Is 300C The Wrong Name for the New LX?

by Mike Sealey (4/2003) - Addition by Andrew Renth, 5/2003, at the end

I would like to convince DCX that calling the new LX semi-luxury sedan a 300C is a bad idea.

There is an American precedent for reuse of sequential model numbers, the Lincoln Continental Mark III/IV/V. Many never knew that the legendary '56-'57 Continental Mark II was considered a separate make from the lesser Lincolns, built by Ford's short-lived Continental Division; many more have forgotten that the Mark II was immediately followed by a Mark III ('58), Mark IV ('59) and Mark V ('60). These cars were also technically considered a separate make, although Ford gave the formerly exclusive Continental franchise to all Lincoln dealers after the '58 model year, and phased out Continental Division in early '58, merging Mercury, Edsel, Lincoln and Continental divisions into what was briefly called M-E-L Division, reverting to Lincoln-Mercury Division after Edsel's demise in late '59. These Marks were more deluxe versions of the existing Lincoln models and, like the more distinctive Mark II, were always considered "Lincoln Continentals" by the general public. (One could even say that Chrysler was more successful in establishing Imperial as a separate make than Ford was in separating Continental from Lincoln!) The classic suicide-door model introduced in '61 carried the name "Lincoln Continental", not only elegantly simplifying the Lincoln model lineup but accepting the unbreakable link of these names in the public mind.

When what is thought of as the "real" Mark III came out in '68, the previous Mark III-V became "non-Marks" in the officially promulgated history of the Continental Marks. While Ford's handling of this issue reminds George Orwell fans of Newspeak, the '68-'71 Mark III is unquestionably a more legitimate successor to the Mark tradition than the '58-'60 models.

This could not possibly be said of the proposed Chrysler 300C. There is no way the new car is by any means a more legitimate successor to the '55 C300 and the '56 300-B than the '57 300-C. This does appear to be an excellent car on its own merits, and would certainly be closer in personality to the original letter cars than the current 300M. It deserves to be measured on its own merits, whereas in my opinion a reuse of the 300C name would unfairly saddle the new 4 door sedan with a stigma of "Who are they kidding?"

I know I'm far from the only one to consider 300-N to be a more legitimate designation, especially since the M professed to take up the standard where the L had left off.

As mentioned earlier, Ford set a precedent for this kind of thing by applying the Mark III/IV/V designation to a more worthy class of Lincoln Continental.

The original '58, '59 and '60 Continental Mark III/IV/V are not without their fans, but even their most devoted would agree that these cars are not universally appreciated.

This is not the case for the original 1957 Chrysler 300-C, a car that is not only appreciated but revered not only by MoPar people but by virtually all American car aficionados in general. The real 300-C was a milestone car which established a number of firsts. It has earned and deserves respect even as we close in on 50 years later.

If you don't believe me, you could ask my 9-year-old daughter.

I think of my daughter as pretty typical for a girl her age. She loves basketball, Harry Potter, dressing up for special occasions, and funny movies. She is not nearly the car fan her dad was at that age, which of course is just fine because she's not her dad. She does, however, have cars she likes. She likes T-series MGs and early El Caminos; she can tell the difference between an Old Beetle and a New Beetle; and she has let it be known that she wants a PT Cruiser Woody when she turns 16.

She's the kind of kid Chrysler needs to be thinking of selling to down the road, and at the moment they have her attention.

Last year, we went through an unsettling 10 days between the time my 300-K was stolen and the time it was recovered. During that time, she asked me about the letter cars and what made them special. She was especially fascinated to know that each letter denoted a specific year (or at least it did before the years-later 300-M).

I didn't tell her about the original C being the first letter car with torsion bars, or the first 392, or the first offered from the beginning of the model year on with the legendary Torqueflite transmission. I don't think those things would register just yet. In fact, I know she doesn't understand why the '55 C300 is not called a 300-A.

But she knows a 300-C is a '57 model, and she knows what one looks like, and she knows what the C's tested top speed was. And she's pretty good with the rest of the early letters of the alphabet as well.

I really don't want to have to explain that Chrysler was taken over by a European company and that the new owners reused this cherished name because they do not understand American automotive history.

And if Chrysler wants to sell her that PT Cruiser, or anything else they might come up with down the road, they don't want to have to explain that either.

Webmaster's addition: I find it highly ironic that Chrysler is proclaiming its devotion to tradition by naming this car the 300C, at the same time they destroy a long-standing tradition by naming it the 300C! The name does no real homage to the past; 300N would uphold the tradition, while giving the 300 series a worthy (we hope) successor. That is, of course, assuming the 300N would not have a 2.7 V6 available. If the 300C is merely a replacement for the Concorde - not for the 300M - then it should not be called a 300.

Reply by Andrew Renth

As you mentioned a week ago, the 300M bunch will not take to the 300C concept. You were right. A majority are complaining about the 300C concept. They have called it anything from a brick to a retro Mercedes diesel of yesteryear. I have recently joined Edmunds forums discussing the 300C. Most of the comments are negative. What I hate is that they are blaming Chrysler for the ugly design. They can't understand why Chrysler went away from the beautiful 300M and designed the 300C. They feel betrayed by Chrysler.

I felt I had to respond to this criticism of Chrysler. I told them that this was not the same Chrysler that designed the 300M. The people that styled the 300M, 300 Hemi C convertible, Dodge Charger concept, PT Cruiser, and Viper (and others) are pretty much gone. Tom Gale, Neil Walling, Robert Lutz, Brian Nesbit, and so many more are gone. Daimler has taken over, and it is starting to show in the styling direction of the LX cars.

Auburn Hills will do what it wants to do regardless of what people say. They KNOW more than the ordinary people, so they will do what they think is right. If they do call it 300C, then they make it sound like they want to go back in time. It's Daimler's way of negating all of the bad vehicles that Chrysler brought out between 1955 and now. Nothing more than Daimler showing us how THEY would have done Chrysler over the years.

The 300N name is OK. Nothing great or spectacular, it just follows the order of the 300 letter cars. This subject (naming and heritage planning) does bug me. I would love to go up to Auburn Hills and kick out all of the Daimler folks because they are seeing Chrysler through their eyes. The 300 letter car, in my view, should be Gale's 300 Hemi C convertible. I would cut the 300C concept car and immediately replace it with the Hemi C as the co-flagship of the Chrysler brand.

1999-2004 Chrysler 300M

---

---