Re: [Chrysler300] R7 Diamond Jubilee 300 Circus

The 300M was a great car (I owned one for 3 years, a ‘99). But in my opinion, it lacks 2 things that don’t make it a true letter car. #1, it’s not rear wheel drive. #2 it does not have at least 300 hp. I always thought that the true letter cars HAD to have BOTH of those features.

My biggest beef is when they released the 300 hemi C (was that 2004 or 2005?) Why didn’t they name that the 300 N? That car does has the 2 above features. Was it the Germans at the time that were trying to destroy Chrysler’s history?

just my .02 worth.

Jim Maiani

Houghton Lake, MI

From: Bob Jasinski

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:12 PM

To: 'Chrysler 300 Club'

Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] R7 Diamond Jubilee 300 Circus

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
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:43 AM
To: Chrysler 300 Club; Tony Rinaldi
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] R7 Diamond Jubilee 300 Circus

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.

Some minor grammatical corrections and overall editing are still required.

Carl B

From: Tony Rinaldi

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:34 PM

To: Chrysler 300 Club

Subject: [Chrysler300] R7 Diamond Jubilee 300 Circus

Hi To All:

Except for a revision proposed for the 300-C that will be handled by the "C" consultant, THIS IS THE LAST CALL.

Please take the time to review R7.

Here is the link:

http://www.chrysler300club.com/rcm/GenerationsR7.PDF

In all it's hyphened glory.

Tony Rinaldi

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone