4 Door Plymouth Barracuda

[AKcharger]

ECS Since your seem genuinely puzzled as why no one believes this car was made, are skeptical or demand evidence, please sit back and let me offer an example, agreed more elaborate than a car but the principles are the same..it might help you understand.

OK, in this story my shop is building the XF-113 a concept fighter that Douglas Aircraft made in 1966. There is no record of this plane anywhere, no photos, no drawings, nothing but an eye witness account of Stanley Higgins who worked at the plant for a month in 1966 and saw the plane. At the time he was a parts runner in warehouse 14  and saw the plane for a few times as he delivered a load of Zeus fasteners. He later quit and moved on to a career in Horticulture but is an avid military aircraft historical. I tell the world that I'm building a flying example of the XF-113 that Douglas made in 1966 based on Stanley's recollection I use a salvaged A-4 Center section and add other known Douglas parts to make the plane, just like they did in 1966... Then the "attacks" begin!

- People  say Douglas never made the plane for a host of reasons...I respond that they could have made it and post stories and pictures about other aircraft like the X-13, F2Y ect to support my case, of course it's not the XF-113
- They say Someone would have seen it...I point out there were tons of other hangars and workshops so it wasn't in plan view
- They say there would be records or pictures somewhere...I point out Douglas merged with McDonald Aircraft and later bought by Boeing so all the records must have been lost?
- Could Stanley have seen anyother fighter plane and confused it, made a mistake in the past 48 years or in anyway shape or form been mistaken since it's only his word?...NO absoultly not, he saw the XF-113 period! If you do not believe that you are wrong!

Can you understand why people would be justifiably skeptical of my XF-113?

My Shop's XF-113 under construction

This is what the XF-113 looked like but it was shorter and had forward canards

Here's some other concept fighter to "PROVE" the XF-113 existed

[AKcharger]

 

[ECS]

I'm still wondering if this is the car he seen...

I am currently out of the Country but received an email from Roger earlier this evening!  This is the first contact I have had with him and wanted to post the content of his email below.  I copied it WORD FOR WORD!  He also provided his personal phone number and I will call him when I get back next week.  It does appear that he DID know the difference between a 4 Door B Body and a 4 Door E Body!  I'm getting closer and I do believe his story.

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your interest in the 4-door 1970 Barracuda I saw at Chrysler's 1969 world headquarters. I worked in Chrysler's mail room so I had access to just about anywhere with this Highland Park complex. The main administration building where Lynn Townsend and even Tom Hoover had their offices had a loading dock, or platform, out back where I often saw a variety  of cars setting as I walked by on my daily route. In around November of 1969 I walked past this platform and saw a 1970 4-door Barracuda in red with conventional rally wheels. I have no idea if the car was an actual driver but it looked like it could be from the 80-100 foot distance I watched it from. I actually made a note to get a closer look one day but just never bothered until it was too late. The car sat on this loading dock for about four days and I passed it twice each of those days. After it was moved, I never saw it again. I asked Hoover about the car many years later when I saw him at Road Atlanta during Chrysler's stint in Formula 5000 racing with the Union Oil "Shadow" race car team (powered by a 305 inch version of the 340). Hoover just laughed and said engineering didn't pay much attention to the styling guys back then but he didn't remember it. I thought the car cut a surprisingly nice profile even though I was always a 2-door kind of guy.
Regards,
Roger Johnson

[AKcharger]

... I have no idea if the car was an actual driver but it looked like it could be from the 80-100 foot distance I watched it from. I actually made a note to get a closer look one day but just never bothered until it was too late. Roger Johnson[/b]

So he only saw it from 80-100 feet and never got closer? Interesting   

[ECS]

So he only saw it from 80-100 feet and never got closer? Interesting    

I'm not going to argue the topic anymore.  I feel that I am close to collecting information that will help.  You guys continue to jump from one extreme to the other.  First the car never existed!  Then Roger was probably confused about what he saw!  I'm sure the next argument is that he probably couldn't recognize anything past 50 feet away.  Instead of continuing with hypotheticals that are ALWAYS to the contrary of what he said, why don't you wait until I can call him and get a better perspective of the details?  I was elated when I came back from Dinner this evening to find that he sent me the message.  I am on a Cruise Ship near Mexico so our internet service didn't get turned on until after Midnight.  I'm going to message him back and set up a time to call.  We'll see what transpires.

[AKcharger]

Wait, your out on a cruise ship??? Why are you wasting your time here!!!!!

Go have some fun and then come and re-join the fun when you get back 

[chargerjy9]

So now Tom Hoover doesn't remember it?  Hmmm...
Please build the car, just don't make the claim that it is a tribute to a running prototype that Chrysler built and destroyed. The evidence is mounting against that. Call it a "what if "car then that sparks of legitimacy. No one would have a problem.

[TUFCAT]

AKCharger you made some excellent points.   Very apropos to the situation with Mr. Johnson at Chrysler but you may have struck a nerve....

I'm not going to argue the topic anymore.

[TUFCAT]

I am on a Cruise Ship near Mexico so our internet service didn't get turned on until after Midnight.  

Great!  Did you take Resq302 with you...?  

So now Tom Hoover doesn't remember it?  Hmmm...

No big surprise there.  

[ECS]

just don't make the claim that it is a tribute to a running prototype that Chrysler built and destroyed. The evidence is mounting against that.

You said it backwards.  I said many pages ago that WE are building a Running Prototype of the Concept Car that Roger Johnson saw.  Thus far, everything you have said is either backwards or the opposite of reality.  Same with your observation about "evidence" mounting against the Car!  Just like everything else you have said.......we should take the opposite to understand the facts. 

[ECS]

I'm done debating these guys.

I'm not going to argue the topic anymore.

That's right!  Why argue about what Roger sent to me in an email?  I certainly can't change the content of what he said by answering your ridiculous questions.  Go ask him why he said what he said or go argue with the wall if you can't reach him.

[ECS]

Wait, your out on a cruise ship??? Why are you wasting your time here!!!!!

Go have some fun and then come and re-join the fun when you get back 

It doesn't take much time to post a couple of comments.  Right now, I'm waiting for my Wife to get back with her coffee while over looking the promenade.  Talk to you later! 

[odcics2]

Wait, your out on a cruise ship??? Why are you wasting your time here!!!!!

Go have some fun and then come and re-join the fun when you get back 

It doesn't take much time to post a couple of comments.  Right now, I'm waiting for my Wife to get back with her coffee while over looking the promenade.  Talk to you later! 

Need to know this ASAP --------------->  How many doors on the ship??     
Document them! 

Seriously, have fun!   

[pettybird]

You guys continue to jump from one extreme to the other.  First the car never existed!  Then Roger was probably confused about what he saw!  

For the record, this isn't 'jumping from one extreme to another.'  few here believe the car exists, but are willing to give Roger the benefit of the doubt that something close (which he could be confused about seeing) existed, and the idea that he saw the '71 4 door is an example of reconciling the story with a plausible scenario.

[pettybird]

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

Also for the record, this is another stupid comparison.  GM was so fraking big it could do anything it wanted.  Continuing to argue using GM prototypes as examples is as silly as saying 'well, the USA went to the moon in the 1960's, so it's totally plausible that Uruguay could have done the same.'

[ECS]

few here believe the car exists...... (which he could be confused about seeing)

Well there's some REAL proof!  If you guys don't "believe" it, then it must not have happened.  And if Roger's real life commentary doesn't coincide with what you guys "believe" then he MUST be confused about what he saw.  Brilliant deduction..........simply brilliant!     

[TUFCAT]

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".

The funny thing is, with all of his talk about "backtracking",  ECS is probably on the cruise ship looking back through this thread and whitewashing a bunch of his posts.     Even though I've quoted him every time, if there were any changes, I'm sure he would just claim "I modified them"...so here's a few more quotes I missed, with some "classics"  

Actually, looks like they removed a LOT of posts.   Alan Gallant looks like he is talking to himself.  

I removed them.

Here you go Tuffy  It's not the first page, but the one I'm currently reading
http://www.cuda-challenger.com/cc/index.php?topic=85677.45

Now I understand why you quote everything

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:

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?

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.  

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.  

I am currently out of the Country but received an email from Roger earlier this evening!  This is the first contact I have had with him and wanted to post the content of his email below.  I copied it WORD FOR WORD!  He also provided his personal phone number and I will call him when I get back next week.  It does appear that he DID know the difference between a 4 Door B Body and a 4 Door E Body!  I'm getting closer and I do believe his story.

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your interest in the 4-door 1970 Barracuda I saw at Chrysler's 1969 world headquarters. I worked in Chrysler's mail room so I had access to just about anywhere with this Highland Park complex. The main administration building where Lynn Townsend and even Tom Hoover had their offices had a loading dock, or platform, out back where I often saw a variety  of cars setting as I walked by on my daily route. In around November of 1969 I walked past this platform and saw a 1970 4-door Barracuda in red with conventional rally wheels. I have no idea if the car was an actual driver but it looked like it could be from the 80-100 foot distance I watched it from. I actually made a note to get a closer look one day but just never bothered until it was too late. The car sat on this loading dock for about four days and I passed it twice each of those days. After it was moved, I never saw it again. I asked Hoover about the car many years later when I saw him at Road Atlanta during Chrysler's stint in Formula 5000 racing with the Union Oil "Shadow" race car team (powered by a 305 inch version of the 340). Hoover just laughed and said engineering didn't pay much attention to the styling guys back then but he didn't remember it. I thought the car cut a surprisingly nice profile even though I was always a 2-door kind of guy.
Regards,
Roger Johnson

I'm not going to argue the topic anymore.  I feel that I am close to collecting information that will help.  You guys continue to jump from one extreme to the other.  First the car never existed!  Then Roger was probably confused about what he saw!  I'm sure the next argument is that he probably couldn't recognize anything past 50 feet away.  Instead of continuing with hypotheticals that are ALWAYS to the contrary of what he said, why don't you wait until I can call him and get a better perspective of the details?  I was elated when I came back from Dinner this evening to find that he sent me the message.  I am on a Cruise Ship near Mexico so our internet service didn't get turned on until after Midnight.  I'm going to message him back and set up a time to call.  We'll see what transpires.

That's right!  Why argue about what Roger sent to me in an email?  I certainly can't change the content of what he said by answering your ridiculous questions.  Go ask him why he said what he said or go argue with the wall if you can't reach him.

Well there's some REAL proof!  If you guys don't "believe" it, then it must not have happened.  And if Roger's real life commentary doesn't coincide with what you guys "believe" then he MUST be confused about what he saw.  Brilliant deduction..........simply brilliant!     

[AKcharger]

I'm having such fun with this thread 

[dyslexic teddybear]

I'm having such fun with this thread  

Plus, it's educational too.

Without this thread, we would have never known of the connection between Ethel Merman and ECS and 4 door Barracudas  

And now......with the wonders of the internet.....they are forever linked! 

[ECS]

....with all of his talk about "backtracking",  ECS is probably on the cruise ship looking back through this thread and whitewashing a bunch of his posts.

My "Backtracking"?  That's funnier than any line from the Comedy Show we saw earlier today!  You might want to edit your posts before I make it back next week.  I received another informative email but can't post pictures.  I must say tuffy, this has been very enjoyable!  It will be nice to see if you are man enough to admit you were COMPLETELY wrong or if you will continue to talk about things like "trick photography" or "photoshop" or any other excuses to cover your tracks.  You might want to discuss how to handle this ordeal with your "parts supplier".  I understand he has lots of practice in having to shovel his way out of garbage piles.  

[TUFCAT]

....with all of his talk about "backtracking",  ECS is probably on the cruise ship looking back through this thread and whitewashing a bunch of his posts.

My "Backtracking"?  That's funnier than any line from the Comedy Show we saw earlier today!  You might want to edit your posts before I make it back next week.  I received another informative email but can't post pictures.  I must say tuffy, this has been very enjoyable!  It will be nice to see if you are man enough to admit you were COMPLETELY wrong or if you will continue to talk about things like "trick photography" or "photoshop" or any other excuses to cover your tracks.  You might want to discuss how to handle this ordeal with your "parts supplier".  I understand he has lots of practice in having to shovel his way out of garbage piles.  

PUH-Lease!!  I'm way funnier than any comedy show.  Just read the last 21 pages....

[chargerjy9]

just don't make the claim that it is a tribute to a running prototype that Chrysler built and destroyed. The evidence is mounting against that.

You said it backwards.  I said many pages ago that WE are building a Running Prototype of the Concept Car that Roger Johnson saw.  Thus far, everything you have said is either backwards or the opposite of reality.  Same with your observation about "evidence" mounting against the Car!  Just like everything else you have said.......we should take the opposite to understand the facts.  

WHAT!!!! these next words are your own words,  taken from early in the post. they are not my words:

"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

Oh, and by the way, ECS, another of the "'breakfast buddies", this person was a DIRECTOR of Product Planning for Chrysler, when asked if Chrysler did a 4 door Barracuda prototype said, ( Now I know you get apopleptic over this word ) he said "never".

Prominent people  in Styling didn't see or remember, prominent people in Engineering didn't see or remember , prominent people in Product Planning didn't see or remember.
Who is left in the company that could have built this vehicle?

[ECS]

I'm way funnier than any comedy show. Just read the last 21 pages....

The funniest was the one below fluffy......and from the very first page!  You'll probably end up feeling like your pants fell down in front of a crowd while giving a speech.  


"I talked to him about this cobbled up abortion of a Barracuda Dave at ECS is trying to convince the world to be some sort of estranged engineering prototype.....

READY FOR THE ANSWER??  

IT NEVER EXISTED. PERIOD."  

[ECS]

Who is left in the company that could have built this vehicle?

Casper the Friendly Ghost! 

[TUFCAT]

I'm done debating these guys.

I'm not going to argue the topic anymore.

The funniest was the one below fluffy......and from the very first page!  You'll probably end up feeling like your pants fell down in front of a crowd while giving a speech.  


"I talked to him about this cobbled up abortion of a Barracuda Dave at ECS is trying to convince the world to be some sort of estranged engineering prototype.....

READY FOR THE ANSWER??

IT NEVER EXISTED. PERIOD."

Since you seem to be back in the mood to argue, why not answer the question as to why you're putting a Chrysler VIN on that car?...or why the body has factory appearing partial vin stampings in the correct production places?

(pictures from the bottom of page 19 of this thread)