XS29L9B162001

[nascarxx29]

Ran across this searching charger
http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%2FSAC%2FAZ%2F1972%2F19720207_0040587.AZ.htm/qx

[Tilar]

162001, Would that be the first one built in 69?

[Troy]

162001, Would that be the first one built in 69?

No, there's a 62 in front of the "001".

Troy

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

162001, Would that be the first one built in 69?

100001 would be the first built @ the Hamtramck or St. Louis plant...not necessarily a Charger though

PS---not in the Registry yet either....probably burnt when stolen! 

[Alaskan_TA]

100001 would be the first VIN assigned at each plant, but that does not mean it was the first car built.

As one example, 100052 is a 1970 Hamtramck car & it's broadcast sheet shows that it was the first build scheduled on assembly line 1.  Cars were not built in VIN order.

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

True, true....

[no318]

100001 would be the first VIN assigned at each plant, but that does not mean it was the first car built.

As one example, 100052 is a 1970 Hamtramck car & it's broadcast sheet shows that it was the first build scheduled on assembly line 1.  Cars were not built in VIN order.

Please elaborate.  I am sure you are correct, but I had never heard that.  I am curious to know more.  I understand that SPO's are not necessarily accurate.  Thanks.

[Alaskan_TA]

More info at http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=A12&Number=5776089&page=0&fpart=1

Follow all the links I put there as well for more info.

[no318]

Good info.  Thanks for the link, Barry.

[nascarxx29]

While searching Charger on google news seems to be alot of chargers involved in legal issues including stolen and bad dealings etc in misc court past records
 69 Daytona legal issue about a title XX29L9B409031
Massachusetts Appellate Division ReportsBOGIEN v. AMISTADI, 1996 Mass. App. Div. 72 (1996)April 12, 1996.

Pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 231, §§ 108-110 and Dist/Mun. Cts. R.A.D.A., Rule 8C, plaintiff-appellant Peter Bogien, d/b/a Bomont Company (plaintiff), appeals from a District Court judge's finding on all counts for defendant-appellees Richard Amistadi and Jon Delli Priscoli, d/b/a The Classic Corner (defendants), claiming error in the judge's failure to find breach of warranty as the documentation delivered did not bear the proper serial numbers, breach of contract because of failure to deliver a completed certificate of title with assignment, and failure to provide plaintiff an assignment and warranty of title pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 90D, § 16. We affirm the Trial Court's judgment and dismiss the appeal.