It’s almost bed time Saturday night, so I can’t allow myself to get too worked up at this hour. But why do these ’65-’66 Chryslers tug at me so hard? Why can I never resist posting one when I encounter one on the street or at the Cohort, in this case, shot by William Rubano? Seriously; it’s hard for me to come up with an American big car from the 60s that speaks more seductively to me.
They exude such understated self confidence. They know that they were the best of their class, in terms of what really counts, meaning not the latest Coke-bottle hips or stacked headlights. Under that throw-back boxy exterior it has all the right stuff. And it felt all of apiece; which it was, thanks to its unibody. Never mind its impeccable engines and transmission and the rest of the hard and greasy parts.
These were cars that appealed to left-hemisphere folks, even though that concept has been thrown into doubt. You know what I mean though; buyers who used their heads more than their emotions, like engineers and such. And German ex-pats. These cars were heavily favored by that crowd in Iowa City, doctors and engineers to a man.
But I know the most important reason. My dad’s cousin, who was a traveling salesman all over the Midwest for fine German and Austrian opticals with a trunk stuffed full of cameras, microscopes, telescopes, binoculars and such, bought one of these in 1965 to replace his road-weary ’62 Cadillac. He lived in Kansas City, and one time as were were traveling through, he took me for a ride in it. He was the polar opposite of my dad, meaning a bon vivant who loved food, drink and fast cars, among other things. And he was a superb driver, in stark contrast to my dad.
He drove hard and fast, putting the spurs to that big Chrysler on the freeway around the city, showing me some sights while my family and his wife were off doing something else. I could hear the big 383 working hard, its exhaust murmuring in our wake.
I was in utter bliss, sitting there next to him on that big seat, the window open, the warm wind in my hair. Uncle Leo knew I was susceptible to these charms, which is precisely why he asked me to go with him. He wanted to show off his big Chrysler and knew I was the only one in the bunch that would be able to appreciate it properly. And I did. I can see and feel and smell every detail still.
The next time we visited him, he’d traded it in for a Mercedes 280SE (W108), and…he asked me to go again, although my younger brother tagged along this time. No problem, as I got the front seat again. Another memorable ride.
He wasn’t the only German/Austrian ex-pat we knew that also traded their big Chrysler for a Mercedes when it was time for a new car. What else? A fuselage Chrysler wasn’t going to do for this crowd; those were for right hemisphere folks. They expected high quality components and assembly; only a Mercedes was going to deliver the goods after 1969 or so.
My Uncle Leo had a dark green Newport Custom four-window sedan; this New Yorker was a cut above that. But that didn’t really matter very much; it was all just a bit more icing on the cake. And in this case, unlike some other cars, it was the cake that made these so delicious.
So why does a car that appealed to left-brain thinkers work so hard on my emotions?
Once Again, Paul and I agree on a car.
My father had a Buick Electra 225, four door, six window, hardtop sedan in 1963 (grey with grey fabric upholstery). While there was something cool about it, after a 1961 Invicta convertible (my favorite, green, light green top, and 3 tone green interior), and a 1962 Electra 225 convertible (tan with tan darker tan leather interior), if was quite the step down to a 18 year old!
Wonderful story and a beautiful car – it amazed me that Chrysler could offer two different C-pillar designs for a fairly low volume car. The 6-window design really is distinctive and this generation of Chrysler was elegant and substantial at the same time. The open visibility and airiness is a big contrast to today’s vehicles which are heavy, dark and claustrophobic by comparison.
The actual manufacturing cost difference of the six window was small.
You can almost ask how Chrysler could afford *not* to offer a premium pillared sedan. They were pumping out prosaic Newport sedans by the tens of thousands, yet trying to sell New Yorkers on the same wheelbase against Cadillac and Elektra. Buick gave its top model a special roof and longer wheelbase, in addition to the various trim changes.
The matching house helps to explain the emotional connection. Classical shapes are highly structured, just like an elegant mechanism or a Bach fugue. Engel briefly captured a classically organized exterior and REcaptured the magnificent arched dashboard of 1949-54. The arch was beautiful and ergonomic at the same time.
Cadillac often had a classical exterior (esp 55-56) but never put any effort into dashboards.
Could this car be equipped with a four speed ? I’ve seen a ’65 300L with one .
In theory, yes. In practice, it would be totally wrong for the car.
The brochure shows the 300 and the Newport could be equipped with manuals (both 3- and 4-speeds), but not the New Yorker, which came standard with TorqueFlight.
Exactly.
I get the love of a manual transmission. I purposely have purchased manual transmission cars for my daily use, as it is a small car with a small engine. But a large luxury car from the 1960s and 1970s and a manual just does not go together. In fact, a large American car with a manual from that period signifies cheap, not a driver’s car. There were the odd ones, mostly used in drag racing as factory stock that made good use of a manual, but many of those also had the automatic and did just as well on the track. You bought the car for the ease and comfort it offered, that it also went very fast is a bonus. You didn’t buy it to carve corners or autocross it on the weekend. Just as you would never want an automatic in a sports car, why the desire for a manual in a floaty land yacht? The car was designed to be driven with an automatic, and this was one of those cases where a manual only dampens the experience.
To me, it is like buying the finest champagne and then making mimosas with it. Can you? Yes, you can. But should you?
Friends parents had one of these….dark blue black vynil roof. Very classy machine! Theirs had the red bulb white lens taillights though.
I think Ive said it before but I always thought of the big Chryslers as ‘men’s’ cars, husbands and fathers with serious work to do, like the engineers at the Grumman plant near where I grew up, railroad men or ranking officers in the police and fire departments. Let the doctors have their Buicks, but if you ‘worked’ for a living and made it up the ladder, you drove a Chrysler.
Another note, I hate seeing those el-cheapo exhaust tips on an otherwise nice car. I would rather see turn-down exhaust tips tucked under the bumper.
That is all. Nice car
Interesting point on the exhaust tips. I love that configuration for those tips after first seeing them on the’80’s RX7. They look serious, like a couple of shotgun barrels. They aren’t particularly decorative, which is the point, they suggest an all-business attitude.
Chrome turn-downs are fine, but I associate them with old people and their 50’s lead sleds, more show than go.
The rub strip down the side is tacky as well. Fairly sure it wasn’t from the factory.
LT Dan: I have also noticed this and commented on this “Guy Thing” with Chryslers.
I can recall, here in the New Orleans area, uptown/upscale matrons driving the lovely 4 door hardtop Chrysler station wagons from the early/mid 1960’s; but the other Chrysler models (especially the “Letter Series” models) were always a “Man’s Car”.
RE: “Made it up the ladder”
After over 25 years of used, then new Plymouth, Dodge and Ford cars; the last American car my Father purchased, when finally at the top of his union job pay scale climb, was a Chrysler.
Give me this exact car in your Uncle Leo’s deep metallic green (with matching green interior), and you have a very important automobile from my adolescence: The retirement gift to Monsegnior Francis J. Dubosh of Sts. Cyril & Methodius parish of Lakewood, OH (the parish still exists but is a combination of five shrinking parishes and goes under another name now).
My Aunt Mary’s life-long employer, the main officiant of three Catholic priests who married my parents in 1948, a wonderfully curmudgeonly old gentleman who had an incredible tolerance for this young child who stayed at the parish house for a week to ten days at a time while the family visited Aunt Mary, a regular house guest at our place, especially ever East, Christmas and Thanksgiving after the last Mass was said . . . . .
. . . . . and the man who taught me Major League Baseball, sitting on the sunporch every summer evening listening to the Cleveland Indians game of that day. Which is how I learned to love and venerate hopeless losers.
And he almost talked me into entering the seminary. Disillusionment at 19 is an awful thing. Given the history of the Church lately, I wonder how much damage I would have added.
The 65-66 Chrysler is probably the only full size post-WWII American automobile I have ever had the desire to own. That was a magnificent car to this 15-16 year old boy, otherwise completely hooked on Corvairs and anything odd Europe had to offer. And I always get such memories of that car sitting in our driveway during one of his frequent visits when I see a picture such as the one that opened this article.
Syke I actually got married in that church! Never thought CC would bring that kind of memory.
What year? Back when Fr. Radecky was pastor?
2002. It was Fr. Duke by then.
My last contact with Fr. Radecky (#2 of the three priests who married my folks, he also officiated at my sister’s wedding almost forty years later) was 1997 when he handled my Aunt Mary’s funeral. Another close friend of the family and repeated house guest.
Two words: Elwood Engel.
A greenhouse that reminds me of the 1970s. And bodyside proportions reminiscent of the 1950s. Somehow, it comes together successfully. The modern greenhouse especially advancing the design.
I had a light green hardtop. One of my favorite cars and I keep looking for another then realizing that I actually have enough cars already. I prefer the New Yorker to the 300, even the 300L. I loved the tri-color dashboard (black-white-wood) and for a long time thought of using it as a backdrop for a desk someday. I had junked my Triumph TR6 but kept the motor. In the trunk. The car didn’t sag at all and there was still more space than a New York apartment.
If I were to get another, I’d drop a 440 in it. Just because. They came with a 413.
“So why does a car that appealed to left-brain thinkers work so hard on my emotions?”
I’m a bit older than you but have some left seat time in both a big Buick 6 window 225 and contemporary Chryslers.
The Electra felt soft and round and powerful and quiet and turbine smooth.
The Chrysler felt hard and sharp and aggressive and raucous and had those snappish Torqueflite shifts. And the gear reduction starters.
I’ve always been in conflict about left and right brain theories. I see myself as a lefty trying to enjoy some right-like living in retirement before it all goes away.
That being said, I felt a Chris-Matthews-like-tingle when I saw the lead photo in your post. As other commenters have noted, this Chrysler is long, low, wide, 383 powerful, and has fantastic visibility. It looks big, but if you park it next to a new Ford Explorer, it is not. It may have been left brain fodder then, but it is right brain appealing now.
My Dad was a mechanical engineer and always complained about the gear whine and noisiness of my Grandpa’s (his Dad’s) ’57, ’62 and ’66 Dodges. When he got a new car in ’67 he got, at my urging, a ’67 Fury III 4 dr hardtop. While he liked how the car drove, and with the new LA 318 it still had spunk (ask me how this new 17 yr old driver knew!) due to it’s lack of emission controls, he didn’t like the road and mechanical noise and went back to Ford in ’69 🙁
My God, this thing is HUGE!
What great visibility all around from the drivers seat.
I was going to disagree, until I looked up dimensions online and compared to a modern Escalade. Width is about the same for both, but the Escalade is 204 inches overall versus this car at 218.2 inches in length.
Let the B-52’s reference fly, it is as big as whale
In full agreement on these, Paul. I am always attracted to the 65 Chryslers. Engel “Filled the Box” elegantly with these. The tall airy greenhouses looked current well into the 70s when the same light airy “Euro” style was becoming a feature of many cars. and remained do into the mid to late 80s. before the “Bunker” style came into vogue. Give me a car I can see out of and I do not feel I am in a military vehicle. New Yorker or Newport, the 6 window roofline is still one of the best looking sedans.
No need to sell me. Both sides of my brain are all-in.
But for the love of all that is holy, please somebody put a wrench on those front torsion bar adjusting bolts to raise that front end back to where it should be. This isn’t a Buick, so there is no need to settle for sag in an old front suspension.
+1000
A bouncy road would find the limits of the reduced suspension travel as well..
Not very dignified for this old girl
The front looks a smidge low, but the problem is that the rear is a couple of inches too high. I’m guessing air shocks. The bottom of the fender skirt should cover the top edge of the plastic center of the wheel cover.
My. Mom’s older brother…a physician…had a 1965 Chrysler, a tan Newport four-door, four-window sedan. He special-ordered it with the suspension approximating that of the 1965 Dodge Polara for the California Highway Patrol! It was a sleeper on winding roads; he said it handled like nothing else of that size.
He kept his cars a long time. His prior car was a 1951 Imperial (“That thing got a Hemi in it? As a matter of fact, YES!). He kept his 1965 Newport until 1978 when it was replaced by a Volaré-based Chrysler LeBaron.
His younger brother also bought a 1965 Chrysler, a metallic blue 300L, tne last in Chrysler’s annual 300 “letter” series (the 1999 300M came much later). He kept his 300L even longer, finally replacing it in 1983 with a Plymouth Reliant K-Car.
The driving manners, comfort, power and sturdiness of those Chryslers impressed me then and they are remembered warmly. They also probably helped to establish a Mopar tradition for me, though I grew up in a Chevrolet/Cadillac family.
Thanks, Paul, for reviving fond memories of my uncles and their 1965 Chryslers.
Thank you for this article Paul. I have always loved the 65-66 Chryslers. They were a fairly common sight in my area during the 60’s and 70’s. The clear glass headlight covers and clear taillight lenses offered a bit of sophistication to a family hauler. I would already own one but I don’t think I can get my garage door shut even with the nose up against my work bench and cabinets. I like various models from just about every brand, and these are a great example of favorites from this brand/era..
I’m solidly right brained by default but these still appeal nonetheless, aesthetically Chrysler cars never seemed confined into the mid 60s box the way other brands did, just look at those angular grille and taillight treatments, and those curved concave sides, no stacked headlight car looked this interesting even if it was more trendy. Mercedes being the next natural step up from these is a great observation, these are the missing link in even more ways. The Continental would be the easy default assumption for that, but that only really covers the high end, Mercedes penetration into the US market wasn’t from grossers, it was Chrysler that had a *range* of models of a basic solid car analogous to Mercedes then-lineup.
…left-hemisphere folks, even though that concept has been thrown into doubt
By left hemisphere folks, of course lol
For the same reason the Leica M cameras appealed to serious photographers who made emotionally-capturing images, the precision allowed more perfect expression. Instead of working around the camera’s failings, one just just works.
Your uncle used his Chrysler to express himself and didn’t have to compensate for its failings.
When things are well-made, the outward appearance cannot deny this. But it isn’t a soon-to-fade gloss like GM always did, it’s like a person who is good inside and it glows outward.
This engineer approves
Handsome but not flashy, Excellent mechanical components
Very nice indeed
I understand the appeal. Its like a smart looking tailored suit versus a flower-print shirt and bell-bottoms. A bunch of these poor survivors die a death every year at the county demo derby. My Grandpa (of Prussian heritage) had a ’66 Newport. It was his last car. He passed away in 1978.
Wow, I never noticed the Windows on these, looks quite nice.
These were really elegant and tasteful cars, with perfected drivetrains, the peak Chryslers, so to speak. Even the ’66s weren’t quite as nice. The people who lived behind us facing on Charles St. Avenue (yes it was called than thanks to the “new” 4 lane Charles St.) had a beautiful all-black ’65 NYer with the clear taillights, I loved that classy car, and yes, Mr Fritsche was of German ancestry, as were so many Baltimoreans, including my wife (Schull, Dietrich, and Wolfel are her family’s names). Decades later I bought a faded but rust-free ’65 Newport convert out of Charlottesville VA, in the exact same beige metallic of the car featured here. Great car to drive.
My great aunt and uncle bought a new 65 Newport 4-door hardtop when they retired. They deliberately waited to trade in their beloved mint 55 De Soto coupe until Chrysler abandoned pushbutton transmission controls. The Chrysler was driven across the country when they moved from the Midwest to SoCal in 1967. It was a metallic turquoise and their first car with air conditioning. My uncle fits your profile: he was a scheduling manager for a city transit system where he worked his entire career. He was meticulous about his cars and when I moved here in 72 the Newport, approaching 100K, still looked and rode like new and the AirTemp ran icy cold on 100+ degree days.
My uncle died and my aunt traded the 65 Newport for a new 74. Big mistake, terrible, unreliable car. Fortunately – due to Chrysler’s hit-and-miss quality in the 70’s – she got one of the well-built 76 Cordobas, her last car.
I got my grandfather’s 1965 4 door New Yorker for my HS car. Loved the inside door handles, the meat locker a/c and fact that all it needed was radials to plow through whatever snow we got in Connecticut.
Dark green w/ black bucket seats. The green looked almost black at times.
I believe the base engine for the New Yorker in 1965 was the 4 barrel 413. You needed that 25 gallon tank.
Great car – it was engineered to be better than GM and it was.
The New Yorker was so good my Dad’s last Pontiac was the 1970 Executive Safari – he switched to the T&C wagons.
I will say, in GM’s defense, that the ’65 Olds 98 and Buick Electra were also elegant, understated cars, especially in dark colors, with similarly excellent engines and the new and superb world-class TH400 trans, with excellent isolation and silent smoothness as well. However excellent the ’60s M-B sedans were, and we had one, there were still those who wanted the size and power only to be found in Detroit (not including ultra-luxury Rolls etc), It was apples and oranges to compare them. and ’65 really was a peak year for the biggest US cars in many ways. Unfortunately just 5 years later the downward spiral had indeed begun, and in my opinion even M-Bs best days were soon behind it, just a few years later they were losing the Old World feel of quality they had previously had, even as their cars got bigger and more powerful. Today I’d take a ’65 NYer over a ’75 S-Class any day. YMMV!
’65-’66 Chryslers were great-looking cars. But that “all of a piece” feeling only lasted until the inevitable corrosion set in – ’60s Mopars were always serious rusters.
Unlike around the windshields and back windows of mid 1960’s GM cars?
Growing up in a small Ontario town one remembers the cars of one’s past.
There were a ton of Mopar products as the local dealer sold Dodge, Plymouth and Chrysler but two that instantly come to mind are the 65 300 4dr hardtop owned by the local fast food joint and the two tone blue six window 65 New Yorker own by the town reeve. He also ran a hardware store in the centre of the village and I passed that N.Y. a zillion times parked there. It always struck me as bringing the whole town up a notch to see that elegant car drive by. By 1973 it’s salt ravaged rear quarters meant a replacement and the 73 Sedan Deville that did just didn’t seem as worldly.
This car really needs to be appreciated from inside. These just felt HUGE inside compared to most of the competition. The tall windows, thin pillars, low cowl, and lack of frame intrusion from the unibody added up to an incredibly roomy interior that could easily fit 6 people. My family had a ’66 Dodge variant of these, and later a ’77 Bonneville on the new downsized B body that GM insisted was still “full sized”. But compared to the Mopar, the Pontiac seemed dinky inside, *much* smaller in every dimension. The Dodge also had the 383 2-barrel and Torqueflite, which was much more powerful than everything else I drove in the early ’80s.
My Dad had a ’66 Newport with the 383. It was a 4-window sedan which I found a little disappointing as the neighbors had a ’65 Dodge Custom 880 with the 6-windows.
It was a pale creamy yellow called Metropolitan Ivory with that awesome dark green interior.
The car was built like a Sherman tank and was the favorite of all his cars as well as the best.
He sadly traded it on a 1969 Pontiac Bonneville that was beautiful but, a complete POS. After a year, he returned to Chrysler for a 1970 Newport Custom hoping to recapture the magic of the 66 but, it was not to be.
The ’70 Newport Custom was beautiful and stylish but, the dashboard metalwork has all been replaced with plastic. Rollers and rocker switches replaced the heavy chrome knobs.
Just wasn’t the same and was unreliable as well.
There’s nothing like the ’65 and ’66 Mopars.
Some will say too many doors but to me it is a very nice car. In fact a beautiful car. As has been mentioned the only thing I would change is to have the original turn down tips of the exhaust rather than what is there now. Straight out the back rarely looks good and especially not on such a classy car as this.
Actually have a couple of shots of a 2 door in my archives in the same color. Has the cool glass covers over the headlights.
One of the most under appreciated designs of the 60’s. There wasn’t a bad line on them, inside or out. The covered headlights were so cool, as were the limited clear taillights. The unobstructed panoramic view around the interior is a page from history, never to be repeated. The dash is an all time best. The name, Chrysler New Yorker, for over 50 years that name resonated. White Owl even named one of their cigars New Yorker. Just a classy, manly car from an Era of manly men.
For GM-loyal types, Pontiac and then Oldsmobile, were the steps up from Chevy for engineers like my dad.
I always liked the premium look of six window sedans. The fact that Chrysler made the Valiant in that body style and with quad headlights made it look more upscale than a Falcon. Who cared? Falcon outsold it by far.
I actually prefer the 4 window version a little, but certainly wouldn’t turn down a 6. The New Yorker 2 doors may be the best version.
I saw once a photo of a clay model of a proposed 1962 DeSoto done by Don Kopka
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960s-chrysler-concept-cars1.htm and by checking the roofline and 6-window design, I wonder if Elwood Engel could had been inspired by this proposed and cancelled DeSoto design?
Yes! I’ve always found this design vaguely familiar but didn’t know why. Now I know. The Chrysler is far better looking below the beltline, a real classic.
A beautiful car, elegant and stately. Would love to see greenhouses that big today. Fondly recall our next door neighbor’s ’66 Town and Country, with the 440 TNT. Made pulling his huge Airstream a breeze.
In 1965 Chrysler, GM and Ford all had very different styles and personalities. Just compare the sharp creases of this New Yorker with the coke bottle styling over at GM. Quite different from all,the copycat sedans of today.
Spot on with the comments about visibility. I find my ’66 New Yorker 6-window easier to parallel park than my wife’s ’07 Camry (given a big enough space, of course).
My mom had a 65 Imperial during my high school years in the late 70’s.. I took it to work after school many times. Loved that speedometer how it would change color the faster you got. It was run low on oil and the 413 was toast. Not being able to find another 413, a 383 was installed. It wasn’t the same again.
Sweet merciful EFFYEAH! Chrysler were really on game with these, and just about everything about them is aces. The design and engineering were tops; they ran and drove well and looked marvelous, and still do. I’ve given up old cars—took me many years and many tries to quit successfully—but this what you’ve posted still makes my teeth itch. I would like, please, a ’65 6-window with the 413, the clear taillights, and every possible option. Santa?
That’s Santa’s personal ride, in Bright Red He’d give it to ya, because he’s that kinda guy, but he can’t get another one.
He will put a new pair of date-coded matched-length fan belts in your stocking, though.
I guess this highly unusual ’74 Chrysler specially ordered in white-over-bright-red must be Mrs. Claus’, then, eh?
This car was *ordered* for Santa, but not *purchased* by Santa.
Santa’s Packard Clipper saw him through the war years, but it was ready for retirement as soon as new cars were available. Shipping to his neck of the woods was spotty. The first dealer to receive cars was North Pole C-P.
Santa was a Packard man, but he respected the Chrysler history. At first glance, the 1946 New Yorker was a bit dowdy when compared to his beloved Packards. The test drive had him singing a different hymm, tho. The New Yorker stood toe to toe with Packard for quality, comfort, and performance. A decision was made and a deal was done.
A few weeks later,. Santa returned to North Pole C-P. He told them that the car was all he ho-ho-hoped. However, the world was a volatile place. New cars could go on hiatus again. Santa asked the dealer to continue ordering him a new car each year. This arrangement was continued for several years.
On February 2, 1957, Santa entered North Pole C-P. He informed the manager that he would not be needing a 1958 Chrysler, and he would be taking his business elsewhere.
For old times’ sake, Santa bought a Packard for 1958. After that, he bounced from brand to brand. Nothing satisfied.
In June of 1964, there was a knock on the workshop door. Santa found a basket with preproduction photos of the all-new 1965 Chryslers and a personalized photo of Elwood Engel. A note on the basket said, “It’s time to come home to Mother Mopar.”
Santa’s 1965 New Yorker Town Sedan was his greatest thrill since the Packard heyday. The Chrysler drove like a dream. When no one was looking, he’d grab a cup of cocoa and walk around it, soaking up the sharply tailored sheet metal.
The world was now a different place, and Santa was a different man. On February 2, 1966, Santa entered North Pole C-P and informed the manager that he would not be needing a 1966 Chrysler. But he said it with a smile on his face and presents for the staff. He loved that car.
Santa regularly returned to North Pole C-P for service. The dealer twice ordered a New Yorker with Santa in mind. Neither sold to Santa. The first was a 69 fusie. The second was this car. Both times, Santa gave the cars a fair chance. Both times, Santa returned to his 1965 New Yorker Town Srdan. They’ve been together for over 50 years.
And now you know.
»applause«
All I can say is: This is one large hunk of fabulous motorcar. 😀
Paul, I grew across the street from Dr Folkening. He had a 1966 Newport six window *and* a W108.
A friend’s parents had a ’65 New Yorker like the one in the pics. I don’t remember what engine it had, but it ran well. I would guess a 383, if they had them back in ’65. They had it until he died in the early ’80’s. She tried to keep it going but it got to the point it was falling apart from rust and when the rear end went out, it went to the boneyard. It was maroon with a greyish interior. Had the same skinny steering wheel which I thought was about the worst thing on it. Slippery in hot weather, cold in the winter. She drove an almost identically equipped Newport that was newer by a year or so. Maroon too. Actually, I think all the cars they had as a couple were maroon. She replaced the New Yorker when it died with a silver Chrysler of some kind.