(first posted 9/2/2015) From the very first Chrysler C-300 in 1955, the Chrysler 300 was something special. From a land that begat lots of mighty cars, the Letter Series 300 may have been the mightiest of all. The last few years of the series were, however, a bit of a letdown – if not in the car’s hard specs, at least in the way it seemed to stand not quite as tall as it’s predecessors. This 300K was the next-to-last of the series, but remained something special – in its unique way.
Ever since stumbling on the first Letter Series Chrysler 300 I have seen in eons, I have wanted to write about this car. There is an ever-dwindling amount of unexplored territory here at CC, and the Letter Series 300 is in that category. My problem was finding a theme. It is not the first (1955 C-300) or the last (1965 300L) of this very special breed. It is not the most fearsome (1958 300D or 1960 300F). It is not the lowest production (1963 300J). It does have the distinction of being the highest production (3022 coupes, 625 convertibles) of the series, but with a Roger Maris-style asterisk in that the car’s base price had been reduced by about $1,000 from 1963. So what, this is the Letter Series 300 favored by non-conformists and oddballs? I’m still not sure, so I’m just going to start writing and see where this winds up.
Back when the common law used more latin, there was the legal concept of sui generis. The term was applied to something that was of it’s own kind, or unique. This term seems to fit the Letter Series Chrysler 300.
The original 300 (technically C-300) of 1955 was a fascinating mash-up. It was basically a leather-trimmed New Yorker hardtop with the bold, brash Imperial grille. Oh yes, there was also that engine. This was the first American production car that could boast 300 horsepower, right out of the showroom. The 331 cid (5.4 L) Chrysler Firepower V8 had come out in 1951 with a rating of 180 horses, so a sixty percent jump in output was not insignificant. Add in suspension and brakes of nearly competition-quality, and you had one genuinely special Chrysler.
Photo source: Oldcaradvertising.com
This first 300 set the template for what the model would remain: a car that was big, expensive, beautiful, and a brutal performer. You could find two, or perhaps three, of those attributes in other cars, but nothing else gave you all four of them. And about that name, I am not sure anyone has ever nailed down whether it is “300” or “Three Hundred”. Both of those names appear on the cars over the years. However, given the prominent use of the digit-version in promoting the early cars, let’s go with that one, shall we?
When it came time for a 1956 model, Chrysler called it the 300B and thus began the nomenclature of the most sought-after poswar Chryslers, with each succeeding year given another letter from the alphabet to identify it. And with each advancing letter came advances in power and performance. The 300B’s Hemi was enlarged to 354 cid (5.8L) for 340-355 horsepower, and was followed by the 300C’s legendary 392 cubes (6.4L) that were good for 375-390 stallions. Today, when most people think of the late 1950s, they think of sock hops, rock and roll and ’57 Bel Airs. But there was another 1950s – the one for adults. That was the era of martinis, a Frank Sinatra album on the hi-fi and cars like the Chrysler 300.
Photo Source: Allpar.com
When the 1959 300E was the first without the legendary Hemi, some were afraid that the beast had lost it’s fangs and it’s fire. However, Chrysler’s engineering team was able to coax the same horsepower out of the new 413 Golden Lion V8 as from the late, great 392 Hemi, and with an increase in torque to go along with it. Even the shorter wheelbase of the 1962 300H brought with it the silver lining of the highest power to weight ratio of any 300 ever made.
But 1963 was seeing the winds of change. The car carried new styling that was perhaps less appealing to the aggressive yet luxurious bit of the market that the car had staked out. Also, Chrysler was under new management, and the old guard that had seemed particularly immune to cost pressures was gone. The 1963 300J lost it’s convertible, and sold a mere 400 units (each one costing about $300 less than a Cadillac convertible). To be fair, Chrysler sold an additional 1,864 Pacesetter convertibles that could kinda sorta be made to pass for a 300J, even if they were actually not.
By 1964, it was becoming clear that the always teeny part of the market that these cars occupied was beginning to vanish. The performance car was going downmarket, with Plymouth and Dodge now offering the hottest corporate powerplant in the new 426 Max Wedge, and in lighter cars, besides. Even worse, Chrysler itself began to cash in on the Letter cars’ cred with the Sport Series 300 that came out in 1962, which had all of the Letter car’s looks and a good deal of it’s performance, but at a much lower price. The part about the looks is up for discussion too, as the 1963-64 body never looked quite as good in two-door form as either earlier or later generations.
Still, this K car was no shrinking violet, equipped with a 4 bbl 413 wedge rated at 360 horsepower, and available with the twin 4 bbl cross ram that was good for another thirty horses. The car was available with either Chrysler’s excellent Torqueflite automatic, or even a 4 speed. The automatic is a fascinating bit of trivia, in that for the K, the shifter was a console-mounted lever, making this the only Chrysler passenger car automatic between 1956 and 1964 that did not shift with pushbuttons.
At $4056 for the hardtop and $4522 for the convertible, the 300K, though cheaper, was still not an inexpensive car. However, that price reduction was made possible by things like leather interiors no longer being standard equipment. Little by little, the magic was starting to seep out of the storied Chrysler 300, even it it’s performance still remained pretty much intact. The 300 would be back for a final edition, the “L”, in 1965, but by then there was really very little to distinguish it from the lesser models. The Letter cars of 1963-65 have never been able to command the respect (or the prices) of the earlier cars.
I did discover one interesting thing, in that this appears to be an example of the Silver Series that was available beginning in the spring of 1964. This trim package consisted of silver paint, black interior and a black canopy vinyl roof with a bright molding. Was this a Lynn Townsend move-the-metal kind of move? Hard to say. To Townsend, the low-volume 300 must have seemed like an anachronism from the Old Guard and not the kind of thing that would generate the volumes that any new model should be responsible to attain. Sadly, he was probably right, especially given that the 300’s niche was disappearing. Or did its niche disappear because it suffered from managerial neglect under the new regime? Probably some of both.
As much as I hate to admit it, the Letter Cars’ era was over by 1964. The market was taking each of the 300’s hallmarks (strong, big, expensive and beautiful) and splitting it off into it’s own model. A Max Wedge Belvedere, an Imperial LeBaron or even a Thunderbird? Take your pick, but nobody wanted to combine them into the same car anymore, not that many ever really did, given the Letter Cars’ annual production numbers. 1960s modernity was here to stay, and the decade would belong to Steve McQueen and Paul Newman, not Clark Gable and Gary Cooper.
Speaking of Gable, this car sort of reminds me of his character in his final film, 1960’s The Misfits. In it, Gable plays an old-school cowboy who doesn’t recognize what the world has become. It is a depressing movie that makes you feel for the old guy who no longer belongs. The last couple of years of the Chrysler 300 Letter cars suffered in the same way.
The 1960s would bring some fearsome cars from Detroit, many of them built by Chrysler Corporation. But none of them, impressive as they may have been, was anything like the Letter Series 300. In this spirit, I can appreciate that this 1964 model, and hope that this one can eventually be brought back to it’s former glory. If nothing else, we could say that there was still something special about the number 300 with a letter for a chaser. That, and that this is the final Letter Car before things really went to L.
Further reading:
1963 Chrysler New Yorker (jpcavanaugh)
1962 Chrysler 300 Sport (Laurence Jones)
Those finds just amaze me: How can anyone let this kind of decay happen to such a gorgeous car?
Easy. Take a car that’s in downhill shape, park it outside, and forget about it for a couple of years. Failing to close a window completely speeds up the process. Then there’s the damage you can’t see: The fuel tank wouldn’t have been drained prior to parking it, who knows about the oil level.
To somebody who owned it at the time it either wasn’t a gorgeous car but just something that needed to be parked – or – it was a planned project that never got started. Too much else to do in life, ya know.
In 1973 this was just a 10 year old beater. The Arab oil embargo made cars like this very unpopular due to high gas prices. Viet Nam was winding down but scrap prices were still high because of the war. Given that, this car was lucky to have escaped the crusher. It looks to have received no love since then.
It’s almost wearing a bow-tie on the back.
I think that almost-a-bowtie is also the fuel-filler door.
I noticed that too
Sorry I got here so late, in ’21 I searched comments before posting about the fuel door, to be sure I wouldn’t be re-plowing the same row.
I never noticed the fuel filler door before.
In a subtle way it has a bit of Thunderbird to it too.
I saved a sweet running 413 4bbl and its cable-shift Torqueflite out of similar hot Chrysler that was wrecked. It wasn’t a letter car. Even though I wasn’t that much of a Chrysler fanboy, I thought I might find a new home for the powerplant… even if it’d be a dump truck. lol Never did, still have it.
Chrysler missed a chance to re-use the ’62 Dodge 880 yet again. The side view of the 880 was much more ‘muscular’ than this semi-formal ’63 Chrysler.
And the front could have gone back to Firearrow territory. (Very sorry for crude Photoshop, but it sort of gets the idea across.)
Thanks for writing up this interesting car. The survivors are much valued today, and the memory has been stirred at Chrysler using the name and now even the spirit of these on their full size offerings. The 55-65 letter series tick off so many of the enthusiast boxes, one must wonder why sales were so low.
With it’s top of the line nature, the 300k had to appeal directly to the most mature and established Chrysler buyer. No one else had the ability to write the big check. Think of wealthy 55 year old in 64. He was probably an officer in WWII and was now a leader in his occupation, at least at the local level. To him the Imperial inspired grille reaks of faker and the car being most known for the hottest possible engine sounds reckless, or at least would appear that way. I think these attitudes explain why the letter series was such a failure in the marketplace.
A couple of generations later how attitudes have changed. There is no more New Yorker or Imperial among Chrysler full sizes, just 300s and Chargers, that can have over the top levels of hp from their V8. While they sell in some numbers, all over the world, but I for one miss the understated and discreteness of 50-60 years ago. That generation rebuilt the world after the war and in some ways we have been coasting since.
You raise a great point. For a big group of buyers at that time, discretion was a virtue and this car was too flashy. Ironically, it wasn’t flashy enough for buyers tempted by the Riviera and Thunderbird. This car was really in a no man’s land.
One wonders if it would have done better in the 70-80s when the generations had changed and the Chrysler name had been debased. There was still enough full size volume to justify it. A few hot engines wouldn’t have messed up CAFE once the Omni was there.
Though a terrific car for most of its run, it’s really not hard to figure out why 300 sales were so low. Although loaded with performance, these were basically just another Chrysler model that looked like everything else in the Chrysler line-up. They didn’t have the exclusivity of a T-Bird or Riviera, which looked nothing like any other Ford or Buick. Market interest in what amounted to a hi performance New Yorker was limited. Most luxury brand customers who wanted something special in a coupe or convertible went elsewhere.
You’re right about the WWII generation who came to fruition in the 1950’s. Many successful professionals of this era would never consider a Cadillac or Lincoln, as “it wouldn’t seem right”. Instead, they opted for Buick Roadmasters and Olds 98’s, which boomed during this period.
From what I’ve read, the early editions of the letter-series 300s really were “Beautiful Brutes.” The engine was tuned for performance, not smoothness, and that tight suspension gave a very rough ride.
This was in the days before the domestic industry seriously considered adopting independent rear suspension, so the one way to get good handling was to specify very stiff springs and shocks. That alone probably limited its sales appeal.
This car gives me a new found appreciation for the styling of the ’64. While it is sad to see this car rotting to a state where it is likely beyond repair (I doubt the value of the finished product–even as a real 300K–would justify the restoration costs needed), these pictures certainly do show off the car’s lines. I can see why it was not perceived as sexy or distinct enough back when it was new, but it is handsome with a lot of very nice detailing.
JPC, I think you nailed it with your allusions to the changing tastes, from Clark Gable to Steve McQueen. This car was “lost in time” but still compelling in a throwback way. It’s just that the 1960s only wanted to charge ahead…
Very nice article James! At least personally, the 300K holds a special place in my heart. This had to have been about 7-8 years ago now, when we still had a house on the Cape, my mom and I were driving down to it and stuck in the typical Friday evening Cape traffic. A beautiful burgundy colored 300K convertible was in the other lane, and we kept passing each other in stop-and-go traffic. At this point I didn’t have a huge interest in cars from the 1960s, but as the traffic let up and the 300K sped off into the subset, I dare to say that it sparked a greater passion in me for cars from the era of big V8s, big convertibles, and all-chrome interiors. They might not be the most sought after, but these 300s are still stunning works of art!
The ’64 certainly isn’t the most elegant car pictured in this article, but for some reason they are still very appealing cars. It is such a tasty mixture of ’50s holdover with ’60s flair.
Several years ago, I wrote about my next door neighbor when I was a youngster, Orville, and how he built his own house at age 80. His step-daughter had a ’64 Chrysler wagon and she visited frequently. Painted in pure white, that was the first wagon I could remember that didn’t have an odd angle to it. Many years later, on a trip to Charleston, South Carolina, I found a ’64 Newport with a factory floor shift. Soon thereafter, I found an immaculate 300K for sale on a used car lot in Houston, Missouri.
It’s likely those three fed my predisposition toward the ’64s. This one has been able to keep some dignity about it despite its overall condition.
A terrific find and a great article!
The 1955 C300 is often referred to as the second musclecar (between the 1949 Olds Rocket 88 and 1964 GTO) but that distinction seems somewhat odd, to me. Traditionally, a musclecar was a big engine in a smaller car, and the big, full-size C300 doesn’t really fit that definition. Likewise, the 300 letter cars were rather pricey (sporting a grille from the Imperial, no less), and it wouldn’t be until the 1968 Roadrunner that musclecars reached their zenith as a cheap, bare-bones package dedicated solely to speed.
OTOH, with it’s special 300 horsepower Hemi engine, the C300 made a huge splash in 1955 (eclipsed only by the introduction of the thin-wall, small block V8 engine in Ed Cole’s new ‘young person’s car’) and that, alone, gives it all the credibility needed for the musclecar claim. In much the same way as Bunkie Knudson and his ‘Wide-Track’ Pontiacs, the 300 letter series set the tone for Chryslers to be considered the car for hustlers, the prototypical ‘businessman’s express’, all the way until the dark days of the seventies emasculated the once proud marque down to the depths of the dismal, FWD, four-cylinder, K-car.
It didn’t occur to me until after this piece was finished that the Chrysler 300 is more like the final successor to old school American performance cars like the Stutz Bearcat and the Duesenberg SJ than it was a muscle car, as that concept is usually understood.
Where the old school was about aristocratic performance, muscle cars were more democratized. The prewar Ford V8, the Olds 88, the GTO and the rest all followed another formula: performance for everyman.
The 1936 Buick Century begat the Olds Rocket 88 that begat the Pontiac Tempest…. High Performance began to go down market in a nearly linear fashion at GM (of the big 3). The Chrysler 300 however kept it at the level of the original Century and early ’50s Lincolns, Yes it was a limited market, But it proved that american cars can be luxurious and fine performers as well.
JPC, I think Virgil Exner would have agreed with your statement. He loved cars from the Classic era and as a designer was seeking ways to recreate the magic. I am sure that would have influenced his thinking for the production letter cars.
Post Chrysler, he continued with the direction and revival designs became his signature. Here is a sampling of model cars from the 1960s that were based on his designs. Sure enough, Stutz and Duesenberg are featured.
“…the Chrysler 300 is more like the final successor to old school American performance cars like the Stutz Bearcat and the Duesenberg SJ…”
The final successor to that type of car was the Chrysler Imperial…probably 1966 crown coupe le baron, IMO
but maybe the Ford Thunderbird…64 model with a 427 perhaps?
Interesting take on the letter-series 300 being a latter-day Stutz Bearcat/Duesenberg SJ. I wonder if one of the things that gave Chrysler pause about the letter cars was a potential conflict with Imperial coupe sales. Likewise, you have to wonder if the idea was broached to slot the 300 in as a replacement for (or at least sold alongside) Imperial coupes and forego the whole non-letter 300 plan. The 300 did actually start out as pretty much a hot-rod Imperial.
In the end, although it doesn’t sit well with enthusiasts today, diluting the 300 with a non-letter series was probably the smarter move in the long run, financially, particularly when one considers how the Imperial was diluted in an almost identical fashion.
Some people view the 1957 Rambler Rebel as the first muscle car. It followed the formula – a mid-size car with a hot engine and special trim. Unfortunately, it was only available as a hardtop sedan, as Rambler did not offer two-doors in 1957.
I remember someone on Barnfinds citing the 1952 Bentley Continental as the most similar type of car to the letter series. Extra fast, luxurious and expensive two-door saloon with the only difference being a unique body for the Bentley.
Great find and piece. Reading it, I was reminded of the title of Luis Buñuel’s 1977 film, “That Obscure Object of Desire.” As a kid, there was one of these in the neighborhood where I delivered newspapers, a stunning red ’63 convertible and as the production stats show, there were very few around. I used to pause and admire that machine thinking someday I’d acquire one. I never did of course, except for the Jo-Han 1/25 scale model kit I assembled.
I, too, have that model. It was was given to me in 1964 by an uncle. And, I still have it stored away somewhere.
Well written .
Too bad this car is over the edge , only a true Die Hard could save it now =8-( .
-Nate
Yeah, Hagerty says that a nice one of these only brings $17-20K, depending on whether single or dual carbs.
Man, that’s a pretty clapped-out heap! That’s a real shame, because even thought style-wise being very much out-of-date at that time, this car deserves a better fate than this.
Sadly, I agree with Nate – this car does seem to be beyond a reasonable chance of saving – buy a new 300 and save the $$$ on what it would take to get this car back on its feet.
Too bad, indeed, but an interesting find nonetheless.
Good Lord the early 60s were hideous years for Chrysler. Still, interesting cars. I don’t really see how they didn’t fit the market, though. The general idea was a top seller. Buick, Olds, Cadillac, Mercury, Lincoln, all the other Chrysler nameplates and Imperial all sold expensive, heavy, large, luxurious, high powered cars. Exactly what the 300 series began and ended as. Chrysler either didn’t market it right, people were turned off by the fugly styling, or both. It wasn’t the market so much as the finer points of this car that killed it.
Also, I’m sorry to be a stickler but… It’s and its have different usages!
I am curious which of those other cars you mention came with 390 horsepower? And if any of them did, none came with the suspension and brakes that such a car needed. It might have been possible to special-order something close by picking lots of seldom-used option boxes or export parts like the Super Duty Pontiacs of the early 60s, but they were hardly luxury cars as the 300s were.
You’re being too specific. I didn’t say the all had exactly the same number of horsepower.
And the article even specifically mentions how other Chryslers could be optioned similarly to the 300 after the first couple of years, and that later on it was mostly an options group/trim package on the standard car.
I’m not demeaning it, don’t get me wrong. I just feel that the article seems to imply that the car failed against all odds, that it was the market that just didn’t “get” a car that was large, brash, luxurious, expensive, and powerful, when that was the exact template for some of the most successful, high-profile and best-remembered cars from that era. This car just didn’t get the details right, is all I’m saying, leading to market rejection.
Several of my all-time favorite cars from my youth were utter flops because they didn’t get the details right. I still enjoy them immensely. Didn’t mean to personally offend you.
No offense taken, I just disagree with your premise. Big, expensive cars that were making maybe 325-340 horsepower were all over the place in the early 1960s. These include the Chrysler New Yorker and the Sport Series 300. They were tuned for smooth torque and had suspensions designed for a smooth, quiet ride. Same at Buick, Olds, Lincoln, Mercury, and Cadillac.
The Letter Series 300 was alone in this group with dual four barrels, cross ram manifolds, and up to 400 horsepower in factory tune (1960). They also had very firm (even a bit harsh) suspensions and tuning that made them better at (generally illegal) triple digit highway speeds than for getting groceries or cruising to church. When a guy could buy a Cadillac for less money, he had to really value performance to lay down the cash for one of these, and there were never many willing to do that.
I think that your statement may have some truth to it by the time the 300L came in 1965, as the cross ram and dual 4 bbls were gone by then, making it a slightly warmed-up Sport 300 that looked almost identical yet cost a lot less money. By then, there really was no reason to choose the 300L.
Those are some sad pictures. 🙁
I hope somebody can at least use some parts from that car, as nobody’s reproducing them. It’s interesting that the ’64 Chrysler is actually longer than the ’65. The lines of the ’65 kind of trick the mind, at least my mind. 🙂
Dude…if I remember correctly, your Corvair was in at least as bad a shape when you started out. If I had half your skills and the time, Id attempt it. But like you said, no one is repopping parts, and this one is on the fence as to whether its a saver or a parter outter. Point being, if someone has the love and the know how, it may not be too far gone.
After seeing all the rust hiding in BigOldChrysler’s Windsor, which had a rather clean looking body, I’d be very afraid of what is hiding in this car. I personally lost one car – my ’67 Galaxie coupe – to frame cancer, and the body looked a heck of a lot nicer than this poor 300.
The 1963 Buick Riviera was a (the) major coffin nail in the 300. It looked 10x better, and had very decent performance. Yes, the 300 might have had an edge in performance, but by this time no one really saw big, expensive coupes like these cars as the performance leading edge, which had been taken over by the smaller cars. While the first few 300s had genuine performance creds with their success in racing and setting records, by the 60s that was old hat.
You said it yourself: the buyers of the 300 by this time were like the Clark Gable character in Misfits; and to take the analogy further, Marylin M. was like the Riviera. She was all about the future in her role; maybe she was more like a…BMW, or…Prius? 🙂
For that matter, I’d say the ’58 T-Bird was the real beginning of the end for the 300. It offered an exclusive body style, performance (if perhaps not quite at the 300’s level), and a more unique interior.
The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that the 300’s buyers must have been a rather conservative bunch, and deeply loyal to Chrysler. And was part of a shrinking pool.
I think when the 300 letter series started it was a “personal luxury coupe” as well as a performance car. By the end of the 50’s the 300 letter series was Chrysler’s Thunderbird. When Chrysler renamed the Windsor the plain 300 I think the letter series was no longer as attractive as a “personal luxury coupe” . Then the 63 Riviera did not help either. The 300 letter series buyers were people who were Chrysler fans too but the automobile market was changing during the 60’s.
Here’s what I’m wondering about–Chrysler’s neglect of the nascent personal luxury market. The Thunderbird defined it when it went to 4 seats in ’58. The Riviera took it up a notch, and spawned the Tornado, and indirectly the Eldorado, Mark III, Grand Prix and Monte Carlo. Why did Chrysler drop the letter series altogether rather than giving it a unique body and continuing as their entry in this field? I find it rather confusing that Chrysler chose to stay out of this increasingly competitive market rather than aim squarely at the Riviera, what with Buick being their closest analogue within GM.
Yes, Mopar as a whole did have the Charger, which was aimed squarely there in first-generation form. But, unless I’m misreading the market (possible as reputation may cloud my analysis) the second-gen Charger was something of a different animal. And in any case the Chrysler division should have had one that wouldn’t have had to deal with the over-the-top (if memorable) performance distractions like the Daytona and the R/T, and could have concentrated on being a well-insulated, nicely trimmed “gentleman’s express” alternative to the Riv, Toro, and T-bird.
I suspect that Chrysler, having made the Imperial a new make, did not have the resources to turn the 300 into something unique. Sales of the 300 letter series improved for the last couple of years of production, due to reduced prices. But sales of the T-bird are around 75,000+ and Riviera about 40,000. Letter series sales of 2-3,000 did not make sense when they were mostly outfitted like the base 300. I suspect Chrysler was hoping to get 10,000 sales not 2500 or so.
As near as I can tell, Chrysler did not market a small Chrysler in the 60’s. They might have turned the Dodge Charger into a Chrysler personal luxury car, but would that have been successful?
Remember Iacocca tried much later. Remember the 79 Cordoba had a 300 package with Chryslers best engine at the time and then followed it up with the 81 Imperial, which though not without flaws was aimed at the E bodies. The Tbird was debased by then. Neither was a success, but some of that must have been due to the iffy state of Chrysler by then.
What a sad state for a special car. Still, it’s good to see one, and a nice analysis of why these birds are so rare. They really were niche vehicles, and that niche disappeared eventually. I can’t think of many other vehicles from mid to upper-tier manufacturers that were marketed to that niche–maybe something like the ’69-’70 Mercury Marauder, though it was not the equal of the 300 letter cars in really any category.
That 300K advertisement is amusing if you look at which boxes come “already checked”. Direction signals? Really? On what car in 1964 were those *not* standard? In 1944 maybe they would have been an option.
Love that steering wheel.
Thank you, JPCavanaugh, for a great article about a car that is seldom seen today even at classic car shows.
When I was younger, the 1963-64 Chryslers seemed very odd to me. Today, they seem even more strange, given that, from a styling standpoint, they really don’t relate to their predecessors or successors, not to mention other corporate offerings from 1963 and 1964.
The 1963 Chryslers were a major change from the 1962 models, which had sold well because they were the only true full-size car offered by the corporation until the mid-year debut of the cobbled-together Dodge Custom 880. If a buyer was turned off by the shrunken, strangely styled 1962 Plymouths, the dealer would quickly show him or her a 1962 Newport, which wasn’t that much more expensive.
If I recall correctly, sales of the 1963 Chryslers weren’t that great, which probably didn’t help 300J sales. A more conventionally styled full-size Plymouth probably hurt Chrysler Division sales. Sales bounced back somewhat for the division in 1964, even though the styling wasn’t changed.
The 1963-64 Chryslers picked up the styling themes of the aborted S-Series Imperial that Exner had originally planned for 1962. This car looks as though it has one foot in the late 1950s, particularly with that windshield, and one foot in the 1960s. The 1965 Chryslers were a complete change, and much more successful in the market, as they were definitely a 1960s design. Chrysler Division set a sales record that year.
The 1964 Chrysler is one of those cars, like the 1954 Chevrolet and Plymouth, 1976 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice and 1982 Ford Thunderbird, that I would have kicked myself for buying after next year’s model appeared.
As for the analogy to Clark Gable and the film, The Misfits – it’s quite appropriate. Making the film was a very stressful experience for him, which was aggravated by the personal problems of co-stars Marilyn Monroe and Montgomery Clift. Gable died of a heart attack two months after production of the film was finished.
Many good points. When these came out in 1963 (I was ten at the time), they left me pretty confused. I was all-too familiar with the big Chrysler Co. cars of the 1957-1962 era, but this was an odd follow-up. I wanted to think this was a “new’ car, but the 1957 windshield gave it away (seriously Chrysler; you couldn’t afford a new windshield?) it was a mish-mash of old and new(ish) ideas, and in certain ways it was intriguing, but 1963 was also the year of the Riviera, Sting Ray and the revised GM big cars. The ’63-64 Chryslers had no real chance.
Unlike the Imperial, the 1960 regular Chrysler line was all new, and shared nothing visible with the 1957-59 cars. Everything I have seen indicates that the windshields were actually different, though the new 60 cars windshield and vent wings used a shape very similar to the older style (the difference was most visible in the pillared sedans). Why is a good question.
I was referring to the impressions formed when I was ten 🙂 At the time, I’m not sure I knew just what the changes were for 1960.
I find it odd that Chrysler didn’t revise the basic design shapes/proportions/roof lines/etc. more for 1960. I used to assume that parts of the 1959 body were re-used for 1960, but that may be off the mark. It’s a bit of a mystery to me, but hardly the only one regarding Chrysler of those years.
I know what you mean. From a very young age, that oddly shaped vent window was always the tell for a Chrysler. I am quite sure that I did not pick up the subtle differences in the greenhouses of the 57-59 and the 60-62 Chryslers until I owned my 59 Plymouth. Including Plymouth, Dodge, Desoto and Imperial, they had quite a few variations on that general greenhouse look that they all shared.
Also bear in mind that the 1963/64 Chrysler was actually a quite thorough update of the 1962 body. When I had my 62 Newport I discovered that the interior door panel from a 300K hardtop was an exact fit to the 1962’s door, and that the only change in the rear quarter piece was the place where the 63/64 rear quarter window kicked up. Since the windshield was also unchanged, the cowl must have been as well. That distinctive windshield and vent window shape unfortunately helped people remember the quickly-rusting late 1950’s cars.
It’s interesting – and telling – that Chrysler specifically used the tagline, “The Beautiful New Chrysler,” for the all-new 1965 model. Which it was, compared to the 1963-64 models.
And I agree that this car had no chance against GM’s 1963-64 line-up, particularly the Buick Riviera.
Actually Chrysler sales for 1963 are even with 1962 (or production is). Sales were increasing from 1960 (77,285) to 1962 (128,921) then level off at 128,937. 1964 increases to 153,000 and 65 is over 200,000.
300 letter series sales are as follows: 1960-1200+; 1961-?; 1962-570; 1963-400; 1964(lower price)3600; 1965- 2845.
Chrysler Corporation, as a whole, had a terrible sales year in 1962, which wasn’t a bad year for the industry. The corporation’s market share was near 10 percent for the year.
It’s interesting that, for 1963, the corporation’s sales recovered, thanks to more conventional Dodges and Plymouths, and restyled compacts. But Chrysler Division sales were flat, even though 1963 was a better year for the industry as a whole than 1962 had been.
“The 1964 Chrysler is one of those cars, like the 1954 Chevrolet and Plymouth, 1976 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice and 1982 Ford Thunderbird, that I would have kicked myself for buying after next year’s model appeared.”
Agree with all of these except for the ’76 Chevy. I’ve always had some lust for this look…….
And, we had this in our stable in this paint, add the snowflake wheel covers and sport mirrors. It was a looker, and a great driver, but not near as sleek as the ’76…..
One of my uncles had a 1965 Chrysler 300L. It really wasn’t anything spectacular but I regret letting it get away when he traded it for a Plymouth Reliant K-Car. At least he got one with the Mitsubishi Hemi 4-cylinder.
Nice writeup and an interesting take on these cars. Personally, this bodystyle ties with the ’55’s and ’56’s as my favorite 300s. Yes, the bodystyle is a bit quirky but thats what I like about it. Very much in character for a Chrysler product. I think its that ‘upkick’ in the trailing edge of the rear quarter that bakes it in for me. This example wearing Torq Thrusts…well then thats that. Ive seen a fair number of even the 4 door hardtops in this bodystyle and it works really well too. Overall just a really great car. I can only hope that the next redesign of the current 300 looks to these for a bit of inspiration.
I agree with you on the style. I run sort of hot and cold on these. The lower level 4 door sedans are sort of “meh”, as are the Newport 2 doors. But this car with these wheels, the silver paint and that partial black vinyl roof make this the best looking 2 door 63-64 Chrysler I can ever recall seeing. Also, the K eliminates the overdone stainless trim on the upper bodysides that is found on Sport 300s. This car, in restored condition with those wheels, could make me a very happy guy if one were plopped on my driveway.
Actually, there was a metallic mint green Newport on the list of craig for sale somewhere in Southern OR. It was a 4 door hardtop and was wearing Torq Thrust D’s like this. For a 4 door, I thought that car was DAMN sharp looking, Its that roofline and C pillar, man. Something about it. There are vestiges of it in the ’00-05 Sebring coupes. More to come on that, btw….
I think the ’63-’64s are one of those cars that look better in person than they do in photographs.
“I’m still not sure, so I’m just going to start writing and see where this winds up.”
Nice write up, and a good analogy to where the full-size sport/luxury car based on a standard model was going – offerings proliferated but were generally not big sellers, executives were not really sure what the future was for the segment.
To the extent that the 300 was a unique offering in 1955, it was in a pretty crowded field by 1963 – the Buick Wildcat, Oldsmobile Starfire, and Pontiac Grand Prix used much the same formula, and the 1963 Buick Riviera seconded the Ford Thunderbird’s vote that this class of car really needed a unique body, not just special trim on a standard model with a big engine under the hood. The ’66 Toronado, ’67 Eldorado, ’69 Mark III, and the ’69 Grand Prix pretty much made this unanimous.
The ’63 – ’64 Chryslers are sort of a love / hate thing for me. Enough love that I gave serious consideration to buying a loaded New Yorker Salon hardtop in the mid 1980’s, enough dislike that cars such as the ’64 Olds or ’65 Chrysler are usually much more my objects of desire in this class. The ’63-’64 Chrysler was just a hair smaller than the ’62 Chrysler and the ’65 and later cars. It was the year late answer to the 1962 downsizing at Dodge and Plymouth, just with much less weirdness. With its (very) slightly trimmer dimensions and unique styling, dare I say it looked a bit European?
The 300 K was in a crowded field that was more or less dying in 1964 – tastes were changing and high end buyers were demanding a more unique and exclusive product. Still, a properly optioned 300 could be a looker all the way to the end in 1971.
Make mine a ’68 convertible with buckets, console shift and gobs of options….
Then again, the ’69 300 might have been the nicest Fuselage Mopar of them all….
I am with you on the 67-68 300 – that car stikes the perfect balance between luxury and sport for me. By 1968-69, even a mildly sporty big car like these or the Buick Wildcat were dying too. Where the “real” 300s were early 60s cars stuck in the late 50s, these were late 60s cars stuck in the early 60s. The Ford LTD, Mercury Marquis and Mark III were the future, baby! 🙂
History makes your point well, but I’ve long had a thought that the extreme watering down of the base versions of the Wildcat and 300 made them so indistinguishable from the LeSabre and Newport that they killed the appeal of the properly spec’d versions as unique models. The four door sedans with bench seats – blasphemy!
At the risk of lower volumes but higher margins and some showroom cheesecake, I’d have made hardtop / convertible, buckets, console with shift, styled wheels and a decent number of features standard to make the Wildcat and 300 stand out from the lower models. Let the responsible family guys buy bench seat LeSabres and Newports.
A footnote to this market segment: The same executives that brought us the Mercury Marquis must have been deep into their second bottle of scotch when they green lighted the ’69 Mercury Maurader, arguably the last new entry to the segment and one of history’s most DOA cars. An early look at Iacocca’s later inability to move on?
Young sporty car buyers wanted smaller and lighter bodies in ’64, GTO. Adults with lots of spending money wanted more unique styling, Rivs.
Most Mopar drag race fans had no interest in a twin of ‘Granny’s Newport’, so Charger/Road Runner for them. Even a ’65 Sport Fury was more youthful.
I love that Chrysler offered the letter-series 300 as long as they did. Saw one of these at Auto Collections in Vegas…. Love the almost 70s rear, don’t love the front… But I like a lot of Mopars from this era, even some of the “weird” ones
A better looking example
I always liked these oddball cars. I think the Riviera comment was correct, it was the personal luxury coupe to be seen in. But if it were 1963/4 I think my choice for a personal luxury coupe would be a Studebaker Hawk with the supercharged V8 and a 4speed.
May have already mentioned that my first car was a 1963 Chrysler Thee Hundred 2-door. A non-letter car. My second car, purchased in about 1974, was a 1964 Chrysler 300-K. It was purchased from a very small Chrysler dealer in Westerville, Ohio – a Columbus suburb – and was still almost like new. Also, a very good friend from my Boy Scout days, also a Mopar guy, had a Silver Series 300-K in the late 1970s. Anyway, my “K” was a very solid, dependable and reliable car with more than adequate performance for a young guy. I joined the Chrysler 300 Club International and attended several national meets. I found that the later 300 letter cars lacked some of the panache of the early models and didn’t get near the respect.
As the ’63-’64 Chryslers carry styling originally intended for the S-Series Imperial, they suffered from the details and proportions being watered down for the middle-price segment. Other than the carryover of the grille shape, no real effort was expended to create styling continuity. Undoubtedly, the 1965 design program was underway when the stopgap decisions were made to utilize this theme for ’63, something of a “good enough for now until we can do a completely new car.
Letter Series 300’s are among the most appealing models they built for ’63-’64. For those who enjoy the most luxurious four door hardtops, seek out a New Yorker Salon. Fully loaded with a four bucket style interior, they’re very compelling motorcars.
I routinely pass by a used car dealer specializing in classics. Today there is a ’64 Riviera parked out front. That Riviera exudes slinkiness and glamor while the Chrysler looks dowdy. Unless you really wanted the hot engine, I can’t see how anyone would have chosen the Chrysler.
Great write up. Some one appears to care enough about this car to keep it freshly washed.
It’s a coincidence that I just finished building a 300……the 1956 North Wilkesboro NASCAR winner driven by Tim Flock.
Chrysler has made mistakes in its checkered history (especially in the early sixties), but the 300 wasn’t one of them. It was a big deal prior to the advent of the big-engined intermediate class, but once that arrived, the writing was on the wall.
To his credit, Lynn Townsend saw it and responded correctly. He introduced the 1962 Sport Series 300 which did a fine of taking up the 300 letter-series mantel, but at a much lower cost. The letter-series hung on for another three years, but the days of a big, expensive, specialty, luxury car with an exclusive drivetrain were over.
Interestingly, the non-letter 300 wasn’t without competition. There was still the Mercury X-100 and Buick Wildcat. And, of course, the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix SJ. But none of them would have the kind of caché those early letter-series 300s had.
I find the cross in the middle of the grille annoying for some reason, and the fact that it is coloured is also bothersome. It made the grille unnecessarily busy, yet did not add anything to its design.
The hood had a flattop feel to it, and from the front on photo, it looks either like an aircraft carrier, augmented by the inverse trapezoid grille, or maybe just a kitchen griddle.
Chrysler turned the design into something positive in 1965, and improved upon it even more in the 1966 model year.
I don’t have anything good to say about the back end either, so will end by thanking you for this post. The mini history of the 300s was very nice to read.
I like the ’63-’64 Chryslers, but more the New Yorker or Newport…don’t care so much for the console shifter.
The mention of “non-full sized” cars like the Riviera and Thunderbird taking over the market at the time got me thinking, Chrysler was into the “no junior editions” stance that only ended more than a decade later with the Cordoba, it probably hurt them if people wanted a premium car that was a little smaller. It seemed like Chrysler stayed full sized longer (kind of like Cadillac until Seville), and Dodge or Plymouth wasn’t considered for such a car (a bit odd though that Thunderbird was a Ford, instead of maybe Mercury).
Not sure at which point, but people started considering smaller, mid-sized cars as the preferred platform for these cars. In the 80’s Chrysler went small in a big way such that what had been considered a compact a few years before became their large car, but they weren’t alone, everyone thought that gas would be such a big deal so luxury coupes downsized also, very quickly.
I’m not really the type to need a full sized car, but in my older years I wish these were still available, or maybe something of current size but with higher seating comfort like these without going to a truck or SUV. Also appreciate bit of a smoother ride, as my stiff suspension days (like I had in my GTi) are behind me. I kind of laugh about the carpool I was in 40 years ago, 3 persons, all with small 2 door cars (we’d already forgone midsize or larger) but those days are long gone (even for the younger crowd nowadays).