Jalopnik
Remember the '62 New Yorker we saw nearly a year ago? We all liked its evil-beater look, but these cars looked pretty good when nice and shiny, too. It was quite a find when I spotted this '62 in the island's East End, parked in the exact spot in which the 1971 Chevy Blazer normally parks. I see the Chrysler parked there every once in a while, never at the same time as the Blazer, so I suspect they're owned by the same person.
Love it or hate it, but you can't ignore this face. Like the nose of a space cruiser! Maybe Chrysler will retro-ize this look at some point.
And the taillights- wow! These cars didn't just look good; the 300s could get going pretty well, too. The standard engine was a 305-horsepower 383; if that wasn't enough, you could spring for the dual-quad 413 in the 300H, which gave you a mighty 380 horsepower... and if that wasn't enough, a 405-horse version was available. Sadly, you couldn't get a 4-speed from the factory, but dealers back then were generally willing to make such an option happen for those willing to pay.
The interior is very nice, although that can of starter fluid on the seat isn't a good sign.
Comments
You might need a can of starter fluid in the morning too if you'd been driven for 46 years.
i dig it
Perhaps the car starts fine, but the owner likes to huff ether. You've got to think positively.
Love the blackwalls and the stagger-stacked headlights and the cool grille. And whatever's in that spray bottle in the front seat is probably pretty interesting, too.
American cars from this period are so gloriously awkward that they're pretty, in a strange way. This one looks to be in pretty good shape, starter fluid notwithstanding.
Very cool ride, wounldn't touch a thing
So ugly it's beautiful. Something I've seen with cars, but sadly not women.
What where the drinking when they designed that frontside?
This car is extremely ugly and ungraceful, but it has character.. unlike most modern day cars.
-h
@snarktastic:
Even for cars, ugly squared doesn't equal beautiful, any more than the square root of beautiful equals ugly.
This is not beautiful, like a Citroen DS or a Saoutchik bodied Mercedes, for example.
But it's damn fine lookin'.
This is Furai before Furai was cool.
I love this body style.
I wonder if the electroluminescent "space pod" instrument panel still is functional...
My great-aunt had a '62 Imperial LeBaron Southampton 4-door hardtop. Hardest starting sumbitch that ever occasionally went down the road under its own power. What she wouldn't have given for that infernal barge to light off just with a quick shot of ether!
I'll never forget the sound of that goddamned reduction gear starter screaming until the battery was about flat and then the welcome relief of hearing a few cylinders light off followed by a the rest in succession, and knowing we weren't going to be towed back to the garage again, but were going to drive home this time.
What a wretched, awful experience.
My grandmother's '64 Continental convertible, on the other hand... now that was something to enjoy.
I love this body style in that it doesn't have the "focus grouped" look of modern cars.
Interestingly the cop car wheels with poverty caps actually work on this car, which seems unusual considering this car was pretty much top of the line (except for the Imperial).
Sinister!
I have a weakness for excessively large cars with lots of power. My current PCH is a race prepped 371ci SBM powered '76 Charger SE.
With NO2 added to push you even deeper into that Fiiine Corinthian Leather!
I can easily picture Vic Morrow or Dennis Farina portraying a tough city cop driving this car. If Harry Callahan came along 10 year earlier, this car would have been perfect for him.
Somehow over the years I've become so focused on the ugly face that I forgot how gorgeous the rest of the cars lines are. Actually, I no longer think the face is oogly either. It's so un-cookie-cutter that being different and interesting is what makes it appealing now. (still doesn't work for the Edsel though)
Murilee, sometimes you just plain nail it.
This car looks great compared to some of the other Chrysler products out around then. For instance the 1961 Imperial with the separate headlights.
[www.madle.org]
Beautiful car. Rare too. A keeper to be sure.
I cant begin to explain how much I love this car.
@Uncle_Bo is El Commentamino: I was thinking 77 Sunset Strip myself
D-Day's ride- sweet!
Tailfins on the '61's were way cooler, tho.
I love these cars. I love the headlights, and the sinister grin of the front bumper. I love the 61's even more, because of their finny goodness. Electroluminescent gauges are the shit- that dash cost more to manufacture, in current dollars, than any other mass-produced American car dash ever.
Kill me and bury me in one of these.
@Uncle Bo: Vic Morrow would SO drive this car!
This car has the second best instrument cluster ever designed. The first place instrument cluster design has to go to the Mercedes Benz fin-tails from the early 1960's.
Love the slanted stacked headlights too.
@cazin678: Show me some simultaneous tailfin love!
Starting Fluid= Just like that 2 to 4 cups of Coffee I need to get me started in the morning. No biggie.
Everybody needs a little help some times.
Gorgeous, Murilee, simply gorgeous! This 300 would look awesome next to that Dart GT I told you about.
I wish Chrysler and the rest of the world could make windshields like those of the late fifties and early sixties. It had to be great to be able to remain upright AND see a freaking traffic light change to green. When the PT cruisers came out, I drove one and said screw it.
I expect the header in my face in a 356, not in an econobox.
Please park this next to a brand new Ford Focus coupe (or similar). This is a man car.
@cargogh: The HHR is even worse. I drove one and had to peer under the dash at every light, unless I stopped about a car length back from the white line.
That, and the 4 banger sounded remarkably like an Electrolux.
I just looked at the 71 Blazer DOTS pics again. If the same guy owns this 300 and the Blazer, his taste in cars is impeccable.
@mechimike: Funny, the PT Cruiser rental I just suffered with for a week sounded exactly a like a vacuum cleaner. When it reluctantly kicked down to third gear it was like it was choking on a carpet thread.
I'll take reduction gear screech everyday over that abomination.
The blackwall wheel-tire combo, the cut of the wheel wells. The goofy grille (which I like) belies how fucking badass everything behind it is.
@nsjames:
For me it's called Scotch.
Love the side view mirror placement. It's probably as far from the driver as a Toyota Century's, but that only takes it 1/4 of the way down the fender.
I can see Sinatra pulling up the The Sands in this, in a gray flannel suit with cigarette in hand.
"Careful how you park this baby, capiche?"
"Yessir mister Sinatra ... yessir."
Nowadays it's a eco-mom in a Prius.
Hell. Handbasket.
The level of detail (taillights, etc.) is astounding, and something you would never see on today's beancounterized cars. Absolutely wonderful find.
This is one of my favourite DOTS cars yet. The wheels are perfect. Amazing car.
Just ooozing Virgil Exner style.
Awesome. The dog-dishes are utterly cool.
If you can imagine Sinatra pulling up to The Sands in it, you can certainly imagine this car oozing Judith Exner, too.
There was a '62 Imperial Lebaron 4dr hardtop that was in the shop that did much of the mechanicals on my now-totalled Jeep GW...to schedule the appointment, 92 year old owner called up and started "Now I *don't* need a new car, just need my car in running condition." It pulled in, popped right out of a time capsule...
Very nice DOTS driver, Murilee...
(hope this doesn't double my apparently lost post...)
Hey DonSchenck, actually Sinatra owned - and drove - and even more rare car back then. His was a gorgeous Dual-Ghia, a special-bodied Italian 'exotic' (for the time) built on a Chrysler frame.
@Zarba: Actually, the '62 Chrysler marks the first step away from the Exner era, when he was replaced by (ex-Ford) Elwood Engel -what's with brilliant car designers and goofy names, anyway? Exner himself called this the "plucked chicken" look.
Nevertheless, I like the '62 Chrysler's looks myself, even if I prefer the batfinned '60-'61s.
If you look closely at the interior shot, notice the front bench seat with fold-down center section. The 1960 and 1961 300s had true buckets front AND rear, making them four-seaters with a center console running from dashboard all the way to the rear bulkhead. By 1962, the 300 was nothing more than a Saratoga coupe (or convertible) with upgraded drive train and suspension. The truly unique 300s of the previous two years were no more(!).
Needs a number on the side... or some moonshine in the trunk!
Not to pee on the parade of all you panting pentastar types, but this 300 is not a letter series car. If it were, it would be an "H" and there'd be an "H" in the side badge below the 300 numerals and next to the decklid numbers.
@brandegee: I'd take the PT Cruiser in a hearbeat over the HHR. We just rented a PT for a weekend and I found the seats very comfortable and the noise levels were amazingly low. The engine seemed reasonably capable, and the sightlines were decent. The ONLY real negative (to me) was the 25mpg we averaged. Really? 25mpg? From a 4 cylinder car? My V6 Cutlass Cierra used to get me 25mpg. I was expecting at least 30, even with the automagic.
Wow. Just wow. Nice job Murilee, I can't imagine there are many of that particular era 300's that still exist, much less one as fine as this. Thanks for sharing. And kudos to the owner for keeping a such a fine and quirky beast alive for us to see.
Yep (oldcanuk) you're right. It's not a letter-series 300. That model (the "H") is even more rare. My favorite is the - or what would have been the - "I" model, but I'm not sure if the letters weren't dropped by 1963. Anyway, I think the '63 was the best looking of the lot. Nowadays, I'm a dedicated Honda driver. But I was in my mid-teens when these Chryslers came out and, like many boys in those days, loved them.
Fierce! This car has the best profile I've seen on Jalopnik in a while. Murilee, your shots really help bring out the menacing look of this car. I especially like the sideview and the 3/4 view of the taillight at the intro to the piece. Those dog dish hubcaps really speak to the all business look it has.
Were seat belts required in 1962?
@leemikemphstn: They skipped the letter I (to avoid confusion with the number 1, so I've heard)- the '63 was a J. The last letter 300 was the '65 L.
I am truly astonished at this find in this condition. I will have to get to Alameda.
Though I love Mopars, I was never a fan of this early 60s cock-eyed/strange face look but they were certainly making a design statement. And the condition of this car is astounding.