Talk:Plymouth Superbird

Questionable statement

Interesting addition about Petty & the Plymouth Division. I had read a little about this, but not enough to judge the accuracy of this entry. I do think that's a doubful assertion about the '70 Coronet hood, though. That car had a very unusual nose, and the center of the hood wrapped about halfway down the front. I don't think that would fit on the Superbird at all. Can anybody document this? RivGuySC 05:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't document, but it's widely known among car enthusiasts. Contrary to what the article says, tho, it wasn't "cobbled together" to attract Richard (as far as I've ever heard, anyhow) but to provide clearance for the front tires. The nose piece was a separate steel part (not, as commonly believed, fibreglass). Keep in mind, the fenders stop at the grille/headlight assembly, which is added separately (check for the seam; all GM G-bodies, like Monte/Regal & clones, are the same to the grille). I'd correct calling the 440 Mag "lesser"; it's less famous or desirable than the Hemi, but hardly "lesser". I'd also note (if the article doesn't) the rake of the 'bird's wing posts differs from the superficially identical Charger Daytona; the 'bird's are more raked. BTW, only 93 Hemi 'birds were built (from what I've seen). A serious Mopar guy should be able to confirm. (I'm not...) Trekphiler 06:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

{{contradict}}

The following was taken from the introduction:

The Plymouth Superbird was an automobile that existed for one reason only - to win at NASCAR, an American stock car racing series. However, in reality, the Plymouth Superbird was built for one reason only, to get Richard Petty to come back to Plymouth.

The above sentences sport two instances of "for one reason only", contradicting themselves. I'm not an expert in this subject, but this passage needed to be corrected to avoid confusion. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 09:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC) ╫

Doesn't seem like a contradiction, but more like just a poorly-worded way of saying that the ulterior motive behind developing the Superbird was to get Petty back to Plymouth. Rebel81086

Those aren't really contradictions per se. They wanted to win at NASCAR by getting Richard Petty to come back, and they wanted to get Richard Petty to come back by showing they were serious about winning. It'd make more sense to combine the two statements rather than to treat them as two separate "only reasons," since that is a contradiction in terms even though it's not a contradiction in fact.

I think I've fixed the contradiction issue, let me know. User:davert

A complaint of some sort

Wow, really changed this page. I see we went back to the old line about how Petty left Ford for this car, totally dropping the real reason being the Lee Petty's car building and parts distribution requirement to come back to Chrysler. But then again, that is only from DSAC (Daytona/Superbird Auto Club), what do they know. It makes for easy reading and understanding to say its for a car only. And a Magnum engine is Dodge. This is a Plymouth. 136.181.195.9 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

EPA Chase Car

I just caught an article on Spike TV (10/24/09) about the Superbird which reveiled that it was not the brainchild of Chrysler, but was, in fact designed and built by an EPA engineer to chase jet airliners down the runway on takeoff and collect samples for air quality testing. While this does not contradict or invalidate most of the content of either of the Wiki articles on the Plymouth Superbird or Dodge Daytona, it does suggest that some mention should be made of the cars actual origin.

In addition, it would be helpfull to determine when NASA actually became involved in the cars development because the EPA chase car, which was shown in still shots and in actual video chasing jets, looks identical to the cars which were ultimately marketed by Chrysler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmacleod (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article about it. TGCP (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Up for Auction

If anyone is watching this page, you might want to keep an eye out for follow-up on this USAToday story Irish Melkite (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Banned in Maryland

While doing some newspaper research for another subject, I came across this 1970 newspaper article citing the AP that the state of Maryland would not register the car (Milwaukee Journal, April 5, 1970) because of its lack of a front bumper. I'm not an expert in car history, so I'll leave the inclusion (or continued exclusion) of this fact to an expert. Bob305 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Superbird was deemed illegal to be sold or registered in Maryland. At least one Superbird is known to have been sold and registered in Dec. 1969 and Chrysler had to offer to buy the car back from the owner after the Attorney General determined the cars did not comply with Maryland's bumper law. As of Nov. 2016, that same car is still owned by the original owner and has approx 56,000 miles on it. He has a copy of a traffic ticket he received while driving it in Maryland, all sales information, and the letter from Chrysler. (User go94th) (go94th@aol.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.61.228.11 (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The article's main table card omits the "designer" field

It is hard to consider this article to be complete without the name of this car's designer stated somewhere. 93.185.27.65 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)