Discontinued Chrysler models

I am on the fence about purchasing a 300M. However, I am concerned the nameplate will be retired as was the case with the Valiant, RoadRunner, Charger, Scamp, Demon,Omni, Diplomat, St Regis, Aspen, Reliant, 400, 600, Caravelle,TrailDuster, RamCharger, Rampage, Aries, Reliant, Fury, Duster,Cordoba, Turismo,024, TC3,Horizon,Coronet,Dart,Demon,Mirada, Spirit,Acclaim,LeBaron,Lancer,Shadow,Daytona,Laser,Conquest . Honda and Toyota have been relatively consistent in keeping the same model names as the Camry, Accord,Corolla, and Civic have been around for decades. My buddy drives a 1985 Camry and people know what he is talking about when he mentions the car he drives. However, my other buddy gets blank stares when he mentions he drives a Dodge 600. I keep my cars for extended periods of time and I do not like going saking for parts and getting blank stares. Anyone have info on how long the 300M nameplate will be around?

Reply to
Jimmy R
Loading thread data ...

Hate to tell you but the "300M" will only be around through 2004 after which it will become the "300C", a totally redesigned, far superior RWD vehicle with a Hemi engine.

Reply to
RPhillips47

I have a 99 300M. Terrific car and I suspect you can get a bargain on a loaded new 2003 or 2004 model. Since you keep your cars a long time, depreciation is irrelevant so I would go for a 2003 if I could get it cheap. WHo cares what your friends think.

RoadRunner,

about when

Reply to
Art Begun

The present 300M was so named as the last 300 was the "L", produced in the early 60's. After the letter designation was dropped the name became the "Three Hundred", a pseudo-sporty appearance package, set between the Newport and the New Yorker, that had little to do with the 300 lineage. When the 300's were being produced Chrysler changed the letter designation each year as there were styling changes. As the current 300 has remained the same since it was introduced (except for grille and taillights), there has been no need for a letter change. In reality, there was really no need to add the letters in the past except as a marketing ploy (customers expected change each year in the

50's and 60's) to let people know this was the newest version of the original C-300. BTW, there never was a 300C. After the C-300 came the D, E, F, G, H, J, K and L.

and continued:

Just because "you" think the 300C is a monstrosity doesn't make it so. The 300M may be targeted at the same market segment but in no way competes in the same market segment as the original. The 300C not only targets the market segment but comes considerably closer as it will be RWD with a Hemi engine (something your 300M will NEVER be able to do).

and further stated:

Which should actually be written as: "And from what "I" have seen it looks drastically better.....,etc. Notice that the "we've" has been chaged to "I", as this is your opinion and not the opinion of the collective "we". You speak only for yourself so please continue to do only that. Quite frankly cab-forward design and FWD has never been that pleasing to me, but I am not coming in here and telling everybody they should think as I do. Also, it is only called cab-forward as that is the name Chrysler designers gave to it, much like "the forward look" of the 50's.

Reply to
RPhillips47

"RPhillips47" wrote

WRONG!!! I had one.

Gallery 1957

Letter Series - Chrysler 300C Body Style Specifications Production List Price

2-door hardtop V-8, 392cid, hemi-head, twin 4bbl carbs, 375bhp @ 5,200rpm, 420ft/lbs @ 4,000rpm, 3-speed auto, 4,235lbs V-8, 392cid, hemi-head, twin 4bbl carbs, 390bhp @ 5,400rpm, 420ft/lbs @ 4,000rpm, 3-speed manual, 4,235lbs 1,918 from $4,921 2-door convertible V-8, 392cid, hemi-head, twin 4bbl carbs, 375bhp @ 5,200rpm, 420ft/lbs @ 4,000rpm, 3-speed auto, 4,390lbs V-8, 392cid, hemi-head, twin 4bbl carbs, 390bhp @ 5,400rpm, 420ft/lbs @ 4,000rpm, 3-speed manual, 4,390lbs 484 from $5,359

Jim

Reply to
Jim Shulthiess

"RPhillips47" wrote

I've been know to err once or twice, or more, but not in the last half hour or so.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Shulthiess

Happy to hear they are going back to rear wheel drive vehicles at least in some small part. Front wheel drive sucks BigTime. Ok for Europe and Japan maybe where they drive very short distances.

Reply to
Loose Cannon

FWD = Cheaper to manufacture - the bottom line as to why the North American passenger car population went to FWD.

Reply to
RPhillips47

If you are concerned about model recognition rather than the quality of the product you should get a lease and roll it over after a couple of years.

Reply to
Steve Stone

I don't know why you are worried. Parts for all of those discontinued vehicles are readily available, with some minor exceptions.

Plus if you keep your vehicles for a long time, the depreciation is irrelevant.

Doug

Reply to
Doug

Reply to
David Spera

And don't forget the "Hurst 300-H" of 1970, which was a mild upset of the letter sequence.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Well, also you could make the car smaller (with the same interior space) and lighter (smaller, plus no driveshaft or rear diff), thus improving fuel economy and helping meet CAFE.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

I am sure you do, and I am not saying I dislike FWD; but given a choice, I prefer RWD.

Reply to
RPhillips47

There is NO WAY I could do that, I don't build automobiles. Personally, I don't like smaller, lighter cars and I prefer a rear differential.

Reply to
RPhillips47

No, it was not a mild upset - it was blatant disrespect.

Reply to
RPhillips47

Yes, there was (there was a B, too). the C-300 was in 1955, the 300B in 1956, the 300C in 1957. You're right that there was no 300I.

Unfortunately, it's got all the styling and good looks of a brick.

Of course anybody commenting on styling is speaking only for themselves; to insist they not use the editorial "we" is just silly.

Reply to
Joe Pfeiffer

Minor nits:

The 300L was produced in '65, not "the early 60s."

Also, the "300 Sport" (aka the 'non-letter 300 series') was introduced BEFORE the demise of the 300 Letter Series, I believe the first Sport was sold in '62 or '63. Basically it was a sportier Newport with the standard Newport drivetrain options (beginning with a 383 2-barrel and going up through the 413 4-bbl) instead of the Letter Series specific

413 high-performance 4-bbl engine. In 66, the 300 lines were merged. The top-of-the-line 300 with the high-performance engine (440 rather than 413 from '66 onward) remained just as capable of blistering performance and high comfort as the Letter Series cars ever were, but were never viewed as bing as "classy" as the Letter Series. The presence of the low-end less powerful cars bearing the 300 name tarnished the high-end.

The last car to capture the true 300 vision, IMO, was the 1970 300 Hurst Edition. The 300 name made a brief return in 1979 on a special version of the Cordoba chassis (higher-output engine, sportier trim, etc) but it looks rather pathetic in hindsight. But then, so do pretty much ALL vehicles from '75 through '80.

The 300M was a nice idea and a fine car in its own right, but the wrong wheels got the power and it had 2 doors too many to be a true 300 Letter Series car.

Back to the original thread- why worry about future models of a car once you've bought it? What does it POSSIBLY matter? If the line is discontinued, it only serves to make your car more distinctive. That was part of the appeal of the original Letter Series, in fact. Each year was a unique model. So WHAT if they've made the Camry for 20 years straight, its still got all the appeal of a tube of Prepration H (another product sold for decades....)

Reply to
Steve

But Chrysler didn't market it as "The 300-H" if I recall correctly. They called it the "300 Hurst Edition." But the term 300-H caught on and stuck in public perception.

And a Hurst Edition ranks right up there with the 300-C, 300-D, and

300-H (the REAL 300-H) in my list of favorite 300s.
Reply to
Steve

You obviously did NOT read my post where I stated I made an error, did you?

and continued:

In your opinion. I feel it has considerably better styling than the 300M.

and finished:

WOW! I have been "corrected" by a Ph.D. from New Mexico, from the Dept. of Computer Science. Sorry, Doc, I don't feel my statement to be "silly".What I deem to be "silly" is when a person feels he/she must include his/her credentials when posting on the internet. Does it make you feel "superior", as a Ph.D., to correct me? As you seem to want to nitpick and correct, it would have been more correct to type your statement as this: "Of course anybody commenting on styling is speaking only for himself/herself; to insist he/she not use the editorial "we" is just silly." I would think someone holding a Ph.D. would know this. Hey Joe, have you met Lloyd?????

Reply to
RPhillips47

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.