Chrysler 300C--DCX recreates the Checker Cab!!

What a hideous vehicle--they should paint them all yellow and send
them to NYC..

 

| What a hideous vehicle--they should paint them all yellow and send
| them to NYC..

I tend to agree that they're too boxy looking...more like a pure luxury sedan
(Bently comes to mind). I hadn't though of Checker, but I actually can see
that!! In any event, gone are the sleek lines of a sport/luxury vehicle
that the 300 legacy _should_ convey. But hey, Daimler only knows how to make
boxy cars...they must have fired the innovative cab-forward Chrysler design
team.

 

, in part:

..........and I am glad that "cab-forward" is gone!!!

 

| "James C. Reeves" wrote, in part:
|
| >In any event, gone are the sleek lines of a sport/luxury vehicle
| >that the 300 legacy _should_ convey. But hey, Daimler only knows how to
make
| >boxy cars...they must have fired the innovative cab-forward Chrysler design
| >team.
|
| .........and I am glad that "cab-forward" is gone!!!

Not me, I think it was a good design. Lots of space in a small _very_ good
looking and nimble package. I can remember stock Neon's able to pull .81 Gs in
corners...right up there with $100,000+ sports cars. I bet the "new" 300c
won't pull close to the Gs in corners that the M did (rear drive or not).

 

Hmmm. Now where have I heard that before...

At the Detroit Auto show, I unloaded on the Chrysler dealer, telling
him exactly how I felt about this thing. He said it would "grow on
me".

I have never seen so many 2-seater concepts and near-production cars
before. From everybody. Some Jap maker (I'll have to look at my
photos) had a 2-door 4-seater concept that was actually pretty good
looking.

But again, what does Chrysler give us? A 300 with an almost identical
front grill to the '57 300M.

Compare:
http://www.chrysler300site.com/cgibin/history.cgi?gallery_1957
http://www.chrysler.com/autoshow/img/gallery/main/chrysler_300/chrysler_300_2.jpg

When instead they should have built this:
http://www.chrysler300club.com/Hemi300C/Hemi300C.html

Oh man, what a great looking car.

 

I unloaded on the Chrysler dealer, telling

I gather auto show tickets are still cheaper than psychotherapy, huh?

--Geoff

 

"MoPar Man" wrote

I believe that the '57 300 was a "C", not an "M". At least the one I had
was.<G>

Gramps

 

Me too, I like the cab forward look. I particularly like the Intrepid,
even though the rear end doesn't thrill me that much.

..81 is not a big deal anymore. Real sports cars are in the high .9 or even
1g range.

 

You want to see UGLY, Look at the SCION.
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRGGGGGGGGGGGG.

My buddy and I were at the auto show on Wednesday. He is NOT a car
guy (he doesn't even have a drivers license) but they are looking for
a new car so they went. We got to the 300C display and he was blown
away. He could NOT get over how beautiful it was. I Just bought a new
Pacifica and he loves it, BUT he told me I should get a 300C HEMI
instead. He couldn't take his eyes off of it. I told him HE should
buy one. Who knows, I know he loved it.

The Twilight Zone area was a VW Phaeton with a 101,000+ price tag.
Hell, I could buy a NEW HUMMER AND a NEW Pacifica and have $$ left
over to pay the tax and license. A VW WORTH $101.000+ , I don't think
so.

 

, in part:

In reality, the front of the new 300 series is an updated version of the 1950
K-310 "idea car" designed by Virgil Exner who, in 1957, became Chrysler's first
Vice President of Styling. In 1955 he created the Chrysler Falcon from which
"the Falcon's egg crate grille was later adapted for the 1957-59 Chrysler
300s". To further quote from the history page at the Walter P. Chrysler Museum
Chrysler Design Insitute site:

".........the K-310 was designed to showcase Chrysler's upcoming revolutionary
1951 Hemi V8. In creating the K-310, Exner developed his "pure automobile"
design philosophy in which functional elements of the car were featured instead
of being disguised - elements like the wheels, the radiator grille, spare tire
storage, taillights, etc." For verification go to:

http://www.chrysler.com/design/vehicle_design/history/eras/index3.html#

So, MoPar Man, if you want to quote from Chrysler history, please quote
correctly and not from conjecture.

 

I suspect the boxy big grill look will appeal to the SUV crowd.
--

 

|
| You want to see UGLY, Look at the SCION.
| AAAAAAAAAAAAARRGGGGGGGGGGGG.
|
| [SNIP]

That's because it's a "box". A "boxy" car is less appealing, in my opinion. I
can't figure out why Chrysler would make a "box". Wind drag has to make it
more unstable at highway speeds as well.

 

Which I wasn't. I didn't say that the new 300 (or any 300) could be
traced back (or not) to an obscure 50-year-old concept car.

I compare the looks of one production car (new Hemi 300C) with that of
another production car (1957 300).

You compare the new Hemi 300C to an obscure concept car.

You tell me which comparison is more relevant.

And PS: Unless there are better pictures available of all the
above-mentioned cars, there is no clear-cut winner of this resemblance
contest IMHO.

And Chrysler's own pictorial representation of their own history is
abominable. According to them, after the Exner era comes the Engel
era ('61 to '74). And what picture do they show of that era? A
crappy, dumpy, stupid looking turbine concept. Is that the best they
could do?

Here's more crock:

"The Falcon's egg crate grille was later adapted for the 1957-59
Chrysler 300s, while its side-mounted exhausts were adopted by the
Dodge Viper."

You didn't quote that part about the Viper exhaust. LMAO. Oh yea,
that's it. When they designed the Viper in the 90's they stroked
their chins and thought "gee, how about we use the side-mounted
exhaust like good old Virgil used in his Falcon?". Chrysler needs to
make TV commercials with him in it (like GM does with Harley Earl).

 

I think he sealed his posthumous commercial fate when he styled the 1960
models. During Virgil's "difficult" period.

 

To call the K-310 an obscure 50-year-old concept car shows that you don't have
a clue and are not capable of using the nickname "MoPar Man". I apologize for
inferring that you were quoting from Chrysler history because you possess no
knowledge of it. The 1950 K-310 was the basis for many design cues used by
Chrysler Corporation throughout the 50's and ending in 1960

……and production cars just "happen" without concepts to get them there?????

Again you are proving your extreme ignorance. I did err by citing the 1950
K-310 instead of the 1953 d'Elegance from which the styling actually is based.
Your comparison to the 1957 300 (I notice you did not erringly refer to it
again as the "1957 300M' as you did in your original post) is wrong because the
1957 grille actually came from the Chrysler Falcon, which I mentioned, which
was an advanced styling concept of the K-310.

Mine, not yours. When you first started moaning and groaning about the 300
series front styling last year I posted where the concept came from. You
ignored it then as you do now. In reality the 2005 300 series "draws its grille
inspiration from the 1998 Chronos concept car" which "was inspired by legendary
Chrysler designer Virgil Exner's 1953 d'Elegance and echoed the 1997 LHS and
1991 300 show car". (Quotes are from Chrysler).

There are better pictures at:
"http://www.chrysler.com/design/vehicle_design/gallery.html" which is the link
I should have originally posted instead of the one I did.

…….and you would suggest???????????????? And a better history can be found
at the above link.

That is a direct quote from Chrysler.

Why should I quote the part about the Viper when it doesn't apply to the new
300 series? But, as long as you want to bag on me for not including it you
might as well bag on Chrysler because they are the ones that I got the quote
from. So, in your world that only sees your interpretation of things rather
than reality you can "L your AO" all you want. It will not change facts. That
you are too blind and closed-minded to accept them is your problem, and really
sad.

 

Hi Phillips,

Hey I agree with your interpretation of the 300 styling origins 100%.
Your right on,
man. Only problem is that keeping all this in mind, the 300C is still
fucking ugly.

Chrysler has a sharp looking sedan on the market, the Intrepid. Why do
they want
to go screw up a pretty design like that?

Ted

 

Well, for one thing, change happens. For another thing, the Intrepid is getting
pretty long-in-the-tooth. And, lastly, my position on the Intrepid vs the 300
is just the opposite, but that is what makes people individuals. BTW - the 300
styling origins are not my interpretation. I am just quoting Chrylser.