer it will take to build and i want ECS to spend the time loading more pics.  

I'll get some updated pictures posted later this week.  I'm done debating these guys.  I have asked numerous times for them to post third party verbiage that supports their opinions but continue to get nothing.  I don't know why they continue to criticize Roger Johnson's account of the 4 Door Barracuda!?  They don't believe HIS words but everyone is suppose to believe THEIR words. 

[JB400]

This week is over

Can't wait to see these pix