I have a 1963 300 Pacesetter convertible. I don't particularly care to pigeonhole it into a category, but where does it belong?
Is it a Forward Look? -- From this forum:
"Forward Look Forum: 1955 through 1961 - The Pre C Body era of Classic Mopars"
No, my car doesn't fit that definition. It's a 1963
Is it an "Early C Body? A Slab Side Year?
"Early C Bodies - The Slab Side Years - Pre 1969"
Well ,it's not sporting slab sides... And has a 1960 Forward Look front end. What to think?
So where does my “shoulder year” 1963 fit in in this club? Where do I post? Maybe at another site? Not much out there for old Chryslers, though.
Just asking. I am confused. I love love love the 1960 and 1961 models. I have a 1960 New Yorker and a 1961 Dart. My handle is “Forward Look,” after all, so I get it.
But when I look to get parts, more times than not, my 1963 is an orphan. Parts can be found, but usually under another model year. It's like the 63's were forgotten. What are your experiences and thoughts about "shoulder year" models? Do you have one? I suspect that 1963 is not the only year where this is an issue.
I would call them "Early C-bodies" (for this "C-Body Only" Web Page anyway). The mechanical underpinnings are pretty consistent through to the end of the big block (1978), at least for the drive train. Suspension wise I think 1960 is where you would draw the line for getting ball joints and bushings etc. 1963 and 1964 are unibody cars, and 1960 is the beginning of full size unibody for Chrysler. There are places you can still buy windshields, and they are a match back to 1960 as well. The convertible windshield is different from the sedans etc, but the 1960-1964 convertible windshield is consistent. 1959 and earlier is different... and 1965 changes completely due to Elwood Engel getting the Chrysler full size revamp done in time for 1965. His time had been initially tied up with the Imperial, and he managed to get a rather extensive rebody in time for the 1964 model (notice that the Imperial actually retains the old forward look style windshield up to 1966). So even though Imperial got Engel's attention first, the Chrysler full sizes tossed the windshield before the Imperial, in 1965.
I believe the shake up at Chrysler, which "ended" the Exner era, left the 1963 and 1964 as designer "orphans". Exner's hands are all over it, but he was quite vocal about how the 1962 had become a "plucked chicken". So how much more would he deride a lack of fins on the 1963?
I dunno. He never said a word.
1963 Chrysler Full Size (I keep calling it that), can actually be found as a preliminary sketch from 1960 that was a proposal by an Exner underling for the 1963 Imperial. It even had the 1962 style sparrow catcher tail lights riding high on the rear quarters. The picture is online.
So there is some evidence that these 63-64 "Lost Generation" "Chrysler Full Size", "Early C-body" (without a "C" in the vin) might have actually ended up as Imperials!
But anyway, the other way they are an designer orphan is that they were simply not attended to at all by Elwood Engel. One can argue that the re-addition of a baby fin on the 1964 represents a stronger linear or horizontal feature line in the style of Engels. But it's likely that some junior sketcher did it, and Engels signed off and didn't care. These cars got no love from day one. Engel being the new Design Daddy wasn't gonna feed someone else's baby. And 63 and 64 were rejected left overs from a fallen king, who had himself ignored them completely. So you can imagine that it would have been common knowledge all the way down to the showroom floor that 1963, and especially 1964, were rumored to not be around much longer, before they even had a chance to take their first breath. The all new 1965 would have been what the salesmen wanted but feared. How do I unload all these 1964s without letting on that they are effectively a survived abortion? Buyers don't like the word "discontinued", unless it also includes "discount".
And so our 1963 and 1964 started life as lost little orphans. And because the dominant view within and around the car industry is that a car model is mostly "what it looks like", these ones have been treated as if there are no parts for them. Getting any common mechanical part for these, as used cars in the 1980s, required the parts guy to actually know the mechanical underpinnings of them--the look up charts also treated them like they didn't exist. And this then formed a feedback-loop: "You can't restore one of those, no parts". Meanwhile 1960 61 62 were daily driven way past their sell-before date.
This then deals the last blow: "those aren't worth restoring, 'cuz nobody wants them".
But in reality these are mechanically no different from a 1960 300F. They drive the same, but nobody you meet knows what they are.
And you can keep them running and keep using them longer today because you can still pick up complete cars that are points and n plugs n a carb kit from driving for pre-covid money.
All of this will have little effect on what these are worth. But as a great little hobby car for a low buck driver, they are the very last of the really affordable 60s cars. They aren't some precious gem that only gets seen 2 Sundays per summer, they are the E-ticket "Big Block/727 muscle-car before muscle cars" ride, at free-pass prices.
I would like to predict that their rarity will one day benefit them, but they will always and forever live in the shadow of the Forward Look.
And the money we spend on them will likely always include the thought: " I should have just bought a restorable earlier car, then I could really justify fixing it up." Oh well. Survivors are still out there. For now.
I own 2 1964s. Everything else I own is a Toyota.
Cheers!
