The restyled 1963 Chrysler, although done on the cheap, certainly brought it into the 1960s, finally. It and the rest of the ’63 Mopar line were Exner’s mild-mannered swan song, after years of exuberant fins and challenging shapes, protrusions, toilet seats and other trademark design elements. The 300-J, Chrysler’s top dog, carried the new look quite well, even if it was a far cry from the new ’63 Riviera and Grand Prix. But its greatest assets lay under its skin, in the form of a standard 390 hp ram-inducted 413 V8 and Chrysler’s generally better-sorted suspension.
The 300-J marked a high point, in terms of standard horsepower. It also marked a low point, in terms of production: just some 400. And its suspension had been softened some, improving its ride but not exactly its handling at the limits, although its composure was still deemed to be excellent by its reviewers here.
The references to its acceleration were termed “rocket-like“, with the “frighteningly quick automatic downshifts” from the push-button activated Torqueflite. The measured results were a 0-60 sprint in 8.0 seconds, and the quarter mile in a brisk 15.4 seconds at about 96-97 mph, based on the acceleration curve chart. That was done by leaving the automatic in Drive, and “no high-rpm starts.” Not bad, for a 4,235 lb luxury car.
C&D termed the new styling an “Italian interpretation of what is going on in American styling“. Well, Exner certainly had always been very influenced by the Italians and his long relationship with Ghia. It tried to make the big Chrysler look a bit trimmer and shorter than it was (215” long).
The “square” steering wheel was not liked. Understandably so.
Somewhat curiously, the big twin four barrel carbs had no automatic choke, so a manual one was used. The engine had a nasty tendency to stall at 30 mph or so, creating a potentially dangerous situation. Presumably this was due to the lack of heat to the carbs, sitting way out there on the ends of the ram intakes.
The suspension made the almost 5,000 lb Chrysler feel more like a 3,000 lb car in its handling. The limited slip differential was appreciated in the nasty weather during the test.
C&D sums up: “...a fine car that goes like the blazes and has good road manners to complement its larger-than-life performance.”
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1963 Chrysler New Yorker – Virgil Exner Comes Full Circle (with some help?)
Curbside Classic: 1964 Chrysler Newport – Chrysler’s Great Downsizing, Chapter 2.
Vintage Sports Car Illustrated Review: 1957 Chrysler 300C – The Duesenberg SJ of the 1950s
I have always been fond of this 2-year only generation of the letter-series 300 coupe by Chrysler. For 1964, Chrysler brought out the 300K. This is the same car as the 300J, but with tiny tailfins to visually sharpen up the rear aspect. Here is a nice pic of the front and rear of the ’64 300K.
1961 marked the grand finale of Exners fabulous finned fantasies, which to my tastes were the pinnacle of OTT excess. Divine Decadence! Everything mentioned as negative in this post was a positive for me. In 1962, parents bought a new Plymouth Belvedere, which was a good 🚗. But the styling was one of the ugliest I ever saw. Fortunately Chrysler and Imperial Still had a more traditional look When I saw the 63 (and even worse y64) Chrysler my heart sank! Only the 63 Imperial had some class. What a sad end to Exners reign. 64 saw the first of return to decent looking vehicles in the Imperial. Finally for 65 Chrysler was again looking like a luxury car. As for quality and engineering that may be another matter. For me the look of the vehicle is at the top of the list and the 63 Chryslers were close to the bottom of that list.👎. Although I hated to see DeSoto die, at least it went out with FINS soaring high! 😎
The 63 Chrysler is another of my favorites. It took me awhile to come around to its looks – nothing else looked like it in 1963 or in later years. But after spending time in one owned by the family of some high school friends, I came to really appreciate the car’s many charms.
There is an asterisk for the low production figures – Chrysler also sold the 300 Pacesetter that year, which was the civilian version of the Indy 500 Pace Car for 1963. The Pacesetter may have been more akin to the sport series 300, but it was the only convertible offered by either series (going from memory, anyway).
Last thing – many forget that for its first several years, the Chrysler “Torsion Aire” suspension system combined great ride AND great handling in a way that nobody else did. Chrysler didn’t get handling just by increasing spring rates, but by unique designs for both front and rear suspensions that provided much good and eliminated much bad. GM did smooth but handled poorly, and Fords handled well but rode harder. That trade-off between ride and handling was something that Chrysler found a way around in a way that was not duplicated until GM’s improved designs in the early 70s.
I’ve always liked the looks of the ’63 and ’64 Chrysler, particularly the ’63s! Very clean and purposeful. The two door 300 hardtop, convertible and New Yorker Salon sedan were gorgeous to me. I believe these were toned down versions of Exner’s supposed to be new for ’62 “S” line of cars including the Imperial and Desoto from old photos I’ve seen in Collectible Automobile magazine. Really liked these cars and wish they had come to fruition.
IRC the Chrysler/ DeSoto proposal had chicken wings high on the rear quarters. The actual 63 Chrysler body is similar to the Imperial proposal with a trapezoid grille.
Styling of Chrysler’s `63-`64 models has always left me cold. The beltline is way to high, making the cars look too tall when they aren’t. The interior styling also took a serious dive, with the oversized, big blocky dashboard with the flatter face. Gone was the beautiful Astro-dome instrument cluster of `60-`62 with it’s intricate lighting. The squared-off steering wheel simply looks awkward and out of place.
Then, thankfully, came Elwood Engle’s new styling for `65! And almost instantly, I can easily forget the previous 2 year’s of styling mistakes.
Not a fan of the ’63-’64 Chrysler, either. Besides the aforementioned instrument panel downgrade, I never warmed to most of Chrysler’s trapezoid styling cues (although the 1960 Chrysler is my favorite ‘Forward Look’ car).
In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing some of the other design proposals that used a more traditional, rectangular shape for the ’63-’64 grille.
On the positive, those long, ram induction intake runners in the engine bay are quite photogenic (if not the greatest in actual use). It’s easy to see why Brian Wilson used ram induction versus the Corvette’s fuel injection in the song Shut Down. The accentuated hard ‘k’ sound in both terms lends itself to the melody and drag racing theme of the song.
Yeah the whole design has an odd profile to it, the 63 Dart coupe body seemed to be styled to resemble these in a smaller scale and in rare form the downsized styling works a lot better on its smaller footprint and proportions. But I’m not crazy about either one either, the pinched appearance to the rear end is something I find very unflattering to most cars that have it, and this is no exception
I think the thing about the ’63-’64 Chryslers is the way the whole front end seems ‘off’, specifically, the front fender ‘eyebrows’ over headlights that are set too low and back for the forward cant of the too large, oddly-shaped grille. Just one of these styling gimmicks might have promise individually, but throwing them all together in one package just doesn’t work.
I get the feeling that Engel simply didn’t want to fool around with Exner’s design in any way, shape, or form. Fortunately, he didn’t have the same reticence when he put the quarter panel ‘finlets’ on Exner’s 1963 Valiant, then further improved it with the full-width grille for ’64 which, to me, is the height of Mopar A-body design.
In short, the ’63-’64 Chyrslers have the rare, unique distinction of having styling that is neither overtly bad or good, sort of like a 1960 Edsel after the horse-collar grille had been removed.
Great writing about plastering children onto the seatback. That’ll shut ’em up.
The roofline is like the ’63 Riviera’s, but the rounded backlight changes the look.
This was not my favorite letter car. To me, the 1960 F was the high point.
Always love a letter car, they’re all cool in their own way. The 63-64 is probably the least graceful looking and I still love it!
Nice internet car with good colors. Interior looks original, with what I consider one of the more lovely dashboards and not so lovely steering wheels. The square wheel is strange, but isn’t strange part of the appeal of early 60’s Mopars?
I’ve loved the ’63 Newport ever since the day Dad & I walked into Delaney Chrysler-Plymouth and saw a cream colored 4 dr in their showroom, sometime in the Fall of “63. Clean and restrained yet powerful-looking sculpture on wheels that somehow combined Exner and Engle in a very successful way, with a great looking ifull-width instrument panel. The ’64 taillights to me didn’t work as well and the NYer version was too cluttered with trim. The older-style windshield still worked; I liked it’s flowing curves and good visibility and never understood the criticism of those who protested it’s continuation. It was a handsome and functional design, far more elegant than the rectangles that followed. To this day I find the ’63 Newport one of the best looking full size Mopars of the ’60s.
Always wondered what that big “squarish , steering wheel” was like for a driver. I could see it being comfortable to hold and awkward to use..
The weight of the car is “amazing” though.. Yikes!!
To me, this is just another fantastic Chrysler of the era. It is not the silly finned beasts of 57-61, it is a neat look evolving from the previous generation. To those earlier cars, yes, these years look a bit tame – but they hold very attractive details. Sorry, no Astrodome, but it was time to move on.
These are affordable in comparison to other letter cars. My father really wanted one for me to buy a long time ago. Maroon. Very, very nice. Wish I bought it.
I really dig the ’63-’64 Chryslers. I might like ’em a leetle better with a bit more prow effect to the front end, but they’re quite looksome as-are. One ’64 improvement I’m onside with is the backglass enlarged enough to eat the painted-bodywork surround we see here on this ’63; the same change made the same improvement on the ’64 vs. ’63 Dart.
I understand the wails of lamentation for the loss of the AstraDome (no, it’s not an AstroDome or an Astro-Dome; that’s a sportsball place thing). But as spectacular as the AstraDome was, it was ergonomically kind of lousy. The panel on this ’63 seems an evolution of the famously-legible ’62 Plymouth design, and it’s much more readily legible than the dome. And I find nothing the matter with the squircular steering wheel—perhaps my opinion on that point would change (or not) if I were to try driving with one.
I agree completely on the dashes – the 60-62 design was cool the way the Jetsons were cool – it was just so out-there, or a kind of design-candy. The 63-64 dash was cool for the exact opposite reason – it was an array of gauges, done in a functional but beautifully intricate way. And it incorporates that favorite Chrysler Dash-ism of mine, a face that angles away from the driver until it hits a pad that juts out. Each style goes down into my dashboard hall of fame.
In the winter of ‘63-64, my Dad traded in his ‘54 Ford Customline 4-Dr sedan for a leftover ‘63 Newport sitting under 6 inches of snow on the roof of L.P. Steuart Imperial/Chrysler in Wash DC. It was a white 4-Dr hardtop with green interior, 361 2-bbl and the steering wheel shaped like a TV screen. Compared to the Ford with its black rubber floors, 3 spd manual and no radio, the Newport was a limousine: loop pile carpeting, radio, push buttons everywhere, and that speed boat -like cowl & IP. And it could MOVE! The Cameron Run flood in November ‘66 totaled it, and the replacement was a left-over white ‘66 Newport with a 383 from Royal Motors C/P in DC. He only bought Mopars the rest of his life.
count me in as a fan of the loos of the 1963 Chrysler. It was toned down from the last of the Forward Look Chryslers, but it retained the right number of Exner & Googie touches to make my favorite full-size Chrysler designs. You can still see a hint of the horizontal bladed front fender styling from the stillborn ‘S’ series. Without a hint of fin on the 1963, the angle of the c-pillar/back window as it meets the tapering trunk lid (or as I call it–the Exner Taper) is in full side view. Sadly, the Elwood Engel “make it look boxier!” fins added in 1964 did away with the taper. I agree with Daniel above-the instrument panel is a fitting evolution of the 1962 Plymouth round, readable, and classy gauges. I could live with the squared-off steering wheel.
Okay-it was too bad they cut costs by nit using curved side glass, and the lower rear quarter panel could have tapered under a little bit better, but i thought it was a distinctive design for 1963.
Another CC post that again pushes me to revise my sense of cars that I looked somewhat askance at as a kid.
The Chrysler products of my childhood seemed to ricochet from visually frumpy (early 50’s) to space-age (late 50’s) to bizarrely odd (early 60’s). They were never cars I remember waiting with bated breath for each fall, to see what new seductive fantasies the stylists had come up with – what looks would define our sense of the times.
The styling in this case wasn’t exactly mainstream but it has held up well, and from an engineering standpoint it’s clearly an impressive car.