Challenger T/A and 'Cuda AAR mandatory mileage

[held1823]

(back to my non-believing self)

i present document number two, clearly illustrating that official factory documentation is not always correct.

btw, haloperidol can be your friend...

[ECS]

(back to my non-believing self)

i present document number two, clearly illustrating that official factory documentation is not always correct.

btw, haloperidol can be your friend...

Did we just switch topics?  You present a new vehicle bulletin and a correction addendum as proof to counter the mandate of an established mileage/warranty program?  The level of genus being displayed by here never ceases to amaze me.  Yeah, that's certainly "dave walden's mentality".  Use an apple to justify an an orange.

Note:  My Computer Programer is downloading the document so I can post it here today.  I will have it within the next hour and it will be an ESTABLISHED FORM that was used Corporate wide in 1970.  It will not be an obsolete bulletin announcing a change in a program that was never used.  Chrysler CONTINUES to use the same guidelines for their sales bank vehicles today!

[ECS]

Well at least you are taking the high road.

I just can't figure out if your quotes were considered the "high road" before or after I re-listed them EXACTLY the way you guys posted them!

[Ghoste]

My roads have always been whatever ones you feel they are.  From the beginning I have expressed disbelief but at no time (that I recall) did I attack you in a personal manner.  I've asked for better evidence because I simply am not able to just give credence to one mans say so after so many years.  I respect your source and freely admit that he should know more on the topic than I do.  A district zone manager however, is not exactly the same corporate level as someone like a Tom Hoover or Vince Piggins (as examples only).  My thoughts are exactly the same on the topic now as they were before your posts today.  I would just like to see harder evidence.  In my work, we have clients all the time who know without a doubt the exciting pedigree of their car because it has been in their family for years.  Seven times out of ten, the stories which can only proven by someones memory seem to get disproven (I am talking about my workplace).  If it cannot be PROVEN, I cannot just simply accept it (especially when it comes to light for the first time decades after the fact).
I will be honest though and tell you that I am little surprised by you personally.  I understand being upset that you were greeted by skepticism but I thought you were more the type to get the evidence asked and then present it.  Today seemed beneath who I had previously taken you to be. 

[ECS]

I will be honest though and tell you that I am little surprised by you personally.  I understand being upset that you were greeted by skepticism but I thought you were more the type to get the evidence asked and then present it.  Today seemed beneath who I had previously taken you to be. 

Let me make myself perfectly clear.  The trouble making keyboard cowards here can shove it!  Some of you have referred to me and my Chrysler Corporate Friends as Liars, Senile, responded to legitimate information with disrespectful sarcasm and then cry foul when given a taste of your own medicine.  It's not a popularity contest and I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks of me.  You want to perceive someone in a better light, treat them with the same respect that you expect. 

[The70RT]

 

[Ghoste]

I would offer that "not caring what anyone thinks" flies in the face "giving back a taste of your own medicine" but clearly the thought will be wasted.  FWIW, and obviously it isn't worth anything, I don't care what you think about me either.  I do however still look forward to getting to the bottom of the actual topic. 

[ECS]

Here is the program document that was used for sales bank vehicles that were driven when new and still sold "as new" on their MSO.  This particular vehicle was driven 1600 miles over a sixteen day period.  Also notice these miles were put on a Convertible in the Winter time! This same document would have accompanied an AAR or T/A's when they were driven in order to facilitate the homologation racing requirements for the SCCA racing season.  Dave Stuart is gathering addition documentation for vehicles that prove vehicles were driven 3000 miles in a WEEK to facilitate a Corporate agendas.  You guys can argue all day long about what this document did or didn't represent but one thing is for sure.  Chrysler had an established program that allowed them to sell their cars as a "first registration" vehicle after it had accumulated significant miles via Corporate mandates.

[ECS]

Here is the program document that was used for sales bank vehicles that were driven when new and still sold "as new" on their MSO.  This particular vehicle was driven 1600 miles over a sixteen day period.  Also notice these miles were put on a Convertible in the Winter time! This same document would have accompanied an AAR or T/A's when they were driven in order to facilitate the homologation racing requirements for the SCCA racing season.  Dave Stuart is gathering addition documentation for vehicles that prove vehicles were driven 3000 miles in a WEEK to facilitate a Corporate agendas.  You guys can argue all day long about what this document did or didn't represent but one thing is for sure.  Chrysler had an established program that allowed them to sell their cars as a "first registration" vehicle after it had accumulated significant miles via Corporate mandates.

[nvrbdn]

i see a document. it says to me that a vehicle was most likely used as a demo and with this document the first actual purchaser is protected by the existing warranty being the first true registered owner. this document doesnt prove that a direct ordered mandate was issued. i for one am not on either side of this fence through this discussion, but can not use this item as proof that what you state is true.

[nvrbdn]

as i posted on the other thread, this document is used to protect the first actual buyer to the remaining warranty of the vehicle. it was used on every demo or salesman driven vehicle on the lot that accumulated miledge for any reason. not proving any mandate. im not saying you dont have proof, but i am saying this is not the document to prove it.

[ECS]

it says to me that a vehicle was most likely used as a demo......

Really?  Can you please reference the part of the Document that mentions this car being used as a "demo"?!?  This document was all encompassing to ANY scenario that caused a Corporate (driven) vehicle to be sold under a "first registration" MSO unit.  You will not find an addendum document that talks specifically about every situation in which a car could have been Corporately driven.   This Form covered the entire realm of those "reasons." 

I knew this would happen!  The original topic was whether or not Chrysler was willing to mandate miles (AAR & T/A's) on a vehicle to get it on the road (for whatever reason) and now you guys want to argue hypotheticals based on your limited, unsubstantiated knowledge.  You don't know why this car had 1600 miles put on it and neither does anyone else.  Again, it is funny how you want to chime in with details about a scenario that some of you had completely dismissed prior to this being posted.  For those people, you lost all credibility for additional input, when you denied this possibility ever took place.

Gene Lewis came by yesterday and sat in on a two hour meeting with a current 28 year Chrysler Executive and a 30 year retired Chrysler Executive.  Both Chrysler veterans were intimately involved with the process that has been debated here.  He heard the EXACT same information that I have expressed from those Chrysler Employees.  If you are watching either of these threads Gene, please join in and inform these people of the facts that you were also privy to hearing! 

[ECS]

as i posted on the other thread, this document is used to protect the first actual buyer to the remaining warranty of the vehicle. it was used on every demo or salesman driven vehicle on the lot that accumulated miledge for any reason. not proving any mandate. im not saying you dont have proof, but i am saying this is not the document to prove it.

So this does not prove that significant miles were put on a brand new vehicle in a very short period of time and still sold as a first time registered vehicle under the MSO?  That is EXACTLY the criteria for which the AAR & T/A's were sold!  The reasons for "mandated mileage" could have varied.  I am on my way over to Mr. Stuart's home (after this post) to pick up additional documentation proving this scenario.  Keep digging that hole.......... 

[nvrbdn]

again, this document is to protect the buyer. it is not for any mandate. period.  it is used to prove that the buyer will recieve the warranty given to the original buyer. it shows that if this car was sold as a used car the new car warranty would be abolished. but since the car was never registered it will be sold with the remaining warranty.

[ECS]

again, this document is to protect the buyer. it is not for any mandate. period.  it is used to prove that the buyer will recieve the warranty given to the original buyer. it shows that if this car was sold as a used car the new car warranty would be abolished. but since the car was never registered it will be sold with the remaining warranty.

Well you had better explain this to my good Friend (and Chrysler Executive) Dave S because he said it was absolutely used in conjunction with and for a vehicle that had a "mandated mileage".

[nvrbdn]

i did not say there was no mandate. i said this document doesnt prove it. there could be a mandate, but this would only be the part that would protect the new buyer to his warranty. the mandate would be on a different piece of paper. that is all im saying. this could in fact be used in conjunction with other directives, but it alone just works for the new owner to prove right of warranty.

[odcics2]

It appears that folks are waiting to see the Chrysler document stating all T/A and AAR cudas were to be driven.

[Budnicks]

  .... will we actually get to see these documents ??, Yet Again !!, a little civility &/or decorum goes a long way guys...

[richRTSE]

 

[nascarxx29]

Checking around on sites for additional documentation 

http://www.transamcuda.com/viewers_articles.htm

[ECS]

It appears that folks are waiting to see the Chrysler document stating all T/A and AAR cudas were to be driven.

If you go back and revisit this "debate",  the main issue was that Chrysler Corporate Zone Managers could not have driven the AAR or T/A Challenger the miles necessary to satisfy the SCCA mandate for vehicles being on the road.  The Document I posted proved that Chrysler did in fact (and could) put a significant amount of miles on a vehicle in order to facilitate whatever driving requirements were necessary for their Sales Bank cars.  The SCCA mandate forced Chrysler's hand to have 2500 vehicles on the road prior to the race.  These cars started coming out just DAYS before the Race so they were in a panic mode to meet the SCCA regulations.  If they couldn't comply, the entire program would have been a failure for Chrysler's limited run of specialty Cudas & Challengers.  This required Corporate Employees to get those cars on the road in a very short period of time.  

I just returned from Mr. Stuarts Home Office and he has more Corporate paperwork than you can imagine.  He said in his earlier days at Chrysler, his Supervisor told him he had to drive a vehicle 200 miles and return it to the Zone Office.  Dave's residence was about 200 miles from the Zone Office so he asked if he could drive it to his Home and back.  This would have put 400 miles on the car and his Supervisor told him "NO".  He told him to drive 100 miles away from the Zone Office and then come back!  Dave said he was never told the exact  reason for having to drive that new vehicle exactly 200 miles.  He also showed me paperwork where he had driven 2 different vehicles a total of approximately 4000 miles in one week!  Again, the document posted earlier was to prove that Chrysler put many miles on their Corporate vehicles in a short period of time for one reason or another.  The AAR & T/A cars just happened to be Sales Bank cars that needed to be driven as a result of a mandate (that rolled downhill) from the SCCA.

[held1823]

no , mr. walden, the "debate" centers around THIS statement.

Another story that was interesting (which I wasn't unaware of) is that ALL T/A Challengers and AAR Cudas were driven approximately 500 miles before they were placed on the Dealer's Lot and offered for sale to the public.  

[ECS]

no , mr. walden, the "debate" centers around THIS statement.

Go back and check the facts!  I said from the beginning that I had no opinion either way concerning the information expressed by Ralph Wiedner on AAR & T/A Challengers.  The debate for me started when the comments below (in bold) were made.  It was THEN that I decided to find and learn information related to the ordeal.  Are you going to argue and tell me I am also wrong about when it became a "debate" for me?  Maybe after you do that, you can tell me what I had for Dinner tonight!  Even better, let me know if I enjoyed it or not!

"Following your friend, that means that not only were those cars certified built, they had traveled a combined 1,250,00 miles, give or take a couple hundred thousand, between the start of production on February 2 (which is way early--that's the build date of the purple pilot car) and May 8, 1970 (the date of approval.)  Besides, if they showed up on MSO, regardless of miles, they were still NEW CARS!

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."

[richRTSE]

no , mr. walden, the "debate" centers around THIS statement.

Go back and check the facts!  I said from the beginning that I had no opinion either way concerning the information expressed by Ralph Wiedner on AAR & T/A Challengers.  The debate for me started when the comments below (in bold) were made.  It was THEN that I decided to find and learn information related to the ordeal.  Are you going to argue and tell me I am also wrong about when it became a "debate" for me?  Maybe after you do that, you can tell me what I had for Dinner tonight!  Even better, let me know if I enjoyed it or not!

"Following your friend, that means that not only were those cars certified built, they had traveled a combined 1,250,00 miles, give or take a couple hundred thousand, between the start of production on February 2 (which is way early--that's the build date of the purple pilot car) and May 8, 1970 (the date of approval.)  Besides, if they showed up on MSO, regardless of miles, they were still NEW CARS!

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."

Dave, let me first say great job on digging up more history and factory documents about these cars. I love seeing/reading stuff like this.  

If I may add my   though....I think most of us have no problem believing a handful of T/As were ordered to be driven a few hundred miles before they were sold for whatever reason. I don't think most of us ever doubted that part of your arguement, with or without documentation. But, I have to agree with held1823, after following this thread from the beginning I thought you were saying that EVERY AAR and T/A were ordered to be driven all these miles...are you saying that is NOT what you are debating??

[held1823]

no , mr. walden, the "debate" centers around THIS statement.

Go back and check the facts!  I said from the beginning that I had no opinion either way concerning the information expressed by Ralph Wiedner on AAR & T/A Challengers.  The debate for me started when the comments below (in bold) were made.  It was THEN that I decided to find and learn information related to the ordeal.  Are you going to argue and tell me I am also wrong about when it became a "debate" for me?  Maybe after you do that, you can tell me what I had for Dinner tonight!  Even better, let me know if I enjoyed it or not!

"Following your friend, that means that not only were those cars certified built, they had traveled a combined 1,250,00 miles, give or take a couple hundred thousand, between the start of production on February 2 (which is way early--that's the build date of the purple pilot car) and May 8, 1970 (the date of approval.)  Besides, if they showed up on MSO, regardless of miles, they were still NEW CARS!

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."

while this is akin to arguing with my seven year old neice, i will soldier on.

you quote reply #73 as when you personally decided to join an ongoing debate, one regarding information you brought to light with reply #47.

reply #'s 48, 50, 54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, and 71, are each from members other than yourself, and each reply can be tied to a debate regarding the information brought to light in post #47.

reply #'s 49, 52, 53, 55, 58, 61, 70, and 72, are all from you, and each predates your official debate starting point of post #73.

your first two posts from this list were carefully worded, and can be dismissed as being part of any argumentative debate. however, evidence shows that you fully joined in the debate long before #73. the only significance of post #73 is that it happens to be the one that fully pushed your buttons. (a google search shows this to be a regular phenomenon.)

again, i submit the following statement as the topic that everyone, except dave walden, is debating

Another story that was interesting (which I wasn't unaware of) is that ALL T/A Challengers and AAR Cudas were driven approximately 500 miles before they were placed on the Dealer's Lot and offered for sale to the public.  

i also submit this comment as further evidence of the debate topic

The original topic was whether or not Chrysler was willing to mandate miles (AAR & T/A's) on a vehicle to get it on the road (for whatever reason) and now you guys want to argue hypotheticals based on your limited, unsubstantiated knowledge.

who, exactly, is trying to change the subject?