Re: [Chrysler300] car
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chrysler300] car

Now, just a minute.  The "engine situation" for the 300F was clearly spelled 
out on the story board at the auction display.  The original owner blew out 
the engine after the oil pan broke somehow probably a rock in 1962. The 
original restorer put in a 1959 engine.  When we had the car judged in 99 by 
the 300 club, we found out the engine year was wrong.  We put in a 1960 413 
engine correctly date coded--close enough to the car production date--that 
it could have been right for that car.  These dates we checked with Gil 
Cunningham and he advised that it was a possible date sequence.  The engine 
was rebuilt to 300 specifications.  So the car was authentic and totally 
correct to the build sheet.  That was our goal and we displayed the build 
sheet and the 300 club code explanation sheet along with the receipt for the 
engine machining.

I have heard that there was chatter going on about an incorrect engine.  NOT 
SO.  John Lyons mentioned it was  New Yorker engine in an e-mail mentioned 
my near panic when the bidding just about died at $97K.  We had told him it 
was a 413 and the story mentioned above so he went with New Yorker engine in 
his mail.  That's not a problem with us and it was just a comment in passing 
from John not wanting to take the time or space to go on about the full 
story.  So that might have been the source for the chatter.  That is why I 
am taking the time to be fully clear.  We were entirely forthcoming in our 
description about the car.  We were excited and very pleased with the 
$152,500 price having decided that probably 150 was where it would end up. 
We advertised the car for three months with a color ad in Hemmings and on 
Hemmings web site and we put a picture ad in Old Cars Weekly.  With that 
kind of publicity, the price obtained was/is the market price for that car 
at this time.  There was a phone bidder and someone there on stage battling 
it out until the guy on stage gave up.

Please receive this in a positive manner.  I/we just want to be clear for 
the record.  Technically, you could say the engine was/incorrect in that it 
isn't the engine that was in the car when it was produced.  HOwever, it is a 
correct engine per date codes and letter car specifications.  Let's be 
careful how we use the "incorrect" word.  It has a negative, touchy 
connotation especially since we have been so clear and correct in our 
restoration and presentation of the car.

Sending this on to the 300 club and for all to take note.

Cheers and see you at the next 300 Meet????

Henry Hopkins/Richard Palmer
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neal Thomas" <mr300f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "chrysler 300 Club" <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: [Chrysler300] car

> Hey,
> Check the pic, you never know what you'll find in a dark corner of your
> house.
> That link you sent me was the year I prefer, 57, but I would take a 58.
> The are close enough.  That one is pretty rough but if you have time and
> space it might be okay.  I did seriously look at a Charger last summer,
> I since have cooled on a car at this time but if the right one came
> along you never know.
> The guys in the 300 club were on top of the 300's which is how I knew of
> the 300F engine situation.
> You know a week from saturday is the cruise-in at Jerry's drive in.
> It's free but they take donations sponsored by the Earth Angels.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> To send a message to this group, send an email to:
> Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For list server instructions, go to 
> Yahoo! Groups Links

To send a message to this group, send an email to:

For list server instructions, go to 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Home Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network Archive Sitemap