I snapped these pictures at the same spot I found the weirdo custom Seville, and while there is nothing exactly amazing about this car, it’s a nice example of a clean old car that you don’t see much any more.
We’ve covered cars like this before, but never a non-letter 300 of this vintage that I’m aware of. Sounds like a good enough reason to me! These and other photos of this car can be found at the Cohort.
You have to hand it to Elwood Engel; after picking up the pieces from one of the most eccentric designers ever, he whipped Chrysler’s cars into shape in a hurry. The result is mostly clean, subdued styling across the line.
I like a good nose, and I think this qualifies. It has a bit of a menacing look when viewed head-on, don’t you think?
I also like a good hood ornament.
The rear emblem is a variation on the theme, and I like it as well.
The body sides looks more scooped out in person than they do in these pictures. I never cared for this detail until I spent a few minutes up close and personal with this car. I also really like the detailing of this tail light design.
The net effect of the rear treatment is a bit cleaner and more cohesive than the front, I think, and the designers did a good job of making this model have the faintest undertone of sporty, powerful character somewhere just under the chrome.
This part is probably my favorite part about these big ’60s Chryslers. I love how far back the rear axle is, and if you look back up at the first couple of pictures, notice the huge rear overhang. There was no other reason for this crazy excess than style, baby!
I didn’t quite know what to make of the overall condition of this car. You can’t tell it much in these shots, but whoever painted the car was better at painting than whoever did the body prep. It had obviously had the trim either removed entirely or it was masked off VERY thoroughly, but the body itself had visible texture that it shouldn’t have under the very decent paint. And then you have this driver’s seat in an otherwise very clean old interior…this thing is probably a 20-year-old restoration that got driven a fair bit afterward and is now for sale again.
Power windows are featured in this comfy 300’s interior. Don’t you love the chrome on the seat backs?
What do you figure this car is worth, assuming there is nothing scary underneath and it has whatever the average wedge engine is in good shape? $5500?
Nothing like a mid 60s Mopar C body to get my attention on a Monday afternoon. The 300s (or is it Three Hundreds) were always my favorite trim level of this series. After the 300L in 1965, these were all there were. But the slightly sporty flavor in a big car always struck a chord with me.
A few years ago, I got to see one of these that had sat for years in a garage. It was a silver 2 door with a black vinyl roof and white vinyl interior. Buckets and console, even. It was a nice old car, except for the dull silver paint. I think that someone in the owner’s family ended up with it.
The 66 has another of my favorite dashboards.
That is a good face…ages well, and very similar to the ’64 Buick Wildcat that preceded it. (and that I am unable to post a photo of at the moment)
I’ll start the bidding at $2,000.00
As a kid that spent a number of years in the back seat of a ’66 VIP, these mid 60s Chryslers are growing on me!
A fellow Chrysler enthusiast had this car in pale metallic purple (not plum crazy, kind of a grayish purple) with white vinyl padding on the C pillars and a white and black interior very similar to that on my 300L hardtop.
A couple of years ago there was a very nice burgundy 66 300 2-door hardtop that had a factory three-speed transmission. Talk about a rare bird…I was really tempted but it was waay east of here in Ohio or someplace like that.
Yes, the three speed manual transmission was a standard feature on many luxury cars (even Cadillacs) through the 60’s.
IIRC, Caddys didn’t get automatics as standard equipment until 1971. I was shocked by that factoid, but I guess there had to be a way for dealers to make a few extra dollars on these cars.
I have a hard time imagining that back in the day that there were price leader Caddys, but who knows?
geozinger: Hydramatic was standard on all Cadillacs going back to the late forties. In 1950, one could still order the tree-speed manual, at least in the commercial chassis and Series 61, but I think it went away altogether within a few years. The take rate in 1950 was less than 2%.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1950-cadillac-series-61-coupe-the-cc-logomobile-now-with-more-pictures/
Yup, Hydra-Matic became standard across the line in 1952. It was still technically optional on the Series 61 and Series 75 in 1951 — basically, on the entry-level model and the formal car (which was usually going to be professionally driven anyway). For 1952, Cadillac dropped the Series 61 and standardized H-M on the formal cars.
I stand corrected.
Cadillac Called such a Light Metallic Purple – Heather Firemist in 1985
I can see it On A FleetWood Or Sedan DeVille,86 maybe not
In 1965 On The Chevrolet Impala It Was Called What …?Iris Firemist?
who knew a 66 charger came in MAuve FireMist.metallic
I Could Be The Car Guy Who is Obsessed wIth The Colors of These Old Boats…
Rare Purples Are Cool With White In My Opinion.
On the ’65 Chevy it was called “Evening Orchid.” Offered for that model year only, not very popular I guess, but definitely one of my favorite colors for that year. My parents had a ’65 Bel Air wagon but it was aqua.
@pfsm: The color you’re referring to was probably “Lilac” metallic.
I agree…haven’t gone out to the shop to look in my 66 brochure but that sounds right.
I really prefer these driven cars to the ones at car shows. I’m more much interested in cars that get used.
Me too!
Me three. I abhor trailer queens. I don’t care if it the last-drivable Tucker…DRIVE IT!
A nicely optioned example, that appears to need little work to look very presentable.
– factory A/C
– power windows
– power vent windows (a separate option not often seen)
– factory power antenna
– bucket seats with buddy seat
– fender-top turn signal indicators
– rear speaker (I can just make out the fader control knob under the dash)
– remote-adjustable rearview mirror
Not enough resolution in the interior shot to tell if that’s the optional AM/FM radio or just AM. The chrome appears to be in excellent condition. The fragile taillights, unique to the 300 model and very expensive to replace, are very good. Both bumpers are straight. Front turn signal lights are intact. (These are susceptible to damage based on their location, down low on the bumper corners.) It is wearing incorrect hubcaps from a 1967 Chrysler New Yorker or Newport. They are 14″ wheels, so this car does not have the optional front disc brakes.
My guess is that the interior is original and the seats have not been reupholstered. Of examples with bucket seats, the drivers seat always seem to wear out quickly relative to the others, since that’s the one that gets the most use. There’s a lot of stitching to make the ribbed look in the middle, which perforates the vinyl and makes it susceptible to tearing.
As far as I can see, there are no cracks in the padded dashpad either. They like to crack in the corners around the speaker grille, and on the hump over the gauge cluster. No cracks means this one has likely been garaged when not in use for most of its life.
Too bad you couldn’t get an underhood shot. Standard engine in these was the 383 4-bbl. but the 440 TNT engine was optional. Power steering and power brakes were optional on the 300 as well (standard on New Yorker).
So as the most knowledgeable C body CC expert here, you haven’t told us what you think it’s worth.
Here’s my guess:
In our Toronto area if it functions well I’ll say $10-12k. Since this one seems to be in Missouri, and using Country Classic Autos as my MidWestern measuring stick I’d put this down as a $5-7k car.
I would hazard a guess to say that this car would fetch $15k if it was a convertible, and about $10k as a 2-door hardtop, but I think a seller would sit on this car awhile trying to get $7k for it, even in Toronto. These are the type of cars where it’s usually cheaper to buy a solid example and ship it to you if necessary, rather than buy a ratty local car and try to restore it.
A lot of Mopar fans are now looking at C-bodies as a “second choice” because the A, B and E-bodies are getting so pricey and harder to find. At least it’s better than the recent past, when the A/B/E guys just looked at C-bodies as engine donors, but they still aren’t interested in the 4-doors. They’re just as fast and more roomy, but can’t shake the “old man’s car” image.
Funny, I would rather have a 4-door hardtop like this one, or ideally a ’68. Bucket seats and console plus all that luxury and power…
Those seats have pretty decent bolstering for the era
Nice car and the price out here would be mid 20k based on some others I see for sale real rare as these wernt imported new its quite clean and intact .
I always loved that you could get a manual trans in a luxury (personal luxury?) car at that time. A 440, 4 speed 300 2 door hard top would be a seriously fun rig!
And absolutely NOBODY did. When you could afford this level of car, you didn’t shift your own gears. I think they offered the manual to: a. Jack up the option list, and b. Cater to the one of two odd customers out there who still preferred their cars set up the way they were 25 years earlier.
Only the three-speed manual was available on this 300/other big Chryslers; no four-speed.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chrysler_and_Imperial/1966_Chrysler/1966_Chrysler_Brochure/1966%20Chrysler-30.html
You know, I really need to start going to that site more.. Allpar says that a 4 speed was available and that’s just what I always followed. I’m really surprised a 3 manual speed was available.
That’s the brochure, FWIW. Might a four-speed or two have been built, with enough cajoling or whining, or knowing the right person? Very likely. Wouldn’t have been that hard.
I’ll take the brochure’s word. I’m sure someone somewhere may have got a special order 4 speed too, almost anything was possible back then. I never realized it wasn’t on the option list though.
I have a Car and Driver review of a ’66 300 with disc brakes and the 440 that mentions the four-speed being optional, but a Motor Trend review of an identically equipped car published three months later doesn’t mention it, and a four-speed doesn’t appear in that review’s list of available options. The C/D piece appears to have been based on an early test before the model year began — it was published in the Nov. ’65 issue, but MSRP was listed as unavailable — so my suspicion is that either (a) Chrysler initially talked about offering the four-speed as an option as they had in ’65, but decided not to early in the model year or (b) they did offer it briefly but then withdrew it for lack of orders. (It wasn’t uncommon for an automaker to publish different brochures and dealer catalogs at different points in the model year, so it’s possible the folks at Allpar are just looking at different brochures than the one Paul found.)
Of course, as Paul notes, it’s not terribly likely that more than a couple of cars actually had a four-speed in any case, and even then it was probably by special order. Also, the Chrysler four-speeds of that era have a reputation for being rather recalcitrant, particularly with big engines (I haven’t driven one, only three-on-the-tree cars), so the TorqueFlite was probably the better part of valor anyway.
The 4-on-the-floor was not listed as an option for 1966 Chryslers according to the dealer literature either (dealer databook and options price list). It was available for 1966 Plymouth Fury with 383 or 440 though, which is mechanically identical to a Chrysler. It was also available for 1967 Chrysler 300s. Since the parts were available, it may have been possible as a special order. I have seen a 1966 300 with 4-speed at a car show once, but it may have been converted by the owner.
I saw three or four different 1965 300L’s with 4-speed transmissions. It surprises me that they weren’t available in 1966, but I’m sure the take rate over the whole 1965 line was pretty low with most of them in 300L’s.
I had a 1967 383 Barracuda with 4-speed, and it was in no way recalcitrant. It would flat haul ass. Otoh, it had enough torque with that big motor in the A-body that if I was going above 40 or so, I didn’t really have to downshift to get moving quickly if I didn’t want to.
FWIW, my (unscientific) take is that four-speeds were relatively less common on Mopars, because of the excellent Torqueflite automatic. Especially the small-block high-revving Chevy (283 -327) really came to life with a four speed compared to the Powerglide; made a big difference. But the TF wasn’t much (or any) slower than the four-speed in the typical Mopar.
You are right. I recall reading some road tests of 60s Mopars where the testers would actually get slightly slower accelleration times with 4 speeds if their technique was not just right, and concluding that while the 4 speed was certainly fun, there was no real performance reason to get one. Fords, on the other hand . . .
Yeah, for all their engineering prowess with engines and automatic transmissions, Chrysler never quite got it right with their manual transmissions, either the transmissions (made by New Process) themselves, or the truly craptacular Inland shifters.
It wasn’t even until 1969 that Chrysler finally got with the program and dumped the Inlands and started using Hurst shifters. The stories of busted knuckles from slamming a fist into the dashboard while speed-shifting an Inland-equipped 4-speed Mopar into third gear are legendary.
Even the later Pistol Grip shift handles, although memorable and fun to play with, weren’t very useful for actually shifting fast.
My great aunt and uncle traded in their 55 DeSoto Firedome two-door hardtop for a new 65 Chrysler Newport four-door hardtop when they retired and moved from the midwest to CA. It was Light Turquoise with cloth and vinyl interior. A few things I remember about that car were that the Chrysler AirTemp A/C was a very good system and could cool the car down very fast even in 90+ SoCal summer weather, it rode very well, and it was huge inside (just look at the clean sweep of that wide dash). The fender skirts on this car just look perfect.
Just my opinion, but I think the Newports look better than the 300s of these years. The simpler detailing minus the front fender side trim and horizontal chrome trim strips on the taillights just seem to better complement the sleek styling.
Brings back memories of one Msgr. Francis J. Dubosh, pastor of Sts. Cyril & Methodius parish in Lakewood, Ohio back in the mid-60’s. A good friend of the family (he married my parents, my aunt was the parish housekeeper) he was a regular visitor at our place. I still remember his ’65 Chrysler New Yorker 4-door hardtop in an incredibly beautiful metallic dark green with matching interior. And that was before the high end luxury cars went all tossed pillow and bordello on the interiors. This generation of Chryslers are my favorites of the company throughout it’s history.
Love everything about the look of ’65-’66 c-bodies. No more fins, but they still seem like they can fly. I’m jealous of those of you who’ve driven one.
Maybe the next contemporary pseudo-vintage Chrysler 300 will actually, um, LOOK something like a vintage Chrysler, rather than a Benzified tank?
I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this before, but I wouldn’t mind seeing a return to some of the classic names for the modern 300 line as well:
300 base -> Newport
300 C -> New Yorker
300 SRT8 -> 300 N (or whatever letter is next)
Now that the Town Car is gone, there might even be a niche for a new Imperial to occupy.
I doubt it will happen though, as the sales numbers for each individual model would be much lower than the combined numbers for the entire 300 line – so each individual model would look like a sales flop on paper. On the other hand, some of these old names still have positive associations (look at all the positive comments here, which I agree with), and they have recently resurrected the classic “Dart” name…
I share your envy and have since my teens.
A friend’s father had a ’65 convertible. It was cream colored and loaded with options. Don’t know what was under the hood, but it had massive torque and instant throttle response.
Kevin’s dad kept him on a short leash, so he was only rarely permitted to drive the car. I tried to persuade Kevin to give me a try behind the wheel, but I never closed that sale.
Every time I see one of these Engel-era big Chryslers, I feel that still-unscratched itch to take it out for a spin.
Crisp, clean, tailored, would love to step out of one of these while wearing a fedora and a Brooks Brothers suit.
My dad had a new 1965 300 4dr hdtop, similar to the one above, but in dark turquoise. It had one interesting option.. a reclining front passenger seat with headrest. Bytw, the last Caddy with 3 spd stick was 1950; a friend bought a new 1950 blck series 62 convertible with stick!! yummmmmm
You sure your dad didn’t have a 66? They redesigned the bucket seats from 65 to 66. I don’t believe the passenger seat you describe was available with the 65 seat design. One of my 66’s has the reclining passenger bucket with hide-away headrest.
I can’t say for sure on most 65’s, but my 1965 300L had a reclining passenger bucket seat.
A beautiful car and an excellent set of photos. Great job at taking this pics!
that is one seriously nice car.
Engel must have really wanted those convex bodysides because I read somewhere (probably here) that the convex sheetmetal of those mid-sixties’ Chrysler products were much more difficult (and expensive) to stamp than the normal concave-style fenders, doors, and quarter-panels of most cars.
Just another example of the goofy, ‘non-financial’ way that Chrysler operated back then. Can you imagine GM executives approving car styling that required extra cost in the metal stamping process? Rather unlikely.
But as to which one to covet, like CA Guy above, my preference, too, is for the simpler, less-fussy lines and details in the grille and tailights of the entry-level ’66 Newport convertible over those of the higher-trim 300 and New Yorker.
I dunno — GM cars of this vintage tended to have some remarkably complex curves that I assume were a bitch to tool. Some years ago I was trying to take pictures of a ’66 Bonneville and was startled both by the complexity of its shape (which was a lot more involved than it looked at a glance) and how different it was from the ’66 Buick I’d run into a while earlier, which had the same body shell. GM wasn’t necessarily splurging under the skin in that era, but they were (with a couple of specific exceptions) willing to spend money on styling.
I think you have your convex and concave confused. Those are convex sides. The 1967-68 Chryslers had concave body sides. Engel wanted to do concave bodywork at Lincoln but his superiors wouldn’t allow it. He was head of design at Chrysler though, so had more latitude.
When you stretch the steel, which is what happens on the convex side of the stamping, you hide the grain of the steel, making it smoother. When you shrink the steel, which is what happens on the concave side, the surface gets rougher. Concave surfaces are a bad idea because the paintjob won’t look as nice.
Engel’s superiors at Ford were probably right to nix the concave styling. Besides it being of dubious benefit to sales, one has to wonder if the additional stretching of sheetmetal to get the look that Engel wanted contributed to Chrysler’s poor body integrity and susceptability to rust, at least relative to that of the competition.
OTOH, to many of today’s enthusiasts, the styling of those old concave-side Chryslers are sure a whole lot more memorable than Fords/GM products of the same period.
This is a nice example of a nice 300 but I’m partial to the 1968 MY 300. Love that concave sides of the 67-68 Newport, 300 and New Yorker and Town and Country Chryslers before switching to the fuselage body of the 1969-’73 or so years.
I had the base Newport Custom 4 door sedan with little in the way of extras, base bench with cloth/vinyl upholstery, AM thumbwheel radio, power steering/brakes, 383/2BBL carburetor and the usual standard equipment, such as manual telescoping antenna, remote driver’s side mirror, fender mounted turn signal indicators, heat/vent and not much else.
The only options it had were the under dash, perhaps dealer installed AirTemp AC unit (didn’t work) and had the optional (and I think rare) front disc brakes (so had larger wheels then) and that was it. My Dad bought it from the maternal grandmother of good family friends in 1980, or was it 1981, I forget now when she gave up driving as she was very hard of hearing and elderly. The idea was my youngest sister Betsy would use it until she didn’t need it and it would become mine, which was the case sometime in ’82.
I spent many hours working on that car. By this time, it had 113K miles on it, was past its prime, but ran fine, though it did smoke a little and the muffler was mostly gone so I patched that up with wire coat hangers and old tin coffee cans, LOL. My best friend and I replaced the radio with an AM/8-track stereo from his older brother’s ’74 MGB when he replaced it with a new cassette deck. I had a mix tape from their old stereo that was capable of recording to 8-track tapes and all I remember it having were Centerfold and Freeze Frame by the J. Giels Band, Sweet Home Alabama by Lynard Skynard and Sweet Emotion by Aerosmith.
Then after I graduated from HS in ’83, replaced that with an under dash cassette deck from Radio shack, it had auto reverse and auto music search, both a big deal at the time and mounted to a pull out mount, also bought there along with a pair of cheap 4″ surface mount speakers that were also from RS and eventually, I mounted them with plywood to the 2 6×9 oval speaker openings in the back parcel shelf. If I remember right, the front dash speaker location could hold 3 6×9 speakers in a row in the center speaker location.
While we were at it, we replaced the rear parcel shelf covering with a new one, but from a ’67 so it didn’t fit and painted it as the original one was broken due to an aftermarket electric defroster blower mounted in one of the speaker holes and rewired the unit as the wiring had burned up, surprisingly, it didn’t burn the car down as it snaked under the driver’s side door sills and added a new lighted toggle switch in the original switch location under the dash.
When I installed the cassette deck, I replaced the factory radio.
Fun times but sadly, by late summer, one of the front discs slipped, causing the piston of the caliper to scrape against the rotor, ruining it and found out that replacements were hard to find but still could get caliber rebuild kits though so the car ended up in the junk yard with a dented door as I got into an accident and we could not find another door as all we could find locally were the hardtops.
These good friends, Don’s younger brother Bruce still has, I think their ’68 300 four door hardtop that they bought new though I think it still needs restoration and there once was a mechanic we all went to who had a restored red 68 300 convertible, now THOSE were rare but still cool to see none the less.
I miss that old Newport, though I’d much prefer the 300, just make mine the 2 door hardtop with buckets and console thankyouverymuch. 🙂
Britt Reid also drove a 1966 Chrysler 300 on the classic TV show “The Green Hornet.” Except his was a convertible.
Of course, we can’t forget the Hornet’s primary car, the Black Beauty – wasn’t that based off a 300, too?
The Black Beauty is a 1966 Imperial customized by Dean Jeffries.
I Can’t picture how this Differs in appearance from The New Yorker, The Newports wore a Simpler Version of Sometyhing like the 65s IIRC. But I Had Forgotten that a 300 4 Door Existed Then And that It looked Identical to a New yorker.
I Have Always Had a Bit Of a Fetish for Power Windows and Their Master Controls, It’s the Only Thing Holding Me Back From Choosing a Riviera 2 door , If The REAR Windows Dont Go Down, Ill Buy A 4 Door Whose Rear Windows Go Down.. But To Have Power VENT WINDOWS Master controlled no less, puts it into rarified 60 special land at cadillac and few lincolns , T Birds.
and lilac mist sounds nice and authentic
Most of the front-end parts of a New Yorker and Newport are interchangeable. However, the entire front clip of a 300 is unique from either of these. You could swap the entire front clip, but you could not mix-and-match parts between a 300 and the other models.
– bumper, grille, hood come to a point instead of being flat in the middle.
– 3-piece bumper (others are 1-piece) with the turn signals in the corner “pods”.
– the only model with the two fake chrome vents on the front fenders and doors (special front fenders required)
– the only 1966 Chrysler with a hood ornament.
In the back, New Yorker and Newport each have different taillights, but are interchangeable with each other. The 300 has unique taillights that wrap around to the sides of the back fenders.
The 4-door hardtop roofline is the same for Newport, New Yorker and 300, but there were unique 2-door hardtop roofs for each model.
Ha! I’m glad I got good pics of that hood ornament, then!
The same can be mostly said for the 67-68 Concave Chryslers too, though I think the bodies from the A pillar back were more identical than earlier models.
The New Yorker/Newport can have most of each others grill/bumper units as they were quite similar, the 300 had a pointed design with a solid grill with hidden headlights for a very sporty look and so also had totally different front bumpers and hood to go with. I think the taillights can be interchanged by all three as none of them by 68 wrapped around the corner of the rear fenders and all fit within the center rear panel as it would require replacing the center panels and taillights but could be wrong there as the New Yorker had what looked like a taillight lens across the entire rear section, though only the taillights were on either end like on the others.
Can’t say if the 2 door hardtops are identical or not, but DID discover that the 67 Newports had shallower rear parcel shelves than the ’68’s though.
The 67’s had less interchangeable than the 68’s as the Newport’s taillights were totally different than the ’68’s.
Thank You 4 that BigoldChryslers. I Love How The Taillights have an off kilter angle to Them… somehow swanky, no give a damn attitude conveyed
Late last year and earlier this year there was a 65 Newport convertible being sold on CL for $2600. Except for the missing back plastic window and rusty front fender it looked pretty decent.
If I didn’t already have several projects waiting in the wings I would have scooped it up.
Cool.
I owned one in 1973…at the age of 16. It was bronze and I think I inherited it from family who’d paid maybe 50 bucks for it IIRC.
It was bronze with black interior and had the 440. Someone had spilled milk in it about the time I took possession…never got the smell out, I think I sold it to a friend for $50.
I Think That Dashboard and Interior are Better Looking Than The All New Imperial had, That Came Out In 1967.