69 Charger Find

[SuperNovaSS]

I recently pulled this Charger out of a very long hibernation. I asked Steve(NJSteve) about it since I did not know that Chargers were available with a slant 6. Apparantly they are quite rare. Anyway, Steve asked me to post some pictures so I took some quick ones. It is as found at this point, I have not touched it other than filling the tires and putting it on the trailer. Here are a few pics.


Jason http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home1.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home2.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home3.jpg

[SuperNovaSS]

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home4.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home5.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home6.jpg

[SuperNovaSS]

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home7.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home8.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/super-novass/Home9.jpg

[MultiMopars]

They made 462 of them.
262 with 3 speed manual
200 with auto trans

[Mr70]

Weren't those 6 cylinders usually the choice candidates for the General Lee conversions before they..

http://media.canada.com/a373a9c0-95d4-4a46-a780-e930d6c76147/070511-general%20lee%20crash.jpg

[SuperNovaSS]

This one is an auto with A/C. A strange duck indeed. The rear axle is the puniest thing I've ever seen. It looks like it belongs under a MG or something.


Jason

[CC Rider]

Neat Charger. What are your plans for it?

[njsteve]

That is a real rare and strange one for sure. A 145 horsepower, 225 slant-6 with auto and a/c. T7 is Dark Bronze Metallic by the way. Cool!

[SuperNovaSS]

I plan to sell it. The last thing I need is another project. The Charger came along with a large buyout. It was an all or nothing type of deal. It is kinda temping though. It is a solid start for a hot rod. It does have rust here and there but nothing like most I have seen.


Jason

[ANDY M]

The slant 6 w/air was a REAL dog. My mom had a '66 Fury with this combo, and she hated it so much that it got traded in for a '67 with a 318. When you went down a free way ramp in Detroit, with the air running, it was like a Kamikaze run if there was any traffic, (which there always was). http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[SuperNovaSS]

Yes, I think there is a reason they are uncommon. It will make a good hotrod. Someone has plans to V8 it before. It has a different K-Member in the trunk.


Jason

[Canuck]

Crate motor, a little Orange paint and a boozed up actor standing on the roof its should fetch decent money at an auction....and then show up again at another auction.

Paul

[MR PIT PAL]

Nice rare find.

Jody.

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]
They made 462 of them.
262 with 3 speed manual
200 with auto trans

[/ QUOTE ]

Those numbers are for US-spec cars only and don't include total production.

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They made 462 of them.
262 with 3 speed manual
200 with auto trans

[/ QUOTE ]

Those numbers are for US-spec cars only and don't include total production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those numbers are from Galen Goviers book on production figures and he does not show any others for non US porduction as he does with others from the same book. Do you know something he doesn't? Those figures came directly from Chrysler.

[SuperNovaSS]

I was at a swapmeet this weekend. I put a sign up about the car and priced it at $3500. The response was unreal. Maybe I priced it too cheap but what's done is done.


Jason

[L78M22Rag]

This would have been a nice mate for it...

http://columbia.craigslist.org/cto/1457863293.html

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know something he doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but apparently I know something you don't, as the White Books clearly state how the production figures are listed. This is something that's common knowledge for those who keep up with this stuff, and this is why wrong information continues to be reported in the media.

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know something he doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but apparently I know something you don't, as the White Books clearly state how the production figures are listed. This is something that's common knowledge for those who keep up with this stuff, and this is why wrong information continues to be reported in the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

My white book is a 5th edition July of 1999. Is there a more recent updated version with different info? Mine shows 462 total with no Canadian cars.

If you have updated info why don't you post the revised figures if mine are wrong?

[442w30]

There are no definitive Canadian or export figures in his books. Notice the "S" and the "T" indicators by each stat? Have you seen the key to see what they stand for?

[MultiMopars]

I am very familiar with how to read the book. In the back it has a legend and shows:
T=total production
S=Shipments USA
C=Shipments-Canadian
E=Shipments-Export
K=Known to Exist

In my book it shows no 6 cyl. 1969 Chargers for Canada or Export, just what I originally posted

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]

In my book it shows no 6 cyl. 1969 Chargers for Canada or Export, just what I originally posted

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that the numbers you showed was US-spec production and not total production, and I felt that needed to be emphasized.

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In my book it shows no 6 cyl. 1969 Chargers for Canada or Export, just what I originally posted

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that the numbers you showed was US-spec production and not total production, and I felt that needed to be emphasized.

[/ QUOTE ]


You keep saying that but the figures I posted ARE the total production in that book. If you have updated figures then post them and the source/

[442w30]

Any engine figures for Mopars - including the ones you find in Galen's books - are NOT total production but are for US-spec only; this is very clear in Mr. Govier's books. Also, very few numbers for Canadian cars and exports exist in the public domain.

[jannes_z-28]

This site give you the numbers from a VIN
It uses data from Galen.

http://www.mymopar.com/index.php?pid=100

Jan

[bergy]

Tried it - just got "no data for this vehicle" when I ran my numbers.

[442w30]

The guy who runs that site is a douchebag. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
Any engine figures for Mopars - including the ones you find in Galen's books - are NOT total production but are for US-spec only; this is very clear in Mr. Govier's books. Also, very few numbers for Canadian cars and exports exist in the public domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the below post?

Seems pretty clear to me thay he is showing total production, Candaian, and export shipped units when it applies. Also, he states that the figures come directly from Chrysler.

If you have a CREDIBLE source that is different than what I have posted then post it. You are doing nothing but arguing without any factual back up.


I am very familiar with how to read the book. In the back it has a legend and shows:
T=total production
S=Shipments USA
C=Shipments-Canadian
E=Shipments-Export
K=Known to Exist

In my book it shows no 6 cyl. 1969 Chargers for Canada or Export, just what I originally posted

[SuperNovaSS]

Does anyone know the best place to market Mopar parts? Is MoParts.com still the best site? This car came along with many parts including 65 Imperial and 64 Polara parts. The parts are very nice but I really don't know what to do with them. I did find a 68-69 B Body Dana 60 in the parts today http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.


Thanks,


Jason

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know the best place to market Mopar parts? Is MoParts.com still the best site? This car came along with many parts including 65 Imperial and 64 Polara parts. The parts are very nice but I really don't know what to do with them. I did find a 68-69 B Body Dana 60 in the parts today http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.


Thanks,


Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

The only place I have ever had any luck getting true value out of my Mopar parts is Ebay. Put them on with a minimum starting price and no reserve.

Most of the lookers on Moparts are looking to steal things in my opinion.

[SuperNovaSS]

OK, thanks. The 65 Imperial parts and polara parts I will probably give away locally. The 392 and 354 Hemis will most liley be Ebay material. Not too sure what to do with the in between stuff. There are 318, 413, 340, and other engines also.


Jason

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]

If you have a CREDIBLE source that is different than what I have posted then post it. You are doing nothing but arguing without any factual back up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been pretty clear, so forgive me if it seems like I'm communicating with a woman at times (with all due respect to the bytches and hos out there - a shout out to you!).

I've drafted this out - if it needs to be clearer, I'm gonna shoot myself in the head. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5513/photo1234.th.jpg (http://img685.imageshack.us/i/photo1234.jpg/)

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you have a CREDIBLE source that is different than what I have posted then post it. You are doing nothing but arguing without any factual back up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been pretty clear, so forgive me if it seems like I'm communicating with a woman at times (with all due respect to the bytches and hos out there - a shout out to you!).

I've drafted this out - if it needs to be clearer, I'm gonna shoot myself in the head. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5513/photo1234.th.jpg (http://img685.imageshack.us/i/photo1234.jpg/)

[/ QUOTE ]


The only thing that is clear to me is that I believe you are confused.

Is the "KEY" in your picture a copy and paste from your GG book? If so It is different than my book because mine does not have that.

If it is YOUR idea (KEY) it is NOT correct. I suspect it is not correct because a Charger was not available with a 170 C.I. engine, only the 225. The 170 was an A body engine.

I have been trying to post a picture of page 71 of MY GG book but I can't get it small enough to be allowed to post and still be readable. If you email me at [email protected] I will send it to you. If you are using the 5th edition July 1999 book just look on page 71 which is what I have already posted here previously. Here it is again:
I am very familiar with how to read the book. In the back it has a legend and shows:
T=total production
S=Shipments USA
C=Shipments-Canadian
E=Shipments-Export
K=Known to Exist

In my book it shows no 6 cyl. 1969 Chargers for Canada or Export, just what I originally posted.

THIS IS THE SAME THAT IT SHOWS IN YOUR PICTURE.

Maybe you are confusing yourself by adding the 6 cyl 462 S
and the 225-1 462 S by adding them togather? They are the same figure. Why GG shows it this way I don't know but you will see it on other cars in this book also. Are you thinking that they made 462 170 C.I. Chargers AND 462 225 C.I. Chargers?
They shipped=S 467 Chargers with a 225 6 cyl. 5 were SEs with no breakdown for trans 462 split as 262 3 speeds and 200 as autos=462.

While GG calls out an "E" for exports shipped I find no examples of it in this books production figures. I assume they are included in the totals and not broken out seperately.

There are however MANY examples of "C" Canadian shipments.

There are no "C" Canadian shipments listed in the 6 cyl Charger production figures and this means that they shipped a total 462+5 SEs=467 Total.

If you can show me an error in this PLEASE DO.

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]

Is the "KEY" in your picture a copy and paste from your GG book?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's an actual photo from the book - not a "copy and paste" - that shows the difference between Total Production and US-spec Production.

[ QUOTE ]

If it is YOUR idea (KEY) it is NOT correct. I suspect it is not correct because a Charger was not available with a 170 C.I. engine, only the 225. The 170 was an A body engine.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never claimed the 170 was available for the Charger.

[ QUOTE ]

I have been trying to post a picture of page 71 of MY GG book but I can't get it small enough to be allowed to post and still be readable. If you email me at [email protected] I will send it to you

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in sending you an email. I've received emails and PMs from you in the past and haven't appreciated their condescending tone. I'm even not one of those people who bug you about your build sheet service so it just may have been communication in an imperfect medium such as this . . . but I have an elephant's memory when it comes to people who treat me poorly.

[ QUOTE ]

I am very familiar with how to read the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're so familiar, why are you not "getting" it? After all, you say:
In my book it shows no 6 cyl. 1969 Chargers for Canada or Export, just what I originally posted. THIS IS THE SAME THAT IT SHOWS IN YOUR PICTURE yet it's clear from my photo that all the engines listed with an S are US-spec cars only. This is standard for most of the engine production figures that are thrown out there, which is one of the reasons why there is so much misinformation on Moparts (aside of the "1 of 1" BS that people promote, but that's another rant . . . ).

[ QUOTE ]

There are no "C" Canadian shipments listed in the 6 cyl Charger production figures and this means that they shipped a total 462+5 SEs=467 Total.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, what it means is that 462 /6 Chargers were built to US-specs, and we don't know how many more went to Canada or were exported elsewhere. The 5 SEs are a part of the 462.

[ QUOTE ]

If you can show me an error in this PLEASE DO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been doing it for 4 pages now! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[MultiMopars]

442w30,

How can you possibly THINK that if there were Canadian built /6 Chargers shipped that they would not appear in the same production book that shows MANY others with Canadian shipped figures? Remember, GGs figures came straight from Chrysler Corp.

What started all of this was your questioning the figures I posted as accurate. These figures came from GGs book. You have posted the same figures as I did. So does this mean you are questioning these figures as you indicated in your first post about this? If so, just as with my first response to your questioning it, Show some other CREDIBLE source that shows any different figures. Just EXACTLY what is it that you have posted that indicates there were any more than the 467 cars shipped?

[MultiMopars]

442w30,

I think where you may be confused is the way you are reading the book.

The "T" for total production applies to each model and sub model. If you look at the Charger figures you will see that the base Charger is bolded, then the same for the R/T, 500, and Daytona. When you add those production figures up it comes out to 90,282 which is the entite production for 1969 Chargers. Under each sub model it further breaks down that sub model by engine, then transmission and further breaks out Canadian shipped cars. GG makes note throughout his books that there are no break downs for certain things on certain models. There are no notes in the Charger section with any reference to unknown production figures of any other Chargers shipped other than what is there in black and white.

You said the below is GGs words. The reason I questioned the two sizes of /6s is because of what is written in #2 as there is no reason to mention it since the 170 was not available in the 1969 Charger.

Did you add the last sentence in #3 that I have bolded? If not why would GG end it with a question mark as though he was responding to someone?

2. The total of 6 cyl Chargers, which happens to not include the smaller /6, built for US-SPECIFICATIONS

3. The total from #2 above, but broken down by transmission

notice the big "S" that signifies BUILT FOR US-SPECS?
If you are using a different GG book than me why haven't you identified it? If it is the same book as mine direct me to the page where I can see this "KEY"

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]


How can you possibly THINK that if there were Canadian built /6 Chargers shipped that they would not appear in the same production book that shows MANY others with Canadian shipped figures? Remember, GGs figures came straight from Chrysler Corp.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have many of the same items from Chrysler that Galen does. They only list US-spec stuff. This is par for the course, as I have mentioned before. Canadian and export numbers were kept differently so they are not in the same documentation.

[ QUOTE ]

What started all of this was your questioning the figures I posted as accurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, what started it is that you posted production figures from Galen's book, and I added that those numbers were for US-spec cars and they should not be inferred as being complete.

[ QUOTE ]
Just EXACTLY what is it that you have posted that indicates there were any more than the 467 cars shipped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, because my 2001 edition of the same book, which I posted above, shows the numbers to be US-spec cars only? And since I am interested in production figures, I try to be on the up-and-up with them?

Here's another way to think of it:

69,142 "base" Chargers were built in TOTAL
462 were built with the /6 for the US
65,068 were built with the V-8 for the US
For US-spec cars, there were 65,530 "base" Chargers built.

But what is this? We have Galen's Chrysler docs saying that 69,142 "base" Chargers were built in total - why the difference?

Because 4,074 "base" Chargers were sold to the Canadian and export markets. Those cars could have anything from the /6 all the way up to the 383-4.

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


How can you possibly THINK that if there were Canadian built /6 Chargers shipped that they would not appear in the same production book that shows MANY others with Canadian shipped figures? Remember, GGs figures came straight from Chrysler Corp.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have many of the same items from Chrysler that Galen does. They only list US-spec stuff. This is par for the course, as I have mentioned before. Canadian and export numbers were kept differently so they are not in the same documentation.

[ QUOTE ]

What started all of this was your questioning the figures I posted as accurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, what started it is that you posted production figures from Galen's book, and I added that those numbers were for US-spec cars and they should not be inferred as being complete.

[ QUOTE ]
Just EXACTLY what is it that you have posted that indicates there were any more than the 467 cars shipped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, because my 2001 edition of the same book, which I posted above, shows the numbers to be US-spec cars only? And since I am interested in production figures, I try to be on the up-and-up with them?

Here's another way to think of it:

69,142 "base" Chargers were built in TOTAL
462 were built with the /6 for the US
65,068 were built with the V-8 for the US
For US-spec cars, there were 65,530 "base" Chargers built.

But what is this? We have Galen's Chrysler docs saying that 69,142 "base" Chargers were built in total - why the difference?

Finally something that makes sense, however you STILL offer no source for any other cars shipped that you are indicating SHOULD be considered.

Another thing to keep in mind, MANY cars that were EXPORT sales were never exported as they were sold through the military bases for scheduled delivery in the US when overseas assigned GIs returned home to the states. So my GUESS is that a lot of the "number discrepencies" would be accounted for as such that SHOULD be accounted for as US spec'ed. They would actually be US spec'ed cars even though they were considered export cars.

If You think that Chrysler's production numbers where do you think GG got his Canadian numbers that he lists? He only indicates the production figures as be provided by Chrysler Corp.

You didn't answer my question about the last sentence of #3 of your KEY.

[442w30]

Steven, can you help me? I know you're a Mopar guy but I'm at a loss because
I've tried to lay it out.

[wheelhop]

[ QUOTE ]
This would have been a nice mate for it...

http://columbia.craigslist.org/cto/1457863293.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Helmut,
I can pick this car up for you as I am in Columbia, SC!!
It has that original "patina" you like! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
Steven, can you help me? I know you're a Mopar guy but I'm at a loss because
I've tried to lay it out.

[/ QUOTE ]


The only help we need here is for you to answer directly to all of the direct questions I have aked that remain unanswered.

[scott s]

jason if the b body dana is forsale please let me know thanks.. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[old5.0]

[ QUOTE ]
This site give you the numbers from a VIN
It uses data from Galen.

http://www.mymopar.com/index.php?pid=100

Jan

[/ QUOTE ]

Tried it with a number off a base 383 4 speed RR hardtop I used to own. Then tried it with a vin off a Six Barrel Runner I used to own and got nothing on either. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[old5.0]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, GGs figures came straight from Chrysler Corp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity, when and where did Galen come up with these records? I'm assuming it was before they all got thrown in the dumpster in the late 70's-early 80's?

[SuperNovaSS]

Scott,


PM Sent.

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, GGs figures came straight from Chrysler Corp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity, when and where did Galen come up with these records? I'm assuming it was before they all got thrown in the dumpster in the late 70's-early 80's?

[/ QUOTE ]


Galen got "into" all of this in the early 80s. The IBM cards for the 1968 and newer cars have been destroyed with conflicting stories as to it being a fire or a flooded basement that ended their life.

The production figures were something that was kept seperately and MAY still exist. However Chrysler will no longer 'talk" to just anyone about them, you have to have an "in."

The V.I.N. break down for a 1969 /6 Charger are as follows:
X=Charger
P=Premium price class
29=2 door hardtop
B=225 6 cylinder engine
9=1969 model year
?=assembly plant ? is because they were built in
differnet plants
the last 6 digits are the sequence number

[old5.0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, GGs figures came straight from Chrysler Corp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity, when and where did Galen come up with these records? I'm assuming it was before they all got thrown in the dumpster in the late 70's-early 80's?

[/ QUOTE ]


Galen got "into" all of this in the early 80s. The IBM cards for the 1968 and newer cars have been destroyed with conflicting stories as to it being a fire or a flooded basement that ended their life.

The production figures were something that was kept seperately and MAY still exist. However Chrysler will no longer 'talk" to just anyone about them, you have to have an "in."

The V.I.N. break down for a 1969 /6 Charger are as follows:
X=Charger
P=Premium price class
29=2 door hardtop
B=225 6 cylinder engine
9=1969 model year
?=assembly plant ? is because they were built in
differnet plants
the last 6 digits are the sequence number

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me put this another way. If Galen told me the sky was blue, I'd step outside and check for myself.

Aside from that, 442w30, I understand exactly what you're trying to get across here.

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]

Aside from that, 442w30, I understand exactly what you're trying to get across here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I can't be the only one! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]


The only help we need here is for you to answer directly to all of the direct questions I have aked that remain unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only has it been answered by me, but you also answered your own question in a previous post. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The only help we need here is for you to answer directly to all of the direct questions I have aked that remain unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only has it been answered by me, but you also answered your own question in a previous post. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are the questions and comments I have been asking from the onset.

YOU SAID:
Those numbers are from Galen Goviers book on production figures and he does not show any others for non US porduction as he does with others from the same book. Do you know something he doesn't? Those figures came directly from Chrysler.

You answered NO to this.

YOU SAID:There are no definitive Canadian or export figures in his books. Notice the "S" and the "T" indicators by each stat? Have you seen the key to see what they stand for?

Yes, there are. There are many examples of "C"s throughout the book indicating Canadian shipped cars. In fact, my book shows for 1969 Chargers, 29 Canadian shipped Hemi R/Ts, 4 Canadian 500s, and 49 Daytona for 1969 production. The absence of a "C" in the /6 production numbers means there were NONE for these /6 Charger being discuss shipped to Canada. He indicates in his remarks that "E" indicates shipped export cars but there are none indicated throughout my book, and as I posted above may account for the missing figures YOU commented on.

YOU SAID:Um, because my 2001 edition of the same book , which I posted above, shows the numbers to be US-spec cars only? And since I am interested in production figures, I try to be on the up-and-up with them?

Not until page 4 of this post did you finally post the above that I had been asking for additional CREDIBLE source disputing what I originally posted. This may have been what you were using but you never IDENTIFIED it as such. It does NOT show anything different that what I have been saying. You are assuming that since there are no "Cs" shown for Canadaian shipped /6 cars that there MAY have been some, which is not what GG is showing in his books as I explained above. Also, you indicated that you have other source material that GG also had but never offered to show what it was. Just because you SAY SO means nothing with out some kind of CREDIBLE back up.

The REAL unanswered question STILL and has been from the beginning is, just EXACTLY what is it that you have posted that indicates there were any more than the 467 cars shipped? The only thing that you have posted are the very SAME figures I started with. The only thing you have said differently is that the figures I posted were indicative of US shipped cars only. I believe I have offered CREDIBLE proof that there WERE Canadian shipped cars from the info above.

Have you noticed the continual use of CREDIBLE used throught my posting in this thread? Just show me some CREDIBLE source that show what the numbers are of OTHER /6 1969 Chargers that you seem to think were built and the discussion can be put to bed.

[camarojoe]

Give it a rest already.

[442w30]

I think I can pinpoint the part of your confusion:

[ QUOTE ]

The absence of a "C" in the /6 production numbers means there were NONE for these /6 Charger being discuss shipped to Canada. He indicates in his remarks that "E" indicates shipped export cars but there are none indicated throughout my book, and as I posted above may account for the missing figures YOU commented on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incorrect in inferring that a lack of detail on C or E numbers means there are none.

Posted here for your perusal is what Galen has - it's a production figure report (in this case, for a 1969 Barracuda):

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9408/69cudap1.th.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/69cudap1.jpg/)

This list is for US-spec cars only. This is how Chrysler kept records. Were Canadian cars kept by Chrysler of Canada? Possibly, which is why it's so hard to find info on Canadian numbers, if not export numbers. If you're so sure that the lack of Canadian /6 numbers in the book means none were built for Canada, why didn't Galen indicate Canadian figures for every other car in the book?

And have you noticed that the Canadian figures in the book are mainly Hemi cars?

There are plenty of Mopar people who can back me up with this. You need to chalk this as one of those "Damn, I was mistaken all this time" episodes, which happens to me on occasion.

[Smokey]

I don't know if this hijacking of Jason's thread is good or bad. But its sad to say the least.

I agree 100% with Joe.

[SuperNovaSS]

I'm not worried about the hijacked thread. My head is just spinning from these guys saying the same thing back and forth over and over. 1 of 200 and 1 of 250 is really the same thing if you ask me.


Jason

[Xplantdad]

Must be getting close to winter http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[442w30]

Perhaps if we were discussing Chevys, you'd be more patient. If you're interested in accuracy, then pay attention! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I can pinpoint the part of your confusion:

[ QUOTE ]

The absence of a "C" in the /6 production numbers means there were NONE for these /6 Charger being discuss shipped to Canada. He indicates in his remarks that "E" indicates shipped export cars but there are none indicated throughout my book, and as I posted above may account for the missing figures YOU commented on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incorrect in inferring that a lack of detail on C or E numbers means there are none.

Posted here for your perusal is what Galen has - it's a production figure report (in this case, for a 1969 Barracuda):

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9408/69cudap1.th.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/69cudap1.jpg/)

This list is for US-spec cars only. This is how Chrysler kept records. Were Canadian cars kept by Chrysler of Canada? Possibly, which is why it's so hard to find info on Canadian numbers, if not export numbers. If you're so sure that the lack of Canadian /6 numbers in the book means none were built for Canada, why didn't Galen indicate Canadian figures for every other car in the book?

And have you noticed that the Canadian figures in the book are mainly Hemi cars?
There are plenty of Mopar people who can back me up with this. You need to chalk this as one of those "Damn, I was mistaken all this time" episodes, which happens to me on occasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true look at the amount of "C" bodies that have Canadian production numbers.

Does you more current book indicate any 1969 /6 Charger that show any designated "E" or "C" production numbers?

Until you provide a CREDIBLE source that shows anything different I (and the rest of the hobby) will be accepting the recognized authority (GG) that HAS taken the time to publish what Chrysler had to offer on this subject.

[wingcars6970]

Theres a /6 69 charger in Clayton NJ Delsea Auto Parts but very rough

[al8apex]

I had as neighbor that worked for Chrysler in the 60's & 70's

When it was damp out his brand new company car would never start ...

Imagine hearing the constant whirr of a Mopar starter on a cold dark morning until it wound down to rrrr rrr click

That's the truth as I remember it and I don't care what they did in Canada ... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[parkbrau]

[ QUOTE ]
I had as neighbor that worked for Chrysler in the 60's & 70's

When it was damp out his brand new company car would never start ...

Imagine hearing the constant whirr of a Mopar starter on a cold dark morning until it wound down to rrrr rrr click

That's the truth as I remember it and I don't care what they did in Canada ... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ] I had a neighbor with a Mopar did the same thing on start up. And that was in Vegas where it's hardly damp outside....the car owner got up before me in the morning....off in the distance.... rrrr rrr click click and then a loud "Damn Mopar". True story.

[442w30]

I'm away for the holiday so I can't reference my book at the moment.

However, I do think you're on crack - ask around people who know Mopars inside and out. I've even asked the proprietors of TWO Mopar registries and they agree with me. The fact of it all is that I've offered TWO credible sources . . . and one of them is the same one you're using. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[ANDY M]

Hey, Diego! Can't you two just exchange phone #s? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif
That way, (with all due respect), you can go at it for as long as you can stand it. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Or, you can agree to disagree. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Have a safe trip and a peaceful holiday. That goes for all of you guys. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Xplantdad]

Yep...winter is definitely coming soon.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[442w30]

Andy, isn't this forum about bench-racing and discussing cars?

Have a good holiday too - I'm in DC visiting Mom and sis+kids. Best thing is Dad is here too - divorce doesn't have to get in the way of turkey! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[300deluxeL79]

[ QUOTE ]
I had as neighbor that worked for Chrysler in the 60's & 70's

When it was damp out his brand new company car would never start ...

Imagine hearing the constant whirr of a Mopar starter on a cold dark morning until it wound down to rrrr rrr click

That's the truth as I remember it and I don't care what they did in Canada ... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

when it was damp out here, they didn't start either. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
happy thanksgiving! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[MultiMopars]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm away for the holiday so I can't reference my book at the moment.

However, I do think you're on crack - ask around people who know Mopars inside and out. I've even asked the proprietors of TWO Mopar registries and they agree with me. The fact of it all is that I've offered TWO credible sources . . . and one of them is the same one you're using. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Then I guess all you have to do is post them.

Happy Thanksgiving