Re: [Chrysler300] new 300C's and what cars does D-C wish to build/sell???

[Ray Jones <hurst300@xxxx>]

Well written, Mate!
Ray Jones

> From: "christopher beilby" <thelastbestgenius@xxxx>
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:37:48 +1000
> To: lajugle@xxxx, Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] new 300C's and what cars does D-C wish to
> build/sell???
> 
> With regard to what name Chrysler should use on it's new hemi car - I note
> one detractor says in effect 'get on with your life, it (the 300C) was too
> long ago. A pity he did not indicate what cars he owns, or has owned, what
> 300Cs, etc.. May I suggest he and other like minded people let us practice
> our democratic right to say what we think, and those not interested just
> delete us un-read?!
> 
> I repeat my previous message's thought - if we had not saved these early 300
> letter cars, D-C would not wish to re-use their names !!??
> 
> I purchased my first 300C in Feb 1981, I had to come to America to buy it,
> brought it on a hunch it should be a great drivers car, this apart from it's
> looks.
> 
> My first car was a 30 A Ford Roadster, and every car since I have owned to
> drive, my most most normal car a 1972 Lambo Espada, and for 27 years I owned
> perhaps the ultimate fun/road performance car, a 385bhp 1967 AC Cobra Mk III
> (289 hipo motor in coil spring chassis, the best ever Cobra, not the more
> common 'unsafe to push hard' cast iron 427).
> 
> I have owned and driven over 100 cars, and some are very memorable because
> they were just so enjoyable to drive compared to others that should have
> been the same. ( An example - the 1937 Buick Century is a brilliant car to
> drive compared to drive to Packard's 120 series 8 cylinder, maybe because
> the Packard steering is too slow, a cheap nasty floor gearchange - who
> knows?! )
> 
> I believe when the definitive history of 'cars before 2000' is written,
> there will be three landmark production cars recognised, this because they
> possessed so uncommon looks and performance advances way beyond the rest of
> industry.
> 
> Firstly I nominate the Lamborghini Espada - outstanding looks, that
> magnificent V-12, and the world's first mass selling rear engine V-12 - it
> sold in thousands which Ford GT 40 cannot claim. For all it's low looks, you
> can sit in the driver's seat and see and drive so easily.
> 
> The second contendor has to be the 1957 300C - most other prduction sedans
> were struggling to do 120mph - a well tuned a C can do 140 mph. Add to this
> anti-dive torsoin bar suspension maybe 10 years before Europe, the ultimate
> form 392 original hemi, and that so unique/outstanding body shape,
> grille,simple but effective interior, etc..
> 
> Argue all you like, Chrsyler created a true masterpiece. The 300C owes it's
> place to the 300B and the first 300, this apart from the added bonus that on
> today's radials it is a blast to drive, this so hard to make happen.
> 
> What I am leading to, is what sort of cars does Chrysler wish to build ??!!
> Chrysler should not need to try and con people into thinking they are
> buying a piece of history to sell a Chrysler, by re-using the 300C name.
> 
> Chrysler has a perhaps equal 'hemi heritage' - the basic design still rules
> the drag strips - 50 years of winning, unrivalled in history for one design
> !!?? Chrysler should shout it's hemi heritage loud and long?
> 
> But at the end of it all, if Chrysler is half smart, it should try and BUILD
> NEW DRIVER'S CARS - NEW LEGENDS. They are the cars buyers seek out, need no
> fancy names or advertising.
> 
> A more appropriate name for their new car is - the new CHRYSLER HEMI. At
> the worst they could call it the HEMI C. Kids, most all new buyers today,
> do not know what a 300C is, but hey, a hell of a lot more know of the
> 'Chrysler Hemi'. The new car is not a 300, never can be close as a 4dr,
> etc., but it is a hemi. Tell them to go with that, plus it will sell a lot
> easier, better. And if it is just 'half a driver's car', maybe the demand
> will grow, and they bring out a coupe/roadster worthy of the 300 logo?!
> 
> yours
> 
> Aussie Christopher
> 
> I b
> 
> 
>> From: "L.Andrew Jugle" <lajugle@xxxx>
>> To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [Chrysler300] How many years did they build 300C's???......
>> Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:37:46 -0000
>> 
>> One half, just like the other 300 letter car limited editions.
>> 
>> For years in the sixties and seventies one would come across DEALERS
>> who said the 300's were never built!!! ....because they had never
>> seen one. It was the Japanese that inspired cookie cutter
>> production of identical cars to cut programming costs. Remember those
>> days of advertised $3,000 cars and everyone on the lot was $4,500???
>> 
>> People forget that the early 300's were equivalent to TWO Corvettes
>> or THREE T-birds if you loaded the Brute and scammed the plastic toy
>> or Bird. ....and the 300 was built to order only, meaning you
>> ordered your car and WAITED a few months for it to be built. No
>> walking the lots looking for the Parade Green one.
>> 
>> It was a whole different world. A world only RR, Bentley and few
>> others can afford.
>> 
>> L.Andrew Jugle, Elmhurst,IL
>> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
> http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
> 
> 
> 
> To send a message to this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> For list server instructions, go to
> http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>