1963 300J a father an sons restoration project

cbodygearslammer75

cbodygearslammer75

New Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
greeneville tn
:yes::3gears: hi everyone heres a few pics of the 63 chrysler 300J. so far we have found a real 300J- 413 cid mill, everything there an some what funtional.still need short rams, orig carbs an cans,remote booster,and letters for the trunk, lol it was a not to much hassle to get it on the road brakes, fuel an carb swap etc,etc. it now has a rebuilt 73 400 cid with a AFB,series 4bbl that runs very well,and doesnt mind the low,evil grade ethonal. she drives pretty strait all thow, in these pics is on jackstands getting a backyard muffler job lmbo!!! the neighbors hate the dronny,400 mill. especially threw the orig H pipe and cast iron headers with ottted cherrybombs lol, dad was right that exhaust was a sound apart from no others singles even with headers an duals,
now dont get me wrong a 400 4bbl is by know means the 413 short rams that were once breakin the fuel mans back an wallets of the guys in thows days even the the fuel mans back lol but, is driver, red light friendly. well i will update more as we get along if you know someone parting a 63-300J or any 63 -64 ram cars or 64 newport trunk, let us know. were trying really hard to get him on the road!!l he works very hard an deserves eveything we got!!! thanksyou all more pics an chats soon lol love the editorals !!! heres to all my mopar guys an
orig real chrysler 300 letter car fans!!!!!!:beerchug:

DSCI0021.jpg


DSCI0006.jpg


DSCI0010.jpg


DSCI0007.jpg


DSCI0011.jpg


DSCI0016.jpg


DSCI0031.jpg


DSCI0015.JPG


DSCI0017.JPG


DSCI0020.JPG
 
Even though it's not a Cbody that's one cool ride. Thanks for posting pics. Be sure to keep us up to speed on your progress. :wav:
 
That is a great looking car, I do love me some big 2-door Chryslers. Keep the updates coming.
 
Fratzog said:
Nope they started in 65 but that's quite all right on this board. We all appreciate the full sized Chrysler products from all eras. Here's a good summary of Cbodies...
http://www.allpar.com/model/chrysler-c.html
Click to expand...
I found a lot of errors, or at least misinformation, in that. Not up to Allpar's generally excellent factoids.
For a Mopar newbies it is a good starting point, though.
 
It's just a matter of semantics, if you look at the bodies in the white, in particular the bare floor pan pressings, it's quite clear that the '60/61 unit body full-size Plyms and 60 -64 true full size Dodges/880s, NYers and Newports were virtually the same car underneath as the '65-on C bodies. My understanding is that the designation "C" was newly adopted in '65 as an engineering convenience used to designate the full size platform among the proliferation of new platforms constantly being introduced. In other words, the earlier cars were Cs in essence, they just weren't labeled as such until '65. The virtually identical suspensions, steering and underpinnings confirm that as well. This has been confirmed by several engineers at Chrysler who were there at the time. A similar situation arose in '79, where the R body was virtually identical to a B body, but was introduced to distinguish a 2" wheelbase stretch.
 
firedome said:
It's just a matter of semantics, ...This has been confirmed by several engineers at Chrysler who were there at the time. ...
Click to expand...
This is a dead horse that you need to stop flogging. Yes its a nice full sized mopar BUT it's not semantics and it's just not a C body. Get over it. By the way who are these "engineers"?
 
Sorry Fred, but facts are facts, however inconvenient. The engineers are Dan Bode and Bill Watson. Direct quote: "In 1965 all Chrysler Corp full size cars were DUBBED "C" bodies. The basic body dates from earlier years, but the TERMINOLOGY was applied for the first time in 1965". Bill Watson also mentioned this to a group at a WPC meet I was at in the early '80s.

I've had 7 Forward Look cars, 3 60-62 Full size cars and 14 post-65s Cs, the first being a new 1967 Fury III in April '67. There is NO significant difference in the basic platform other than minor wheel base tweaks and small suspension/brake upgrades, in any of the '60 and later cars. The '65s were the same old platform, just with more conservative sheet metal.The 63 300 was a C body, it just wasn't called that at the time... Fact. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
I have a lot of respect for Bill Watson but I don't think in a million years his intention was call a pre-65 Chrysler a Cbody. Of course the body dates from earlier years as do most of the major mechanical components. The vechicles evolved over time. If I understand your position it's based on the similarity in apprearance of bare floor pan pressings? I suspect most people would have difficulty distinguishing GM Ford and Chrysler full size floor pans never mind just Chrysler vehicles. Using your own example an Rbody is not a Bbody no matter the similarities. Ma Mopar drew the line and you can't just erase it.
 
It was in effect a C body according to Bode and Watson, even though not called that, it was very clearly stated that it was the same car but that the NOMENCLATURE was only first applied in '65. To anyone who've owned '60-64 full size and know the body and mechanicals well it's quite obvious. Of course there were running changes, as in all production items, but platform names weren't needed until they proliferated to the point that confusion needed to be avoided by coming up with labels for them. That was the point being made. And again, the R body was in effect a B body with a 2" wheelbase stretch, otherwise identical, called such in 79 merely for reference convenience; B bodies themselves had previously had a number of varying wheelbases over time, with no change in label. Notice on the Chrysler model chart R is actually connected to B and with the same color. "A man is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
 
Last edited:
2¢
For WIW, this part of a PDF is rumored to be be an official Chrysler document.
I don't know nor care to debate it.

BTW: Notice Imperial while you're at it.

Again... I like all full size RWD Mopars but it's too long to say
and C-body tends to roll off the tongue a tad easier
depite it's definition leading to many virtual bar room brawls...

f1invo.jpg
 
Last edited:
My point exactly, Stan, and the chart emphasizes it, actually: that the name "C" was NOT applied to the full size cars before 1965. To further drive home the point, here's a direct quote from Dan Bode:

"A distinction between the 'bodies' made sense when small, mid size "intermediate", and big "standard size" cars were simultaneously offered". Hence there was no need to call them C's before that, and would NOT be shown as such on the chart... even though they WERE in effect the same cars... capiche?

Maybe we are splitting hairs here, as I said before it is semantic distinction, see? but the point being that under the skin they were essentially the same, although not called C body. There was a lot of confusion in '62-64 when the supposedly 'full size' but shrunken Belv/Fury and 330/440/Polara flopped and the TRUE "standard" full size Dodge 880 had to be brought back, and Plymouth suffered until the true big Fury came back in '65, all of which no doubt led to the internal need to refer to A/B/C (D Imp thru '66) Body categories. Anyone here ever owned any of the 60-64 full size unibody 60-61 Savoy/Belv/Fury, 60-64 Polara/Matador/880, or Newport/NY/300s?
 
Last edited:
firedome said:
Have any of you even owned 60-64 full sizers?
Click to expand...
My best bud down here is a 63/64 Guru.
He cares less about letter designation but he does interchange quite often with "C"-body parts.
Myself, I feel that the 65's, chassis-wise, is a 64/66 hybrid.
 
Last edited:
I've always liked the '63/64 880s, it may well have been what the DeSoto would have become, had it survived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chryslerdon
  • Locked
SOLD 1963 Chrysler 300J
Replies
0
Views
2K
Chryslerdon
Chryslerdon
Back
Top