1962 Chrysler 300 Letter Series Promo Part I

[h3e44]

where would chrysler show these shows

[utacctcs]

On YouTube?

[bloodredvinyl]

I've owned a '62 New Yorker for a few months now (use it as my daily driver) and it's performed like a champ. Never had issues with the parking brake or any of the other problems described here. By contrast, I have a '65 GTO. Nobody's going to knock that for mechanics or design, but it ALWAYS needs something. (I still love it!) To me, those are just quirks of an old car. If they come to you with certain problems, it's hard to stamp 'em all out. My Chrysler may be the best car I've ever owned.

[GenericGene]

The start of the real muscle cars -

[inkey2]

I had the 1962 Newport.....it had so many problems that after 5 years I dumped it. (1) they designed it with "NO PARK" function in the Automatic transmission, just an emergency brake....that no matter how many times you adjusted it, it never really held. (2) the front brakes had two cylinders on each wheel....the top cylinder blew out often...and this was common to theses "center plane, total contact brakes" (3) no self adjusting brakes.(4)Hit one puddle and the car would die......etc

[txmcxlx]

I agree, those Chryslers were junk. Even people I knew who were in love with Chryslers never parked them on a hill without a cinder block. I those days it was hard to buy a good car of any kind.

Today people spend stupid money on old junk cars while the big three go bust building good cars.

Go figure.

[inkey2]

To txmcxix: yeh, they were total junk but I am like the people you knew that had them....I know they are crap, but the outlandish design and pure "oddball-ness" of them is just alluring and hypnotic. It is like a suicide wish.

[txmcxlx]

Thanks for the insight.

I think I'll drop some acid and go to an antique car show.

[ijsmale]

Never parked on a hill without a block ??  This is pure outlandishness. I've owned 7 of these cars with this parking brake design over the past 35 years and never blocked them on a hill and never had one let go. Find some other make to bash.

[ijsmale]

Never had any of the wheel cylinders blow out, never had a car die in a puddle either out of 7 of them. As I said go bash some other make. I put 50,000 miles on my 1962 300 with only one set of front brakes, and the rear brakes were still at 40% at that mileage.

[txmcxlx]

No thanks asshole, let's stick with Chrysler headaches. If you think Chryslers are so fantastic why don't you junk your old ones and buy new ones to keep them in business. Oh yeah, and get Ricardo Mountoban back on the airwaves with those cheesy commericials.

[ijsmale]

OK, I've also been buying new ones since 1979 - currently have a1994 Dodge Ram-250 Van for work with 205,000 miles.

[ijsmale]

I've put well over 1,000,000 miles on Chrysler products I've been buying new so you have no right to bash me or the products that have served me faithfully for 35 years. Have bought 6 new Ram Vans for business since 1979 - and have bought several Chrysler mini vans for family use ( and no trans problems by the way) , The work vans total accumulated well over 1,000,000 miles in their lives, and I currently have a 94, 99 and 03. So until you own and drive 'em don't bash 'em.

[ijsmale]

Also currently own a 2006 Chrysler 300 Touring ( family car ) that we've put 46,000 miles on in two years. No problems and the car gets fantastic gas mileage for its heft. The old Mopars I've owned have all been hobby cars. Again don't bash until you own. I would never bash a GM or Ford like you have bashed Mopars here.

[danzapata]

kool

[Enricom23]

Beautiful. Examples of the legendary Chrysler cars.

[sneyder69]

nice

[DragonGemini88]

Glorious