(first posted 6/4/2015) It’s getting harder and harder to think that cars like this were once just another hum-drum big coupe, like so many other big cars up and down the street. Running across one of these now, especially next to a short and tall Subaru Forester, makes it seem so other wordly. Well, strictly speaking, 1973 Chrysler Newport coupes weren’t really ever all that common of a sight, given the decline in Chrysler’s big car fortunes at the time as well as the decline in big coupes, period. But this jolly big green giant is slumbering away here, dreaming of a time when it wasn’t such a freak.
The Forester looks like it’s about one-third of the length of the Chrysler, but part of that is perspective. Still, in a world increasingly dominated by CUVs, this twin-landing strip aircraft carrier must be feeling a wee bit alienated.
It’s also feeling a bit rusty under that bubbling vinyl top. Our healing rain can only do its job when it’s not being trapped. My long-held hate for vinyl roofs has become vindicated, as I see this over and over.
Of course, this owner doesn’t seem to be very concerned about the rain, which was coming down as a drizzle as I shot this. The driver’s side window seems to not be working, or gone AWOL.
And rain is never a good ingredient for interiors. If you think Chrysler’s brand image has been degraded of late, take a good look at this interior. It simply reeks Plymouth Fury, and a pretty modest trim level at that. Premium? Chrylser had been dragging itself into the low-priced battleground for some time with its Newport, but this is about as low as it got.
Truth is, when I first saw this from a little distance, I thought it was a Fury. It just doesn’t have any cues to suggest a premium brand. For 1973, the fuselage Chryslers lost the distinctive loop bumpers, and ended up with a front end that was a blatant crib of a 1971 Chevrolet.
Times were already not good with Chrysler’s big car business, and they were about to fall off the cliff beginning in late 1973 when the energy crisis set in. 1973 was the last year for the fuselage cars, and it was not a stellar way to bow out.
But in today’s CUV world, any fuselage is madly cool, especially the coupes which accentuates their endless trunks. Did people really buy these cars in 1973, or were they just peppered around to make us think so? Well, in forty years from you younger readers will stumble upon a a Forester or CRV and say the same thing: “People really bought these things?” What were they thinking?
Definitely the American definition of, “meh.”
The vinyl roof is the only bit that adds anything to this car, and not in a good way. Makes me wonder how badly Chrysler would have fallen into the ’74 model year, even without the Gas Crisis.
The Chrysler Newports and New Yorkers actually sold well once the economy recovered in 1976 from the effects of the Arab Oil Embargo and resulting sharp recession.
The problem was that sales of the full-size Dodges and Plymouths remained terrible, and what sales they did generate were largely to police departments and taxi companies.
For that matter, sales of the full-size Dodges were weak before the gas shortage. If I recall correctly, the Dodge Polara and Monaco were outsold by every other full-size car in the market – and that includes their supposedly up-market corporate sibling, the Chrysler.
The 1974 Monaco got a design remeniscent who looked too much like the 1971-72 Buick didn’t helped things.
Chrysler fell into the 74 model year with an $800M full-size C-body overhaul, from the Plymouth Fury up to the Imperial. The timing was unfortunate given the OPEC oil embargo (thank you Dart & Valiant), however those full-size Mopars redeemed themselves and sold well from 76 to the last C-body in 1978. Here’s a pic of my 1973 Imperial LeBaron 2dr.
Stellar find, especially in that color. My memory is that 90% of these were gold. My cigar-chomping uncle William had one of these, a ’72 I think. I always think of men like William when I see these.
Was it that distinctive, early 70s green-gold? I wonder if that color will ever become trendy again, like aqua colored cars did in the early 90s.
Those have to be the longest rear quarter panels in the world. Does anyone know offhand if the Imperial LeBaron coupe’s were even longer?
Much like the 3″ stretch from Mercury to Lincoln, the Imperials had a 127″ wheelbase over the Chrysler’s 124″. But I have no idea if those 3″ were in the back or the front. A minute of Googling suggests the stretch was ahead of the firewall, where it made the car bigger and even more landbarge-y but didn’t increase the interior space.
I’ll check that automotive data site. It’s a little clunky to use, but has every dimension of ever car ever made. It’s totally Automotive OCD. I love it.
The stretch is behind the front wheels. Moving the front wheels further from the passengers gives a slightly smoother ride, and gives a longer more impressive looking hood.
I think the ’75-’79 Lincoln Town Coupe’s may be longer:
Well the Town Coupe was famous for holding 5 bodies in the trunk, so you may be right.
Too bad the interior of the Town Coupe, didn’t hold 5 people in comfort. What a joke.
The car was long, but the rear seats were cramped… more designed for only 2 adults in comfort. Good luck with 3. The front seats were another story, a lot of legroom and comfort.
When I owned my 1975 Town Coupe, I was a teenager, so no kids to tote around. Wait a minute, still no kids… Yet.
The ’73 Chryslers are my least favorite Fuselages, at least from a styling standpoint. The refridgerator box square-jawed front end didn’t mesh well at all with the rest of the car’s curvy sheetmetal.
I agree with you on the stark interior being out of place for a brand that was theoretically a “premium” one such as Chrysler. Wasn’t interiors like this the whole point of having Plymouth? Oh wait, this was addressed 30 years later.
As someone 20 years younger than this car, I have no trouble understanding why someone would have bough a car of this size and style, but I do find it perplexing as to how someone in their right mind could buy a large, premium-ish car in such a horrible, electrifying color.
Yeah, chrome loop bumpers rule! I’d love to see some new models come out with an updated interpretation of that style. Maybe safety standards could be met now, given the incredible advancements in materials and design in the last 40 years.
Plus in reality, all new cars today no longer have protruding bumpers of any kind. A chrome loop around the front of a modern car could certainly work.
I suppose we don’t see them due to automotive fashion. The Challenger could have been done with some sharp looking chrome loop bumpers on the front.
These did sell to older buyers who looked at the Chrysler name as ‘mid-lux’, but they were mostly in conservative hues. This is more of a Dart/Duster color.
Newports did steal sales from Plymouth and Dodge’s full size cars, since ’62. “A Chrysler for the price of a Caprice/LTD!” was their pitch.
Yeah, unfortunately the interior looks like a Nova for the price of a Newport.
I don’t think that is an original color. I remember most of them being metallic light green or gold. The mirrors aren’t original either. And the seat appears to have been a replacement. It looks gray, the rest of the interior green. So maybe that’s a Fury/Monaco seat?
My Uncle bought a 1972 Newport Coupe new…It was a root beer brown with white vinyl top and one of the big V-8’s..probably a 383 if those motors were still around in 72…I remember it having overheating problems when it was only a couple or few years old…..He sold it to another Uncle around 1975 or so….and I remember seeing it in the late 1970’s at that other Uncle’s house with the lower rear quarter panels all rusted away.
One thing I notice on this car which was popular on Chrysler products back then are the little tell-tales mounted on the top edges of the front fenders that displayed turn signal indications visible to the driver and front passengers…….I remember my Uncle’s car having them….and my Grandfather had a 73 Dodge Dart Swinger that had those tell-tales as well….
The 400 replaced the 383 as the standard engine in a Chrysler in 1972. My friend’s dad also had overheating problems with his. I think he found out about a “silent recall” on this after he had traded it in.
This car brings back memories. The family of a girl I had a crush on in the 10th grade drove a 1973 Newport coupe – dark brown with a light brown vinyl roof. Even then I thought these cars were bland, except for the front, which was downright homely. Applying the fuselage styling theme to something this big really didn’t work.
My friend’s family bought a brand-new 1973 Newport hardtop sedan in light tan with a dark green vinyl roof. This car looked better as a four-door hardtop, although I still preferred the Oldsmobile Delta 88 or Buick LeSabre. I did think that the 1974 Chryslers were a big improvement over these cars.
Interesting perspective on American automotive tastes. I suspect that many of the people driving CRVs or Equinoxes now might in fact have driven a car like this 40 years ago. Then: not a sedan. Now: not a sedan. Only now, the CUV has an aura of practicality. The Chrysler coupe “as big as a whale”, not so much.
When I met my new best friend Dan in the fall of 1972, his father was driving a black 72 Newport 2 door. That car lacked the vinyl roof and had the base black cloth interior. About a year or so later, he swapped a set of slotted mags with white letter Goodrich T/As onto it, which made it look positively menacing. He traded it in on a 76 Granada. We saw the car on the lot shortly after – they had stuck a white vinyl roof on it. Yuck.
I agree on the interiors. I was used to the GM way, which included carpet on lower door panels on upper model cars. Not here, just plain black vinyl on the door panels, and always with some wrinkles pressed in.
The one place where the Chrysler buyer got his money’s worth was in engines – nothing smaller than the 400 in these. I was always kind of surprised that they didn’t offer the 360 as standard, unless it was a manufacturing capacity problem.
I will say that the fuselage Chryslers seemed to be everywhere when I was a kid. Given how many Plymouth Furys were sold to police departments and taxi companies, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Chrysler beat its Plymouth sibling in retail sales.
The really rare birds from these years were the full-size Dodges. Which isn’t surprising. Our neighbors had a 1972 Polara sedan in that green-gold color with a black vinyl roof. Even then I thought it was one of the homeliest cars I’d ever seen. It didn’t help that they never washed it.
Oh, and when you talk about how huge this car was? Their other car was a 1971 International Travelall. Pretty sad when a Chrysler Newport is your economy car. 🙂
The Travelall would have been the economy car of that pair, being smaller, lighter and getting better gas mileage than a 72 Newport unless it was a 1210 4×4 set up for max towing with a 392 and 4.09 gears in which case their mpg was probably similar.
As I recall, it was a loaded 2 wd with air and a 392.
Definitely more economical than a Full size Chrysler of that ear then.
Yeah probably. I love those old Travelalls. You never see them on the road anymore, or even at car shows. At least not the ones I go to.
Some did. There was a el-cheapo special called the Royal that came with the 360.
Also, in the later 70s, the 360s were used with California emissions.
That ad is pretty funny, especially the line about “that the Royal has no body bolts to work free and rattle after, say, a year or so of driving.” Fact is I’ve never seen a case of a body bolt working free even after 30 or 40 years of driving.
Wow, still learning things – I don’t think I have ever heard of this one. I knew that the Newport Royal of 1972 was the base model, but this must have been a one-year experiment as a volume-builder. No wonder big Dodges were so rare.
I especially like the line about how the most expensive Cadilllac and Oldsmobiles having torsion bar suspensions, so they must be better! Never mind that the only reason the Eldorado and Toronados had them was for the front wheel drive systems.
And of course they gloss over the fact that the competition had multi link coil spring rear suspensions while the Chryslers hung on to the buggy leafs out back.
Uninspired blend of ’71 Chevrolet front and ’72 Olds Delta 88 rear. When I was a kid, I used to have the hardest time telling these from an Olds from the back. That said, I like seeing the one in this post today.
Ever since the 1962 downsizing debacle, Lynn Townsend’s Chrysler stylists had been copying GM’s cars, particularly the larger ones. While they did deviate from that plan occasionally, the results weren’t any better. Working in the Chrysler design studios must have been very easy, but also depressing in that you knew they were rarely going to approve something original.
But, man, I can’t believe how much the front end of the 1973 Chrysler resembles a 1971 Chevy. If you put a bowtie emblem in the grille of the Chrysler, you’d be hard pressed to tell them apart side-by-side. And who wants to buy an expensive Chrysler that looks like a cheap Chevy? As pointed out, Chrysler’s full-size cars were ‘already’ on a downward trajectory before the Oil Embargo. The Embargo just put a big exclamation point on it.
The front of this car looks like the Lego version of the 1971 Chevrolet.
It doesn’t help that Chrysler has put a very blunt, square front end on a car that was supposed to be sleek and somewhat fluid.
If I recall correctly, Chrysler Division sales were lackluster in 1973, which was a record year for the industry as a whole.
Actually (and also to Geeber’s point), while this car’s looks like a blocky ’71 Chevrolet, to me, it looks equally like a quad-headlamped, car version of Chevy’s new ’73 pickups. Am I right?
Holy Cow!
I was just going to post the same thing..
Here’s the pic.
Great minds, Sean. 🙂
I have actually had a second thought. The front of the ’74 Chevy Impala also looks like this ’73 Newport, sans outboard turn signals. Could it be that Chevy then returned the “favor”?
The first time I saw one of these, sometime in the early 90’s, I thought somebody had stuck a Chevy grille/headlamps onto a Chrysler. I was quite surprised to find out, many years later, that it was actually *supposed* to look like that from the factory.
That should also tell you how many of these were left by the time I started noticing cars in the early 80’s – approximately zero. I think the number of fuselages of any brand I’ve ever seen in person is probably still in the single digits.
The 5 MPH bumpers were another reason Mopar dropped the loop bumpers, along with “GM-izing” the looks.
It is surprising that they stole the styling cues from the Chevy when they were stating that the competitors were Olds and Buick though the rear end is definitely “inspired” by Olds. The really sad thing it that then they went and used Buick for inspiration for the lesser Dodges a couple of times.
I agree that it would have been a somewhat easy job to be a stylist at Chrysler Co in those days. Wait for the first pictures of the new GM models and start tweaking them just enough so they weren’t identical.
I’ve always thought GM copied Chrysler with the ’71 B/C big cars. Chrysler pioneered fuselage styling in ’69, and lo and behold, GM did their take on the concept for ’71. Or perhaps every car maker was following the late 60s early 70s trend towards aircraft inspired car shapes. In general, car design goes from rounded to square back to rounded and then generally rounded with some sharp edges for definition. It’s mostly fashion, but for the past 25 years, lets say since the ’84 Audi 5000 and ’85 Ford Taurus every sedan has made aerodynamics a top priority. Designers have had to get extremely creative to come up with shapes that don’t look like jellybeans or raindrops yet still slip through the wind rather than fight it.
I am fascinated with these giant coupes, I just can’t imagine who would buy a car this huge with only 2-doors. The 4-doors make some sense, I guess, if you had to regularly ferry a lot of people about. But why a coupe? And every giant 4-door had a giant coupe stablemate, right up until the 80s when they finally cancelled the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic, Fleetwood Brougham, etc.
The continuation of full-size coupes was probably out of sheer habit on the part of both car buyers and the manufacturers. There may have been some older buyers who still equated hardtop coupes with “sporty,” even in cars of this size.
By 1973, younger buyers who bought two-doors for a measure of sportiness and/or distinction were skipping full-size cars altogether and buying one of the Colonnade GM intermediates, particularly the Cutlass Supreme and Monte Carlo.
My friend’s dad was a businessman. He liked the ability to open his door, put a briefcase on the rear floor, and get in and go. In hindsight, he may have made the same mistake my mother did when she bought a new 2 door that year – just because a 2 door worked when kids were in elementary school, it was less optimal when they got older. I don’t think he had another 2 door after that.
My mother made the same mistake as well. Sure, a ’55 Chevy 2-door made sense when my brother and I were toddlers and my maternal grandparents (neither of whom learned to drive) were still relatively young. After that came two more Chevy 2-door sedans. But by late 1972, when she bought a Monte Carlo, we were in college and my grandfather had to struggle to get into the back of that car. (Grandmother rode up front, but someone else had to close that huge passenger door.)
I think Geeber hit it on the head. Whether it was the “sportiness” of the coupe or a carry-over from the then already distant past of the businessman’s coupe, there was still a certain image associated with the 2 doors. Just like today, there’s an image of ruggedness and practicality associated with CUVs even if they’re built on a car platform and less roomy than a minivan or even Prius V. And Paul’s right, in 40 years people will look back and wonder, what were they thinking?
2 doors go back to the Model T days, and were the entry level car for most makes. The ‘sporty’ image came about in the 50’s/60’s with hardtops, performance models, and yes, muscle cars.
But, by the 80’s, big/mid size car buyers went to 4 doors.
as someone who grew up in the 70s, I can tell you why…only two doors were cool. four doors were like minivans today unless you had a Fleetwood or Town Car. and nobody who wasn’t rural drove a pickup. very different world back then.
I am stunned how many people have no clue about the desire for 2door cars.
Before people wore seatbelts and before child seats had been invented and before cars had electric door locks and electric windows, the 2door was easier to deal with. When you get to your destination and all your little brats jump out the back doors and take off running for the entrance to whatever, you are stuck there walking around the car manually rolling up all the windows and manually locking all the doors, one at a time. NOT FUN. If you have a 2door, your little brats can’t get out of the car until the front doors are opened…BY YOU. You only have two door locks to deal with.
Then there was the 2door hardtop. This was the most desired of all car types because it was considered the most attractive. A 2door hardtop was not the same thing as a 2door sedan.
For performance, the lightest type was most preferred and that was the 2door sedan.
For passenger comfort, a 4door was king.
Phooey. These behemoths were tin cans from day one. Aside from my obvious pillarless hardtop love, there is nothing about this car that is remotely attractive. Tiny cabin and grossly over-sized front & rear end overhangs.
A friend had one of these for a while, and it was garbage. No wonder few of these sold. I wish I could find something more positive to say in addition to the above, but I can’t.
I have to agree with you. Tiny greenhouses in comparison to the absurdly long hoods and deck lids.
Sure, a 1965 Chevy Impala 2-door hardtop looks sharp. But by 1971, all of the Big Three full-size coupes had jumped the shark (or I should say jumped the whale).
I’d have this. It’s flabby and boxy at the same time, and just sort of crazy. The interior is a disappointment though.
Personally this is one Mopar I like, as JPC says it looks menacing though less so in this color that it would in black. Speaking of black this would look extra menacing in flat/satin black especially with a set of slot mags and a little bigger tire out back and maybe a touch more rake.
There was a 1972 Chrysler New Yorker that got passed around between my family members for its entire life. It was a 4-door hardtop, black with gold interior. In its last hurrah, my cousin fixed-up the bodywork and spray-bombed it with whatever black rattle-cans he could find.
I like it. I even like the aftermarket wheels but then I have a weakness for baby moon and trim rings.
Our neighbors had a brown coupe until it was replaced by a new 1st year Aerostar. As a kid, I always thought of it as their boring car. The ’73 Monaco parked next to it was far more interesting to me, but anything with hidden headlights was. Both faded into the background whenever their nephew drove up in his DeLorean.
No one’s mentioned those freaky aftermarket custom body color mirrors! I guess they were useful for seeing around those giant rear fenders.
I say the Forrester and the Newport have much more in common than you all think. Both are green, and have 4 wheels.
I test drove one of these in high school. I was underwhelmed with the actual power on tap from the 400 under the hood. Dad’s Monte Carlo with the 305 was peppier.
When the intermediates became more popular and the manufactures started to provide dolled up models the only thing the “standard” size cars had was their size, which had reached ridiculous excess by this time. Their interiors weren’t really much bigger but the long wheelbase probably provided a very plush. ride. The two door coupe versions of the standard size cars were the “reward” car for the middle aged, middle class male with traditional values. They were impractical enough to be a personal car for Dad, let Mom drive the kids and grand kids around in the station wagon, the Old Man is stretching out in this big beast chompin on a stogie.
The old man stretching out…
HEY, where do I sign up?
This rolling nightmare is 6 feet longer than a Hyundai Accent and has the same interior room.
What a bomb.
And it has a thousand times more personality and coolness than any sh*tbox Hyundai. I’ll take the Newport, please.
Yeah, no doubt! I’d much rather drive a gargantuan, unreliable, slow, terribly handling gas guzzling statement than a modern, highly reliable, very economical car that performs better in any conceivable metric.
Reliable? You must not be talking about a Hyundai.
Have fun bailing out, when that rotted A frame decides to part ways on the highway, driving your economical Sonata.
If there’s personality hiding in the bargain-basement interior of this thing, I’d like to know where it is.
To each his own. Enjoy the vapor lock, slippery vinyl, and 8 mpg.
The secret to enjoying such a vehicle is to modify it sensibly with modern, 100,000 times proven aftermarket bits. By the time you finished, this will brake, handle, consume gas at a rate of 22-25 MPG, be _over time_ more reliable than any electronic gyzmo-laden modern wonder and – if it does go wrong – you could repair it yourself, as opposed to having to pay the “technician” at the dealers inflated amounts of money to reset some wayward electronic gremlin. Of course, if the shape is turning you off or if you are mechanically challenged, don’t bother.
Wow, not a lot of love for this poor Chrysler coupe today. Even though I’m not really a fuselage-era fan I kinda like it, especially the taillights, and the bright green paint and baby moons work for me. I agree that the the interior screams CHEAP, and I never cared for the 1973 front end. I didn’t realize how much it looks like a 1971 Chevy until it was pointed out here.
Still, it’s unfortunate that this one is suffering from neglect. It looks to have life in it still, if the vinyl roof rot and window issues are addressed promptly. If not, it will probably soon not be good for much except parts. 1973 C-bodies have the best front disc brakes to swap into earlier C-bodies. Hope this doesn’t go straight to the press if/when the time comes.
I hate to say it, but this car’s getting pretty close to ending up in a demo derby. Another broken window and a year or two of sitting and someone may well scoop it up for some smashy fun. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer to say it from this fate, there’s no room in my driveway for this beast. That being said, it is an interesting car I haven’t seen in a long time, the baby moons really improve the look.
I dig it (even if it would not be my first option in so far as Mopars of that age are concerned with). It would make a very capable grand tourer in the American idiom given some sensible, not overly expensive, modifications. Yes it would require a bit of work but nothing any person with mechanical skills should be terrified of.
My guess is that the guy’s wife will put her foot down one day and that ’73 Newport will be recycled into 3 new ’17 Sonatas. It’s not really worth restoring and it’s taking up an awful lot of driveway.
Chrysler interiors started going south w/ the 1967 models. The 65-66 had a rich return to the astrodome style instrument panel. Starting in 67 it was noticeably cheaper and Fury like. Dodge suffered the same fate.
http://www.allpar.com/history/chrysler-years/1966.php
http://www.vaultcars.com/wp-content/uploads/67ChryslerNewport-014.jpg
I would argue that the 67-68 Chrysler dash was still quite expensively made, if not as far-out in the styling department. My 68 Newport Custom had a dash that was slathered with chrome plated diecastings from end to end. The dashes in the fuselage cars took a big leap into the land of PlastiVinyl, and were a big disappointment for those of us who liked the C bodies up through 68.
I think it needs its own zip code, but it would be the most obnoxious thing to drive. I sort of like it for that.
I can imagine the craigslist ad: Classic car. Easy restoration. Needs a little TLC. Small amount of surface rust just starting. Just needs break work, water pump, timing chain and a few other little things. No time to work on it that’s while I’m sellin.
“A/C just needs a recharge”
“Barn find!”
“Well, in forty years from you younger readers will stumble upon a a Forester or CRV and say the same thing: “People really bought these things?” What were they thinking?”
I highly doubt it. The Forester seems to be the new millenial version of the Volvo 140/240 series. The Volvo Brick was in its prime 30-45 years ago, but the basic concept doesn’t seem dated. I’m probably biased as I grew up in a family with Volvos and both of my parents now have Foresters. I see tons of Foresters around Seattle and they are driven by the same people who drove Volvos in the 70s and 80s.
Even when they’re riding around in one of these?
I’d rather walk, than drive that weird looking egg.
Definitely not styled by Pininfarina. Looks like a background car on the Simpsons.
Longest 1/4 panels ever?
The ’71 Chevy rip-off nose is pretty bad, but I’m good with the rest of the styling. Longer than it needs to be, just ’cause. Love the green, the rake, and the wheels. Though that interior is extraordinarily plain, and honestly kind of depressing. And something needs to be done about that rust and that window, otherwise time is running out…
In that color, could this be Kermit the Frog’s old car?
It’s not easy being green. 🙂
Thats why it’s blue now
Thanks for taking pictures of this, Paul. Gotta say I love these cars – don’t care if the ’73 has a boxier front end. More bumper to tap things with :-p Love the long, low, wide look of America’s past, and nothing accentuates that better than a Chrysler C body or a late 60’s Caddy. Pop a Stones 8-track in the radio and cruise up to the hills on a winding scenic byway. Too bad about the missing side window. Judging from the appearance of things, it looks like someone really cared for this car until the past couple of years. The nicely painted wheels and baby moons, along with body color mirrors (I think those have been painted to match the rest of the car?)- suggests a previous owner sold it to this person, and they are letting it fall to ruins. They may have even had that front seat re-upholstered, as it doesn’t match the green of the door panels and carpet. Now, all that effort in vain. Shame on them!
Ripping off Chevy noses must have been a thing at Chryco for ’73… look at a ’73 Polara:
Then look at a ’70 Impala:
1973 was not a good nose year for Chrysler overall. The Polara and Fury were blandified, the Newport looked like an Impala, and the New Yorker like an impala with a different grille insert.
Though somehow, the two most ornate, Imperial and Monaco, kept their ’72 noses, only with big honkin’ bumper guards. Wonder why they didn’t go that route with the whole line to make the 5 MPH requirements?
Also, 71-76 Oldsmobile 88/98.
Yep, that too 🙂 .
I feel the Polara looks better with the 3/4 view from the rear rather than the front. Also feel the 4 door is far better proportioned than the 2 door. In fact I don’t care too much for any of the full size coupes unless it was a fastback which Chrysler no longer did after 1968.
I’d nominate the 1969-73 fuselage Chryslers as another ‘too big for America’ subject. They just looked so ungainly, especially in ‘coupe’ form. Just a huge whale of a car. Sales reflected it, and the ’74 “Blues Mobiles” would have been hits, had they came out in 1972.
It didn’t help that the ’72 Monaco had one of the most awkward front ends of the time, right up there with the “Jimmy Durante” Matador of a couple of years later.
I actually like it, but primarily because it’s so unusual. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it awkward, but that’s just me. Plus I’m a sucker for hidden headlamps.
Dodge was the ‘sporty’ division in the 60s, early 70’s. All the ads with the Sheriff giving speeding tickets to Dodges ‘standing still’ turned off average big/mid size buyers. “I dont want a ticket! Put me in a Newport”
Mopar may have loyal fans for being “all in” during Muscle car era, but in reality sales dived for their ‘bread and butter’ B and C bodies, by trying to be ‘sportier’. Only the Duster/Dart sold well, but didn’t add to balance sheets.
I got me a Chrysler its as big as a whale an its about to set sail, that one will rust into a convertable given another 5 years of healing rains.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qPPmi0Kx6d0
A link to a cold start video of a 1972 Chrysler.
Coldwar Motors! I follow that site. The back of his Chrysler looks like the back of a ’71 Olds 88.
The grill and headlamp design of the 1973 Chrysler Newport is a blatant rip-off of the early 70s Chevrolet Impala. That is especially true if the car is a 4-door post sedan.
It occurred to me that this car, as is, would make a great New York City car. You could part traffic like Moses did the Red Sea when people spot this “Green Monster” in the rearview!
Is this the ugliest Fuselage?
probably
Certainly a far cry from this!
+1
Probably the most impressive car, visually, Chrysler ever made right there…albeit not that one with the black vinyl top. I don’t like vinyl tops.
Can’t imagine who bought that originally, but I am well acquainted with that nose. Many years ago when I heard that my brothers friend’s family was scrapping their 1973 T&C Wagon (with wood panelling) I bought the 440 engine and transmission for $100.
After single handedly pulling the enormous engine and pushing it a mile home on a grocery cart chassis I stashed it in my parents’ garage. A year later I realized I was never going to do anything with it and sold it for $120. All that work for twenty bucks…
Chryco styling was running badly out of ideas when these cars were done. Exner must have had a good laugh when he saw how badly they had fallen from his highs. Even the ’62 “plucked chickens” held more visual interests than these.
Someone apparently wanted something badly enough to bust a window for… There’s broken safety glass on the drivers side floor. Maybe it had a fancy aftermarket stereo. Do people still buy those?
as a big Mopar lover, the Newports always looked tacky compared to the New Yorkers and Fury Gran Sedans both inside and out. thru the early 70’s the Chryslers were always distinctly noisier than the Fords and GM cars in Consumer Reports tests. tho i recall the 73 New Yorker Brougham came close to matching the quietness of the Chevy Caprice in their sound level tests, but the car still did not earn a rating of “quiet”
these were so big, imagine how monstrous the Town & Countries were and how they gulped even more fuel than the sedans.
Where was this car located? I want it! I never really noticed, because most of the stock ones sit so high, but this thing has the makings of a factory mild custom. Shave a little here and there and add a little chrome here and there and it would be awesome. Probably has a 400 ci. in it too.
For those of you who say “why a massive 2 door?” It was a status symbol in the hedonistic 70’s disco-cocaine era. It’s saying, “This is my personal luxury car. Not for a family. For me.” and if I have passengers crawl your ass in the backseat. It’s saying I’ve arrived and have the biggest most luxurious car, and it’s just for me – a bachelor or whatever showcasing success in the 70’s – and the more gaudy the better.
I own a 75′ Olds 98 regency coupe and a 78 Lincoln town coupe and the looks and comments they get is on par with more desirable vintage cars. I’ve noticed they get the attention of younger people who have never really seen these cars before as they became extinct off the roads around the time they were born. They seem to think they are awesome and are astounded by size and design.
So much car with so little interior room…..
Its litle bit better now
Does anybody know where this car is now? I’ve seen this around but not for years.
It’s in Finland, baby blue and runs great
This is rebuild with white leather interior. Great car
Many comments about such a big car with so little room. This is really no different than a club cab pickup truck with a hard cover over the bed. Those are every where today and go unnoticed.
I have to disagree. The passenger area of a crew cab is limo levels of legroom.
Speaking of the decline of big coupes, I believe the giant, opera-window Coupe de Ville (’74-76) outsold the Sedan de Ville and Brougham combined. I’ll bet 90% had vinyl cabriolet (rear half) roofs, and most of those were white. With Eldorado added, Cadillac must have sold more coupes than sedans until the Seville arrived. Coupe de Ville sales didn’t collapse until 1980ish, when it no longer had the opera window.
A car like this booty (trunk) you`d only fully use twice in your life ,
after divorcing par example
Ooh! Ooh! This one’s even the right colour:
I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the hood under the vinyl roof is actually in decent condition. Maybe some rust in the C pillar where the seam is merging the the pillar and the roof. The rust along the trim is due to the holes drilled into the roof for the trim to be attached through the roof to the inside of the trunk. How do I know? Because I have dealt with a Mopar vinyl roof from 1973 and know first hand. That and debris getting caught under for decades.
this is same car now
ok. pictures is`nt show but is`t light blue with white interior, 400cid bigblock