Shelby Dakota AK-1

[DeLa1Rob]

This is the Shelby Dakota AK-1. As far as I know, it is still in Carroll's personal collection. If he ever wants to part with it, have him send me a message.

 

[memphis]

This is the Shelby Dakota AK-1. As far as I know, it is still in Carroll's personal collection. If he ever wants to part with it, have him send me a message.

 

 

 

 

Hey Robin, you just cant call dibs like that!! LMAO!

[DeLa1Rob]

 

Hey Robin, you just cant call dibs like that!! LMAO!

 

 

I figured no one has ever asked. I would love to have several of the cars in Carroll's collection. His AK-1 and the 87 GLH-S would be the most desirable to me.

 

So Carroll, if you want to thin any of your collection, send me a note.

 

 

 

robin

[memphis]

I figured no one has ever asked. I would love to have several of the cars in Carroll's collection. His AK-1 and the 87 GLH-S would be the most desirable to me.

 

So Carroll, if you want to thin any of your collection, send me a note.

 

 

 

robin

 

 

 

LOL, second dibs on the 87 but I call dibs on the 86 GLHS!!! B)

[shelbymotorsports]

Yes the twin turbo Dakota is still owned by Carroll.

 

The truck was built as a test mule for the possibility of Chrysler building a SuperCar (can you say Viper).

 

Back in the late 1980's when internal talks started about building a SuperCar the largest engine Chrysler had to work with was the 360 V8 truck engine. At 190hp this was no where near SuperCar power so the next step was to twin turbocharge it.

 

The turbos worked well but by the end of the 1980's turbos were falling out of favor and Chrysler just happened to be working on a cast iron V10 engine for their upcoming Ram truck line that was being 100% overhauled.

 

So with a turbocharged 360 not sounding exotic enough and with a cast iron V10 truck engine just around the corner came the idea of a V10 aluminum motor for a Chrysler SuperCar. Corvettes only have V8'so right there starts the one upmanship.

 

So in reality the TT360 Dakota had nothing to do with the Dakota truck lineup and was never intended to be a Dakota powerplant but was a hidden test mule for the upcoming Dodge Viper Supercar.

 

Steve

[DeLa1Rob]

Thanks for posting Steve. You seem to have all the lost info from the '80's.

 

So in summary, the AK-1 was not the 1990 Shelby Dakota prototype but a mule to carry a potential Viper powerplant.

 

robin

[shelbymotorsports]

Thanks for posting Steve. You seem to have all the lost info from the '80's.

 

So in summary, the AK-1 was not the 1990 Shelby Dakota prototype but a mule to carry a potential Viper powerplant.

 

robin

 

 

Correct. The TT Dakota prototype and the Twin Turbo Pantera were drivetrain mules for a upcoming Chrysler SuperCar (aka Viper).

 

The 1990 Shelby Dakota Prototype also still exists in Carroll's collection. The 1990 Shelby Dakota was designed to overcome some of the production 1989 Shelby Dakota shortcomings.

 

The main differences were:

 

- larger 360 V8 engine (although still a TBI motor)

 

- larger wheel/tires

 

- bucket seats with a Recaro seat option

 

- new exterior graphics

 

and a few other smaller details.

 

But just like the 1989 CSX the dealers still had many unsold Dakotas on their lot so the decision was made for 1990 production not to go forward. Not hard to understand since Shelby Automobiles still had hundreds of completed 1989 Dakotas at their Whittier facility staging area with no dealers willing to take anymore which is why they finally went to any Chrysler dealer wanting them. Previously a dealer had to be a authorized Shelby dealer to order a Whittier vehicle but that rule was relaxed to move these year old unsold units.

 

Steve

[DeLa1Rob]

I hadn't heard of the TT Pantera. Would that be the same twin turbo Chrysler 360 engine but in a deTomaso Pantera? (as sold through Lincoln dealers)

 

robin

[shelbymotorsports]

I hadn't heard of the TT Pantera. Would that be the same twin turbo Chrysler 360 engine but in a deTomaso Pantera? (as sold through Lincoln dealers)

 

robin

 

 

 

Yes it was a Ford powered Pantera that had an engine swap to a turbocharged 360 Chrysler motor. Because of the Panteras value the Chrysler motor has since been removed in favor a "correct" Ford engine.

 

Pantera's and 351 clevelands just go together and my bet it even out performs the 360 turbo motor.

 

Steve

[gen1dak]

The whole test mule story is a good one, but unless I see some sort of proof, I'm not buying it. The original Shelby Dakotas were listed as '89 1/2's. So, the twin turbo could have been whipped together in '89. Seems like I remember reading that it was a 1990 model. Now, let's address the points against the test mule story.

1. Turbos were falling out of favor in the late 80's. Does anyone remember the GMC Syclone? Debut? 1991. The late 80's were all about the Buick Grand National. The GMC Typhoon was produced 1992-93. Yeah, turbos were all the rage in the 80's, but they weren't "out" afterwards. Not in favor just with Chrysler? Oooops, must've forgotten the Stealth 1991-1996, which had single and twin-turbo versions.

2. The Viper. This car was always about brute force. Mopar did extensive test cell work (in the late 80's) with the 426 Hemi, allegedly as a possible Viper-engine candidate. The economics of reviving 426 production was not reasonable at that time, and emissions of the 426 design were problematic. The V10 was chosen as the heavy hammer for the trucks. Again, economics were an issue since the V10 shared many components with the 360. An aluminum version would be exotic, unusual, and brutal...exactly what designers of the 427-powered Cobra (Shelby) had in mind, not to mention, an easy step to take. Keep in mind that the original Viper showcar hit the circuit in 1989 with a handmade version of the V10. If they had any intention of using a TT 360 in the Viper, why go to all the trouble of hand-making an engine not yet in production when they could've had the production-ready 360 in there from the start? Also, remember, the TT Dakota had a Dana 60 and an automatic transmission. Wouldn't it be better to test with at least the same transmission that would go behind the supercar's engine?

3. It wasn't the licensing issue that led to slow Dakota sales. It WAS, however, the rediculous mark-up every dealer was tacking onto the Shelby Dakota. $26,000 for a truck that could only lay claim to being barely quicker that a V-6 Chevy? Before it was over, I got my Shelby Dak for $13,200 from the dealer. They'd shot themselves in the foot over the name recognition markup. Seriously, why pay so much when a new Mustang GT (that'd clean your clock and not puke transmissions) could be had for $14K? The Sport Truck movement was only just beginning to catch on. Like I said, nice story, but I ain't buying it.

[shelbymotorsports]

The original Shelby Dakotas were listed as '89 1/2's. So, the twin turbo could have been whipped together in '89. Seems like I remember reading that it was a 1990 model.

I have never seen the Shelby Dakota "listed" as a 1989 1/2 model in any literature from Shelby Autos or Chrysler. The 1990 Shelby Dakota was powered by a non-turbo 360 engine, unfortunately it was killed because of the amount of unsold 1989 Shelby Dakotas sitting on the lots.

 

 

Not in favor just with Chrysler? Oooops, must've forgotten the Stealth 1991-1996, which had single and twin-turbo versions.

Please compare the number of turbocharged cars Chrysler sold from 1984-89 to the amount of turbocharged cars Chrysler sold from 1990-95. The numbers back up my statement 100%.

 

 

Keep in mind that the original Viper showcar hit the circuit in 1989 with a handmade version of the V10. If they had any intention of using a TT 360 in the Viper, why go to all the trouble of hand-making an engine not yet in production when they could've had the production-ready 360 in there from the start?

Obviously you do not know that the Twin Turbo Dakota started life as a 1987 Dodge Dakota. Yes thats 1987.

 

It wasn't the licensing issue that led to slow Dakota sales. It WAS, however, the rediculous mark-up every dealer was tacking onto the Shelby Dakota. $26,000 for a truck that could only lay claim to being barely quicker that a V-6 Chevy? Before it was over, I got my Shelby Dak for $13,200 from the dealer

Not sure what you mean a by licensing issue so I can't respond to that. Regarding every dealer adding ADP to the Dakota that is not true. I purchased one of the first Shelby Dakotas sold in California for less than the window sticker. Did some dealers try to add a secondary window sticker? Yes some did but a $10,000 additional dealer profit mark up seems a little far fetched when anyone could pick up a issue of AutoWeek or Hemmings Motor News and see dealers selling the trucks for less than sticker. I'm not sure when you purchased your Dakota but if it was between Feb to June 1989 you got a good deal.

 

Like I said, nice story, but I ain't buying it.

You can call it a story, I call it facts. I have a suggestion for you. How about doing some research on the Vipers origin and find out what Chrysler frame was modified for use on the Viper and what Chrysler product uses some of the same suspension parts as the Viper.

 

Steve

[gen1dak]

Just because you haven't seen '89 1/2 mentioned regarding the Shelby Dakota doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The Viper used modified Dakota parts, which ties in with the whole budget-conscious attitude I mentioned. DUH! How else do you design an exotic for $50 million when Ford is re-designing the Escort for $2 billion at the same time? The first street-driven pre-production Viper also had a Nippendenso alternator. When a sharp-eyed reporter asked about that in the Pro-American atmosphere, Bob Lutz, who was parading around in it (remember the red topless Viper with the black roll cage?), stated that wouldn't be on the production model. Again, economics. Use what's available.

Point being, the Shelby's availability was late for a given model year. They weren't ready by fall '88 as would be customary for essentially every other '89 hitting the market. So, since they were late arrivals, they were, several times, mentioned as 89 1/2 models.

 

Perhaps you have a picture of the "1990" 360-powered non-turbo Shelby? There was lotsa talk about it, but nary a pic have I seen. No prototype mockups, nothing. Not that it would look any different from the 318 model, but not even a press photo?

 

The sales numbers aren't the point for turbo cars. Yes, the numbers were lower, but turbos weren't an ugly beast being put down. Multi-valve technology was becoming more popular, and overall, non-turbo systems are less complex, easier to service, and less costly. Larger engines were also more common again. It was no longer the fad and economical power generator it had been. Americans traditionally love TORQUE. Gas concerns eased, big engines came back. Hot today, not tomorrow....but making a comeback more recently, especially with diesels.

 

As to the origins of the Viper, again, turbo wasn't on the table. The three fellows (Shelby, Bob Lutz, and one other, can't think of his name right now) that started the Viper deal were talking about missing old cars like the AC Cobra and other exotic, big-inch sports/muscle cars (60's Jaguar E-type is another). NOT high-tech gee-whiz turbo powerplants. Not multi-valvers. They missed the curvaceous styling (now called retro) and big-inch engines that'd pull in any gear with no delay (turbo-lag was the common issue in the 80's). They scribbled a design on some paper and went to look for a big grunt engine. It had to be rear-wheel drive, and had to have a manual gearbox. The requirements were simple, yet brutal. If you'll remember, it was Calloway that did all the twin-turbo stuff with Corvettes back then. The Viper was the antithesis of Chevy's approach to the Vette.

 

Licensing, as you alluded to...I was referring to the limitation of distribution of the trucks to preferred dealers. The trucks didn't sell because very few people even knew about them., and the dealers were scalping the enthusiasts.

 

It doesn't matter what model year the turbo Dakotas was. Shelby could've tested a twin turbo 360 mule in a '58 Fury. Doesn't mean it would have been turned into a TT 360 prototype in 1958. Obviously, the test mule turbo Dakota was not a new truck.....why do that when they probably had a used (cheap) '87 laying around....Geee, maybe it was even previously used for testing and mock-ups for the 318 Shelby Dakota project to begin with. It doesn't mean it was turned into a TT 360 in 1987. It was built by Dodge as an '87 Dakota. Is THAT what you're using as a guide to Shelby's timetable? The fact is, the twin turbo prototype didn't show up publicly til well-after the 318-powered Dakota hit the streets, had been reviewed (by Car and Driver) and had said review published (along with the first review of the street, pre-production Viper not the show car), and the trucks were available for public sale, and that was fall 1989. If they really wanted to drive up the fervor around the Shelby, why not parade the TT out first as a sign of things to follow? If anything was a test mule, it was the entire Shelby Dakota run. As a result of the feedback Mopar gained, they went forward with a V8 option. Did it work? The 4X4 Dakota garnerd truck of the year accolades with the first V8 edition (1991 model), and with the Magnum engine, it became the closest thing Mopar had produced resembling anything close to the '68 Road Runner for over 20 years. The median age for Dakota owners was 40 before the Shelby. Afterwards, especially with the Magnum, that age went way down. Finally, the Dakota was cool with the youngest age group of buyers.

 

There's so much rumor about all this, I won't be agreeable on it til I see documentation or Shelby himself says it in an interview. If I'm wrong, so be it, but that is yet to be established.

[shelbymotorsports]

Just because you haven't seen '89 1/2 mentioned regarding the Shelby Dakota doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If you can post a pic of any SHelby Literature refering to the Shelby Dakota as a 1989 1/2 model I like others would like to see it.

 

Perhaps you have a picture of the "1990" 360-powered non-turbo Shelby? There was lotsa talk about it, but nary a pic have I seen. No prototype mockups, nothing. Not that it would look any different from the 318 model, but not even a press photo?

Yes there was a 1990 Shelby Dakota Prototype and it looks way different compared to the 1989 model. It currently resides in Carroll's collection.

 

Also there were press photos of this truck and it was featured in several magazines back then. IIRC Sport Truck magazine had the largest write up on the truck.

 

The three fellows (Shelby, Bob Lutz, and one other, can't think of his name right now) that started the Viper deal were talking about missing old cars like the AC Cobra and other exotic, big-inch sports/muscle cars (60's Jaguar E-type is another).

You're probably thinking of John Fernandez. A great guy who if you ever meet will tell you the same things I'm saying.

 

There's so much rumor about all this, I won't be agreeable on it til I see documentation or Shelby himself says it in an interview. If I'm wrong, so be it, but that is yet to be established.

I guess this is were we difer, I don't go by rumors.

 

If anyone else reading this thread has a specific question please post it and I will answer it.

 

Steve

[gen1dak]

Uhhhh, no, not John Fernandez. It seems he joined team Viper in 1997, just a bit (can we say roughly 10 years) after the Viper concept was developed by Bob Lutz, Carroll Shelby, and Francois Castaing (that's the one I couldn't think of). John Fernandez befriended Shelby in the 80's and joined Shelby Motorsports (he was mostly into carting up til then...the Viper was a Chrysler project where Shelby was involved, Shelby Motorsports/Automobiles was a seperate entity)......worked on the GLHS, later the Neon, and finally, team Viper in 1997. I just love the way you skip over all the facts. Nothing against Mr. Fernandez, but when the three execs were brainstorming about the then future Viper, I don't think John was in on those meetings.

 

" I guess this is were we difer, I don't go by rumors.

If anyone else reading this thread has a specific question please post it and I will answer it."

 

It appears you don't go by facts either. YOU will answer it? How authoritarian. Answer incorrectly, you mean. What a joke.

[shelbymotorsports]

Uhhhh, no, not John Fernandez. It seems he joined team Viper in 1997,

 

Sorry but John Fernandez was involved with the Viper development at Shelby Automobiles in Whittier California. Your lack of Shelby history knowledge and refusal to listen makes any continuation of this thread impossible.

 

gen1dak you obviously have an agenda here. It has not gone unnoticed to me and others that you signed up anonymously on this board just to stir things up so now that it is clear what your intentions are its time to use the ignore option.

 

To the others that have PM'd me about this thread please continue with PM's and do not post in this thread.

 

Steve

[DeLa1Rob]

Thanks gen1dak, you have destroyed what was the beginnings of a good thread on some rare Shelby prototypes. Steve Thornton is a very well known man among the true Shelby aficionados. To insinuate that his posts are lies is just plain ludicrous. He has a life, what does he gain by posting BS?

 

Steve, it would be nice to keep relevant discussion within this thread so all can see. Not just PM's

 

Moderators, please prune this thread of the garbage and take what ever other action is felt necessary.

 

robin

[stump_breaker]

(Hijack)

 

Is this the same Steve that works at SAI and (at the time I was there) gave the plant tour?

 

(End Hijack)

[stump_breaker]

(Hijack)

 

Is this the same Steve that works at SAI and (at the time I was there) gave the plant tour?

 

(End Hijack)

 

 

[DeLa1Rob]

And the girlfriend runs in to protect him.

Please don't tell my wife that I am a woman.

 

gen1dak your writing style is so vitriolic that I dismiss anything you have to say. You ask Steve to offer proof, yet you offer none yourself. You continue to hide behind an alias.

 

If you wish to be civil, please make a posting on the introduction thread.

 

robin