In September 1969 Car Life magazine released its ‘Best Of’ issue, a title awarded by market segment and vehicle class. In the ‘Prestige Car’ category, CL declared the Chrysler 300 as the best of the class over three other models; a Buick Wildcat, a Mercury Marquis, and an Oldsmobile entry.
As CL points out, Chrysler’s 300 had gradually lost its distinctiveness over time; by ’69 the model no longer had special bodywork, nor could it be promoted as the most powerful production car in the industry. And with the advent of the muscle car era, the 300 wasn’t even Chrysler Corp.’s top performance offering.
Still, as a prestige car, the 300 retained its high-performance spirit thanks to its 440-cid V8 engine, power brakes, power steering, and TorqueFlite tranny. In general terms, the qualities of all four prestige cars tested were rather similar, they all had big engines, automatic transmissions, and power everything. And all four did what they were supposed to do; they possessed elegant envelopes, plenty of space and luxury appointments, and enough power to propel their hefty carriages with verve.
Where the 300 stood out from the rest was in handling and interior ergonomics. With weight and ride rates similar among all contestants, the 300’s front suspension and steering got praise while the rest ‘mushed’ on curves. In the interior department, the 300’s “switches could be deciphered at a glance…. Chrysler gets points for doing the obvious because the Marquis designers forgot to do the obvious.”
The selection of the 300 by CL’s staff was ultimately subjective; an ’emotional’ decision they admitted. Technically speaking, all contestants ticked the right boxes to fit the prestige car label. However, the 300 was the car CL’s drivers always preferred out of the four; “If one car was needed, and four were available, the Chrysler was picked. The solid ride, the responsive wheel, the logical controls, the combination of items, and good basic design made the car into a driver’s car.”
Further reading:
Manufacturers coin a lot of often short-lived names, for their latest styling directions. ‘Fuselage’ was the perfect word, to describe the ’69 full-sized Chryslers. Very-clean styling, that has aged well. If the enormous scale, is a relic of the past. The 300’s styling may not have been unique within the Chrysler lineup, but it was very attractive in the broader market. Much prefer the design of these, over the previous generation, more seriously-styled full-sized Chryslers. Marquis styling was mature, and formal. The Wildcat, was overstyled. I would have chosen the 300, on its looks alone. These editors would have appreciated this 300 even more, if they knew, what was to come.
Two colour ‘duotone’ images were becoming super popular in pop culture at this time. You saw this look everywhere, back then.
(My regular design per peeve with many ’60s/’70s era Chrysler products, visible in the second pic. The wide-open daylight within the back of the rear wheel-well. Looks super cheap, as you easily see the leaf springs/gas tank. Fill in with a full wheel-well liner, lends a more one-piece/solid look to the overall exterior. Looks like underbody parts were already rusting, and falling off. Even, if it’s just aesthetics. Still there, even when the Cordoba was launched.) 🙂
That being said the 2-door hardtop was the least attractive body style, looking as though it was forced to incorporate side glass meant for a smaller car. Fully open rear wheelarches (with your liner) would’ve helped visually lighten the rear haunches, or they could’ve carried over the 4-door roof stamping unchanged as they did with the rare 2-door post sedan.
The 4-door hardtop, convertible and station wagon are all stunners though and unlike most other Detroit iron of the time the fuselage looks as though it was designed as a 4-door sedan first and the hardtop coupe was an afterthought.
With the 2-doors, the rear end was simply too big.
While I have always believed BIGGER is Better and a Chrysler fan,these Fuselage designs left me cold. A colleague had a 74 New Yorker (which replaced her 67 Chrysler) and was livid over multiple issues with the 74. For me the Marquis and Buick presented a much more traditional American luxury look. As to ride, I have always loved
the feeling of a floating on a cloud. Once toured LA with a friend in his 68 Wildcat convert. Fantastic car. Have had multiple GRAND MARQUIS and TOWN CARS 🏆. Only Chryslers were 83 and 85 RWD Fifth Avenues. Loved them! Formal traditional Luxury look, plush velvet interior, smooth ride, and plenty of power for me from 318 motor. Perhaps best example of upscaling an existing platform. 😎
A retired admiral lived down the street from us, and had a ’69 300 convertible. It was green with a white top that was almost always down with the tonneau cover in place. Beautiful car which well befitted his past.
Very fast car. Look at that compression ratio!
Normal for the day. Leaded 100 (research) octane fuel was available everywhere at a cheap price. Today’s high tech engines can run even higher compression ratios on 87 AKI unleaded.
The fuselage look was a coherent, clean, and logical answer to big car design that has worn very well over time in comparison to the blocky and formal look that preceded and followed it at Chrysler, in all it’s divisions and at the other major US makers as well. Having owned multiple C-bodies of all 3 iterations: ’65 to ’68, 69 to ’73, and ’74 to ’77, the sleek ’69 to ’72 fuselage designed Mopars remain the favorite, a real design innovation that the average unsophisticated full-size car buyer never cottoned to having been brainwashed by GM FoMoCo to accept gimmicks and floss as opposed to a timeless clean design. Unfortunately the excellent design was undermined by Chrysler’s financial issues and subsequent resulting quality lapses in this time period.
I agree that they were well styled but they were let down by very cheap plastic interiors that didn’t transmit a feeling of quality. A 1970 GM product was much nicer inside (although their quality took a tumble too in 71.)
Curious. The only plastic I can think of in all my C-body cars is the arm rest bases. And, I guess, the Chrysler badge. The back deck is hardboard, but everything else is padded vinyl or steel
When new ‘Fuselage’ MoPars didn’t ring my bell in any way but I do remember those select few owners who loved their big powerful two doors and up graded the tires and shocks then power tuned them and were able to go much quicker in the hills and canyons than anyone expected with out sliding off the road in high speed turns etc. .
As a geezer I find this car to look pleasing indeed and I bet I’d enjoy scaring my self & passengers hustling it on down the road towards the nearest filling station .
My friends Jer & his son Jason have owned multiple four door MoPar sedans that were quick and pleasant to ride in .
-Nate
If you got a Chrysler Fuselage product that didn’t come with many quality issues – you got very lucky. My father didn’t. These cars looked cheaper than the competition, but weren’t, got 7 mpg as a daily driver, and did not have a luxury interior, even as a New Yorker.
Nice to know that these guys liked the one they had for testing, when it was brand new. I had imagined that the Fuselage’s lack of success was due to an inability to impress right out the gate – but I no longer believe that, now that I’ve read this vintage review. Now I believe that these cars were impressive when they debuted, but within a year, were being decontented to the point where Chrysler had to issue the Newport Custom since New Yorker sales were flopping on the market.
Ever since I was an elementary school kid, I’ve considered Chrysler Fuselage products to be uncompetative disappointments for their new owners. It is one of the only cars my father owned, that I have ZERO fond memories of and have no desire to have one today.
Many had initial teething problems due to factory quality assurance issues, but the functional issues were often straightened out by dealers. Mopar had many very good old-line dealers at the time with very loyal customers, often in smaller towns & cites, as did we. When bought as used cars after those problems had been ironed out they were inherently better cars by design, once this was done.
As driver’s cars they were far superior to full-size ’70s Buicks and Olds that we had, and we never even considered FoMoCo’s wallowing whales. We had 4 ’69 to ’73 fuselage Mopars, all bought used, and all were excellent cars in their over 120 to 200k miles of service for us, both of us driving 100+ miles a day for decades. Our ’71 Fury III got 17 mpg with it’s excellent 318 V8. Our ’72 T&C wagon got 11 mpg with it’s 440. Our ’73 Custom Suburban 400 achieved no more than 13 mpg. All early ’70s big block cars from all the mfr’s really struggled to break 10-12 mpg at that time of early emissions “experimentation”.
It is clear that these testers appreciated “drivers’ cars”. That was the one place these fuselage Mopars excelled.
When they were new, they were terribly decontented/cheapened compared with the prior generation. They did not show well in terms of first impressions with FoMoCo and GM stuff of the day, and they felt cheap in comparison. Add in the awful quality control and their lack of success is understandable.
When these were common, I avoided them in favor of the pre-fuselage generation (actually of every Mopar line, which suffered the same “improvements” later than the 1969 C body cars did). But I have come around, and have experienced their superior driving dynamics. I have also come to appreciate their kind of Danish modern aesthetic. My favorites are the original 1969 versions of each line.
Popular Mechanics “Owners Report” series surveyed owners of the full-size Chrysler, Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick LeSabre in 1969.
The Chrysler drew far more complaints about poor workmanship (25.8 percent) than either the Buick (5.7 percent) or the Oldsmobile (7.7 percent). The Chrysler was also more likely to be plagued with serious water leaks – which were not mentioned as a major problem by owners of the Buick or Oldsmobile.
In April 1970 <Forbes magazine ran a big article on Chrysler’s difficulties that year. The failure of the 1969 C-bodies to gain traction with customers was a big part of the problem. Customers complained about bad workmanship and that the trim was “unattractive.”
From 1963 through 1968, it seemed as though Chrysler Corporation could do no wrong. Market share almost doubled during that timeframe, as the corporation recovered by the 1962 debacle with the oddball Dodge and Plymouth. The 1969 C-body program was the first reversal after a long string of successes.
Unfortunately, the Chrysler market share increase was mostly due to Studebaker owners switching to Chrysler products. Brand loyalty was strong back then, so not many Ford or GM owners made the switch to Chrysler products, which wasn’t a good thing.
It’s unfortunate that the major ‘fuselage’ restyle of the 1969 C-body was so poorly received, with the dive in quality being a significant factor. Not as bad as 1957, but still there.
As to style, the four-door hardtops and convertibles were good-looking but, as stated, the 2-door hardtop’s proportions just weren’t right. It’s worth noting how similar they are to the ’67-’69 Barracuda coupe, itself something of a copy of the ’65 Corvair 2-door hardtop.
The problem was, that particular shape was okay on a smaller car (the Corvair looked good), but just didn’t look right on a larger car.
Studebaker’s market share was so miniscule by the early 1960s that I doubt Studebaker owners trading in their cars was sufficient to almost double Chrysler Corporation’s market share from 1962 to 1968.
I do believe that the post-1962 Chrysler A-bodies captured a fair number of Rambler American buyers, and the Chrysler B-bodies captured some Rambler Classic/Rebel owners.
The coupe versions of the fuselage C-bodies are the least attractive of the bunch. The 1969 Plymouth Sport Fury probably wears it best.
The four-door hardtop versions (particularly the Dodge and Chrysler) and wagon versions are the best-looking, as you noted.
I might also add the 1970-71 Sport Fury and the 1970½ Fury Gran Coupe with the hidden headlights to the list.
I love the look of the first Fuseys, especially this ’69 300. Such a clean, coherent, modern-for-the-times look that also looked powerful. Crazy to think how retrograde the still-nice, all-new ’74s would look, just five years later.
Wish I had one now
Wow! These guys were pretty tough on the 300. At that point in time my entire family drove Chryslers one way or another. As I think back over the big Chryslers styling, they were kinda all over the road. The late 50s Forward Look Chryslers included things like huge chromed fins, canted headlights and or strangely shaped taillights. I never understood the 62s taillights. But I didn’t hate them. I was always told Chrysler’s engineering was better than Ford and GM. We never had any problems with them except the interiors didn’t seem to be high in quality. Chrysler wins first place for the Astrodome dashboard and it’s Panelesent lighting. I remember being mesmerized by the color of the lights at night, and there were no light bulbs..By the time the 69 fuelsage styling was introduced I really liked it. The Forward Look, the early 60s small sculptured look, the square look from 65 to 69, covered all the options. I was 14 in 69, and I liked the new look. My dad bought a 69 300, 4 door hardtop, it was off white with dark blue vinyl top and interior to match. I liked the hidden headlights and the wall to wall taillights. But what I really liked was the 440 under the hood. We towed a 17 foot travel trailer with it and that 440 and Tourqueflight automatic transmission handled that 3000 pound trailer like it wasn’t even there. At 14, I was already a Gearhead, but didn’t no much about Chrysler’s financial issues, or how that would lead to using cheaper materials especially in the interior. It was a good car and served us well. In 1976, my parents bought a 76 Lincoln Town Car. It was huge. It was beautiful inside and out, it was Dark Red Moondust Metallic with matching vinyl half top and maroon velour interior. It also had a 460 under the hood that could power that Lincoln like it was a go-cart, at least once it got moving. The 69 300 was our last Chrysler. My uncle had a 66 Imperial Crown, 4 door hardtop, he had that for years. It was a gorgeous car. The 64 through 66 model years were a styling mash up between Virgil Exner and Elwood Engle. Those Imperials had a lot of Lincoln Continental in them, but managed to keep that Chrysler Corporation look. I’m glad to say we still can consider Chrysler as one of the Big Three, I hope it always stays that way
My parents had a 1969 New Yorker and it was a very good car. The interior was comfortable and quality was as good as GM or Ford. In some cases the GM Body By Fisher had a very small edge over the Chrysler and the Ford , but very little. GMs and Fords interiors didn’t age as well as Chryslers usually. Actually, when my wife and I got married we bought this Chrysler from my parents and it was still in great shape. Wish I’d kept it and used the 440, torque flight, and rear in my grandads 65 dodge pickup. Woulda made a great sleeper.
I’d love a ‘69 or ‘70 convertible with the TNT 440. Last one I saw sold while I was en route to see
it. They’re not common
We had a ’69 300, 4 door, gold with black vinyl roof. Interior was tan leather and it looked classy as hell. That car had POWER and rode like a dream. I wish had it today.
My uncle worked at Belvedere Assemby for 30 plus years. He bought a brand new 69 coupe and gave my dad his employee discount. We proceeded to go to the same dealership and buy a 69 300 convertible. I was 5 years old and remember it like yesterday and what beautiful automobile it was. Power to spare and so cool to ride around in. Wish I had one now. Or a 66 Charger.