By on October 3, 2008

The current Chrysler 300 was a seminal work, promising a new direction in American automotive design. The car’s funky fresh armored car style was an immediate hit with both urban gangstas and Florida retirees. The 300’s weak, thirsty V6, a crappy interior and waning marketing support doomed the once-groundbreaking vehicle to a stylistic dead-end. Now what? The 2007 Nassau concept suggested a sleek and dynamic 300, designed to disgiuse its girth. But I don’t think it’s going to find its way into production. When people think “sedan” they see three distinct volumes. And that’s not going to change. Manufacturers with a reputation for weird original designs were unsuccessful in this segment (see Renault VelSatis, Citroen C6, Opel Signum & Co.). So I built on the beautiful lines of the Nassau, adding to those a third volume to match the original dynamic stance. Other changes were necessary to make this drivable. Any front engined cars needs some air intakes just above the spoiler. Those and some lights that can be built on this planet are the only changes the fascia needs. Frames on the doors, handles that can also be used by a basketball player, decent-sized mirrors and it’s good to go.

[Click here for more Avarvarii photochoppistry]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


20 Comments on “TTAC Photochop: New Chrysler 300...”

  • avatar

    Oh this is clever; take the once grand selling 300 and turn it into an overblown P.O.S. Sebring. Rental fleets, here we come with another stellar sales & marketing disaster! Granted the existing 300 needs help to maintain currency but not an Acme brand anvil to deep-six it right out of the gate.

  • avatar

    Now that looks nice IMO

  • avatar

    Stole the headlights from the Ford Falcon FG i see.

  • avatar
    Dr Lemming

    That’s an interesting design, if a bit derivative. Chrysler’s challenge with the 300 is that it must adopt a much more aerodynamic look yet (arguably) maintain some continuity with the current blocky design. The current body doesn’t lend itself to easy reskinnings.

  • avatar

    I pray the convoluted Sebring greenhouse styling dies a fast, yet horrible death. Whereas the gun-slit 300 windows had attitude, the Sebring’s had schizophrenia (at an old age).

  • avatar

    I must be the only person on the planet that loathed the current 300’s styling. The tank-slit windows and high beltline were a horrid styling cue and hopefully will go the way of the dodo. And that right soon.

  • avatar

    This styling idea for the 300 woulnd’t work successfully.

    Chrysler’s “been there, done that, fell on face, nearly died”.

    1960: The Valiant (not “Plymouth Valiant” until the 1961 model year) comes out with ersatz-euro styling by Virgil Exner’s finest (he was the head stylist for Chrysler Corp.) – bigger cars were still befinned, huge monsters. (Personally, I like the looks of the 1960 Valiant more than the plain vanilla Ford Falcon or weird Chevrolet Corvair, but that’s just me).

    1962: The Plymouth and Dodge car lines come out with “inflated” Valiant styling.

    Common industry knowledge is that you don’t start styling trends on your lowest price cars and expect said styling to adapt “upwards” – you do it the other way around.

    This Chrysler would not succeed, for that reason.

    But it’s nearly a moot point since Chrysler probably won’t survive long enough to do anything about the 300, anyway.

    Chrysler is at the point that Hudson Motors was in 1954; stuck with car styling outside the mainstream, stuck with drivetrains completely out of date and “last decade” without any money to redo either, and stuck in a hyper-collapsing market (in 1954, it was hyper-collapsing for only the “independent” car makers – now it’s hyper-collpasing for “every” car maker).

    Chrysler is at the point where American Motors was in 1980 – having used up all their money in the idiocy of the 1975 Pacer (i.e. gambled and lost), they had nothing but old designs and platforms to work with and no money to “do stuff over to keep it current” (never mind “do brand new stuff to jump over the competition”).

    Ironically, Hudson merged with Nash to form AMC, and Chrysler bought up AMC in 1987…

    Interestingly, before AMC was bought up by Chrysler in 1987, it had to more or less sell it’s soul to the French (Renault) in order to get money to do the “do new stuff to jump over the competition” one of which ultimately failed (the AMC Renault Alliance) and one of which ultimately succeeded (the Jeep Cherokee).

    Seems to me that Chrysler tried the “selling the soul to foreigner” thing with Daimler and it didn’t work out so well for them.

    Now Chrysler should simply be called the Zombie Motors LLC because it’s dead & still stumbling around – doesn’t know body parts are starting to fall off and rot yet. But everyone else can see that’s what’s happening.

    Of course, for those of you who really think Chrysler’s Got What It Takes and will survive, succeed and kick-butt in the competitive world of the Financiacpolypse, then you can always but stock in Playskool which obviously supplies their interiors, even though you can’t buy stock in Chrysler LLC.

  • avatar

    @ Lee
    Actually the lights are the production fit version of those seen on the 2007 Nassau.

  • avatar

    Not sure I like this design. I see too much Ford Mondeo in the headlights/foglamps and the basic design is like trying to marry a sleekish front end to an upright body.

    The 300C was all about being big and brash. This is something else…

  • avatar

    It certainly doesn’t have the 300’s presence.

  • avatar

    Mr Avartii– The next Cadillac will not be Imperial-based, and the next 300 will not be Sebring-based.

    Please work harder.

  • avatar

    Looks good from the outside. Show us something from the interior.

  • avatar

    Looks like a Sebring.

  • avatar


    To do a really realistic design study for the future 300, maybe you should start with the hardpoints of a Nissan Maxima, rather than a current LX…

  • avatar

    Looks like a Sebring.

    While that would be a point in favor of the design and would help brand image, I believe a lot of people are not keen to the Sebring styling and would not take to a 300 like this.

    I do like the photochop. Not because I think the car looks Sebring ugly (it does!), but because it makes so much sense that is the route Chrysler would take and I believe only some minor details will differentiate the production car from this picture.

  • avatar

    Looks like a Korean Sebring. Yawn.

  • avatar

    Could you at least pencil in a stick shift and LSD? Otherwise, what is the point of RWD?

  • avatar

    I think most version of the 300C are ugly. SRT8 looks ok from some angles. The fucking front needs to have something pretty about it. The Challenger is the best looking of the RWD bunch. Make it more of a Challenger, lol.

  • avatar

    “Looks like a Korean Sebring. Yawn.”

    Excatly what i was thinking. Why are they staying with that style of C-pillar and justeverything else?

  • avatar

    Classic lines and boxy design is what sells it. This is a POS Sebring no one wants.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dantes_inferno: FCA motto: Dodge testing. RAM into production.
  • Schurkey: A few years back, I treated myself to a Challenger 5.7 Hemi rental car for several days when vacationing on...
  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber