|
Ray, You need to re-read what I posted. I never said that the Club was not "interested" or didn't encourage those with later cars to attend meets. I stated that the later cars should be included in the write up, that's all. Having written that, I do agree that having an open policy towards newer 300s will promote the long term existence of the Club and should be encouraged. Bob J From: Ray Jones [mailto:1970hurst@xxxxxxxxx] Bob, it's not like the Club is not interested in the "Others", it's that we just were built around the Letter Series and only judge the Letter Series and the Hurst. ALL the other 300's, of any stripe are welcome to come play with us. We encourage owners of later generations of the 300 to join us and find out where their line came from. This, by the way, is a fine place to find new YOUNGER owners for our old Brutes. We gotta get us some new blood... Ray On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Bob Jasinski <rpjasin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I've got to chime in here on Carl's statement: 6) In the ninth generation section (‘99-‘04) there is no mention of the 300M Special (which actually was special in features and equipment). Ninth and tenth generation sections seem incomplete. As our club does not include these cars, should they be covered at all? How can we NOT include mention of these cars in the write up? I accept and recognize the fact that the Chrysler 300 Club International only recognizes letter cars built between 1955 and 1965, plus the 1970 300 Hurst for judging and support purposes, but to pretend the later 300s don't exist, does them, and our proud 300 heritage, a disservice in my view. The 300 Sport models are mentioned, why not the cars with a letter built after 1965? Go ahead, bring on the flames, I'm wearing protective gear. Bob J with a 300G (no hyphen thank you) and a 2006 300C Heritage edition with a Hemi From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of C Bilter Observations on content: 1) The last sentence for the first generation introduction section (‘55-‘56) is a fragment, like a final thought may have been missing. 2) In the “300-H” section it is mentioned that the H had the “best power to weight ratio of any of the letter cars.” While that was true up until 1962, the Ram K was probably the actual best, followed closely and/or tied by the J, based on advertised dry weights and the advertised horsepower. In that same section it says that “1962 was the worst selling year for the letter car.” Maybe on a calendar year basis (I don’t know), but on a production basis it was actually it was the J in 1963. 3) In the fourth generation (‘63-‘64) introduction it states that the “the convertible returned to the Letter Series for 1964 , but the 300-K was otherwise identical to the 300-J.” That is most certainly not true. We 300 nuts are picky about details like that. 4) The features listed for 1967 were optional at extra cost and not standard. 5) The 1970 section lists Hurst production at both 501 and 485. There seems to be some leftover verbiage from an earlier rendition that need editing. 6) In the ninth generation section (‘99-‘04) there is no mention of the 300M Special (which actually was special in features and equipment). Ninth and tenth generation sections seem incomplete. As our club does not include these cars, should they be covered at all? Some minor grammatical corrections and overall editing are still required. Carl B From: Tony Rinaldi Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:34 PM Subject: [Chrysler300] R7 Diamond Jubilee 300 Circus
__._,_.___ To send a message to this group, send an email to: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or go to http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join and select the "Leave Group" button For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang __,_._,___ |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap