SittingSince85
New Member
What describes a 300?
What describes a 300
- Thread starter SittingSince85
- Start date
My two cents.... it would have been interesting to see how sales would have been if the Hemi had been added to the dealer supplied stock like they did with the modern 300!
Def the family musclecar, but it would have fried tires like the R/T's and GTX's did in that era.
Def the family musclecar, but it would have fried tires like the R/T's and GTX's did in that era.
I would have said a "Muscle car with class". Or refinement, or sophistication. That was always Chrysler's point with the 300 wasn't it? The bankers sports car?
Given the same engine choices (and body styles) as the New Yorker and Newport takes away from that. At least during the LH era the 300 and LHS were somewhat different cars visually and ride-wise.
Given the same engine choices (and body styles) as the New Yorker and Newport takes away from that. At least during the LH era the 300 and LHS were somewhat different cars visually and ride-wise.
Obviously, you never drove a Hemi car. I have driven my share. Ridden in a bunch too.
They were finicky at best, horrible at worst. With a few very notable exceptions, they were dogs out on the street. A good running 440 could usually smoke a Hemi car. The problem was that not many guys could keep a Hemi running right on the street. Even a good running Hemi car could get beat by that good running 440 in the 1/8th mile (been there, done that) with the Hemi coming on in the last 1/8th. Since most stoplight to stoplight "racing" was just a few hundred feet, the Hemi just didn't live up to the mystique.
A C-body would have been a bad choice unless the factory did some "detuning". You are still dealing with huge intake runners in the heads that kill low end torque, important to a heavy car.
The discerning C-body buyer wouldn't have put up with a car that needed to be wrenched on a lot, could be beat by almost any muscle car, and then didn't even have the Chrysler 5/50 warranty on the engine!
Last edited:
Devils advocate, the buyer not wanting the wrenching experience wouldn't have bought it. If they had they would have " had a guy".
The option should have been there. A three two barrel Fury couldn't have been any better to tune.
Dads300
Member
They could have done a sonoramic hemi
Travis..
Back when Hemis came with 2bbls, they had no real problems as to running good a lot of the time. Chrysler advertising claimed the hemi V-8s did not get carboned-up as other engines might (which probably meant Buick and Olds) back then. While many serious drag racers knew the potential of the hemi head in making power, so many probably checked salvage yards every week to see if one came in.
A friend in our Mopar club had a '70 HEMI 'Cuda, with a '67-vintage engine in it. It was not hard to drive, as his wife liked to drive it. Key thing was that Dale had a '70 Dart Swinger 340 that he fine-tuned each of the carbs on (as a daily driver) before they were put on the 426 HEMI. As a result, it idled with about 17" Hg (like a "station wagon motor") and ran 13.90s (4.10 rear axle ratio) on old Polyglas GT tires which were old enough to not like that activity. AND beat a GS455 that we later discovered was "sandbagging" as it was not nearly as stock as the owners claimed it was. All of this at one of the first Muscle Car Club races back in the 1980s. BTAIM
Obviously, Dale knew how to drive the car and make it work. Another friend in the Mopar Club had a '70 Challenger R/T 440 6-Pak 4-spd CA-spec car. Both of them were friends and had friendly drag strip "rivalries" back then. One would win and the other one would tune more and vice versa. Stealthy, of course, until Dale got one of the first pairs of BFG Drag Radials, painted the "BFG" name with white latex house paint, and they went to the drag strip. Other than the "paint job", the radials got soft enough to retain gravel in the tread, which was a dead giveaway they were softer, but met the durometer specs for the national-level races sponsored by MuscleCar Review, back then.
I know that when the word "HEMI" is mentioned near Chrysler enthusiasts, droll happens immediately. No matter the platform it's installed into, as the C-body group seems to feel they were "denied" in that deal.
Granted, the Long Ram cars had special maintenance needs. I always felt it was insane to have mechanical lifters hidden below the intake manifolds! When some good hydraulics with special "low-preload" rocker arms might have sufficed. BTAIM Still, their "aim" was to augment mid-range torque. As they also limited 5000-rpm horsepower, the "short rams" were developed to address that issue.
Key thing to remember . . . had Chrysler not needed the HEMI for NASCAR, it would not have been installed into B and E-body platforms. Period. BUT, it was good for advertising, too. At that time, C-bodies were not in NASCAR, so little to be gained by putting the HEMI engine it them, aside from the changes made to the cars to accommodate them, nor additional production complexity. It would not have saved the 300L from being the last in the line of the Special 300s.
I concur with @Big_John on the less mid-range torque from the large intake runners and such. Valid points. Even on the slightly-milder '67 OEM camshaft. The 440/375 made for a better street motor that was not a slouch at the drag strip. With very little more production cost than a 383 2bbl. Which as why the Gen I Hemi was replaced initially, it cost too much to build, so the B/RB motors replaced them. With the Hemi/"Spitfire" block continuing on as the A/LA motor's heritage.
CBODY67
A friend in our Mopar club had a '70 HEMI 'Cuda, with a '67-vintage engine in it. It was not hard to drive, as his wife liked to drive it. Key thing was that Dale had a '70 Dart Swinger 340 that he fine-tuned each of the carbs on (as a daily driver) before they were put on the 426 HEMI. As a result, it idled with about 17" Hg (like a "station wagon motor") and ran 13.90s (4.10 rear axle ratio) on old Polyglas GT tires which were old enough to not like that activity. AND beat a GS455 that we later discovered was "sandbagging" as it was not nearly as stock as the owners claimed it was. All of this at one of the first Muscle Car Club races back in the 1980s. BTAIM
Obviously, Dale knew how to drive the car and make it work. Another friend in the Mopar Club had a '70 Challenger R/T 440 6-Pak 4-spd CA-spec car. Both of them were friends and had friendly drag strip "rivalries" back then. One would win and the other one would tune more and vice versa. Stealthy, of course, until Dale got one of the first pairs of BFG Drag Radials, painted the "BFG" name with white latex house paint, and they went to the drag strip. Other than the "paint job", the radials got soft enough to retain gravel in the tread, which was a dead giveaway they were softer, but met the durometer specs for the national-level races sponsored by MuscleCar Review, back then.
I know that when the word "HEMI" is mentioned near Chrysler enthusiasts, droll happens immediately. No matter the platform it's installed into, as the C-body group seems to feel they were "denied" in that deal.
Granted, the Long Ram cars had special maintenance needs. I always felt it was insane to have mechanical lifters hidden below the intake manifolds! When some good hydraulics with special "low-preload" rocker arms might have sufficed. BTAIM Still, their "aim" was to augment mid-range torque. As they also limited 5000-rpm horsepower, the "short rams" were developed to address that issue.
Key thing to remember . . . had Chrysler not needed the HEMI for NASCAR, it would not have been installed into B and E-body platforms. Period. BUT, it was good for advertising, too. At that time, C-bodies were not in NASCAR, so little to be gained by putting the HEMI engine it them, aside from the changes made to the cars to accommodate them, nor additional production complexity. It would not have saved the 300L from being the last in the line of the Special 300s.
I concur with @Big_John on the less mid-range torque from the large intake runners and such. Valid points. Even on the slightly-milder '67 OEM camshaft. The 440/375 made for a better street motor that was not a slouch at the drag strip. With very little more production cost than a 383 2bbl. Which as why the Gen I Hemi was replaced initially, it cost too much to build, so the B/RB motors replaced them. With the Hemi/"Spitfire" block continuing on as the A/LA motor's heritage.
CBODY67
Last edited:
Those early 50's 2bbl hemis with the cubic inches from 270 to the mid 300's are completely different tha a 426 hemi with 2.25" intake valves.
however the hemi combustion chamber, valve layout and spark plug location have real benefits to efficiency.
it why the 426 Hemi design is still used today in top fuel racing.
however the hemi combustion chamber, valve layout and spark plug location have real benefits to efficiency.
it why the 426 Hemi design is still used today in top fuel racing.
69CoronetRT
Senior Member
What describes a 300?
As with many things in life, it's all perspective and depends on the year.
A 57 300C is a hell of a lot different within the relative automobile market place than a '70. A dual quad 392 certainly exuded more actual performance than a 283 or 312.
With the introduction of the mid size car with a large motor era, (benchmarked with the '64 GTO but other examples exist) and emergence of Pony Cars starting in '64, all brands were abandoning the concept of actual performance in full size models.
By the time you get to MY 1970, the 300, Galaxy, Impala, Grand Prix, Wildcat, et al may have had engines available in other applications but the focus was much more on luxury than actual performance. Its difficult to call a car with 1/4 mile times in the 16/17 second range a 'hot rod', regardless of the profession of buyer, when the goal and potential of sub 14 second times was achievable in the late 60's and early 70's.
Putting a low to no margin high maintenance second generation Hemi engine ( a halo product at best and a NASCAR requirement at the least) in an already small selling segment of the market (full size performance) made absolutely no sense. With the highest volume of a Hemi engine in any one year and model being only ~1,000 units in a 68 Road Runner, and some Hemi applications being less than 50 units, considering a Hemi in a full size late year 300 was ludicrous. The Hemi really wasn't selling to begin with. The already available and proven 440-4 was a much more logical choice.
The sales numbers of the 440-6 tells us what the buying public thought about a 'performance engine' in a full size car. It was available. People didn't buy them.
As with many things in life, it's all perspective and depends on the year.
A 57 300C is a hell of a lot different within the relative automobile market place than a '70. A dual quad 392 certainly exuded more actual performance than a 283 or 312.
With the introduction of the mid size car with a large motor era, (benchmarked with the '64 GTO but other examples exist) and emergence of Pony Cars starting in '64, all brands were abandoning the concept of actual performance in full size models.
By the time you get to MY 1970, the 300, Galaxy, Impala, Grand Prix, Wildcat, et al may have had engines available in other applications but the focus was much more on luxury than actual performance. Its difficult to call a car with 1/4 mile times in the 16/17 second range a 'hot rod', regardless of the profession of buyer, when the goal and potential of sub 14 second times was achievable in the late 60's and early 70's.
Putting a low to no margin high maintenance second generation Hemi engine ( a halo product at best and a NASCAR requirement at the least) in an already small selling segment of the market (full size performance) made absolutely no sense. With the highest volume of a Hemi engine in any one year and model being only ~1,000 units in a 68 Road Runner, and some Hemi applications being less than 50 units, considering a Hemi in a full size late year 300 was ludicrous. The Hemi really wasn't selling to begin with. The already available and proven 440-4 was a much more logical choice.
The sales numbers of the 440-6 tells us what the buying public thought about a 'performance engine' in a full size car. It was available. People didn't buy them.
69CoronetRT
Senior Member
Substitute '68 for '70. The thinking still applies. Performance in a full size model and as a benchmark of a make was waning to virtually dead by MY '68 as high volume high profile midsize and pony cars emerged. Even the letter series didn't continue after 65.
FWIW... I think the '68 300 is a high point in styling but I have no illusions that it's a car designed for performance compared to the rest of the market.
Last edited:
I fully know that the Gen I hemi was what it was, being the basis for many top fuel dragster engines through the decades. Being termed the "Donovan Hemi" by many.
Similarly, the Gen II HEMI was the "Milodon HEMI" and continued the domination in the top fuel ranks. Interesting thing was that ANY drag racing engine with hemi heads was termed a "Chrysler" even if it had Chevy blocks under them.
When Chrysler introduced the Gen III Hemi, they had intake manifolds to attach carburetors to, although more race-oriented, plus free-standing ignition systems. Oriented toward street machine/street rod applications. Plus the exhaust manifolds with internal dividers to act a bit like headers than normal log manifolds. Neat stuff, back then!
Other than the "WOW" factor, the only real advantage the Gen II HEMI would have offered a Slab 300 customer is easier spark plug access, even if they'd added the extra spark plug heads into the mix. Back then, the Street Hemi option for a Road Runner was a bit much for normal folks, plus their alleged "reputation" of being tricky to tunee. The 440HP was a more logical choice, on many levels. PLUS the 440HP could have factory AIR CONDITIONING!
That last item might not be relevant to many, but in the southwest USA, it can be, in July and August.
CBODY67
Similarly, the Gen II HEMI was the "Milodon HEMI" and continued the domination in the top fuel ranks. Interesting thing was that ANY drag racing engine with hemi heads was termed a "Chrysler" even if it had Chevy blocks under them.
When Chrysler introduced the Gen III Hemi, they had intake manifolds to attach carburetors to, although more race-oriented, plus free-standing ignition systems. Oriented toward street machine/street rod applications. Plus the exhaust manifolds with internal dividers to act a bit like headers than normal log manifolds. Neat stuff, back then!
Other than the "WOW" factor, the only real advantage the Gen II HEMI would have offered a Slab 300 customer is easier spark plug access, even if they'd added the extra spark plug heads into the mix. Back then, the Street Hemi option for a Road Runner was a bit much for normal folks, plus their alleged "reputation" of being tricky to tunee. The 440HP was a more logical choice, on many levels. PLUS the 440HP could have factory AIR CONDITIONING!
That last item might not be relevant to many, but in the southwest USA, it can be, in July and August.
CBODY67
Would not have made much of a difference. Hemi cars never sold well as they were not good streets engines, as Big John wrote. Their manufactured numbers are low, not out of "rarity," but because they weren't fun to drive daily.
I'm speaking of the 426. Since I've never driven a first gen Hemi, I can't speak for them. They must have been different though, since they were used in all New Yorkers, Imperials, and 300s from '52-'58.
bronze turbine
Active Member
I just looked at the results for the poll and I can't believe more people are saying "muscle car" than "land yacht". If we're talking about the '67 and '68 models they were definitely "land yachts". The '65 and '66 models maybe leaned a bit more toward "muscle car", but I don't know a lot about them. I do own '68 300s, New Yorkers, and Newports. The 300 is basically just a New Yorker with different styling. The performance aspect of the two is exactly the same. A hemi in this car would have made no sense in my opinion. Definitely not what the intended market segment would want. The 4-spd was gone in '68, and practically gone in '67. Not saying the 300 didn't have good performance, but the New Yorker had the same, just didn't advertise it as much with styling.
With the introduction of the "Pacesetter 300", in about 1963 IIRC, the 300 was moved more toward the center of the Chrysler model portfolio. With the 300 Letter Cars still having their place as "High Performance Chryslers" and all that meant back then.
By the time 1965 arrived, the 300 Letter Cars were very similar to leather-trimmed cars with the top engine option of the model year. The fact that no 300 Letter Car existed in 1966 was an indication the 300s had become more about "sporty with performance" than just "performance with luxury", to me. Back then, "sporty" meant buckets with console, leather (usually), big engines nearing the 400 horsepower mark, and hidden headlights in many cases (by 1968). Maybe a few other HP options?
By 1968, a NY two-door hardtop could be optioned like a 300 2-dr hardtop, sans the hidden headlights. Each had their own unique upholstery patterns, though. With the NY having woodgrain rather than a variation of "engine turned" inserts in the instrument panel and door trims. Even so, the 300s had their own flair about them that set them apart from other Chryslers, back then. The "performance image" endured, though, although "high-performance" had evolving definitions over the years.
When I see comparisons of cars to "big boats", I think of the typical GM car and its "heeled-over" attitude during almost any cornering activity over 5mph. Or Steve McGarrett sliding around Hawaii in his black Mercury. Made for dramatic television, but not good on front tire life. Chryslers handled "flatter" and "with more precision", by comparison.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
By the time 1965 arrived, the 300 Letter Cars were very similar to leather-trimmed cars with the top engine option of the model year. The fact that no 300 Letter Car existed in 1966 was an indication the 300s had become more about "sporty with performance" than just "performance with luxury", to me. Back then, "sporty" meant buckets with console, leather (usually), big engines nearing the 400 horsepower mark, and hidden headlights in many cases (by 1968). Maybe a few other HP options?
By 1968, a NY two-door hardtop could be optioned like a 300 2-dr hardtop, sans the hidden headlights. Each had their own unique upholstery patterns, though. With the NY having woodgrain rather than a variation of "engine turned" inserts in the instrument panel and door trims. Even so, the 300s had their own flair about them that set them apart from other Chryslers, back then. The "performance image" endured, though, although "high-performance" had evolving definitions over the years.
When I see comparisons of cars to "big boats", I think of the typical GM car and its "heeled-over" attitude during almost any cornering activity over 5mph. Or Steve McGarrett sliding around Hawaii in his black Mercury. Made for dramatic television, but not good on front tire life. Chryslers handled "flatter" and "with more precision", by comparison.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
This is unnecessarily harsh. My statement was only about the fact that it would have made an interesting vehicle and a nice addition to the dealers toolbox (i said sales). I do assume it would still be a bit of a rarity if they had offered it, but it would surely be a valuable car today. It would have been Sporty, and that's mission accomplished. Not meant to compete with the new Dodge Demon in the prowess department.
Absolutely!! Don't make the assumption that the Elephant motor we all know today needed to be shoved in the C body "as-is". You're talking about a factory offering. The engineers would never just throw it in.... They most certainly would not have need to be married to the idea of two carbs and a race cam lol. Historical data has very little to do with what they could have done. And still allow the salesman to sell the mystique, which is what they were doing with the very first of the late model 300's . "That thing got a hemi?", surely sold a lot of Ram trucks, etc. They managed to sell that motor for 4-5 years after the slab sides were done for, and the aftermarket found a use for them for a whole lot longer!!
Agree 100%, but will the potential changes made, certainly no reason that a warrantee would not have been offered. I seriously doubt, regrdless of which version of the Hemi-Power Chrysler 300 fantasy anyone wants to believe, that a lot of 300's have been or ever would have been campaigned at the drag strip. I'm sure it's been done, but rare, really rare. Same thing with stoplight racing.....how many you think ever went out trying to take on GTO's and GS455's and Cudas? Not a whole lot I'll bet.
No, it wasn't "unnecessarily harsh". It was a statement of fact. Sorry if you feel that I need to apologize.
I'm out of the conversation anyway... I said what I said and I don't feel the need to go any farther.
Similar threads
