Something for your garage...The ultimate car!

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

DT . . .

Before you call BS on my story please re-read it: the owners of that ‘57 300 knew perfectly well that it wasn’t going to outrun a hard-driven late ‘80s Corvette in any way, not acceleration, not top end, not braking and not cornering. They were smart guys with a very nice collection of both American and European cars and didn’t dispense BS. What the driver of the 300 correctly guessed was that the ‘Vette driver had no interest in the sustained high speeds his car was capable of but was rather just a rude show off who wanted to pass the Chryslers and nothing else, had he not cut sharply in front of the 300 on an otherwise deserted highway nothing more would have come of it.

The 300 driver was hacked off by his rudeness and decided to make the ‘Vette driver work a little to stay in front. The story has always made me laugh because the ‘Vette driver undoubtedly thought he’d pass two old cars in a showy fashion and then drop back to 70 and didn’t count on the 300 being fast enough to make him sweat a bit. Not many production true four seaters of that era could have run 120 in a straight line. A few other carefully optioned American cars could have, along with a Mark II Jaguar sedan with the 3.8 and overdrive, but overall the list would have been short. Anyway I hope we can all agree that a '57 300 was capable of 120, which is all the owners claimed.

Regarding the Pont-a-Mousson, I’ve heard that the number of ‘60 300s so equipped ran into the low double digits but can’t verify that. I’ve always figured it was more of a marketing ploy than anything else, since Chevy was making a big deal out of having their four speed (introduced in mid ‘57 IIRC) in the Corvette. Certainly the 300 was a luxury GT and not a sports car like the Corvette but even into the early ‘60s Chrysler liked to advertise it as a sporting car. I would think if they wanted the four speed for NASCAR it would have also been offered in Plymouths and Dodges, do you know if it was?

[this post was last edited: 8/30/2014-18:11]
 
The four speed in the 300 was strictly for homologation with NASCAR. Dodge Coronets and Plymouth Belvederes in the 1960s were offered with four speed gearboxes. In the 50's it was "three on the tree" (three speed column shift, ever drive one?). There is now a five speed available that is a direct replacement for the old four speed for builders trying to squeeze modern performance out of an old B body car.

Look, I used to live in the same fantasy dream world as Kenkart that this old Detroit iron was as good as anything modern. Then, after pushing them as far as I could I came to realize I was urinating into a very stiff breeze. Engineering was advancing faster than I could come up with ways to finagle the last five years performance and refinement out of old iron. You drive these new cars and even some of the cheapies are better suspended than premium cars of yore. It hit me when I was assigned (company car) a version of the Ford Escort that was really nothing more than a re-badged Mazda Protégé. It was the TOL version of the Escort and the company let me have a manual trans, heh, heh, heh. The boss could not figure out why I wanted that car over a big overstuffed Taurus. Same twin cam 1800 cc engine shared with the Miata and TOL Protégé LX. Effin screamer, just like a motorcycle engine, revved to over seven grand, sweet shifting five speed gearbox and the most supple suspension imaginable (multi link at the back), yet nimble. The steering was ultra sensitive, well weighted but no play whatsoever and it talked to you through the wheel. It was front drive, yes, but if you stuffed it into a corner hard until the front tires protested, backed off the gas suddenly to make it rotate then slammed the pedal to the metal you could coax a nice controllable four wheel drift out of it. After that I gave up messing with old Detroit sleds. You can do so much more with modern cars, have your handling and your comfort, and not be constantly toiling away in the garage.
 
I most certainly have driven a three speed column shift. I grew up driving four speed column shift cars and have nothing against a column shift provided the linkage is good. My only issue with the three speed was remembering that it put reverse top and towards the driver whereas I was used to that being first so I had to concentrate at stoplights. No different really than moving from one five speed floor shift pattern to another, some companies put first in the “H” while others put it to the left and rearward leaving reverse left and forward. Actually I’ve driven a five speed column shift too, it worked just fine.

I don’t covet old big American cars for their driving characteristics but by most standards the upper end Chryslers and DeSotos were very impressive in ‘57; critics of the day felt they handled very well compared to the competition. They’re not my sort of cars so I don’t covet them but do respect what Chrysler achieved after having been very much behind the curve in the immediate postwar years. It’s a pity they couldn’t maintain their focus and devolved into an industry follower and not a leader but I enjoy seeing them on the road now and then. Last month I saw a spectacular ‘60 300 convertible on the Ventura Freeway. While design can be argued all day long there is no doubt it had massive presence on the road, if your thing is old and flashy big cars then it would certainly push a lot of buttons that something smaller and more modern would not.
 
OK...

Now you have crossed the line, I am NOT living in a dream world....the Chrysler I posted was a 60, not a 55 or 56, it did have ball joints, also, out of respect for Robert and Fred I will be nice...I guess you think this is a lie also...this is not a Chrysler, these are Chevrolets and Pontiacs..certified stock...in those days Nascar allowed fine tuning and nothing else but safety modifications ..These cars, if you look, still have all the chrome , some are even 4 door, true, factory ordered with every performance option...which then amounted to 2 4 barrel carbs or 3 2 barrell carbs or , for the really big spender fuel injection....yes it was available in 57 and 58....Buck Baker won the Nascar championship in 57 with a Fuel Injected Chevrolet..so dont tell me nothing would run 140 mph...And you show your ignorance of Chrysler products by saing the 4 speed in 60 300s had something to do with Nascar???? the 60 300 was out of it as far as Nascar was concerned, only the 55 and 56 were used until Buck Baker ran them in 61 and 62, most were used with 3 speed manuals,,not the super expensive French made box, which wasnt offered then anyway.

http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqcclPrTWk
 
We're talking 55-57 Chrysler 300s. Go back and review the two links I provided. Top speed in the flying mile for a NASCAR legal race car was 127 and change, not 140. To get past 140 required huge mods to the car including changing the aerodynamics. That car was never NASCAR legal, it was a test article to see how fast Chrysler engineers could make one go. Yes in theory all those Grand National cars were "stock". In theory. All of them were fettled by the best techs of the era to get as much out of them as they could without getting popped on the post race teardown for something glaringly non-stock. These were carefully balanced and blueprinted engines bored as far as they could go within the stock overbore specification. Sometimes there was some discreet porting and everyone had their own ideas about cutting valves and valve seats. Legal? Usually. Stock? I guarantee no production car rolled out the factory door fettled like a Grand National race car of that era. Dick Teague used to make a big deal out of taking a new Hudson off the showroom floor in Daytona and racing it that same week. Want to bet it was a ringer that received a lot of love at the Hudson factory? Just saying bub. This was NASCAR where the first commandment was to never get behind in your cheating and the second commandment was to never get ahead in your cheating. At best they started off with stock parts but don't try to kid anyone that what raced at Daytona represented what you could drag out of the same car in production trim. Not even close.

And while, yes, by the standards of the day, mid to late 1950s those were excellent handling cars, as were the Hudsons, by modern standards they are pretty awful.
 
Back
Top