HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2009, 09:19 AM   #11
Todd Boyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Saint John NB Canada
Posts: 560
Likes: 27
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

The '70 'Cuda Super Stocker belongs to Allan Dame of southern Maine. At an Epping NH. IHRA National event a few years back I asked him about the AAR hood and he told me that he had talked to NHRA and told them since '70 and '71 Challengers used the fiberglass T/A hood then he should be allowed to use the fiberglass AAR hood. Apparently they OKed it. I think Larry Hill uses an AAR hood on his '71 440-6 'Cuda Stocker as well.
Todd Boyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 10:19 AM   #12
Dan Bennett
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 362
Likes: 573
Liked 359 Times in 82 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

I'm fairly sure that Dave Hakim got the hoods legalized. I remember chinning him at Indy a few years back about the TA hood in particular. He told me then that Mopar had filed a letter with the NHRA regarding which cars were produced with the hood.

I'm not trying to throw rocks, but I think we have a few more paper cars than we usually talk about. I should mention that my first really competitive race car was a 70 340 Duster I bought new and that I was a diehard Mopar fan back then.

I did spend a few evenings in the Fenton B Body plant on unofficial tours with friends who worked there and have to admit it seemed like the build sheet was only a suggestion at times. I also remember seeing a black 340 Duster in 70 which carried black stripes, the only color available.

I guess I'm saying that sometimes the rules got followed to extremes and sometimes they were disregarded, but I never ever saw a TA hood on any car that didn't have the entire package.

I did try to run bigger tires on the back like a TA but never found a single tech guy who would buy it.
Dan Bennett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 11:01 AM   #13
Philip Saran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Parker, CO.
Posts: 721
Likes: 158
Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

It is my understanding that there was a letter from Chrysler having to
do with a shortage of parts (shaker hoods/scoops) and the AAR hoods
were substatuted in place for some short time period on the assy line.

It is that letter or rule that allows said red 383 challenger to run
the AAR fiberglass hood/scoop instead of the shaker hood/scoop.
__________________
Phil Saran
Parker, Colorado
Philip Saran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 01:06 PM   #14
Jeff Teuton
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houma, LA
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 2
Liked 326 Times in 50 Posts
Smile Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

The 440-6 only had the 6 pack hood, the 440-4 had two functional scoops, the e bodies came with shaker hoods 383/440. Sold a few. The trans am hood could have been because of a shortage. The shaker cars were hard to get. And the build sheets were only a suggestion, although the purist don't want to hear that. How about a 69 b body cop car, blue w/red interior. Nice.
__________________
Jeff Teuton 4022 STK
Jeff Teuton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 05:00 PM   #15
herbjr
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greensboro NC
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 1
Liked 83 Times in 32 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Hey Teuton how about Bucket seats in a wagon were they a special order item.
herbjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 05:37 PM   #16
Tom Moock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 801
Likes: 1
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Jeff Teuton, what is this worth, I saw this for sale in omaha, ne. 6 pack intake and carbs, air cleaner stock linkage; 10 month. 69 date code ,been in storage the last 25 years, he was asking $2500.00 Tom
__________________
Tom Moock 5704 STK
Tom Moock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 06:09 PM   #17
plasticfantastic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lee View Post
You can pick up just about any mopar book and learn which bodies and engines the shakers were available on (code N96 fresh air option). You can find why the T/A hood was not just a T/A engine option and why. If you were really lazy you could contact somebody like Galen Govier (?) and pay him for the information with a break down of production numbers by engine.

you'll pay him for the informtion, but you'll wait and wait for a long while to get the information...
plasticfantastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 07:00 PM   #18
cudadoug
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

What I know about the shaker vs. TA hood deal was that there was a shaker shortage in 71. For a certain period of time, any 71 Chally that was ordered with a shaker, (which UNLIKE 1970 was available on the 340/383/440-4bbl/440-6-bbl or Hemi) it was subbed with a TA hood. Plymouth on the other had didn't seem to suffer the same shortage...

But that was 1971. In 1970, the shaker wasn't available on anything but the 440-6bbl and Hemi cars, so where is the justification that a 70 'Cuda with a shaker-ed 340 or 383 is legal? Or a TA hood on a 70 383 Chally?? Because it was available for the MODEL and YEAR?? Regardless of the motor? So if that logic is applied accross the board, the 6-bbl glass hood should be "legal" on a 69 383 Roadrunner, as it was available for the MODEL and YEAR.

The same argument could be had for the glass hood on a 390 Fairlane I would guess...or for that matter the Dart Hemi hood should be legal on a 340 or 383 68 Dart...
cudadoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 07:22 PM   #19
Jeff Teuton
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houma, LA
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 2
Liked 326 Times in 50 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Tom, that might be high. Every piece is still available. As far as the 68 with the Hemi scoop, the 383 we run (and everyone else) was available with fresh air pkg in b and e bodies. So whats the problem? If we didn't have to change the fenders and hood back to metal, we would probably do away with the scoop anyway.
__________________
Jeff Teuton 4022 STK
Jeff Teuton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 09:58 PM   #20
treessavoy
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dunnellon,FL
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default Re: A couple of Mopar "legality" questions...??

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudadoug View Post
What I know about the shaker vs. TA hood deal was that there was a shaker shortage in 71. For a certain period of time, any 71 Chally that was ordered with a shaker, (which UNLIKE 1970 was available on the 340/383/440-4bbl/440-6-bbl or Hemi) it was subbed with a TA hood. Plymouth on the other had didn't seem to suffer the same shortage...

But that was 1971. In 1970, the shaker wasn't available on anything but the 440-6bbl and Hemi cars, so where is the justification that a 70 'Cuda with a shaker-ed 340 or 383 is legal? Or a TA hood on a 70 383 Chally?? Because it was available for the MODEL and YEAR?? Regardless of the motor? So if that logic is applied accross the board, the 6-bbl glass hood should be "legal" on a 69 383 Roadrunner, as it was available for the MODEL and YEAR.

The same argument could be had for the glass hood on a 390 Fairlane I would guess...or for that matter the Dart Hemi hood should be legal on a 340 or 383 68 Dart...

If what you say is true about shakers then explain the 1970 Cuda that I ordered and received with a 340, shaker and 4-speed. According to the dealer order form at the time the shaker was available for the 340 and up.

PS never should have gotten rid of it.
__________________
Jim Rountree
treessavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.