300C's as beautiful as in the ads

interesting... I would have thought you wouldn't dare own a bicycle of
any kind.

Speaking of old kitchen items....

I've got a 1956 stove I will likely restore. Although I would prefer to
resto-mod it somewhat since I dislike having pilot lights. If that would
spoil it, then I'll just live with turning the gas off and lighting it
each time.

Also have a toaster of roughly the same vintage. Haven't seen if it
works yet. It may. Needs a cleaning a the very least.

Now the ~1939 blender seems to work just fine. The rubber of cap has seen
better days however.

 

I doubt that I will make myself much more popular with this posting but
last time I looked the question whether a car looks good or doesn't was a
question of personal taste. There is no such thing as 'wrong' or 'right'
styling. Styling can help sell cars and it can make people not want to buy
them.

I personally like the Chrysler in question for the same reason you drive
'nconformist' cars and have an orange bedroom. It may look odd if the eye
is used to soaplike Hondas and Toyotas, but if no manufacturer was willing
to break out of the soap cycle and design cars that look unique the world
would be a darn boring place.

Chris

 

Aztek.

 

And everything else from GM's 'total recall' styling phase.

 

I stand corrected.

Chris

 

It is way too soon to tell if the 300C styling is ugly or not. Give it 10
years. If in
10 years the things are considered classics then you can say the 300C
styling
was revolutionary and bold. If in 10 years the things are worthless junk
heaps, then
Dan can say the styling was ugly as sin.

I personally think the things are butt-ugly.

Ted

 

|
| message |
| > > This is not an attractive car to any degree greater than the ad hype has
| > > made people think it is.
| > >
| > > DS
| >
| > You are in the minority in your beliefs. I am sorry.
| >
|
| It is way too soon to tell if the 300C styling is ugly or not. Give it 10
| years. If in
| 10 years the things are considered classics then you can say the 300C
| styling
| was revolutionary and bold. If in 10 years the things are worthless junk
| heaps, then
| Dan can say the styling was ugly as sin.
|
| I personally think the things are butt-ugly.
|
| Ted
|
|

Me too. But they're selling well here.

 

I've had people follow me in parking lots trying to get close to see my
300C. When they do they all say how great they think it is. They are
selling very well here on Long Island, some delaers getting far above
sticker price for them.

 

I agree with you. That's what makes the PT Cruiser such a neat car. But
that's not what Chrysler did with the 300C, as I see it.

Look at a 300C from the rear. Now look at a last-generation Mazda Protege
from the rear. Taillamps almost look like they were lifted intact from the
Protege onto the 300C, and the trunk lid and rear bumper are almost
identical except for the overall size/scale.

Side profile is that of a mid-'90s/late-'90s Cadillac. Nothing original
here.

Front view is equal parts generic Bentley and '80s Lincoln. Ptewph.

 

That's yoour right, just as it is my right to see the 300C as another
example of a true nonconformist car.

It is very hard for me to explain why I like a specific car and dislike
another one. I have always been interested in automotive design and I also
freely admit to not having a mainstream taste at all. Even though your
taste in cars doesn't seem to be mainstream either that doesn't mean we
have to have the same likes and dislikes.

In the 300C I like the proportions and the front. The side view reminds me
of the early 60s Lincoln Continental, which I think is one of the best
looking big sedans ever. Chrysler should try to make a four-door
Convertible out of the 300C. About the rear you are right, they should
have been more courageous and created something unique there.

Chris

 

Oh, are we talking about likes and dislikes? I thought we were discussing
the notion of whether the 300C is unique and original or not.

Yes. Absolutely yes.

They really should've.

 

Maybe I came into the thread too late, but I saw an argument about whether
it is ugly or not.

About being unique, you will find very few cars nowadays that look
completely different from anything else on the road. In its class IMO the
Chrysler does look different, specifically from the soaplike asian
styling, and (also IMO) it looks more expensive than it actually is.

I would really love to see a 300C done by Chip Foose or Trepanier, just to
see what could have been if they had had the courage to pull the design
throug all the way to the end.

Chris

 

I have some pictures of *very* interesting '60s Dodges styled by Italians.

 

Dodge Firearrow?

Chris

 

Nothing so commonly known. I'll try to scan some pics when I get time.

 

Actually in person I don't think the Aztek is that bad. It photographs very
poorly though.

 

If you get around to scan them, could you send them to me (email is in the
header)? I am always interested in rare gems

Chris

 

My bro and I saw a few Aztecs at a photo shoot at Lake Tahoe before they
were introduced. We both thought they were some heavily camouflaged
prototypes, but they turned out not to be ...

Chris

 

Actually, no! It was a Chrysler design long before Bentley or Lincoln took the
look.

 

Yes, they should have. The rear needs fins, fake rocket engines, or
something. One of my main gripes about the 300C is the aesthetic difference
between the front and rear. The front has this retro thing going on. The
rear is too modern. It's like there was a team designing the front end, a
team designing the back end, and the two teams did not speak to each other.
It looks like 2 separate cars, depending on which end it is viewed from.
The 300M has the same problem, except in that case the front end is just
plain butt-ugly.