production date for the 1968 dodge super bee

Does anyone have any documentation of the first production dates of the 1968 super bee. I have always understood it to be a half year thing stared to compete with the roadrunner. I have some 68 dodge production line up broches, and the super bee is not listed at that point with the rest of the dodge coronet line up.
The earliest I have seen before now was January of 1968. I have seen a thread on Facebook, where a guy shows to have a 68 bee for sale with a build date on the tag of 8-11-67 and the vin number of WM21H8E100740, and I have never seen any that low.
I did see online that the super be was introduced at the 1968 Detroit auto show, but I don't know the date on that either. Just trying to educate myself more I guess, but all the information that I have collected or anything on the super bee registry shows nothing this early. I will attach pictures the owner of the car posted from the FB thread.
Thank you, Matt

it is supposed to be a 1/4 year thing, but that is for sure the lowest serial number I have ever seen. Plus it's LA which I think ran a little slower.

Dan might know

something doesn't quite add up

not sure where the tags/numbers go wrong, but I'm sure everyone will agree there were NO Super Bees built during August of 1967

Would be interesting to know the last 68 bee built as well.

My dad's was built near the end, June 30th. He ordered it June 20th.

Got me wondering a bit more so took a look at the super bee registry and that build date screams one of these things is not like the others.

Also found a discussion about this car from 2015 here https://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/threads/first-super-bee-built.97413/

As far as the last goes, all I can say is that I have some cars with a SPD of 715. that is as late of a car that I have but I will say that most of mine are St. Louis and Lynch Rd built cars. My 68 bee is a 629 as best I remember.
Matt

M21H8A289135 was the one I had. Blue with a white stripe, on the column black interior. no other options. 2 speed wiper, 289 gears.

Didn't the Super Bee concept debut at the 1968 Detroit auto show? Why would there be a production car before then?

Mid-year introduction, but I don't recall the date I first saw one, which would of course be sometime after production started. I visited Dodge & Plymouth dealerships on a weekly basis back then.

Remember, SCHEDULED production date isn't necessarily the ACTUAL production date, which begs the question: Maybe some were scheduled before being approved/authorized and then actually built? More likely it's a stamping error.

It would seem prudent to have cars in the pipeline by the time a show car was displayed, to take advantage of demand, but everything I've ever heard or read (to take my memory out of the equation) says the Road Runner came 1st, its success surprised Chrysler, and then Dodge wanted in on the game.

Im not that versed on the older ones as posted but didnt they start the vins at 100000 then making this on #740 made that year?

If thats the case wouldnt the whole thought pattern of the 68 bee start long before anything in print.

Or is everyone thinking this vin posted was just a simple cornet vin?

Ok, I will just go sit in the corner and watch this one.

Not that it means anything regarding production but in Canada a dealership
that I cleaned out years ago had this 68 new car announcement material.
In this tube among other items to be displayed was the 68 Bee.
Was shipped in July 67 and states 'Deliver before September 14'.
Contained all models by name including truck.

That's the Scat Pack Bee, as in Dodge Scat Pack: Dart GTS, Coronet R/T, Charger R/T. All were introduced with the other '68 Dodges, and had their own separate Scat pack brochure as well as being shown in their respective bodyline brochures.

I looked around on Google, Allpar, Wikipedia, Hamtramck-Historical, etc and all I could find was that the earliest SPD on the SuperBee Registry is Jan 15. Another clue (maybe) is that some sites say the 4-speeds all had Hurst shifters, which happened on Road Runners & etc sometime in Dec '67-Jan '68 according to guys here with original '68 cars...a few Feb '68 cars still had Inland shifters, so that changeover date apparently differed among the various assembly plants.
Feb 1st dealership memo from Dodge Div clarifies 4-speed standard in SuperBee, doesn't mention shifter. I didn't find any earlier mention of the SuperBee, but somewhere there has to be a memo to the dealers about its introduction.

I personally have never seen a 68 superbee with a 4sp. Not saying they don't exist, just saying I have never seen one.

They hit the dealer showrooms in April 1968. I now this for a fact because I bought the first one delivered to Dean Pearson Dodge in Enid, Ok the day they put it in the showroom. Yellow with a four speed.

Hi guys, I'm the owner of the car in question here. I purchased it from the previous owner who inquired on another thread about rather it was "the first Super Bee." I purchased the car a few years ago not knowing there had ever been any controversy regarding the numbers. When I decoded it, everything came up, and the fender tag matched the body numbers so I just assumed all was fine. I knew the original engine and trans had been replaced, but to my knowledge everything else was pretty normal for its age. Needless to say, the revelations of the past week have been disheartening as I have quite a bit of money tied up in the car, and I had no idea there was even the prospect of something being out of whack. I've emailed the person who runs the Super Bee registry and this was his reply.

"Jeff,
When I found this bee for sale in June of 2015, I too questioned the numbers also being a LA build that early. I asked a well known person in the hobby about it, and he had stated that yes it could have been and he had seen others early. I had always thought till mid year. The unknown is the history of this bee. The last title should have shown the current owner and the name of the state of the owner before that.

It could have been a test pilot build for a Executive or photo shoot. In most cases that would have shown in the order number, but it does not."

My next step is to send all of the info to the Chrysler Historic Society to see if they have a microfilm copy of the broadcast sheet matching these numbers. If they don't, I'm afraid at that point I have a tough road ahead of me determining what the car's history is, and how it came to have the unusual sequence it shows.

Car Owner Jeff
Do not let this site discourage your quest for information.


There were no PRODUCTION super Bees produced before Jan 1968. What about Pre-production Prototypes and Long Lead Press Cars? What say yee all you experts - How do you know this is not one of those cars? You don't... LA produced cars are not well documented and we do not know its inner workings. Stuff happened on the lines back then [documented information] and special cars not always got a special designation.


This car is an anomaly that the experts can't explain because no one is an expert and it's 2018 not 1968. The experts really try hard to discredit cars that don't fit their mold. This place only represents maybe 20% of the market.

The fender tag does not look reproduced. Fender tags can be examined with modern technology to determine their authenticity...Yup i said it. There is technology that can scan & measure that FT down to a single micron. Do the mopar experts want me to define a micron? Hint:google.


I was conversing with Rob Wolfe from Mopar Collectors Guide magazine recently and he recounted the odd optioned road runner with solid documentation that all the experts said Chrysler did not build but it got built. There are plenty of examples out there.

I suggest you contact MCG and get some ink on the mystery car.

Thanks for the vote of encouragement Dilbert. I'm still working on getting it all figured out, and I'll be sure to update the post with whatever I can gather about it in the meantime. I've read several places that the LA plant was a bit more disorganized than the others, and they were more likely to experience quality control issues. One theory is simply a typo in the VIN sequence number... Anyone? Also, for anyone viewing the photo of the VIN, it appears to have been painted by the previous owner. In the thread he posted in the other forum you can see it pre-painted.

Without getting too "Forensic Files" on anyone here, I just looked at the picture the previous owner posted of the VIN before he repainted it. It looks to me if you zoom in that there are some scratch marks on the dash around the tag that suggest it may have been pried off at some point. FML SO, while it may be, I can't say I'm wholly optimistic about the prospect of this being the original VIN of the car. I know the original color matches what's on the trim tag because when I pulled the seats and rear speaker deck, the original UU1 blue was obvious. Anyone know if there's a way for some entity like the Chrysler Historical Society etc. to look up cars from the build date of 8/11 and see if there were any UU1 Bees or even Coronets built at the LA plant that match the options on my trim tag? UU1 is a pretty uncommon color....perhaps if I could get listings of VIN#'s in that color from that date, I could get a better idea of the car's history.

Jeff -
Personally I think it's an intriguing car because of the stamped SPD. I would think that a pre-production car would have been built closer to corporate HQ, and an SPD is not necessarily the date the car was actually built, so it could be a mis-stamp. Date codes on any surviving OEM parts would be good info. But you could possibly have something special there if a really early production date could be confirmed.
I doubt anyone could pry off the dash tag without damaging it, but if you can look underneath, check the backside of the rivets. Light scratches on top of dash could be from someone just sliding junk across it; gouges might be a theft or swap attempt or God knows what. Dash tag was likely removed to repaint dash.
Same SO# on radiator support?

You never know. I worked in Automotive production and we built some vehicles two years in advance. Some were special builds with special serial numbers. Most of those builds were to see were or how every thing would fit into the process of the build with the line workers. Others parts of the plant were to test to see if the Body Shop or Paint Shop processes had to be modified for the new body styles and paints. Sometimes it was to see if the longer vehicle would fit turning corners on the line and not run into some rack or person working on the line. Look deeper into the history of the car. Sometimes it is not all about the money but about enjoying the Hobby. If you can not live with what you have just sell it to someone else and let them enjoy the car. If you think the history is tainted maybe put a modified motor in the car and go racing and have fun.

There are two people that have a lot of information on 1968 and 1969 B Bodies. I will say it Galen Govier he has or had a 1968 Hemi Dodge B Body one of two built, also Furyman on this site has a lot of information on these cars since he owns a lot of 1968 Coronet RT Convertibles.

Yes, SO matches the radiator support SO

I'm just really trying to get to the bottom of it. I'll admit not knowing will take some of the enjoyment out of it for me, but it's not like the car is some numbers matching cream puff or anything, so perhaps I'll get over it in a while.

What's the date code on the k frame ?

It's interesting that the left rivet on the vin tag post paint looks like it was spun after paint and removed paint off the tag ?

Jeff can you post that picture of the prepainted tag ?

Tom Quad ... too funny ...

Only pic I have of the pre-painted tag is the one from the prior owner's forum link. Not sure about K frame number... I'll look when I can get a break from these 12 hour days, lol.

Is there a build/broadcast sheet for the car? Only thing to tie SO number to VIN is the paperwork. I was keeping track of SOs versus VINs versus build dates a while ago. I don't know where the excel sheet is at this moment. But lower SPDS usually have a 0 in the beginning of the SO number. But IIRC, the SO numbers were based off assigned numbers that dealers had. So it is possible to have a later SO number on earlier SPD car and vice versa. But to have an August build date on a car that wasn't even released for production indicates more of a fender tag stamp error. Just my

Anyone know what the keyboard was like at the factory?

If the numbers were in a keypad fashion, it would be easy to type an 8 instead of a 5.

Since the Super Bee was a caught-with-their-pants-down response to the Road Runner, and since it was not yet apparent the Road Runner would be a success (I believe production was estimated to be under 10k?) it simply makes no sense why there would be an August build.

People are saying that there were still some 68 cars built in early August of 68. The other theory is that it was 8/11/67. I'm not sure which is true, but the fender tag at this point is less of a issue to me than the VIN. I can believe that the projected build date was within a few weeks of when the line was supposed to change over if in fact the car was built in August of 68. That would make the sequence of the VIN unexplainable however. In contrast if the car really was built 8/11/67 the sequence of "740" makes more sense despite the fact that conventional wisdom suggests there weren't Super Bees at that time.

I need to get a full history of the VIN registration with the DMV. If the VIN I have was registered to an owner in 68-69 I'd say there's a pretty good chance the VIN is original to the car.

Hello everyone. I started this thread on another blog. Here is the deal...and I know this for fact because I own the first Superbee out of the LA Plant. I documented mine with Galen which he states that mine is the first one to exist out of the LA plant. Your car is the last 1968 superbee out of the LA plant. However, the sequence number is the beginning of 1969 year. Look at the 1969 sequence numbers and where it begins...in LA that is. Yours is 100740 and the first one listed in 1969 out of the LA is 101028. There are a ton of date codes that will tell you if its an early build or late build. Mine was built 1/23 out of LA. The dates stamped on the crossmember, the trunk and k member all confirm this. There is a date on the wiper motor that is the 347th day of 1967. My mufflers are also dated correctly. Here is the interesting part of your car...it was going down the line along with the 1969 models. So...that hood might have been correct for the car. In other words, the customer may have ordered the 1968 car and optioned for that hood...at the dealer or something. I can't remember if there is a date code on the hood somewhere. [/spoiler]I have been painstakingly restoring mine to 100% original and documenting everything. For example, my K-member has a stamp 009 of 1968. So, the 9th day of 1968. Unfortunately, the engine and tranny were lost over 30 years ago. I found a period correct block and began the build from there. Galen Govier is your first stop. If anyone has anymore information about my car. Thanks.[s][/s]

Update, after further discussion on another blog, it feels like this car was born a coronet and then someone fraudulently changed the VIN to a superbee. If the owner is around, what else did you find out?

What if the factory screwed up and mis-stamped the 2nd digit of the VIN? Would they let it off the line and just change the documentation?

I realize the odds are greater that something was altered on the car sometime in the last 50 years, but other makes are known to have mis-stamps like VINs being 1 digit off between motor and car or digits reversed for example.

Do the component date codes support a spring '68 build?

On further investigation......The trim/drip-rail/Pillar trim codes appear to be off. Mine are 5 7 8 starting in position 2 of line 3. Do the other '68 bee owners on here have similar chrome trim codes? I thought they were specific to the Bee.

Well, I'm the owner of the car in question here, and I've gotten pretty much nowhere in regards to figuring this issue out. The CA DMV doesn't have any record of a new title ever being issued to the car, but they also are very limited in regards to the lifetime history of the car. Everything about the car suggests it's a real SuperBee aside from the VIN anomaly. It has the larger brakes, and hd springs...the original color matches the trim tag, which matches the body numbers. I don't actually even care if it is a genuine SuperBee at this point. Either way, the engine and trans are non numbers matching, so it's not some great collectors item anyway. I'd be content knowing it was a fake if that's the case just to have it figured out. I'm growing weary of all the speculation, and truthfully I just want to be done with it. Nothing about this has been a fun experience for me with having to replace the engine right away, then learning of this VIN issue after the fact. It's a clean titled CA car for all intents and purposes with a brand new engine I dropped nearly 8k on with all documentation and a huge stack of receipts for all of the recent restoration items. The car drives great and looks beautiful and all I want to do is get rid of it. If anyone here could care less about the VIN issue, I'll make them a great deal.

what other blog might I find that some "expert" can prove the car was fraudulently altered to be a Superbee? And why bother going to that level of altering a non numbers matching car when a clone car in the same condition would only bring a few thousand less?

OP see i told you...John RR the biggest expert of all has spoken.

This would have been the last place on earth i posted questions about this car. That does not mean i would have not reached out to a few on here in PM's that actually have knowledge

PM me if you want offline help with this.

Thank Dilbert, I never intended to post anything about the car on the internet really. What happened was some German guy who was interested in buying it put the pics I sent him up all over the place and I was hit with the first I'd heard of there being any discrepancy whatsoever. I went online just to defend myself as he was making it appear I was trying to sell him a fake car. The OP in this thread pulled the pics from a FB post I entered replying to him. I don't mind people knowing about the car necessarily as I wouldn't have tried to sell it without being honest about whatever I knew. However, it is hard to see something you've invested so much money and time into so easily dismissed as "fake" by others who have nothing to lose in the situation.