1982 CHP car oddities.... ??

Mustang Kid · #1 09-04-2011, 12:56 AM

I think "donkey" is a little dimeening(can't spell that) for that special a car

ImEvil1 · #2 09-04-2011, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustang Kid

I think "donkey" is a little dimeening(can't spell that) for that special a car

Yeah, just a little humor.

I saw the Eminger invoice for 148027 when it was originally posted, but I haven't seen any other documentation posted showing what the car is or isn't. The same goes for the "mule" which, thanks to the Marti information, looks like it was produced after CHP had already ordered their cars.

28HopUp · #3 09-04-2011, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImEvil1

The same goes for the "mule" which, thanks to the Marti information, looks like it was produced after CHP had already ordered their cars.

On the Marti report the "test mule" is identified as a "Marketing Vehicle". You would have to imagine that Ford was getting the SSP program geared up at that point, so add'l police demos would be needed for evaluation purposes by Ford and other departments. Didn't Arizona have a 1982 SSP/demo for evaluation purposes? I'm not trying to take anything away from the "Emil Loeffler 1982 Engineering Mule", as the owner calls it. It was a police demo that pre-dated the SSP's which came out later that same year. So it is an interesting car, no doubt.

I'm hoping that an Eminger Invoice for a 1982 SSP will be found and we can see the correct wording of the SSP option (Severe Service Package or Special Service Package) as listed on the original Ford document. Not taking anything away from Mr. Marti, but having an Eminger Invoice for a 82 SSP would remove all doubt.

FoxChassis · #4 09-04-2011, 10:23 AM

What we might be able to do with the Eminger Invoices is ask Marti Auto if any are available within the batch of the 400 consecutive P10F VINs and if there are, pay for a photocopy (or PDF, etc.) of one of them. That way, they can keep with their policy of only giving the actual paper copy of the invoice to the owner of the vehicle and we could see what one of the invoices says. They might have better luck finding a sample if they're looking for any of a possible 400, instead of just one.

ImEvil1 · #5 09-04-2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxChassis

What we might be able to do with the Eminger Invoices is ask Marti Auto if any are available within the batch of the 400 consecutive P10F VINs and if there are, pay for a photocopy (or PDF, etc.) of one of them. That way, they can keep with their policy of only giving the actual paper copy of the invoice to the owner of the vehicle and we could see what one of the invoices says. They might have better luck finding a sample if they're looking for any of a possible 400, instead of just one.

Sounds like a great idea.

28HopUp · #6 09-06-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxChassis

What we might be able to do with the Eminger Invoices is ask Marti Auto if any are available within the batch of the 400 consecutive P10F VINs and if there are, pay for a photocopy (or PDF, etc.) of one of them. That way, they can keep with their policy of only giving the actual paper copy of the invoice to the owner of the vehicle and we could see what one of the invoices says. They might have better luck finding a sample if they're looking for any of a possible 400, instead of just one.

I just sent an email to Kevin at Marti Auto to ask him about this. Stay tuned!

NoDrama43 · #7 09-06-2011, 11:52 AM

excellent idea.

ImEvil1 · #8 09-04-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 28HopUp

On the Marti report the "test mule" is identified as a "Marketing Vehicle". You would have to imagine that Ford was getting the SSP program geared up at that point, so add'l police demos would be needed for evaluation purposes by Ford and other departments. Didn't Arizona have a 1982 SSP/demo for evaluation purposes? I'm not trying to take anything away from the "Emil Loeffler 1982 Engineering Mule", as the owner calls it. It was a police demo that pre-dated the SSP's which came out later that same year. So it is an interesting car, no doubt.

I'm hoping that an Eminger Invoice for a 1982 SSP will be found and we can see the correct wording of the SSP option (Severe Service Package or Special Service Package) as listed on the original Ford document. Not taking anything away from Mr. Marti, but having an Eminger Invoice for a 82 SSP would remove all doubt.

Yes to the AZ car...it's in the gallery here. It looks like tan interior in it as well. The '82 tested in TX had black interior.

Ford still does "police demos". You would think there would be several Mustangs that year, as well as some in subsequent years. They are cars loaned out to departments for testing/evaluation and you can imagine what kind of abuse they endure.

FoxChassis · #9 09-04-2011, 11:14 AM

I wonder if the Eminger Invoice for the GL hatchback also says "police demo".

NoDrama43 · #10 09-04-2011, 12:07 PM

CHP required Ford to build mustang "pilot" cars every year. Ford would ship the pilot car to CHP and they would inspect, test, and evaluate the car, then make changes to the order if needed. An example would be the addition of oil coolers because the oil temps ran to high without them.

yes I have documents from CHP to prove these statements. I have the corespondence between Ford and CHP about the oil coolers, and I have several original "pilot" car inspection sheets.