“Driving the 300 with the 440 engine is an experience in what a really big engine in a really big car can do”
That statement sums up the whole rationale behind the Chrysler 300’s TNT package. Not that the base 300 was anything to scoff at, as the 383 CID V-8 powered model stayed true to its high-performance personal luxury car mission. But with Chrysler’s newly available 440 engine appearing as an option for 1966, Car Life decided to see what the company’s largest and most powerful mill could add to the model.
Fittingly named the ‘TNT package’, CL’s 440-powered 300 2-door hardtop used 4-barrel carburetion, twin exhausts, Torqueflite transmission, disc brakes (front) and a heavy-duty suspension. That plus tons of luxury accouterments.
Besides the new engine, there were further news with the 300. For 1966, the model arrived for the first time sans its ‘letter series’ companion (After appearing as a stand-alone for the first time in 1962, it was now the sole ‘300’ nameplate). Meanwhile, on the styling front, the 300 arrived with a chiseled update of the extensive Elwood Engel restyling of 1965.
The optional 440 V-8 found in the 330’s ‘TNT package’ was developed from the 413-426 still offered elsewhere in Chrysler’s lineup. Less complicated, lighter and cheaper to build than Chrysler’s Hemi, the 440 would quickly become commonplace across the company’s high-powered vehicles.
As CL discovered, the 300 440 TNT was a lot of car with mighty and impressive specs. Loaded with options, the car’s heavy unibody came for a total of 5000 lbs. Under the hood, the 440 provided 365 bhp at 4600 RPM, with a torque peak of 480 lb.-ft. at 3200 RPM. Performance was brisk, reaching 0-60 in 7.7 secs.
On driving, the heavy-duty suspension provided “an almost firm ride” and “permitted much less body lean in cornering than had been anticipated.” However, the car’s 57% front weight bias and overall heft were not the best in winding roads. “The car’s inherent forward weight bias induces a pronounced understeer that sometimes is difficult to manage in tighter turnings.”
But great power and prowess were the TNT package’s real mission, not corner carving. “From rest, a jab at the accelerator will leave a pair of black streaks on the pavement for 60 ft… the 300 conveys its passengers in ease and comfort, with very little effort being expended by the driver.” In other words, effortless, powerful cruising.
Other than some rattles and noises, the ’66 test found no major objections with the car’s overall fit and finish. A sign that Chrysler’s assembly woes were easing (for the time being). “Engine, unit body construction and, especially, brakes, then are of sufficient sturdiness to provide the Chrysler 300 owner comfortable cross-town or cross-country service for years.”
Curiously, the reviewers found much to dislike with the car’s styling. Buyers thought otherwise, and the understated and powerful 300 of 1966 became the model’s best-selling year with a total of 49.5K units, in its various body types, sold.
Further reading:
When our next door neighbor bought a huge Airstream trailer in 1966, his Rambler Ambassador wagon wasn’t up to the task of pulling it. It was replaced by a new Chrysler Town and Country wagon with the 440 TNT. Loaded, including the cool roof rack that went the entire length of the roof. The neighbor said that once on the highway he didn’t even realize the Airstream was back there. I can still recall the mellow exhaust notes of the 440 as he backed the big Airstream up the hill of his driveway.
Chrysler had a separate “towing” brochure during these years… the ’66 featured a 300 coupe, here is the cover:
“Didn’t realize it was back there”? Scary!
I found the angularity, formality, and seriousness, of this Chrysler design approach, too strong. Almost polarizing. You either loved it, or hated it. Beautiful in illustrations.
The ’65 and ’66 Chrysler prestige brochures are two of my favorites. The ’65 was fashion magazine quality, and the ’66 used something of the “mod” way of illustration (the ’67 Buick “Stars” prestige brochure is another fave):
https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/mopar/66chryl/66chryl.html
https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/chrysler/65chr2/65chr2.html
I love the aggressive “angularity” of this 300, the grille’s forward – thrust makes it looks like “it means business”…
Not sure if this is Car & Driver cynicism creeping into Car Life, or is this anti-Chrysler styling stigma that lingered after the last Exner years, but how can you look at that car and not say it is beautiful and timeless. Opposed to the breeder hips on the contemporary GM cars.
That is a strange theme for an article: It’s an unnecessary statement that is out of character for the typically straightforward Car Life review. Although I prefer the GM full-size cars of the time and think they looked more modern for the period, I also think the Chryslers look great. But I like almost anything from the 1960s.
Beautiful, yes. Timeless, hardly – I’d say it’s almost archetypally mid-’60s. Not that that’s a bad thing.
That being said, unlike many cars of the era where the 2-door hardtop is clearly the style leader and the one the whole lineup is optimized around if not outright derived from, the Mopar C-bodies’coupes seem like afterthoughts in a line meant to emphasize 4-doors. Maybe not to the extent that was the case with later fuselages, but still.
So the disc brakes were great for reducing fade but not in helping controllability.
For how many years did Chrysler cheap out in not providing a proportioning valve for the rear brakes? I don’t know if that qualifies as a Deadly Sin in the CC sense, but it could well have been deadly to some innocent motorists and pedestrians.
Agreed. Rear-wheel lock-up is cited as a problem in multiple Chrysler reviews of the period.
A wealthy local farmer (I grew up in very rural Western Illinois) bought a new fully – loaded ’66 300 four – door hardtop, bright red with a white vinyl roof, a special order from Thede’s Chrysler – Plymouth in Aledo IL. Amongst the many plain – Jane strippers that the rural folk still drove, this snazzy and exotic Chrysler was virtually a “tourist attraction” – us kids during 5th – grade recess would go out to the school parking lot and stare at it (the wife was our school librarian). It was one of about three cars in our small town of 500 that had factory air – conditioning, the other two being the new ’66 Olds 98’s that the local vet and bank president bought…
I agree that it was strange to continue to harangue about the author’s dislike of the styling, even until the final paragraph. Usually they would include an innocuous comment like “attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder,” and leave it at that. The Chrysler was a big car, but this coupe isn’t any bigger than a contemporary Coupe de Ville, and these were usually praised in those auto mags.
I like big cars, and these have always struck me as quite handsome, and extremely masculine, like something that George Peppard, or James Coburn would drive. The performance is outstanding, and even the fuel economy isn’t that bad.
Motor Trend‘s comments on the styling of these cars when the styling was introduced for 1965 (covered in their November 1964 issue) were also very negative. They complained that the shape was overly busy, the detailing cluttered, and the overall effect lacked taste. It wasn’t the size so much as the feeling that it lacked a coherent styling point of view, whereas the ’65 GM full-sizers, especially from Pontiac, were more cohesive and benefited from well-considered draftsmanship (some of which is more obvious in the metal than in pictures).
This is something that’s harder to judge in hindsight, because when we see these cars now, it’s usually in isolation, and so the things that stick in the mind are different than seeing the car when new. Removed from its original context, a design that was considered bland or kitsch at the time may be striking in ways it wasn’t in its time.
I love the 1966’s lines. Thanks for the presentation.
This is my idea of the optimal big car – luxurious, powerful, good looking and just a little sporty, in a masculine way. The HD suspension and disc brakes are the icing on the cake. The interiors on these cars were indeed very nicely (and expensively) done.
I will be forever mystified in the way Chrysler invested in unique sheet metal for the front ends of the 300s in these years, up through the 1968 models. Only the 300 got the prow-style hood, which really makes the styling work in my view. The flatter fronts of the Newport and New Yorker were never as good looking.
Yes the prow worked well, sort of a toned down ’62 Pontiac. Had a neighbor with a ’66 New Yorker and an uncle with a ’67 300 4 door so I was around these cars when new. They have such a presence and agree with masculinity comments and also agree 300 was better than the New Yorker by a margin.
I had a 66 Fury 1 in high school this is a much better car I had trouble buying gas making only a dollar an hour part-time on weekends when gas was 50 cents a gallon had work an hour to buy 2 gallons of gas would like to have this car today if it was affordable even though I would still have trouble putting gas in it if you drive it much you’d have to drive it on weekends I thought this was for sale and I’m disappointed that it’s not would be nice if it could be attainable I’m retired military it didn’t say where this car is
I prefer the headlight covers
and what Chrysler called a ” center grill running light” on the 1965 300 L .
Poring through the specs, I’m astounded that the as-tested weight is about 50 lbs less than the load capacity of the tires. And I wonder if the load rating is even lower at the recommended 24 psi presumably used in testing. Yikes!
I too saw that on the tires and if you run the numbers off the 57/43 weight distribution the fronts are clearly overloaded.
As an admirer of the ’65 to ’68 Chryslers and the later fuselage models, this article made my day! I had daily drivers of both era’s long ago. The 1966 300 is at the top of the pillar. I would have love to have driven a 300 with a tauter suspension.
I never realized that there had been a TNT package. The top order 440 engine for some years later was tagged as the TNT engine.
Ah, the 1966 Slab Side Mopar. My favorite year of the big C Body even if I have a Fusie. Don’t care too much if a 300 or a New Yorker 2 dr. since both have the 440 TNT or no TNT. After that I’d then settle of the 67 followed by the 68.
Interesting that the car was so front heavy. I assume that a 383 wouldn’t be any better, and perhaps worse. We’re these any more unbalanced than a similar Olds or Buick?
If I recall correctly, the 440 was called a ‘raised deck’ block, which was heavier than the 383 in spite of the larger bore.
I’m digging the four-piston calipers. Chrysler really was an engineering oriented company well into the ’60s.
I guess it looked modern for the time “on paper”, but as to the overall exterior styling, I give it a 6.5/10.
Nice sporty interior, headrests even! Looks quite modern. Disc brakes: excellent.
A car pushing 5000 LBS with those acceleration numbers: quite impressive. I’ve come to find the ( trap ) speed at the end of the 1/4 to be the most useful metric for seat-of-the-pants feel…how well it “pulls”. 88 for a car like that; pretty tough.
Chrysler made plenty of marketing mistakes, but the 300 cars was not one of them. It started out brilliantly with the first, 1955 C300, a car some claim was the first musclecar. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but it was definitely a success.
When things began to wane (the 300-letter cars were never a huge seller, more like what’s now known as a halo vehicle), Chrysler cleverly moved the by-then well-known 300 brand over to the decontented, non-letter ‘300 Sport’ in 1962. It worked so well that the letter-series’ last year was 1965.
Then, in a clearly astute decision, 1966 replaced the old 413 with the new 440 engine. It was a perfect move, with the cheaper ‘TNT’ better for both Chrysler’s bottom line and customer driveability.
Better still was the following year when the same engine (known in Dodges as ‘Magnum’ and Plymouths as ‘Super Commando’) went into the new Coronet R/T and Belvedere GTX.
The Street Hemi gets all the glory but the 440 was much better in terms of a more livable power curve, longevity, and maintenance. Between the 383 and 440, Chrysler had some serious street cred in the sixties (if not on the sales charts, where the GTO ruled until 1969).
I think I’ve mentioned this before here on CC, but my FiL has a ’66 300 convertible, red over black, sitting in his garage. I woke it from a 40-year slumber two summers ago. It is, even in its barn find state, a magnificent car. I don’t understand how the styling would have put anyone off—the interior is incredible. We’ve only had it idling in the garage, because the drums are frozen to the hubs and I haven’t been able to do any brake work on it yet, but one of 2024’s goals is to get it moving out of the garage under its own power.
We’ll see. He’s succumbing further into dementia and we’re being careful about how much we move his cheese these days.
I own a 1970 Chrysler 300 Convertible with a 440 TNT and automatic transmission !
It was a delete auto with no air conditioning or any other upgrades except for a 8 track tape player !
On the glass back window was written,
JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO BACK ON THE HIWAY, THE CHRYSLER 300 LAND SHARK !
Has anyone have any info on this particular auto ?
Would love to learn more about this car !
I was told that the 1970 440 TNT was the last year of the original 300, the convertible for a while and other things.
Any help would be so appreciated !
It is a survivor and mostly all original !
Runs great and looks great !
Thanks Fred from Tennessee !!