Exner Years/new 300

[Christopher Hoffman <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yup, in the old days. Or it'd be a Saratoga or a Newport. At least Chrysler
is consistent in its inconsistency. And yet more innovative in design than
the Oval brand (where J Mays keeps doing retro-future designs of old
icons... what's next, a new Gran Torino?). Maybe we should be thankful that
no modern car has yet been deemed worthy of the Imperial name!

The non-C 300s have different taillamps than the Hemi-C (and body-color
mirrors vs chrome on the C), and the standard headlamps do look different
from the retro-styled optional xenons. But that's about it. Modern times,
y'know. At least they killed off the silly Concorde name that always felt
like it came up from AMC's trashbin (despite the added "e").

(For the record, I was kinda hoping they'd spell out THREE HUNDRED on the
new car's flanks, but they never ask me...)

Chris H
67 Crown
78 NYB Salon

On 1/22/04 9:19 pm, Dave Duricy (dave@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

>> Chrysler needs the lower trim levels because there is no Plymouth, and their
>> dealers need a midpriced sedan to sell. It's a whole lot smarter strategy
>> than Dodge's risky all-wagon line with Magnum. Expect a Magnum sedan within
>> a year, I predict.
> 
> In the good old days, the six cylinder versions would have been called
> Royal and Windsor with styling cues to differentiate them visually.
> 
> Dave Duricy