1974 shifter knob • The Dodge Challenger Message Board

by **squeek360** » 07 Oct 2001 23:19

good point for clarity "mypar1970" but lets not forget when dealing with mopars , there are always exceptions to any rule , I have a 74 360 (e58) non ralley car , with some ralley options such as the hood etc. but isn't coded for the "ralley package" (I believe the code is a57 for the package)so no fender scoops or ralley gauges , and my car has the argent tail panel as described by you and the argent grill. I was told by a very knowledgeable e-body restorer that only ralley cars should have the argent grill , I bought the car from the second owner who purchased the car in early 75 in original condition and he assured me that the car was not tampered. also , I have the slapstick , but no t-handle shifter (have the simulated woodgrain knob) which I heard shouldn't be this way , and again was ensured that that is how it originally came.

by **bud** » 08 Oct 2001 15:35

the wood knob was only used in 1970.

by **squeek360** » 08 Oct 2001 18:02

that is what I was told ; however , with 74 being the last year of the challenger , it seems extremely likely that chrysler would mix some parts. perhaps at one point , they ran out of t-handles , and supplemented woodgrain knobs that perhaps they had excess stock of. I'm a chrysler mechanic in canada , and during the early production of the pt cruiser (when chrysler was having trouble producing to demand) we found many cruisers coming in with mismatched interior gauge besels. so , meeting demand and deadlines can depict how things arrive at delivery. my car was originally a "demo" car for one of the salespeople at the original dealership , and the person I bought the car from (was employed , by the dealer in the service department)bought the car after only 3 months of use. aswell , my service manager (where I work now) had originally worked as a mechanic at that dealership and actually worked on my car several times in its new condition. all sources confirm that the knob came with the car from the factory. helps to be able to trace the roots of your car right down to the very begining :>)

by **dave-r** » 08 Oct 2001 19:43

Sorry squeek but no way your car came with all this stuff when it left the factory. I have lost count of the number of people that have told me their car is 100% original because the last owner said so etc.

There was no shortage of parts at the end of production. In fact quite the reverse. If you have options not on the fender tag, build sheet or part of an option 'group' then it was added later. If you have lots of parts from other Challengers I would be looking at all the numbers everywhere on the car very carefully. Taking particular attention to date codes.

by **squeek360** » 09 Oct 2001 3:34

Dave , not to be rude , but do you actually read this stuff or do you just skim through it?? what is "all this stuff" that you refer to i never said that i had options that weren't on the tag , we're merely talking about a shifter knob and the use of argent paint. c16 is the code for a console , but whats the code for a t handle ?? there isn't one , it's only common knowledge that t-handles were used from 71 onward but to say it's impossible for one to have been slipped into a later model car??? a red pt cruiser is suppose to come with red dash accents , and i assure you from first hand experience that this is not the case. after all , we are talking about chrysler , the same company that has been rumored to have kept circleing roadrunner superbirds around the building and running them past the nascar inspecters in order to meet the 2000 car production figure required to enter the vehicle into nascar. some of the rarest mopars that i've read about in magazines are ones that were technically not possible to be optioned as such. now if i were claiming i had a 74 hemi car lol.
the tag is ----
R11 V7W 26 L2 362
J54 M21 M26 N41 N42 N76
KB5 C B41 C16 C56 G54
KB5 A6WX 000 214 C13885
E58 D34 JH23 L4B 311048
and i assure you i've checked all #'s and they match.

by **dave-r** » 09 Oct 2001 7:38

That's OK you can be rude to me!

I do just sometimes skim.

Well I thought you had said that the hood was not on the tag either. I may be mistaken but I think J54 is the code for that hood.

As for the shifter handle. I don't think it is just the case of the knob being different. I thought the attachment was changed too. Maybe I am wrong about that too. But all the same there were no supply problems with the 'T' handles that I am aware of but the round ones were hard to get!! Maybe it got damaged early on while a demo car and fixed this way before being sold. Maybe the dealer took it off a trade-in.

The paint problem I CAN believe!

by **Jack T** » 09 Oct 2001 17:10

J54 is the code for a sport hood with scoop(s)

by **dave-r** » 10 Oct 2001 9:52

Just to point out something to my North American friends.

I know you think I am sometimes rude. Indeed I possibly am but by British standards I am not very rude. Remember we are two different peoples. I know sarcasim is rude in the USA for example but is normal humour over here.

Also I am not well educated.

You have to take that into account as well.

So you have to take me as I am I am afraid! But please. No offence intended.

by **squeek360** » 16 Oct 2001 2:27

Sure dave , and I feared that I was the one being rude , now you've even taken that away from me by claiming your the rude one ---- how rude!!! lol
Speaking only for myself , as doing otherwise would be rude lol , life is too short and the world is full of far more serious problems (in light of recent world events) for one to get all bent up over the meager misunderstandings.

by **squeek360** » 20 Oct 2001 22:38

hey dave , would you happen to know what the
"L2" and "362" on my fender tag mean thanks in advance

by **dave-r** » 21 Oct 2001 12:10

Not a clue.
Are they stamped the same as the other codes or do they look like another type of tool was used or anything? Do they line up with the other codes exactly?

by **dave-r** » 21 Oct 2001 12:16

Thinking on this a bit more I see that the tag does not end EN1 or EN2 (end production line one/end line two) as I would expect a Hamtramck built car to end. Did they change the system in 1974? It is possible that L2 means production line two.

by **Jack T** » 21 Oct 2001 22:21

Where is the 362 located on the tag?

by **Jack T** » 21 Oct 2001 22:38

OK, I scrolled up and saw the 362. I am in the dark about that code, but L2 does mean end of codes and might mean line 2 but I can't find a definite source on that.

by SF » 24 Oct 2001 19:19

Here you are saying the Round Wood type shifter is hard to get and the T handle is common. I have the round and want the T. I bought a T handle, but in my ignorance, took the sellers word for it and thought it would screw right on. Nope, it is way different. So, I have a round wood shifter in the car and a T handle on the bench.

by **squeek360** » 24 Oct 2001 23:46

thanks dave and jack :>) the stampings are the same punch type and in line with all the other #'s , line 2 would make sense , as for the 362 who knows , perhaps that will remain a mystery

by **dave-r** » 25 Oct 2001 7:49

So if the T-handle will not fit on shifters with the round knob then it looks doubtful that a round knob could be fixed in place on the production line if there was suddenly a shortage of T-handles. Yes?

by **Jack T** » 25 Oct 2001 11:59

The T-handle and the round knob shafts are also different and they require different sliding plates in the console.

by **dave-r** » 25 Oct 2001 13:32

So when Squeek360's car was made they just happened to have all the original 1970 stuff handy on the line for the moment his car went past in 1974?

So do we conclude that Squeek is right and they decided not to order any more new shifter bits because the Challenger model was cancelled and they used stuff left over from 3 years past despite other models coming down the same line getting the T-shifter. Seems unlikely to me.

Anyone know of any other cars (any model) built around Feb 1974 with the 1970 shifter?

That 362 could be an inspectors mark of some sort but I thought they were stamped 'in' from above and not 'out' from below. That might be what it is though.

by **squeek360** » 25 Oct 2001 23:46

guess I'll have to take a closer look at the tag to see if I'm correct that the stamping is the same. perhaps for the shifter , a likely scenario is that the shifter mechanism was defective and the dealership had access to one fitting the round knob , and opted for that rather than waiting for one fitting the t handle to arrive from the states perhaps closer to daves potential explaination than mine. don't know if it's original on this guys car , but I found a website for a guy who has another 74 non ralley 360 challenger , and in his photo's of the interior , he's got the same shifter knob as mine so who know's ,perhaps some technician at the dealership or someone on the hamtramck line from days long since past knows the answer , I'll just leave that a mystery. nice web site that this fella has either way (address below)http://moparjimsgarage.virtualave.net/mymopar.html

by **squeek360** » 25 Oct 2001 23:49

p.s. even if there were more cars out there that way , I'm sure no one would believe it came that way , as it is common knowledge that that's a 70 knob lol. just couldn't wait to open that can of worms again could ya dave lol.
check out that website either way , nice site :>)

by **squeek360** » 25 Oct 2001 23:54

obviously by this thread , we all can determine , that Brit's are sarcastic and Canadians are stubborn lol

by **Christer** » 26 Oct 2001 5:14

What if previous owner of your car, squeek360, liked the T-handle so much that he took it with him and mounted on the ´70 Challenger that he had bought. My idea is that he switched the knobs.

by **dave-r** » 26 Oct 2001 7:34

Still might be worth looking out for 1974 cars with 1970 shifters just in case. I do agree that what you say may be possible.
I learned a long time ago you can never say 'never' or 'always' in this game.

Open cans of worms? Me?