I found this ’66 300 behind one of the distant buildings at the Powerland Museum in Salem, OR, and it caught my attention more than the cars inside in the modest little car museum. It’s not hard to see why, but it’s a bit painful taking a closer look. This car has spent its life in the great outdoors, and that hasn’t been exactly kind to it.
What a proud tail this Chrysler has. Those rear fender blades and slab sides have to be one of the longest unbroken surfaces ever, on these coupes. Must be one of the longest pressings ever.
This is a non-letter 300 (that ended the previous year), which means its positioned between the Newport and the New Yorker.
The interior is in worse shape than the exterior. It looks like the window might have been open for a decade or so; it reminds me of junk yard interiors. That would take some doing to fix. No wonder it’s sitting back here; somebody probably donated it to the museum, and they can’t justify the expense to restore it. Maybe in another decade or two.
The tilt wheel is pointing skyward, guarding that massive deep-set instrument panel, which reflects its shape.
In relative terms, the back seat is…almost inviting. No fold-down center arm rest?
Under the hood is either the standard 325 hp four-barrel 383, or the new optional 440TNT V8, packing 375 horses. A three-speed manual was standard, but it’s a bit hard to imagine one in reality. Torqueflites were as good as universal. A four speed manual was not on the option list; Chrysler was late to that party, arriving finally in 1967.
From a bit of distance, it still looks ready to roll and rumble.
Give it a wash, some seat covers and it would be good to go, Ive driven plenty of cars in far worse condition than that and enjoyed every kilometer.
Man that is some bodacious rear overhang.
These are handsome cars. This example looks straight, complete, and you didn’t show any glaring rust problems. I’d take this in a heartbeat. Clean it up, fire it up and enjoy it.
The interior makes me want to cry.
That is a fabulous find and structurally the car appears to be very restorable. The interior is a different story. I don’t think the interior could ever be restored.
I hope I am wrong.
Interior is really not that bad. Get some material from SMS and a good upholstery shop and have the seats redone, door panels if you wanted to spend the money. A bit of chrome polish on the die cast instrument panel and it’d look great. A good compounding of the paint outside would clean it up too.
Hmmm. The tail (and some of the rest of the design) always reminds me of the Chrysler Turbine car, give or take. The more wine you drink, the closer if resembles it, go figure!
Neat car though, but the ’67/’68 (?) was more cohesive, with the hidden headlamps on a slightly smaller appearing car, but the dashboard on this one is WAY better that the later ones. Did this year still have the electroluminescent cluster?
I think ’62 was the last year for the electroluminescent lighting on the Chrysler. ’63-’64 had a flat dash with round gauges, and then ’65-66 went back to a look more like the ’62s but not as complicated.
Electroluminescent dashes didn’t end in ’62 -Dodge introduced the new-for-1966 Charger replete with an electroluminescent dash
-google ‘electroluminescent 1966 Charger and you’ll get images of it lit up (didn’t think it would post well, so below is the daytime version).
Yeah but that’s a DODGE. 1962 was the last year for EL gauges in a Chrysler, and Imperials used EL gauges in 1960-63. 🙂
The 65-66 instrument cluster was supposed to be suggestive of the earlier “Astro-globe” cluster with EL lighting, but the 65-66 had regular bulbs.
To me, the 1966 Chrysler 300 represents the peak of Elwood Engel’s design language that started with the 1961 Lincoln. The 67-68 was decontented by removing the outline molding chrome with unique door handles integrated into it, and simplifying the dashboard. Plus Elwood Engel tried an experiment with concave body sides in 67-68 which didn’t work so well IMO.
+1 Engel at his best!
This car is just seatcovers,and a MACCO paint special away from being a nice driver,(if you want to do it on the cheap).
Those rear flanks do look enormously long, almost even longer than the 67-68 Imperial Crown Coupe rears, which I didn’t think possible.
And I agree that the dash on these is MUCH better than the Chrysler dashes that appeared on the 67-68s
65 was the first of 2 years for that basic body. Matter fact, those are standard 65 Chrysler rear quarter stampings, the high cut held the sides of the bumpers on the 65, but for 66 the bumper ends were trimmed to allow wraparound taillights to fit. only on the 300s, though. Newport and New Yorker had new stampings that filled the area. I actually like the look of the 65s better. But that is a matter of personal taste.
Gorgeous.
Battered & bowed but still glorious , every excessive inch of it ! .
I know there’s a Mo-Par Die hard out there somewhere who’d kill to own this and cherish and take good care of it .
-Nate
There also are a lot of Mopar die hards that would love to have this to cannibalize it for the big block to install in their ‘Road Runner tribute’ or other such project. Several years ago I saw a nice ’66 New Yorker with it’s drive train gone. Sad…
Anyone who’d butcher a clean and straight 2 door hardtop Mopar of ANY kind isn’t a true ‘Mopar diehard’. A sedan…yeah, maybe.
I’d take it. 🙂
Looks like it needs both parking light lenses and the left taillight. Unfortunately those are specific to only this model, only this year, so are pretty much made of unobtainium. That taillight will probably cost as much as redoing the seats.
It has power windows, including power vents, power antenna, tilt wheel and a clock, but not A/C.
Those are the factory disc brake wheel covers, so it has 15″ wheels, and probably front discs either original or retrofitted.
I grew up in Alaska in the sixties and seventies, and saw many full size and luxury cars equipped with every option except air conditioning. My parents had a friend that bought a new ’72 Toronado equipped like that. I never could figure out why. Sure, you don’t need A/C in many places, but you don’t need power windows and seats either. Plus, any car with factory air also has a higher output heater and defroster, and that was a very nice benefit.
A/C was really expensive.
I’m looking at the 1965 prices, but I assume ’66 was pretty similar.
A 2 door hardtop 300 retail starts at $3500
A/C was $400
The next most expensive options are the automatic transmission at $220 & the AM/FM 2 speaker radio at $170. Regular power windows are $105, and the power vents add another $50.
From personal experience, I’d say power windows are very useful in one of these, as there is no way you can reach across the car.
Owned a 67 300 2 door, which I think was a better looking auto with its flowing roof line and waterfall tail lamps, I was 18 when I aquired this vehicle and had no clue what a Chrysler 300 was, mine had the 440 which at this point was standard along with the big torque flite trans, one of the most memorable cars I have ever owned.
The 1967 big block was special because it was the only year that the 915-casting heads were installed. These had closed chambers like the earlier B/RB heads for better squish/quench, but better flowing ports like the later 906 heads of “muscle car” fame. The 915’s were very desirable heads at least until recently when good flowing brand new aluminum B/RB heads became available at a cost competitive with getting original iron heads overhauled.
That’s the face of a ’64 Buick Wildcat.
Ha! I never noticed the similarity before.
Oh, the poor thing! So well optioned too! Factory disc brakes, factory power antenna, bucket seats, tilt-o-scope steering column, power windows AND no-drafts, “wonderbar” signal-seeking radio, rear heat even! I think I see the sensitivity control for auto-dimming headlights too. With so many option boxes checked, I wouldn’t be surprised if this had the TNT 440 under the hood. If this was in Albany, NY instead of Albany, OR I would be contacting them to make a deal on this car.
BTW Paul, even though the 1966 Chrysler brochure does not list the 4-speed stick as an option, I think it could be special ordered. It was available for Dodge and Plymouth ’66 C-bodies and the parts interchange completely. I’ve seen one ’66 Chrysler with a 4-speed stick in the console, but never found the owner to ask if it was original.
It does have dual exhaust. Naturally this was easy to have added after the fact, but from the factory only the 440 TNT-equipped Chrysler had dual exhaust. The “TNT” was supposed to stand for Twin snorkel air cleaner ‘N’ Twin exhaust pipes.
One minor point: In 1966 the 440 TNT was advertised as 365hp. It was upped to 375hp in 1967. Different cam, exhaust manifolds and cylinder heads in 1967.
I’ve seen 1964 300K’s with 4-speeds, and I knew of at least four or five different 300L’s with 4-speeds back in the day. I don’t remember if they were available in all 1965 Chryslers or not.
As for 3-speed 1966 Chrysler 300’s, I drooled over a very nice maroon 2-door hardtop I saw on ebay a couple of years ago. It was absolutely straight including the bumpers, shiny and clean inside and out. Iirc it was in Kentucky or Ohio. I certainly agree that these were rare – I don’t know that I’ve seen another.
There was a ’65 300L at Cruisin’ the Coast a few years back. It was black with a four speed. I think the owner said it was one of about 84.
That brings back memories.
My Grandad had a 67 (fastbackish?) Polara in the same colors. He sold it in 1984 and used that pittance coupled with trading Grammy’s immaculate 75 Gold Duster in on a new 1985 Gran Fury.
All the windows seem to be closed. Is it possible that the interior was trashed simply from sun damage, alone?
And I’m thinking there’s a major mechanical problem somewhere. Otherwise, why would the owner simply park it?
As to replacement light lenses being made of unobtanium, those parts seem like great candidates for 3-D printing replicas. I’m sure Jay Leno would be happy to lend a hand.
The lenses were reproduced at some point, but not the chromed pot-metal frames with their thin, fragile horizontal lines.
The hardtop roof on these ’66 300 coupes is unique: Newports shared Chrysler’s “cantilever” roof with Plymouth and Dodge, while the New Yorker continued the ’63-4 practice of using the same hardtop roof for both 2- and 4-door models for a more “formal” look.
On this roof, the front and rear angles of the C-Pillar are more parallel, and the rear window is cut-in, limousine-fashion. In 1967 this same pressing became the standard hardtop for Plymouth, with the semi-fastback “Fast Top” also offered for the Sport Fury and VIP only.
Oddly, there are pictures on the ‘net that show ’66 300s with cantilever roofs, but only this roof is featured in the sales brochure.
Also, this roof was only offered on the ’66 300 – the ’65’s used the cantilever roof, and ’66 and ’67’s used the “Fast Top” semi-fastback with it’s delta-shaped C-pillars.’
Big Old Chrysler may correct me on this but I believe the ’66 300s with the cantilever roof were Canadian built cars, and they may have had the smaller Newport style taillights as well.
They may have sold the US built 300 in Canada as well as the 300 Sport?
That is correct. There were Canadian-built 1966 Chrysler 300 2-door hardtops. They were basically Chrysler Windsors (Canadian-built version of the Newport) with a 300 front clip, so they had the Windsor/Newport roofline and taillights, not the unique ones that the American 300 wore.
Also made and sold in Canada was a ’66 300 4-door pillared sedan, again based on the Windsor but wearing a 300 front clip. In the US the only 300 4-door was the pillarless hardtop.
The US-built 300 hardtop and convertible were available in Canada and marketed as the “300 Sport”.
I assume the Canadian 300s have the same interior as the US built cars?
BigOldChryslers, you wouldn’t happen to have a copy of the ’66 Chrysler Canada brochure? Or know where I could get one that I could scan?
Yes they have the same interior as the US 300’s, as far as I know. They certainly looked the same to me.
I do have a 1966 Canadian brochure. However, it’s an oversize format that doesn’t fit my scanner too well. Haven’t tried since I got my most recent printer/scanner combo though.
Well if you were willing to just scan halves and e-mail them to me raw I’d take it from there. It concerns a project I’m working on. I intend to share it with this site before the year is out. You guys will like it. I’ve already spoken to Paul regarding it.
OK will try Roger. If I don’t get to it, hound me when you’re closer to needing it. There are never enough hours in the day.
Canadian ’66 300 2-door hardtop
What was the difference between the Sport 300 and the 300, other than the obvious body differences>
I don’t think there was much in the 2-door hardtop. I believe the 383 4-bbl was the base engine, same as the US-built 300. If you wanted a 300 convertible however, the 300 Sport was the only way to go. I’m pretty sure there was no Canadian-built 300 convertible, even though it should’ve been possible because there were Windsor convertibles.
Rear, same as a Newport/Windsor.
Wow, learn something new every day. I thought I knew my maple leaf iron 100 percent!
You may know that Canadian-built Chryslers of this era also got (383/440) engines that were painted red, not turquoise nor Hemi orange. Also the power steering pump and pulleys were also painted red, not black as they would’ve been on US-built engines.
This baby has a lot of character, that’s for sure. But its FAR from a lost cause. The interior is the worst of it, but structurally its all there. With a little work and some $$ invested, this car could very well be a stunner. $$ invested vs $$ returned is the only issue, but to a hardcore Mopar fan it would be worth it. The body seems straight, rust free and complete so if the motor fires up, this is a worthwhile resto project, driver quality classic or fodder for a custom.
There is one that looks (to my untrained eyes) pretty much the same, in Zagreb.
It appeared first in 2011 in the woods near to my home, wearing red Florida plates.
Since then, it appears regularly on old-timer events around here, but it is not a “daily driver” by any means. It is not a fuel consumption that is the main problem (LPG conversion can fix that) but the size is enormous for our traffic conditions.
I saw one of these outside Woolies today believe it or not. Small world.Big Car.
These Chryslers were seen as aspirational cars on the Canadian prairies. Many friends of my parents drove Engel Chryslers. We were stuck with Fords.
I am not much of a Mopar fan, but I could see myself driving this car. Mid 60s Imperials are beautiful too, but I almost think I prefer this style.
There were very few Chryslers that I recall seeing as a kid…seemed that I was in a strong GM area. The father of one of my grade school pals had a big black Chrysler sedan in this basic bodystyle…did it have maroon interior or I am imagining things? Either way, it was stunning.
So sad to see in this condition. I think these ultra loaded cars are more rare than the ultra stripper that turns up occasionally. Especially on a Chrysler, whose buyers were not normally over-the-top kind of people.
I looked at one of these from an estate years ago, a silver car with white interior (yuck). It was nowhere near as loaded as this one.
This is the type of car that would be very expensive to do a 100 percent restoration on, but is much too good to just languish. I’m in the “throw some seat covers on and drive it” camp, of course after dealing with any mechanical maladies.
There was a very detailed website with lots of pics from someone who did restore one of these.
http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/745262/1.html
Check it out here.