What 300 do you prefer...1969, 1970 or 1971?
- Thread starter Beep Beep Dave
- Start date
65MonacoND
Active Member
70 for me as I am partial to my Hurst. I like the loop bumpers, hideaway headlights and Imperial buckets.
stubs300
Senior Member
Thanks, Yeah it does! And I have about 6 different pics from this angle. And for some reason I just can't bear to delete this pic.
I disagree with both the improved dash on a '71 and the seats. The '69 - '70 dash has much more appeal to me, the layout and the dash pad that loops around to give the lower brow look way better than the flatness of the '71-'72 Chrysler. I also think both the '69- '70 have nicer upholstery than the '71 plus the low back bucket seats with the pill shaped headrests look sportier on these cars than the high back buckets. I think '70 nose and tail look best, though I'm not a big fan of the 300H. I do think that the '71 300 grille is very tough looking though they should have kept the turn signals in the grille, the '71 tail light trim bezels were just a easy way to change up the look a little bit, they look pretty good and go with the overall appearance of the car. The '69 does have a nice nose but the tail is definitely my least favorite, it was a transition year, I don't really like the deck with the body line nor do I like the way the lid and QP extensions drop further down in the back to meet the tail lights mounted above the oddly angled bumper with the reverse lights incorporated into it, additionally the lack of a valance panel makes the car look kind of square in the back. Overall '69's look very nice but in my opinion the back of the car received a much needed redesign for the 1970 model year.
Appearances are a subjective thing, but have you actually spent time sitting in a 1970 bucket seat vs. a 1971 bucket seat? The 71 is nicely contoured and supportive and envelopes the person in it much more comfortably. The 1970 dash does look nice, but I find the dim flood lights are a turn off compared to the adjustability of the 71 dash. And the dimmer wheel for the panel lighting on the 70 was an item that never works for long. I also liked the cassette player/recorder on the transmission hump better in the 71s compared to the lousy 8 track tape radios available in 1970. The Phillips stereo in 1970 had a great sound quality when you could get a clear station, but those radios were pretty unreliable. The 1971 radios had good sound quality and they lasted longer and seemed to have stronger signals. The glove boxes in the 71s were also much nicer and better finished than the cheap cardboard ones in 1970. So for me, the 71s were more enjoyable to drive for these reasons.
Samplingman
Old Man with a Hat
Thanks guys, I was aware of the differences in the seats (comfort aside, I'm still not a fan of the E-Body-like seats, and I spent my youth sitting in those), it was the dash panel that I thought was interchangeable between the three years.
Not the same seat.... James, sit in a 70 Chrysler seat, sit in a e body seat.... sit in A C body high back...not the same
The Cuda seats are among the most uncomfortable I have yet run across.
My 71 Polara buckets are the most comfortable seat ever...
My 72 Challenger seats were ok...just ok and I was in my 20s then.
My 72 Challenger seats were ok...just ok and I was in my 20s then.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
I can say that having owned the car from 20 y/o to 50 y/o they are way better when I was 20. New covers and foam helped some but a E body is a younger mans car for sure.
70 for me overall but.... I like the 71 interior better as being more resolved and "cleaner" in design.. More in keeping with the 70 exterior.....unlike the 69 with the individual call outs letters on the rear quarters and unfortunate rear bumper lights.....or the unnecessary trim on the 71.
So I guess I would have to make mine (if I ever get the time and money) out of at least two of them.
So I guess I would have to make mine (if I ever get the time and money) out of at least two of them.
1970, including the dash.
There is one thing from the '69 I like - the non-locking steering column. I prefer the look of the thin non-locking column to the one form '70 and up.
There is one thing from the '69 I like - the non-locking steering column. I prefer the look of the thin non-locking column to the one form '70 and up.
traintech55
Senior Member
Have to say 1970 because of the Hurst edition, wow what a car.
BigFury
Well-Known Member
Nice shot of the rear "bumper"
My 10 cents:
69 and 71 have the best grilles and tail light treatments. I like them equally for different reasons.
71 Gets the nod for creature comforts.
69 had the best lay out for trim (the THREE HUNDRED spelled out on the quarters etc.).
69 and 71 have the best grilles and tail light treatments. I like them equally for different reasons.
71 Gets the nod for creature comforts.
69 had the best lay out for trim (the THREE HUNDRED spelled out on the quarters etc.).
Fury Pursuit
Senior Member
70
69, then 71. Although I do have way more 69's than 70!
69, then 71. Although I do have way more 69's than 70!
bluefury361
Old Man with a Hat
I prefer the 69 model. (obviously). The first year for a new style is usually the freshest, then it's just change for the sake of change.
I'm also not a big fan of the hoop bumper but the 69 pulls it off nicely with the grille.
Some of my favorite features of the 69 are the interior, the rear taillights, the "three hundred" call out letters on the 1/4's, and then There's that sexy grille.
I'm also not a big fan of the hoop bumper but the 69 pulls it off nicely with the grille.
Some of my favorite features of the 69 are the interior, the rear taillights, the "three hundred" call out letters on the 1/4's, and then There's that sexy grille.
Did someone say they liked '70 due to the Hurst? Here are a few pictures of my '70 Newport next to my Buddy's Hurst. He sold it a few years back, but pics keep the memory going! :yaayy:
Similar threads
- Locked
