CC reader Laurence M. sent me his prized copy of the 1958 Sports Car Illustrated Directory, which includes a number of reviews of significant 1957 sports cars as well as a few “American Gran Turismo cars”. SCI transitioned into Car and Driver in 1961, when Editor Karl Ludvigsen changed the title to broaden its appeal. That the Chrysler 300C was included is no surprise, as its reputation as America’s fastest production passenger car was well established. Its 375 hp 392 CID hemi V8 was already a legend.
SCI’s tests were very comprehensive, and this one really gives a feel for what it was like to drive one. It confirms the superb engineering that went into these, especially the new chassis with the torsion bar front suspension and the new Torqueflite automatic. Unfortunately, the brakes were not quite up to snuff. In 1957, Chrysler was intent to leapfrog the competition, and the 300 made the biggest leap of all. There was simply nothing quite like it.
I’m also going to intersperse the review with a few vintage ads for the 300C, including this PR shot at the top, one of my all-time favorites.
1957 was the year the AMA agreed to stop direct involvement in racing and tone down the ads in terms of performance. It was a hollow promise, as there was no way the performance Genie was going back in the bottle. “There’s no doubt the horsepower cycle is coming to the end of its course”. Ha. The 1958 Chrysler 300D upped the ante to 380hp. It would be almost 15 years before that prediction would come true. For the time being.
SCI suggests that the 300C is big enough to be considered an eight seater. It was a big car, although its 219 inch length would be well surpassed soon enough. At 4745 lbs, it certainly wasn’t a lightweight either.
The way to unleash the 300C’s potential was of course to get its revs up by a downshift and simultaneously making sure the throttle pedal was depressed far enough to engage the second four barrel carb, which offered considerable resistance via a heavy spring. A deliberate undertaking, to avoid unintended acceleration: “It’s nothing at all to lay ten feet of rubber on a quick start before both wheels start biting”.
The new three-speed Torqueflite gets a hearty round of approval; “a big improvement over its two-speed predecessor”. Its smooth, silent shifts are highly regarded.
The 300C’s suspension was firmer that the standard car, but not as harsh as the 300 and 300B had been. The improvement in geometry made that possible while still providing the best handling big American car. The brakes were decent for the times and for an American car, but clearly the weakest link, given the 300C’s world class performance otherwise.
A lot of praise overall for a car whose “status as an American classic is assured”.
Hm, 0-60 in 9.2 surprised me as I would have expected a bit better. I guess it’s because of it’s weight. Still a gorgeous car!
Weight has to be an issue, but per the article, mashing the throttle off the line produced 10 feet of burnt rubber, which isn’t conducive to good 0-60 times.
I reckon if the time machine had allowed them to fit a set of today’s performance radial tires, they might have knocked a couple seconds off the 0-60.
Cars just weren’t as fast then … weight, traction in general and tires in particular. Though with 3.36 gears on the test car I would have expected better. Next time I see a test of a high 16 second econobox complaining about power, I’ll think about this “supercar”. I wonder if this was a very early use of that term.
The Chrysler hemi was not a “low end grunt” kind of engine that provided a ton of torque right from idle, but was one that only came really alive once the revs got up. This one also had a pretty sedate axle ratio.
Car and Driver once published that a Duesenberg SJ was capable of hitting 100 mph from a rest in 17 seconds.
Where? Find us the citation or link please.
C/D did drive one of two SSJs, which were especially made to be lighter and faster. Hardly comparable to the mass-produced 300C. And they only gave a purported 0-60 of 8 seconds from the owners; not tested. It’s possible it could do that; it was very stripped down.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15099183/we-drive-gary-coopers-1935-duesenberg-ssj-feature/
Reliable sources place the SJ’s 0-60 at about 10 seconds, and 0-100 at about 20 seconds. Give or take.
How fast would a supercharged 300C have been?
https://simanaitissays.com/2015/11/06/duesenberg-horsepower-but-which-one/
Apparently it was the Cord factory’s claim for the car. The SJ was the supercharged version of the J. I think all the cars may have been built as Js, but they were in inventory as bare chassis for much of the Depression and finished as whatever any willing customer would buy.
My memory of Car and Driver publishing the numbers was when they ran an article that I believe was titled, “Domino’s Dueseys.” about a Model J and an SJ that Tom Monaghan owned at the time. They certainly didn’t test them, but probably relied on the same source used by the above author.
I’m sure a supercharged 300C could be made to accelerate as fast as anyone desired, but the SJ was supercharged by its manufacturer. It was also only produced 36 times, out of a total of 481 Model Js produced. They cost more in 1928 dollars than the Chrysler 300C cost in 1957 dollars too. I love Chrysler letter cars, and we haven’t even discussed that they were reaching speeds in the high 140s in what might be considered carefully-tuned stock form. The Model J was more of a black swan sort of car, the kind of thing that comes around for the mega-rich right before the bottom falls out of the world’s economy.
That claim is made here, which isn’t C/D, and there’s nothing to suggest that there’s anything being tested outside of a slide rule.
https://fastestlaps.com/models/duesenberg-ssj-speedster-sport
If you look at the graph, there’s almost a kink at about 45, well before it upshifted. It looked like it was on its way to a 7.5 but came off the cam. Still an impressive performance for the fifties. Remember that the 53 Buick Special last week was said to be about 20. I remember my dad had a Mechanix Illustrated which had a Tom McCahill test of a Studebaker Lark. The cover said something like “can the Lark V8 go 0-60 in 8.5 like the rumors say? We find out!” It was more like 10.0. Most fifties drivers would leave a 300C test drive starry eyed and deeply impressed.
Sterling’s Rapier Was The British counterpart, twin carbs and wait for it and I mean wait for it, for along time 0-60 in under 20 seconds!. Over twice as slow as the 300. Still a fast car in Britain for it’s time. Most cars were ten seconds slower and wouldn’t cruise a 70mph all day..
Looking at the acceleration figures, it’s pretty clear that the 300C suffered right off the line, probably a combination of traction and soft off-idle torque (look at the gross torque peak — 4,000 rpm!). The 3.7-second 0-30 time is nothing special given the rated power, but it picks as speeds rise, and the trap speed (84 mph) is suggestive of its actual power.
There’s an instructive comparison with the SCI test of the ’57 Fury, six months after this issue. The Fury was 785 lb lighter than the 300C and had the three-speed stick rather than TorqueFlite, with a 3.54 axle. Although the 318 poly engine gave away a nominal 85 hp to the 392, the Fury got a much better launch than the 300C and did 0-30 in only 2.8 seconds. and clipped the 300C to 60 by 0.7 seconds. However, above 70 mph, the 300C would start to pull away; by 90 mph, the Fury was behind by a substantial 2.5 seconds.
The quarter mile figures are revealing:
300C: 16.9 seconds at 84 mph
Fury: 17.2 seconds at 78 mph
A 6 mph difference in trap speeds is a LOT with cars this heavy, and it shows that the 392 was quite high-strung for a street engine of this era, especially with vintage tires.
Enough V8 size to satisfy the largest dictator, yet only 9-ish secs to 60. It’s hard to perspectivize that the Sports Car Illustrated theoretical 300SL wasn’t much quicker, nor that it was, for the brave, much faster either.
But even harder to perspecticate that the handling of each might not have been as much removed one from the other as the respective legends might suggest, given that each had similar steerings – if one minus the power of power – and each a rear suspending (respectively, of either some conventional crudity or Germanic unpredictability). Ofcourse, the lighter one was entered in races and had roof doors for some reason, but which was easier for most folk to push hard might be debatable. As a matter of perspective.
I suppose it came down to whether one had one Germanic friend and a 300SL, or seven American ones and a 300C. And to offer my irrelevant voice 63 years after the event, and despite the visual delights of the 300C, I’d find my Germanic friend.
And if she couldn’t be found, I’d definitely hire one of her, then it, instead of seven of them of them, and one of that.
Alternately, you can slap a Judson supercharger on your Beetle for “BIG CAR PERFORMANCE!” Judson’s ads indicated a blown 40hp Beetle would achieve 0-60 in 13 seconds…
I’ve seen those on only one or two VWs in all my years going to car shows.
Not many survived, literally. It was a bit hard on the engine, especially if the supercharger was used a lot.
But a fairly good number were sold.
I had no idea anyone was doing that, and I was around in those days. Since those air cooled engines were on the edge of burning valves already in normal use it’s hard to imagine that increasing their output would work out well. No inter cooler either.
CAR magazine once turbo- or super-charged an air cooled 2CV. The engine burst into flames but I don’t know if that was the reason.
VW had to retard the ignition timing on the #3 piston by slightly altering the position of the ignition point lobe in the distributor (on some engines, not sure if they did this on all their air cooled) so it would run cooler. I wonder how many aftermarket distributors were incorrectly installed leading to an early demise of #3 exhaust valve and retarded performance from another piston?
A Deuce Chaveau Grill!
The position of the oil cooler on the upright fan engines, until ’71, blocked airflow to #3. Retarding the spark gives a detonation cushion to the hottest running cylinder. These cars were sold worldwide and had to tolerate low quality gasoline. I hope Judson specified the best premium available in the instructions. A friend of mine did have one on his Karmann Ghia. The engine did tolerate the abuse.
It wasn’t actually the engine that burned. What I heard was that even in a regular 2CV you need to be “obsessive about the condition of the cardboard heater tubes near the engine, which, if left to deteriorate, sag onto the exhaust pipes, at which point a ‘tin snail’ becomes Escargot Flambé”.
It was the 36hp VW engine that really suffered from boost, unless you put a counterweighted crank in it. The much improved 40hp could tolerate it a bit better. I have to wonder how many of these Chryslers Don Garlits parted out for the engines…
A nice report on an interesting review. I admit to not being a big fan, or especially knowledgeable, on late 50s domestic styling. I find even the better looking late 50s styling efforts seem overstyled. I find the nose of the 300C could have easily have been made to look more classic, and less quirky, simply by inverting the grille shape vertically. And losing some of the mass, and centre dip on the front bumper. A cleaner look, and less reminiscent of say, the Checker Cab. This was a very quick Photoshop. Exner was a brilliant designer, maybe he wanted the nose to look like a shark’s maw? Perhaps if he restrained some of the flamboyance, Chrysler would have presented some truly classic, unassailable designs from that era.
I read that Exner originally wanted the 300’s grille to be used for the entire Chrysler line, but top management vetoed that idea.
As you probably know Chrysler did flip the grille over in 1961. And the basic idea showed up more recently on many Chrysler products including the Grand Caravan.
I appreciate your idea and work, but I have to say that frown is MUCH better than smile when it comes to that grille.
The inverted grille makes it look somewhat like a Rambler or maybe a Hudson.
Regardless, it’s astonishing how much restraint was used on the styling of the 1957 300, particularly along the sheetmetal. Nothing but that lone, lower quarter panel spear with the ‘300’ medallion.
The 300C was King Kong in its day.
The 9.2 second zero-60 and 16.9 quarter-mile were jaw-dropping for a full-size American production car with an automatic in 1957.
And 3.36 gears were never what you’d call a performance ratio.
Quick comparison…
The ’57 Chevy 283/270 HP dual-quad automatic (I presume Powerglide, don’t think the Turboglide was that quick) was said to pull off a 10 second 0-60 and do the 1/4 mile in about 17.5 at 80 MPH. My source – a Consumers Guide history published in 1985 – claims no published tests of a fuel-injected full-size model. But the book also notes a ’57 F.I. Corvette with 4-speed and 4.11 gears would do 0-60 in 5.5-6.0 seconds, and 14.5 in the quarter-mile with a 132 MPH top end.
Many have noted a properly-equipped ’57 Chevy as one of the first muscle cars. The 300C DEFINITELY qualifies for that status.
But it’s easy to forget what constituted “performance” before the first horsepower race and more importantly, basic improvements since then, such as radial tires and improved automatic transmissions with locking torque converters and overdrive.
One reason many late-’60s muscle cars had trouble breaking out of the 15-second quarter-mile range was the inferior traction of 1960s bias-ply street tires.
Last night my oldest son Dave asked me to check out his 2010 Malibu LTZ for a noise when you turn the steering wheel. I took it by myself for a drive and kinda knew what it would do since I test-drove it with him over the holidays.
But with the 3.6 and overall good bones thanks to its Opel parentage…I got out on the four-lane and found myself at 110 MPH pretty much instantly, its worn front struts unable to hide what a solid, quick, enjoyable ride it is.
Today, seems anything over eight seconds 0-60 is slow. Read the road tests of pedestrian crossovers and Camcords. Unless you’re buying a Subaru or similar, WRX notwithstanding.
And it’s been this way for awhile.
But 63 years ago, this 300C deserved every accolade it received. It was quick and fast, and it handled well. To drive back then was to understand that brakes FADED – most everything had drums – and you adjusted accordingly. It took decades, but cars like these helped change our perceptions of what was capable.
Perhaps an analogy on comparing humans in speed trials would be helpful.
Jesse Owens in 1936 versus Usain Bolt in 2013. Both considered the fastest man alive during their tenure in track. Owens ran the 40 meters in 10.3 seconds. Bolt ran it in 9.77. But, Owens ran on cinders, with no starting blocks, and with 1936 shoe technology. And 1936 training regimens, nutrition, and sports psychology training. It is now thought that if one compared the two running together, Owens using his old tech, and Bolt his new, Bolt would win by about 14 feet. But if one extrapolates what might be if Owens had a similar track, starting blocks, and comparable shoe tech, he would be side by side with Bolt.
Sometimes, you just have to judge performance based on when and where it is happening. Apples to apples comparisons are rarely available.
Don’t laugh, but the 1957 Rambler Rebel went 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, and reportedly cleared the quarter mile in 17.87 seconds.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/is-the-1957-rambler-rebel-the-first-muscle-car/
Final drive ratio (test car)………3.36
Other available final drive ratio..2.93, 3.18, 3.54, 3.73, 3.91, 4.1, 4.3, 4.56, 4.89, 5.38, 5.83, 6.17
Wow!
6.17? Wonder what the top speed would be……..25?
Well, if second gear is 1.45*3.36 = 4.872 overall ratio and that gives a top speed of 71 mph, then a 6.17 final drive ratio in direct top would give a top speed of 56 mph. Was that gear offered for racing on quarter mile oval tracks?
If the theoretical top speed was 140 with the 3.36 gears, than the top speed with 6.17 gears (54% of the 3.36 gears) yields 75.6 mph, at least on my calculator.
Logic tells me that my number is better than your number, given that the 6.17 gears are a bit less than twice as steep as the 3.36 gears.
That makes sense, but it doesn’t explain why maximum speed in selectable second gear was only 71 mph.
Through calculating the circumference of the tire, the number of rotations per mile, and the final drive ratio(made easy with direct top gear), I was able to determine that reaching 140 mph with a 3.36 final drive ratio would require the engine to reach 5,639 RPM while pushing something with huge drag. Considering that its power peak was reached at 5,200 RPM, I suspect that wouldn’t really happen. That engine speed would be possible with 6.17 gears though.
Using a 5,639 RPM maximum engine speed, I came up with 76.23 MPH based on a circumference of 88.09 inches for a 9.0(.78)x14 inch tire and a 6.17 final drive ratio.
Many cars achieve their top speeds somewhat above the nominal power peak, depending on gearing. An engine’s power typically doesn’t fall off dramatically after the power peak. Which is in part why one shifts an engine well above its power peak for max acceleration.
Also, bias ply tires were well known to “balloon” at high speed, increasing their circumference. That would affect your calculation.
In any case, the top speed with the 6.17 gears is going to be well more than 56mph.
But why would you want a 6.17 axle ratio on one of these?
The 5.38, 5.83, and 6.17 axles were obviously for racing, and aside from being intended to tailor the powertrain to different size tracks, it’s not unlikely that they would have been used with oversize tires with greater rolling diameter, which would partially offset the higher numerical axle ratio.
Yes, that’s all well and good but Stirling Moss chose the Sunbeam Rapier!
Well he would it won the Tulip rally on debut it stopped and steered really well, the 300 went great and stopped and steered not so much,
Interesting they had that ad in there to compare the two
I love the byline under the title pic of the SCI road test: “…and may well be the last of the powerful Detroit supercars.” Hindsight is always 20/20, but if only they knew how wrong they were! Things were just heating up in ’57…
This car must have come fairly late in the run or had a lot of prep work, given the high Mark’s for quality. It is maddening to think what could have been if Chrysler had not cut so many corners in these cars’ gestation.
With the tight steering ratios and the advanced suspension design these cars drove far more “modern” than anything else in their era, or even in the decade after.
In retrospect, Chrysler should have waited one year to introduce the 1957 models. One can only imagine how the corporation would have fared over the long term if these cars and their corporate siblings had been better built and more resistant to rust.
Strange JP its on this site I found out about mid to late 50s Chrysler quality problems our CKD cars were assembled by Todd motors and hung together pretty well, they didnt rust away any worse than other American brands but they looked newer longer to us kids.
Ironically, the next year Road & Track tested the 1958 Continental convertible, which was longer (229″), heavier (5,560 lbs. test weight) and had a 430 cu in, 375 hp engine, which gave an 8.7 sec. 0-60 time. So much for the performance ban!
I associate the introduction of quad headlights with 1958 models. Do others agree?
Rather an apples to oranges comparison, but for a 1950’s effort, the Chrysler 300 Letter Series embodied more of the theme and aura of a Duesenberg J than most any other. The fastest Duesenbergs would be the two SSJ built on a 125″ wheelbase, one for Clark Gable, the other for Gary Cooper. Both SSJ’s are still extant.
The Monster must be the 400hp Chrysler 300 F, 0-60 in 7,2 seconds according to a test in Motor Life – June, 1960.
Or with twin Paxton compressors, top speed 189.99 mph at Bonneville with Andy Granatelli behind the wheel.
The best of that race must be what happened after the record setting:
After the speed runs, the crew piled in to the car and drove to Wendover, Nevada for lunch.”
Anyone know what those horn like things are on the headlights?
I think it is engine air intakes. Having the air intakes in front of the car would in theory at least supply the engine with un disturbed air, perhaps more air, than have the intakes in the engine bay.
Let´s ask the experts here at CC!
It was to direct air to the brakes for cooling.
Like many, I think that the 300F was “the bees knees” (did they still say that even 60 years ago?)…but any of these 300s would have been great.
I think the opening scene of the movie “Quiz Show” features the protagonist at his Chrysler Dealer sitting in a 300C, cigar in hand (mouth?) and asking the salesman about the features. These were undoubtedly expensive cars at the time, and certainly aspirational especially for those who wanted some sport with their luxury, in an American car.
I’m always impressed by how clean the 1957- 58 styling was. The way those fins rise organically, the perfectly placed side spear, and more. Considering most auto styling of that era, this was a Mondrian in a sea of Kincades.
I see that the Granatelli/Paxton car claimed **813** hp—wow!
This is a 1960 model, with the 413 wedge engine, I assume. Note that it’s “blowers” plural, as in two of them. And they create 17 lbs of boost, which is a massive amount. That’s the key to big hp numbers.
One more beauty shot–I have no idea if ever used in an ad:
The article mentions that the fit and finish were comparable to the Duesie. Not really valid, since the Duesie was sold as chassis and cowl for about $10k, equiv to $200k now. The fit and finish came from your chosen coachbuilder, for another $5k or so.
Another amazing article I missed on its debut.
The idea of a 4745 lbs on drum bakes and bias ply tires would keep me up at night.
The 0-60 time is in my opinion about what one could expect. The 375 gross ponies is probably around 260 real ponies at the rear wheels.
4745 pounds of mASS, bias ply 14s and drum brakes, oh yes let’s go racing at Road America!!! It is rather scary, in hindsight, to think of driving MONSTERS like this…….fast! Visually the BIG MoPar ’57s managed to make their ’55 and ’56s look trim. Personally I’ve always found the ’55 and ’56 Chrysler 300s the best visually; the photo of the ’55 is from the net.
Of course, the ’56 Chevy I dropped a 275 hp 327 in really was no better, but I survived 20 years of almost daily driving in her; much of it on L.A. streets and freeways.
Checking the specs I see that my 1.5L turbo Accord 4 will turn a qtr a SECOND quicker than the “Duzzie” of 1957; not to mention pass gas stations, plus stop and go thru curves with precision unthought of in 1957. Real progress…….so far. DFO
I could study this car’s design for hours. It’s just so clean and organic, and renders so many of its contemporaries baroque and bulky (I’m looking at you, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Imperial). The Duesenberg analogy is right on point. Just curious, though — when did the letter series get four-place seating and full length console?
I want to say that was 1960, but I’m going from memory.
If the car magazines of 1957 had been like the car magazines of the 80s-90s, every single issue would have involved some take on this car, the fuel injected Corvette and the supercharged Golden Hawk, with a couple of mentions of the supercharged Thunderbird 312 and the Rambler Rebel with the aborted fuel injected AMC 327. The supercars of 1957. And of the five, this one alone did it with carbs at ambient air pressure. Brute cubic inches have their place.
I will also echo the many above who note that this was probably the most beautiful iteration of the 1957-59 Forward Look. The restraint in the use of trim on these cars was unlike almost anything else. The more you paid the less trim you got. Until you got to the Imperial, when they added it all back on.
(first pic)
What is a young Mr. Kaplan (the Blacklist) doing with Don Draper (Mad Men)?
Yaay, TV!