RE: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding

["JONES,DOUG (A-USA,ex3)" <doug_jones@xxxx>]

Just so no one misunderstands ... in spite of its handling and brakes, I
loved my '54 Studebaker wagon dearly, and still am a major fan of the
marque. I regard the '53 Starliner to be the most beautiful of all American
car designs, and have spent my life lusting for an Avanti. I also used to
own Hudsons, the NASCAR champ before the C300 made the scene. Still like
those, too!

To me, the 300 was the American version of a European GT car, more like an
Aston Martin or a Ferrari than like a hopped up Chevy. Yeah, it is way
fast, but also luxurious and stylish and expensive. I guess in today's
world the closest to the 300's of yore would be the XJR ... leather lined
luxury, beautiful style, and fast enough to embarrass many a modern day
'muscle car.' Other nominees?

And I agree that a more functional definition of 'muscle car' would be cars
that a steadily employed 25 year old could afford that could kick butt at
the local drag strip. By that definition, the monster '62 - '64 Dodges and
Plymouths certainly qualify!

Fun discussion, folks!

300ly, 
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Langendorfer [mailto:langendorfer@xxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:04 PM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; JONES,DOUG (A-USA,ex3)
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding


Like I said in my e-mail, evil handling (I have only had 1957 G-H's).

But you have to admit they have always been something of an enigma and are
intriguing and qualify as the first "little car-big engine vehicle". With
300 pounds of sandbags in the trunk (Uncle Tom McCahill's suggestion) and
ordered w/o PS or PB to add the front end load, they no doubt could rip the
1/4 w/ with a low rear ratio in their day. "Loaded Ultramatics" would be
more guilty of the characteristics you are describing.

Again, I don't equate them w/ a 300B, but they were no worse than many
"sofas on wheels" of that era, in terms of handling...and certainly more
arresting and attractive in terms of appearance (thanks to Bob Bourke and
Raymond Loewy).

300ly,
Keith


-----Original Message-----
From: JONES,DOUG (A-USA,ex3) <doug_jones@xxxx>
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding


>The '56 Golden Hawk! Boy, do I remember those! I really wanted one until
a
>guy told me that, driven very carefully, the front tires might go 10,000
>miles ... I guess it couldn't drag race cuz there was no weight over the
>rear axle. I had a '54 Stude wagon with the standard V8, and it cornered
>like an overloaded ferry boat. I can only imagine how the GH must have
>been.
>
>I think we 300-o-philes can take pride that OUR hot rod was a total
package,
>and proved it at NASCAR. On the other hand, it was a very expensive car
>looking for a select audience who wanted full size comfort and style
>combined with serious motivation...and had the bucks to pay for it!
>
>Maybe we can define the Bankers Express as cars rich guys buy so they can
>see off the kids, and Muscle Cars as cars kids buy to see off the rich
guys!
>
>300ly,
>Doug
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Langendorfer [mailto:langendorfer@xxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:06 PM
>To: Owen & Jo Grigg; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; heinitz; Jack Farris
>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>
>
>Folks:
>
>A bit of overkill at this point, it would seem, however...
>
>There are several definitions of the first musclecars, including the first
>Buick Century (Special Body w/ Roadmaster engine). In the modern context of
>smaller car/larger engine, I have always contended (I was even quoted as a
>16 year old in a 1967 edition of Motor Trend Magazine, believe it or not),
>that the first incarnation of the GTO-type defintion was the 1956
Studebaker
>Golden Hawk. Think about it...the largest engine in 1956 was a 374" Packard
>engine (the G-Hawk engine's larger brother, some of which were dealer
>installed in these cars w/ dual quads..310HP). Also, the car could be had
w/
>stick/OD
>(HD T-85 B-W), ratios up to 4:56, ordered without PS or PB and, at no extra
>cost, evil handling. A brute to be sure, but one that mesmerized the
>automotive press
>at the time. Certainly, this was not the balanced vehicle a 300B was, but,
>in its way, was a precursor for some of the outrageousness we saw in the
>sixties.
>
>Just my opinion...
>
>Keith
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Farris <jackfarris@xxxx>
>To: Owen & Jo Grigg <ram300@xxxx>; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; heinitz <heinitz@xxxx>
>Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>
>
>>Although I don't necessarily agree, the term "Muscle Car" refers to a
>>certain genre of mid-sized cars of the mid sixties to early seventies that
>>had big block engines and were produced specifically for the purpose of
>>going fast. The first car that was "officially" designated as a "muscle
>car"
>>(if I recall) was the Pontiac GTO. Other muscle cars included Olds 442's,
>>Barracudas & Chargers (big blocks only), big block Camaro's and Mustangs,
>>and other big block mid-sized Mopars and other makes. There may have been
>>other cars that could go faster, or were more powerful, but they did not
>fit
>>the definition of the genre. "Muscle Cars" were produced primarily to
>appeal
>>to a younger demographic than our 300's.
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-
>>>From: "Owen & Jo Grigg" <ram300@xxxx>
>>>To: <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "heinitz" <heinitz@xxxx>
>>>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>>>Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2001, 3:06 PM
>>>
>>
>>> Good question how do you define what a "musclecar" is?
>>> Sometime back I was invited to show my 300C at the National Musclecar
>Show
>>> in NZ. Now I was told they had to bend the rules to allow my car in.
>There
>>> rule book states only early 60's to early 70's as a musclecar. The C
>stood
>>> out like a sore thumb at the show, and more than a few scoffed at it,
>saying
>>> what's a full size '50s car doing here.
>>> I on the otherhand looked around at the small cubic displacement
>Mustangs,
>>> Camaros, and Cudas, which I commonly refer to as "school girls cars",
ie-
>>> low hp compact cars!
>>> My C puts out 375hp from factory other cars present were lucky if they
>broke
>>> the 300 mark. So if the word muscle means hp..........
>>> Or does it mean any old compact from the 60's and 70's era?
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> Question. At a meet last year my 68 300 was judged as a reg Chrysler,
>when
>>> along side of me a Baracuda with a 318 was judged as a muscle car. I
>thought
>>> that was wrong, what do you guys think?.
>>
>>
>>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/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>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/
>
>