(first posted 8/13/2016) Walking though our suburban Tokyo neighborhood always offers the chance of running across some exquisite, rare JDM classic – so when I spotted this on a recent Sunday, I couldn’t have been more surprised. No JDM model here, this in all its splendor is a 1969 Chrysler 300 convertible, with period correct aftermarket Crager SS wheels – some real heavy Detroit iron from the Swinging ‘60s…
I’ve walked by this car before but it always had a car cover on it – so while I could see it was something fairly large, I couldn’t make out any identifying details. I thought maybe it was an older Toyota Century or Nissan President.
As I’m sure readers of CC know, this is an example of Chrysler’s “Fuselage” styling, seen on the company’s large models built from 1969-’73.
I can remember when these were introduced – the new fuselage design theme was somewhat controversial. While some thought it was sleek, others criticized it as unnecessarily large and “bloated” looking, especially in the rear, with too much overhang aft of the rear axle.
1970 Chrysler 300 Hurst Edition
I was a fan of these cars, but I did think the roof and “C” pillar were a bit out of sync with the rest of the design, and caused it to look somewhat awkward – the convertible didn’t have this C pillar design and in my view was the best looking.
The grill marks it as a ’69 – the ’70 and ’71 did away with the “gun-sight” in favor of variations of the remaining horizontal chrome band.
If only the hood was open…inside is either the stock RB 440 good for 350 hp.and 460 ft lbs of torque or the “TNT” version with a mighty 375/480.
With either engine, I can understand why the owner isn’t using it as a daily driver – gas here in Tokyo is about $5.00 per gallon (as in 2016, in 2022 it’s about $6.05), so with a 24 gallon tank, each fill-up will set you back $120 bucks ($145 in 2022). But what a great weekend cruiser – just keep it on the main thoroughfares and out of Tokyo’s notorious smaller streets – don’t want any scrapes on that beautiful fuselage body…
Related articles:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-outtake-1969-chrysler-newport-convertible-at-the-beach/
Wow, that thing is beautiful, great color too. It couldn’t be more of a contrast to the little pink thing next to it in the last picture. I especially love the lettering on the rear fender.
+1
A convertible 300; what more could you ask for!!!!
A second one!
A convertible Hurst edition
management was very upset that styling slipped through the individual letters instead of a singe piece script as each one required 2 mounting holes in the body, making production more costly.
I had its cousin, a 71 NYer 4 door…. you could land a helicopter on its hood!
Not to mention that it would require special, 300-only quarter panels that wouldn’t interchange with any other Chrysler model. But the lettering does look cool.
Still, one of the worst things any manufacturer laid on their production team were the 1971 Barracuda ‘billboard’ quarter panel ‘stripes’. They were, evidently, very difficult to get lined up properly and, if not done right the first time, had to be completely ripped-off and started over. Production made a point of informing styling never to try such a stunt, again.
The Chrysler stylist who came up with the stripes actually showed them to his boss in anger over being assigned the task of designing a stripe since he was fresh out of design school. To his astonishment, his boss liked the design.
The 68 Dodge Coronets also had individual letter script on the rear quarters. One of my childhood neighbors had a 68, one side of the car had CORONET spelled correctly, the other side was spelled COORNET. It was a new car at the time so apparently it was a factory misspell.
So, too, did the ’66-’67 Ford Fairlane have FAIRLANE spelled out on their flanks. Oddly, it was only the lower tier cars, as the upper trims just had a single ‘500’ or ‘XL’ emblem.
I’m sure there were others, but I can’t really think of any. GM seemed to be particularly adverse to using individual quarter panel lettering, with a good example being the GTO, where the ‘GTO’ lettering was always connected (G_T_O).
Ironically, today, it’s no big deal to have individual letters as everything is simply stuck on with permanent 3M adhesive tape.
I saw a Cortina Mark 1 test car in a magazine that had the letters on the hood spelling out ‘CORITNA’. Their comment would be racist nowadays……
I like it when they do it this way. My Jeep Patriot, perfect for my urban environment at the time, was rebadged RIOT in just a few minutes. Still having my blow dryer from the Saturday Night Fever era helped tremendously.
GORGEOUS CAR!
I’m among the “sleek” contingent when it comes to the 1969 “fuselages.” The 1965 Chrysler C- body had become cluttered in the name of “updating” by then and the new styling seemed fresh and new. That rear overhang does seem extreme. The four-doors with their longer greenhouse (was it really, or did it just look that way?) appeared better proportioned.
But when the rest of the US makers went the other way, Chrysler just HAD to junk up the fuselages. Compare a 1969 Dodge Polara to a 1972, for instance.
Of all the Chrysler division fuselages, the best looking were, fittingly, the Chrysler models. Although styling did get worse, even the last ones in 1973 still looked okay, at least relative to how the Plymouth and Dodge fuselages fared.
Oddly, the next best were Plymouth fuselages. Dodge was higher than Plymouth in marketing, but the only Dodge fuselages that looked as good as the other two divisions were the first 1969 cars. For whatever bizarre reason, Dodge fuselage styling was the absolute worst of the three divisions, and it just kept getting worse every year after 1969, until things evened up in 1974. Unfortunately, it also meant that Dodges and Plymouths looked way too much alike, and it continued the downward spiral for Plymouth until the once proud division was finally terminated when a lowly silver Neon (identical to the Dodge except for a couple Plymouth emblems) rolled off the line on June 28, 2001.
agree with your styling assessment of the various fuselages, although I do have a soft spot for the Baroque weirdness that is the ’72-’73 Monanco, the ’72 especially with the full width tailight in the bumper.
‘Baroque weirdness’ is a great way to describe the 1972 Dodge Monaco. In fact, I’d bet there were a few buyers who aspired to an Imperial but, unable to even get close to having the money for one, went with the Dodge, instead. They both have the same kind of vibe.
My grandfather’s last car was a new ’73 Monaco Brougham 4dr hardtop. Triple dark green. Replaced his teal green ’65 New Yorker. Still miss both of those cars. And him.
73 Monaco Brougham 4dr hardtop
Count me in on finding the ’72 Monaco “weird and wonderful”. The first time I saw one it stopped me in my tracks (and this was just a few years ago, I don’t really remember seeing many in my childhood).
In 1991 my old man sold his metallic green ’67 NYer due
to increasing mechanical upkeep, and bought a relatively
low mileage off-white ’69 300 4door hardtop.
Was a step down in terms of vinyl vs leather in the NYorker
and hand crank windows. But it was very reliable for 12
years until he sold it after our town decided cars of its
vintage fell under ‘luxury’ tax status. WT ??
I even got to drive it once, with dad shotgun. Realllllly
felt like driving the borough of Manhattan down the
street compared to my ’81 Century at the time, LOL!
Memories here…. 🙂
TNT 440! I thought I was an old Mopar fan but I never knew that’s what the Chrysler division was calling them! So much cooler than a plastic engine cover with an embossed metric displacement(if that) and health and safety stickers.
I really like this car minus the copper color. Nissan’s ugly period, Mark II, really ran with that identical copper for a while but it just has the worst traits of orange and brown. But I love the rest down to the wheels, Fuselages are the only full size Mopar products I like after the 50s, I never understood the hate.
Chrysler: 440 TNT
Plymouth: 440 Commando
Dodge: 440 Magnum
The 2-door fuselage coupes are reminiscent of a large-scale ’67-’69 Barracuda coupe. But, yeah, the convertibles look better (with the top down), as do the four-day hardtops.
The greenhouse to body ratio on some 2 door hardtop full sized cars from that period is really out of hand. A lot of the four doors look better. Cadillacs from around them are ridiculous. Some like the 1967 Ford semi-fastback look really good because of the footprint of the top is longer, shortening the trunk.
Of course modern cars are all practically minivans compared to cars of that time. All passenger compartment, not much hood or trunk length.
I’m with you on proportions.
Back in the day we often used to think some American cars would look better with six to eight inches chopped off the front and a foot and a half off the rear. All that bulk, and so much of it was wasted space! It sure underlined that we lived in very different worlds.
Ironically, Chrysler, in the not-too-distant past, repeated the exact same styling mistake with the final Chrysler Sebring/200 convertible, particularly the folding hardtop version. The rear end of those cars is huge, being every bit as long as the front, ending up with a very unappealing appearance. I understand the purpose was to have a cavernous space to take the hardtop, yet keep some trunk space, as well. Still, it’s no wonder they never sold as well as the previous, much better proportioned, soft-top only Sebring convertibles.
FWIW, the same problem occurred a decade before the fuselages with the Ford Skyliner folding hardtop/convertible, which had a huge rear end for the same reason. At least with the fuselage convertibles, since they were strictly soft tops, you got a whole lot more trunk space when the top was folded.
The convertible seems to escape the incredibly long, flat looking tail. At first glance of the 4th photo in the above story (B&W period shot), I honestly thought that coupe was some sort of El Camino rival – that rear deck is so long and from that angle I thought it was a utility!
Somehow my father managed to buy one cool (used) car one time, exactly that car in that color. It’s almost hard to figure out why they look as good as they do in non-metallic red (and the stamped grille looks a little cheap if you look too closely) but somehow still a great looking car, vertical headlights and all.
From the rear too.
Amazing find. And +1 for capturing the best detail of the ’69 300 – the individual letters on the rear flanks.
The convertibles were defintiely the best proportioned of the original fuselage 2-doors, but as I’ve noted before, the top-up lines weren’t helped by Chrsyler’s odd convertible top – too much rake on the rear window, a Mopar bug from the early sixties that carried over.
Agreed.. top down is the way to go on a two door fusey.
Fantastic find Jim. Colour is period perfect.
I think the added slope was to make room for a wider top well.
The ’65-66 C bodies have a more vertical rear window, but they all have a plastic rear window that folds in half when the top goes down.
The steeper slope starts in ’67, and those have a glass rear window.
I never really liked the fuselage cars. But now that I’ve seen a fuselage convertible (and in the world’s best colour!) I think I kinda get what the designers were striving for.
Good catch! Late 300’s, as in late 60’s, are rare in their own right; a convertible model really adds to the scarcity.
Great find, and just about the last thing I would expect to find in Japan!
The 1st B&W photo? suggests to me that with a shorter roof along with the thick overhang, the 2-door could be morphed into a nice ute.
That’s about as perfect a Fusey as Ive ever seen. The ragtop is the best interpretation of these cars, and the color and Cragars seal it up proper. That’s a car that would stand out here in the states, let alone Japan!
Just imagine the looks it would gather in the Ginza district of Tokyo…
A bronze Chrysler 300 was recently stolen here the car was plastered all over local internet sites but was probably already in a container and being loaded aboard a ship for its new overseas ‘owner’, it was one of only 15 in the country, Ive only seen two, awesome cars
That color is just incredible!
Although the 61-62 300’s are my favorites and the 63 went ugly (the 64’s were ok) the 65-66 were better yet and tie with the 69-71 models as my 2nd favorites. But by 72 they were heading down the tube toward their slide into irrelevance as were most American cars. That 69 in the photo is indeed a rare sight in Japan but it that color, Burnished Poly (whatever that is) it would be just as rare a sight stateside. I would love to have that car to cruise down to the beach.
The 1963 Chrysler was a new body by Exner, a far more unified concept than before, with a more lot in common with cars even today, with the roof and body all one continuous flowing thing and plain sides without any chrome lines adorning them. You can see the relationship to the Dart and Valiant, and the new intermediate Dodges and Plymouths. I thought they were awesome at the time. So advanced that the slightly facelifted 1963 sprouted little fins to make the rear look less sloped from the side like other cars of the time, and lost the big round taillights to look more traditional and expensive.
The Engel 1965’s were really awesome in their own right, plus better visibility as a bonus.
The Mercury X100 has long been my favorite full size coupe/convertible from that era but this thing could really grow on me. Very, very sharp car.
I have to admit to being a fan of the final Marauder X-100, as well, mainly because it, like the big fuselage Chrysler 300, were the last vestiges of the bygone era of the full-size, upscale musclecar. Particularly noteworthy was the huge expanse of flat-black paint covering the huge rear deck, all the way up the inside of the flying buttress, tunneled rear window of those ’69-’70 big Mercury hardtops.
I prefer the early versions ,like this one, with the vent windows – an automotive feature that vanished, due to all the cost-cutting and de-contenting during the ’70s.
Happy Motoring, Mark
They also disappeared because of AC or at least dashboard air vents going through a blower instead of just vents on the kick panels next to your feet.
If you ordered AC on a ’69 or ’70 2-door hardtop Fuselage, they deleted the vent windows. All other body styles, business as usual.
Great looking. Someone, if you can afford it, please bring it back home.
Are vintage cars subject to the infamous shaken (car inspection) in Japan? I understand that as the cost of compliance goes up with years, many Japanese motorists will replace their cars about every 6-8 years.
Yes, all cars that are registered must have Japan Compulsory Insurance (shaken) and the associated inspection – fortunately, about 15 years ago they changed the law that required cars older than 12 years to only receive one year of JCI versus two years for newer models.
But you’re correct, many Japanese prefer to trade their cars for new ones rather than pay for the required inspection maintenance items.
Good point – next trip by I’ll have to check to see if it has a current JCI sticker. Jim.
Those inspection failures turn up here, go thru compliance and give kiwis years of good service, with scrapyards full of ex JDM cars we can keep them running for ever.
Man, talk about a rare and unique find. I’ve never seen a fuselage Mopar before, but I always thought these were the sharpest cars that Chrysler put out, and the last really striking cars before the LX cars. I don’t care for the color, and I’m not a fan of ragtops myself, but I can’t deny that this still has presence.
Looks like ‘Toxic Orange’ from the 2011 LX cars to me. Love that color but on this one, not so much.
Seems like there was a CC a while back on a light blue/white interior/white top fuselage, either a convertible or Imperial. Any fuselage in good shape is a winner but, if given a choice, I’d go for that light blue/white combination before this ‘Burnt Orange’. And it’s one of the few white interior cars I’d ever take, too.
Wow! That would be a rare find on the street here in the US. I will echo some others who call the 69 300 ragtop the ultimate fuselage.
My high school history teacher Mr. Franzman had a 69 Newport convertible as his daily driver. It was similar to this color, only more subdued (or maybe just weathered), only with a white top. It was getting old in 1977-78 and he could easily afford to replace it. I have often wondered what eventually happened to it.
I love the front end and taillights of these cars but every single one of the fuselage cars reminds me of the horrible mid 1970s Ford Ranchero proportions
So much hate on the color. It may be the late ’60s stock Mopar color “Turbine Bronze”. I liked it so much that I repainted our tan ’69 Dodge A-108 Sportsman in that color.
That lil pink thing would fit in the trunk of this beast!
This just might be the fuselage that warms me over to them. Perhaps it’s that gorgeous color and its ridiculously perfect condition. Must be something in Tokyo water causing such levels of classic and everyday car OCD. Even after years of Tokyo CC’s it never fails to amaze me.
Would a person in Japan think of this as a USDM car?
Well…it is a USDM car. USDM means United States domestic market: a car that was made by a U.S.-based manufacturer for sale in their own home (domestic) market.
I don’t know if it has been slightly lowered, but it seems so, maybe that was part of the the “Hurst” option someone mentioned. In any case, I think this might be the most menacing/intimidating car ever produced.
I have always tended to “respect” rather than admire the fuselage cars, but this one is darn near perfect for what it is trying to do. But it would be weird for Grandma to show up in one.