1970 Barracuda/'Cuda Valence Rear panel bolt kit question

[BriceRoad]

I noticed the rear valence panel was loose on my 1970 Barracuda. There are some missing bolts and some missing clips (the parts with the threads in them-forget what they are called). The missing parts on my car are directly below the bumper. I want to buy a rear valence panel bolt kit but some places have a kit that has 20 pieces and other vendors have a kit that has 28 pieces. I counted all the fasteners that are on my car including the missing ones and I come with 24 fasteners.

Does anyone know which kit is correct or were there different ways of attaching the rear valence panel during the 1970 model year production?

The 20 piece kit apparently has the 4 connections to the quarter panel which has 3 parts to each one (clip, stud, and nut) and then the 4 bolts and clips that are directly below the rear bumper but my car also has two more bolts and clips near the very bottom of the valence panel near the fuel tank thus making the count 24.

 

[Xcudame]

Get the 28 piece kit. It's correct for 70 Challengers and Barracudas and also has four bolts that bolt the two brackets to the car - thus 28 pieces.

 

[BriceRoad]

Thank you very much!!!

 

[Xcudame]

70 Barracuda and 70 Challengers are odd vehicles in a lot of ways. Not to insult 71-74 E-Body owners ( I have a 71 Barracuda), but it's like Chrysler started cutting costs after 1970 to save money or change items to meet ever changing Federal regulations. It's interesting that more 70 E-Bodies sold than any other year.

 

[BriceRoad]

Yes, I partially agree. I think some of it was cost cutting moves but some of it was they just found better/more efficient ways of doing something. I could be wrong though!
I was once told that the '71 model year has more in common with the '72-'74 model year than the '70. It does seem to be true.

 

[Xcudame]

Bean counters also started having more influence than the engineers had in the mid-50s through the 60s.

Side note, part of what made (makes?) GM lousy was the bean counters in my opinion. They had decent bodies and ideas, but got cheap with excessive plastic and inferior metals. But you have to give GM some credit, at one time they were 1% of the USA gross national product. Working for an engine rebuilder for several years (crankshaft grinder and polisher), I realized that a Mopar only shop would (does) charge high prices because their stuff lasts a lot longer that GM and Ford! Rough estimate of brands per total rebuilds. GM 40%, Ford 30%, Foreign (mostly Japanese) 20%, Industrial (Case, Cat, IHC, etc.) 4% and Mopar 6%. Yet Mopar was more than 6% of the market!

 

[Xcudame]

Sorry I deviated so far from the topic. I'm a Mopar head through and through!

 

[BriceRoad]

No need to apologize. I love talking about this kind of thing.

I didn't realize that bean counters had such an influence in the '50s. After thinking it over I guess you are right and mainly it was cost cutting moves on the E bodies.

I did recently watch a YouTube video (take it with a grain of salt) because you don't know for sure if it is true but it made sense to me. The video said that some time in the post war era GM was purposely making their vehicles only last 100K miles so the person would have to buy another car from them-planned obsolescence. I am also a Mopar fan to the core and I also believe that their engines lasted longer than GM. My friend had a Coronet that lasted to 300K miles before the original 318 finally needed some work. The strange thing to me is assuming the planned obsolescence story is true (which I do believe) I have met many (mostly Chevy guys) tell similar stories over the years about their cars lasting a long time. So what I always wondered is if the GM cars were failing at 100K miles how did so many people become so enamored with the brand? Why was GM so popular back then?