By on August 6, 2018

A recent edition of Buy/Drive/Burn included a Chrysler 300M from the turn of the century — a car which represented the third time Chrysler created a line of vehicles wearing “300” badges. The other day, the Internet presented the 300M’s closest ancestor, and my curiosity piqued.

And since we’re into coupes on Rare Rides lately, come along as we check out a big, bold coupe from Chrysler.

The first iteration of the 300 existed in dealer showrooms between 1955 and 1965. All of these cars were two-doors in nature, and coupe, hardtop, or convertible in styling. Known as the “letter series,” the 300s were muscle cars. Powerful and quick off the line, by 1965 the 300L version had a 413 V8 (6.8-liter).

Overlapping the letter series was the second generation of 300, which is where today’s Rare Ride comes into focus. Sensibly known as “non-letter,” the run of cars existed alongside the end of the letter series for a couple of years. Starting in 1962, non-letter cars were there to replace the aged Chrysler Windsor and Saratoga models. That’s the U.S.-market Windsor only, as Canada held onto the Windsor name through 1966 (a rebadged Newport).

Considering the success of the 300 line, Chrysler expanded its offerings. Non-letter cars were available in both two- and four-door variations, with a traditional pillared sedan, hardtop, and convertible. The company reshuffled the lineup for ’66 after the letter cars headed out to pasture. Styling was revised in ’67 to a considerable degree, as the brand headed toward what would become known as the fuselage era. The four-door sedan option went away, and customers were limited to the largest 440 V8 (7.2-liters). A three-speed automatic or four-speed manual were available, moving just under 4,400 pounds in four-door guise.

Another styling update in ’68 concealed the headlamps, and the second year of the 1967-68 version would be the last. Revised again in 1969, styling went full fuselage, as the 300 came with length. The former model was a scant 218.2 inches long, and 79.5 inches in width.

The new version shrunk to 79.1 inches wide, but extended to 224.7 inches on the same 124-inch wheelbase. Heavy stuff. The 300 line made it through the 1971 model year, when it was cancelled. Its replacement was the new personal luxury Cordoba in 1975.

Today’s Rare Ride 300 is a very clean example listed on the Providence, Rhode Island Craigslist (removed). With factory air conditioning and an excellent interior, it asked $10,000.

[Images seller]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

44 Comments on “Rare Rides: A 1967 Chrysler 300 – Large and In Charge...”


  • avatar
    SilverCoupe

    ’67 and ’68 was when I first started building model cars when I was a kid. I always loved the tail lights on the ’67 300. I thought it was such an elegant rear end. I haven’t seen one of these in years, though.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    The interior is in incredibly good shape. The mid 60s tuck-and-roll vinyl interior lasted about a year before being covered in duct tape

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      My father had a ’65 4-door that he bought in ’68, had for 5 years. I don’t recall there being any problem like that.

      The car was seriously huge, especially next to the Sprite I bought used in 1970.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Man, what a beautiful American automobile. CUVs weren’t necessary when you had trunks like that. The light over the radio brings back memories.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah but how were you able to navigate streets in this boat? This thing seems too unwieldy. CUV at least have a reasonable size.

      • 0 avatar
        Sub-600

        A 1967 Chrysler 300 was 78.7” wide. A 2018 Ford Explorer is 78.9” wide. Obviously the 300 is wider than a RAV4 or Crosstek but less than an inch longer than a Chevy Suburban. You didn’t run slaloms in 300s but they fit city streets,

      • 0 avatar
        BigOldChryslers

        I find my big old Chryslers easier to drive and park than most other vehicles I’ve driven, even with no passenger-side rear view mirror.

        These Chryslers have almost the same dimensions and wheelbase as a pickup with standard cab and 8′ box, but lower to the ground. With with their body styling and minimal blind spots, you can see all four corners from the drivers seat. Possibly not as much with this example, since it has the fastback roof with a big triangular C-pillar and sloping rear at the corners.

  • avatar
    aajax

    No Brainerd BUY.

  • avatar
    Coopdeville

    Beautiful car, thanks Corey.

    Also, long fenders are looong.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Gotta love the ’60s, when a luxury coupe could be sold with crank windows and an AM radio.

    Awesome find, Corey. Me wanty.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I got me a Chrysler it seats about 20
    So come on! And bring your jukebox money

  • avatar
    gtem

    Man, now THAT is a car!

    Funny how this old Chrysler is eliciting so much positive emotion and desire in the comments, most modern car designers would kill to have such a positive response to a modern design.

  • avatar
    Blackcloud_9

    Beautiful find Corey.
    My Uncle Bob was the “cool” uncle. He was six years younger than my mom. Single, he was an aircraft mechanic for TWA so he always had enough money to “mostly” buy whatever car he wanted. He couldn’t quite swing a 300 but he owned a couple Newports in a row of that era. Sprung for the nicer interiors and power windows – back when power windows were a big deal. Man, we kids loved going for a ride when Uncle Bob came over!

  • avatar
    CaddyDaddy

    ?? Was this the last year for the 413ci Elephant Engine? I think the 440 was introduced in 68’ in the Imp and 300.

    • 0 avatar
      ernest

      No. My mom had a ’66 New Yorker 4Dr Hardtop with a 440. I’m pretty sure ’65 was the last year of the 413.

      Nice car Corey. I remember how that old New Yorker could hammer the Siskyous Mountains flat on road trips to Oregon.

    • 0 avatar
      BigOldChryslers

      Ernest is correct. 1966 was the first year for the 440. In 1966, the Newport came standard with 383-2bbl, 300 came with 383-4bbl, and New Yorker and Imperials with 440-4bbl.

      The 413 was never referred to as the “Elephant” engine. That name was sometimes applied to the 426 Hemi. The 426 street Hemi was also introduced in 1966, but was never factory installed in any C-body.

  • avatar
    socalduck

    Was the lower console cup holder original to the car? It looks like an add-on.

    Love the taillights!

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      I was about to comment that Chrysler was way ahead of its time with the cupholders, but obviously that is a add-on. I remember my parents Pontiac Laurentian of that era had a slight indent on the inside of the glove box door which was supposed to be a “cup holder” – usable only at drive-ins I guess.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    Ad removed and no wonder. A steal for a vintage coupe in that good a condition.

  • avatar
    doug-g

    It seems like I always tell this story when a Chrysler pops up, but here goes b/c I find how society had changed to be interesting. When I was a kid my dad was going to buy a Buick. My grandfather hit the house and yelled, Hal, we are NOT Buick people”! My family was in the liquor business and my grandfather did not want to seem to be putting on airs.

    But Chrysler products, up to and including the Imperial, were fine. Chrysler products were seen as “blue collar” cars where we lived. They didn’t make people jealous. My father drove the Hell out of Chrysler products for many years. They were often poorly assembled, but ran well and handled better than most of their competitors.

    • 0 avatar
      ernest

      I can’t remember how we wound up with ours. We totaled a yr old Mercedes in Mexico, and the Chrysler was the temporary replacement. In ’67 we got another Mercedes, and mom took over the New Yorker. Odd thing is, folks weren’t Chrysler people. That was their first… and last… Mopar.

    • 0 avatar

      That’s interesting how even the Imperial (clearly above the Buick) was perceived as below it.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I’m not sure if that’s really what most people perceived. The way I remember it the top of the heap for the big 3 were Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial. Buicks were equal to Mercury and New Yorker

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Is that Penastar on the 4th picture original? I don’t remember seeing them on Chryslers of that era. And there doesn’t appear to be one on the driver’s side.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      I recall seeing them on Chrysler products when I was a teenager. GM cars, iirc, had a “Body by Fisher” button similarly placed.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Yes the ‘Body by Fisher’ was on the inside door sill of many GM vehicles but it had been there for decades, a vestige of when Fisher was a independent ‘coach builder’.

        I certainly do not remember a ‘pentastar’ logo on my Cordoba. There were however a number of ‘gold’ medallions, including on the hood ornament.

        The ‘pentastar’ on this 300 is however original. As per the following link:
        https://www.allpar.com/corporate/pentastar.html

        https://www.allpar.com/corporate/pentastar.html

    • 0 avatar
      doug-g

      Yes, that was a Mopar tradition beginning in, I believe, 1964. Always in the same area on the right side.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    I got me a Chrysler, it’s as big as a whale and it’s about to set sail.

  • avatar
    StudeDude

    I love all of the big Mopar hardtop coupes from 1965-1968, including this 300, Newport, Imperial, the Dodge Polara/Monaco and the Plymouth Fury III/VIP. The big convertibles are even better.

  • avatar
    Ko1

    As the current owner of the family’s ’67 Newport Custom 4 door hardtop, I can dig this. My funny story comes from 1994 when Dad and I dragged the old girl out of storage in my grandmother’s garage and were driving it around Winnipeg. We’d stopped on Corydon Ave. to check out a new bright yellow Viper but, turning around, we found a small crowd of people were more interested in the rusty and faded Newport.

    The picture of the radio makes me smile too. I’ve never seen a ’67-’68 Chrysler where the glove box door actually lines up properly.

  • avatar

    I’m loving these big Mopar cruisers. My father just bought a ’67 Newport Custom, 2-door hardtop, Turbine Bronze in great unrestored condition. I’m heading up to join him at the Mopar Nationals in Columbus this weekend, so I’ll get to see it then.

  • avatar
    Featherston

    A qualified thumbs down to Chrysler for cashing in on the Letter Cars’ cachet with the non-letter 300s. That said, this is a nice example.

    Here’s some fun viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9rHA-1BiCQ

  • avatar
    tonyola

    A very handsome car, though I’m a little more partial to the ’68, which had hidden headlights and a bolder grille.
    http://www.classiccarstodayonline.com/wp-content/uploads/22b-1968-Chrysler-300.jpg

  • avatar
    lon888

    I wonder if these were popular with gangsters? You could stuff a bunch of bodies in that trunk. Hell, I think I could put my GTI in that trunk…

  • avatar

    Reminds me a bit of the 1967 Plymouth Sport Fury I used to drive while in high school. Thanks, Corey.

  • avatar

    Chryco has been recycling the same body forever. The glass is the same as my 67 Fury II Coupe. Interior the same, seats better. Different nose and tail clips. Same dash. Road Hugging Weight was really a thing. The dash reminds me of my Grandfathers’ 1966 New Yorker.

    • 0 avatar
      BigOldChryslers

      Before you trash-talk you might want to do a Google image search first to refresh your memory.

      This body with concave sides was new for ’67, and was only used for 1967-68. Not surprising that the (new for ’67) fastback coupe roofline and some of the interior was the same as the Fury coupe, they were both 1967 C-bodies. Other than the roof however, no body sheetmetal was shared between the Chrysler and Fury.

      If you looked at a picture of a 1965-66 Chrysler dash you would see they are very different. The 65-66 Chrysler dash is much more ornate and has a beautiful arcing instrument cluster with fuel and ammeter gauges ahead of the speedometer, unlike the 67’s plain horizontal ribbon style speedometer with fuel and ammeter gauges off to the side.

      I had to look up the dash of a ’67 Fury but they don’t look very similar either. The 67 Fury dash looks a lot like the 65-66 Fury dash, which I am familiar with, but more stylized.

  • avatar
    WildcatMatt

    Like many, I find ’60s ChryCo offerings to be very polarizing. This one is pleasing and I like the interior.

    The photos leave me with a couple of questions though:

    1) Is the trunk longer than the hood?

    2) What’s visibility like with those C-pillars? On the one hand, that seems like a lot of body work back there, but on the other hand with the angles and how low the car has to sit I guess when you’re looking back at traffic you’re really only looking through the top third of the windows where it’s narrower?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • redapple: Hatch struts still work? W T Fudge? My sawed off broomstick handle was always in the back.
  • kosmo: “How’s that Ranger Raptor coming, Ford? Oh, it isn’t? I see. Thanks for the mobility scooter,...
  • dividebytube: When I’m down south I’m taken aback by the number of decent looking old trucks and even G...
  • redapple: RED…. Great catch. Love it.
  • teddyc73: What an ugly rear end.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States