1961 Chrysler 300 ? ,,I have an idea

[gtx6970]

A year or so ago had  I picked up a broken 1961 New Yorker builtup . The roof had been cut off and the top of the windshield header is broken . It was cheap so I thought what the hey. I'll do something with it someday.

While rummaging around in my stash and I came across an unbuilt 1962 Chrysler 300 hardtop kit .Then  a light bulb went off. And I thought ,,I wonder.????

Took the 61 apart and took said grill from the 62 and it fits the 61 body like a glove. A little sanding and some scratch building and  I could feasibly make one of my all time favorite cars in the 1/1 world. A legit 1961 Chrysler 300G drop top. Yes, I know a resin kit was produced a while back but I haven't been able to find one ..at least for reasonable $$$ .

BUT,,,I think maybe,,just maybe I can make my own. It'll take some scratch building on my end as well as come up with an interior tub to resemble the correct one for a 61 . But I like it . If I ever have that kind of disposable income a real one WOULD be in my garage in short order.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by gtx6970

[CometMan]

Great idea, Bill! You're also not too far away from the last DeSoto either. I'll be watching for progress.

[StevenGuthmiller]

I always thought that this could be a relatively easy conversion.

There's very little difference between the New Yorker & the 300 appearance wise.

All you would have to do is remove all of the New Yorker trim, exchange grilles, add the 300 side trim & exchange interiors.

The side trim would be the most difficult part.

The interior could be pretty easily revamped from an original '62 Chrysler 300 interior, if you can find one.

Not a lot of variation between '61 & '62 interiors.

I've not thought too much about taking on this conversion though.

Johan '61 Chrysler New Yorkers are pretty rare birds in their own right & cutting one up would go against my grain.

But if someone really wanted a '61 300, I think this would very definitely be the most direct route.

 

Steve

[MrObsessive]

I have this very car on my radar screen as a detailed build down the road!

I have all the bits and pieces to make the car------one of the things though that would need attention to my eyes would be the wheelbase. Chrysler 300's for '62 rode on the shorter Windsor chassis as this was the first attempt to move the letter series cars more into the mainstream, and not have the full exclusivity that the '61 and earlier models had. The '61 Johan kit is based on the shorter Windsor chassis (I measured one in another thread).

While to the casual observer, the wheelbase difference might not be noticeable but I can see where the fenders, hood and chassis would need to be stretched to suit the car's 124" wheelbase that the '61's had. It's up to you Bill how nit-picky you want to get!

This won't be my next build, but I'd say three or four projects down the road, I'd love to replicate the car I saw on "Jay Leno's Garage" (a black one), or replicate a red one that I have a ton of pics of on my hard disc.

Johan '61 Chrysler New Yorkers are pretty rare birds in their own right & cutting one up would go against my grain.

But if someone really wanted a '61 300, I think this would very definitely be the most direct route.

 

Steve

You can best believe Steve that I'll be sweating bullets when it comes time to cut up the one I have, but that short wheelbase on the Windsor bugs me for a '61 300. Even the resin All American Models one I've seen I don't think had the wheelbase corrected. I could be wrong but they still appear "short" to me.

[gtx6970]

Thanks for the insight as to the wheelbase differences. But for my own case I'm  not that worried about it.

As for the side trim and emblem ,,I'm thinking I'll  try to do a foil cast off the 62 kit for the badge . And some half round for the side trim. Use the 55 or 56 300 kits decals to get the 300 lettering for the trunk lid . I have a mint re-issue 62 kit I have zero qualms to cut up if I absolulety have to . But it has the wrong interior in it so that's not likely. I would rather just find someone parting one out and snag the grille/front bumper off it . Hint hint hint , anyone have one.  ?????

 

And the 61 New Yorker builtup I have was already pretty badly damaged so a drop top is a no brainer to me to fix it. Plus it was cheap by comparison ,,,I think I paid about $20 for it last year off a buddy of mine. Like I said the roof was already gone. So collector value didn't exist . Why I didn't think of it sooner baffles me.

For me personally the 1961 300 is the Pinnacle of the finned Mopars. It just doesn't get ANY better than this.  Just something about those mile long fins and the canted headlights makes me smile.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by gtx6970

[StevenGuthmiller]

I have this very car on my radar screen as a detailed build down the road!

I have all the bits and pieces to make the car------one of the things though that would need attention to my eyes would be the wheelbase. Chrysler 300's for '62 rode on the shorter Windsor chassis as this was the first attempt to move the letter series cars more into the mainstream, and not have the full exclusivity that the '61 and earlier models had. The '61 Johan kit is based on the shorter Windsor chassis (I measured one in another thread).

While to the casual observer, the wheelbase difference might not be noticeable but I can see where the fenders, hood and chassis would need to be stretched to suit the car's 124" wheelbase that the '61's had. It's up to you Bill how nit-picky you want to get!

This won't be my next build, but I'd say three or four projects down the road, I'd love to replicate the car I saw on "Jay Leno's Garage" (a black one), or replicate a red one that I have a ton of pics of on my hard disc.

You can best believe Steve that I'll be sweating bullets when it comes time to cut up the one I have, but that short wheelbase on the Windsor bugs me for a '61 300. Even the resin All American Models one I've seen I don't think had the wheelbase corrected. I could be wrong but they still appear "short" to me.

I'm really not seeing enough difference to justify cutting the body apart Bill.

I'm no expert & you may be right about the wheel base situation, but I'm not seeing it.

Short of actually getting out a ruler, I don't see how anyone would ever question it.

Just looking at the distances between door lines & wheel arches & the position of the rear wheel in accordance with the C-pillar, I'm not detecting any difference.

Part of the appearance of additional length on the 300 may have something to do with the extra trim on the New Yorker, specifically the wheel well & rocker panel trim.

By the way, according to my research, The 300 & New Yorker were on a 126 inch wheel base, not 124, & the Windsor was 122".

I'm absolutely not seeing a 4 inch difference.

 

Steve

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by StevenGuthmiller

[CometMan]

While I'm certainly not in a position to question either one of you guys, I'd have to agree with Steve on this one, Bill. There is a lot more "gingerbread" on the side of the New Yorker that kind of makes it look like there is a difference in length from the 300, which has a much cleaner profile. Also, from the picture of the black car at the auction, as well as the period photo of the white car, the rear wheels definitely look like they are off-set (further to the front) rather than centered in the wheel well. So, while the wheel base of the 300 may actually be a few inches shorter than the New Yorker, the body and all the major components may actually be the same, possibly only a change of a few minor suspension parts making the rear axle move forward a few inches may be the only difference! 

[charlie8575]

No major surgery. The 300 was on the New Yorker chassis.

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/chrysler/300g/300g_hardtop_coupe/1961.html

Charlie Larkin

[DeeCee]

GO FOR IT!!  You have a vision, and want to do it, just do it.  It's not as if it is an original condition collector body,

even if it was, i would still not hesitate to do it if that;s what i wanted.

[StevenGuthmiller]

 Also, from the picture of the black car at the auction, as well as the period photo of the white car, the rear wheels definitely look like they are off-set (further to the front) rather than centered in the wheel well. So, while the wheel base of the 300 may actually be a few inches shorter than the New Yorker, the body and all the major components may actually be the same, possibly only a change of a few minor suspension parts making the rear axle move forward a few inches may be the only difference! 

There's a very good possibility that the chassis on the original Johan kit might be a little off.

These chassis plates were very rudimentary & were shared between a lot of Chrysler, Plymouth & Dodge kits for several years.

So the likelihood of the wheel base being a little wonky on the kit is very good.

But looking at the body itself compared to the 300 photos, I see no perceptible difference.

I think this photo of a '61 Windsor may illustrate at least some of the difference in length.

The length of the lower front fender between the fender well & door edge is obviously shorter than any of the 300 pics or the Johan New Yorker.

I would imagine the rest of the 4 inches would have been eaten up some where else along the body.

To my eye, the door looks shorter on the Windsor as well.

But there is a marked difference between the Windsor & the New Yorker in the front fender area.

 

Steve

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by StevenGuthmiller

[MrObsessive]

There's a very good possibility that the chassis on the original Johan kit might be a little off.

These chassis plates were very rudimentary & were shared between a lot of Chrysler, Plymouth & Dodge kits for several years.

So the likelihood of the wheel base being a little wonky on the kit is very good.

But looking at the body itself compared to the 300 photos, I see no perceptible difference.

I think this photo of a '61 Windsor may illustrate at least some of the difference in length.

The length of the lower front fender between the fender well & door edge is obviously shorter than any of the 300 pics or the Johan New Yorker.

I would imagine the rest of the 4 inches would have been eaten up some where else along the body.

To my eye, the door looks shorter on the Windsor as well.

But there is a marked difference between the Windsor & the New Yorker in the front fender area.

 

Steve

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I remember making a post about this here.........I know that most don't want to go this route as it will require some cutting and slicing. BUT! I'm kinda passionate about this car as they're very rare in the 1:1 world, and the car is also as old as I am!

 

[gtx6970]

Well, what do you know. There was an original issue 62 300 interior tub on ebay last nite. I hit it at the last minute with full intention to win it

 

[StevenGuthmiller]

As I mentioned earlier, I remember making a post about this here.........I know that most don't want to go this route as it will require some cutting and slicing. BUT! I'm kinda passionate about this car as they're very rare in the 1:1 world, and the car is also as old as I am!

 

Yes Bill, but don't you think that measuring a shared chassis plate may not be the way to get accurate body proportions?

My only point is, stretching the front end may only make the car look more out of proportion.

Looking at the photo comparisons above, the only thing that I'm seeing that looks like it might be a bit out of whack is the rear wheel opening & perhaps the length of the lower rear quarter between the rear wheel & the bumper.

I still think that the front fender looks accurate between the 1:1 300 pics & the Johan New Yorker.

Seems to me any stretching in that area will really make it look wrong, especially when your talking about 4 scale inches.

 

Steve

 

 

[gtx6970]

I just measured the wheelbase on this kit. Looks like 4.825"

 

How do you translate that to 1/1 ?

 

[StevenGuthmiller]

I just measured the wheelbase on this kit. Looks like 4.825"

 

How do you translate that to 1/1 ?

 

Being as this model is 1/25th scale, multiplying times 25 should give you the 1:1 measurement.

According to my calculations, 4.825 x 25 = 120.625.

If that were correct, the model would be 6 scale inches too short.

Can't be.

 

Steve

Edited November 6, 2016 by StevenGuthmiller

[MrObsessive]

I don't have the kit as it's buried now, but I remember putting the Johan body up against AMT's '57 Chrysler 300 which would have also been 126" that year.

There definitely was a difference in the wheelbase and if memory serves, it was all in the distance from the leading edge of the door, to the trailing edge of the front wheel well. Johan did scale their models down ever so slightly so they all fit in the same type box, but I'm standing by what I'm noticing about that door to front wheel well difference.

No biggie to most, but to me it's what makes or breaks a particular car's "presence".

[StevenGuthmiller]

Well, I give up.

I measured the overall length of the model & it's roughly 8.5 inches in length.

That would come to 212.5 inches on the 1:1.

According to the information I found, the 1:1 should be 219.8 inches.

That's more than 7 inches short for the model.

I don't know where a guy would get a scale 7 inch stretch on the model without making it look like a cartoon.

That's more than a quarter of an inch!

Adding a quarter of an inch to the area between the wheel well & the door would definitely not work by itself.

The way I see it, the only remedy would be to add tiny slivers of plastic all along the body in select areas so as not to throw off the look of the entire car in one area.

I know Bill Geary is a stickler for this sort of thing, & I'm sure whatever he comes up with will look great, but I personally would never even contemplate proceeding with a surgery like this.

I still see little difference between the 1:1 photos of the 300 and the Johan New Yorker in appearance.

Let's keep in mind, if Johan downsized the body to fit the box, it only stands to reason that they would downsize the overall scale.

I did a little more research and these are the results that I came up with.

The overall height of the 1:1 was 55.1 inches.

The model is roughly 2 1/8 inches high, making it just under 2 scale inches too short.

The 1:1 was 79.5 inches wide, the model, 3 inches.

This means that the model is also nearly 4 1/2 scale inches too narrow.

So, as we see, in order to make this model the correct dimensions, the entire scale needs to be changed.

Instead of 1/25th scale, Johan must have made this kit closer to 1/26th or 1/27th scale.

 

Steve

 

[moparfarmer]

I had a 61 Windsor 2 dr ht..The front clip is different and yes even the doors are just a tad smaller on the Windsor..New Yorker and 300 are the same body..

[Ron Hamilton]

Go get 'em Bill !!!!

[gtx6970]

I just did a quick side by side by side comparison between the 61 NY a 1959 Edsel Corsair and a Johan 1970 Plymouth Superbird. all marked as 1/25th scale . Side by side they look right next to each other. No single car looks out of proportion to any of the other 2

 

In the 1/1 world is as '

61 New Yorker - wheelbase 126" and an overall length  of 219.8"

59 Edsel - wheel base of 120" - overall 218.9"

Superbird wheelbase is 115.8" , overall 221"

 

If I put the 3 kits side by side in the order they should be next to each other. They are right. The NY is MAYBE an 1/8" longer ( if that ) in OAL compared to the Edsel  , And yet the Bird is over half  a nose longer. so maybe 3/8" longer in  OAL  compared to  the NY body

Bill , I understand your picky about details and I highly commend you to do as you wish. But I agree with Steve on this one. I don't see correcting nearly 5 scale inches disparity in any one location  without cutting the hole kit in dozens of pieces to correct the overall body proportions. AND have it look correct next to any other same scale kit .

 

I'm not saying to make said corrections is beyond MY skills ( ok it probably is ) ,,but its most definitely beyond my patience or interests to do so . If I spend that kind of time on one single kit,,, I loose interest REAL fast.

[Lunajammer]

Fascinating conversation. I have to respect Bill G. for sticking to his guns and know with confidence that he's the man to pull off a completely accurate conversion. He would have the patience, eye, perseverance etc. to do it right. Personally for me, I'd build like Steve. If it looks right at a glance, I could not give it the Geary treatment if it was ever to get finished. Great conversation guys.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Lunajammer

[John Goschke]

Bill is correct about the wheelbase on this kit.

The Johan '60, '61 and '62 Chryslers all share the same wheelbase with their '60 Desoto. The short 122" wheelbase in these kits is correct for the '60 Desoto (and Chrysler Windsor) and the '62 Chrysler 300s (and '61 and '62 Windsor and Newport) but not for the '60 and '61 New Yorkers (and 300s and Saratogas) which should be on a 126" wheelbase. The extra four inches were in front of the cowl, so on the kit the hood, front fenders and chassis would need to be extended .16", if my math is correct, (just a hair over 5/32"). An admittedly subtle difference, but if you have a spare body and chassis from any of these kits the conversion should relatively easy due to the high level of uniformity and interchangeability between Johan's Mopar kits. The sections needed for the extension can simply be cut and spliced in from the spare body for the fenders and chassis. The hood's a little more complicated since it tapers.

But even if you don't do that, these Johan kits always need a track width adjustment to push the wheels out farther for a better stance that gets rid of that tippy narrow-track look! Just add a spacer between the wheel back collar and the chassis.

Just one more note, the original 1960 Johan Mopar annual kits have incorrect full-frame chassis without wheelwells, a situation that was remedied in the '61 kits. When the '60 Desoto was reissued in the "USA Oldies" series it gained the correct unibody chassis and engine from the '62 300. For this reason gluebomb USA Oldies Desotos and Chryslers are worth picking up to retrofit their chassis into the other '60 annuals (they just need to be shortened for the Dodge and Plymouth.)

[ChrisBcritter]

Food for thought:

Camera angles may cause some variation, but this might help.

[StevenGuthmiller]

Food for thought:

Camera angles may cause some variation, but this might help.

I was hoping someone with some know how would do something like this!

Thanks Chris!

Okay, so now I can see a slight difference in that cowl area of the front fender, albeit very small.

What stands out more in my eye is the difference in the leading edge of the rear fender well.

Almost looks to me like rather than stretching the entire front end, quite possibly the problem is in the rocker panel area.

Extending the front edge forward a tad, & the rear back a little might be what it needs.

Neither of which I would ever do by the way.

The difference is so slight, especially in the front, that I could never justify the work involved to do it.

I do want to reiterate though, that my part in this whole discussion was never to get on Bill Geary's case about anything.

I just wanted to get the whole thing straight in my head as to what difference there was if any.

Initially, I was not seeing anything to suggest that any modifications to the body were warranted.

So cut away Bill!

Your build will most likely be extremely unique.

I don't see there being too many guys ready to take this one on.

 

Steve

[gtx6970]

Food for thought:

Camera angles may cause some variation, but this might help.

this type photo ccomparison works only if the subject is the exact same distance away from the lens. Taking into scale differences obviously