Re: 69 Charger Find
 

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

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

[ 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. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5...oto1234.th.jpg

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

[ 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. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5...oto1234.th.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.

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

[ 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! https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/scholar.gif https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

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?

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

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"

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

[ 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.

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

[ 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.

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

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.

Re: 69 Charger Find
 

[ 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! https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif