(first posted 5/1/2013) Debasement. For most people, the word means “to cheapen or erode in character, quality or value.”
However, if you’re an auto industry executive, “debasement” is that place in your house to which you scurry when the weather turns foul. For them, it seems cheapening a nameplate is commonplace as breathing.
The auto industry has turned name debasement into a fine art. Think about the laundry list of cheapened names that includes Impala, Galaxie, Lincoln, Bel-Air, Fury–the list seems endless. For now, let’s think about this one: Newport.
As with any fine art, there is a prescribed methodology for debasing a car’s name, so let’s look at the method used in the Newport’s case: With cars, like people, no two debasements are the same, but in this case certain similarities abound.
Step 1:
image source: wikipedia.org
Introduce a show car in 1940. Give it an original and prestigious sounding name; Newport, in this instance. Produce very few; six, in this case. If you don’t have an original chassis to build from, just grab one from a New Yorker; nobody really expects a unique platform to be created for such an endeavor, do they?
To further enhance the desirability quotient, make your car at once highly visible and unobtainable.
image source: wikipedia.org
Ensure that one is snapped up by a young, attractive ingenue such as Lana Turner; also, it doesn’t hurt if somebody with the same name as the car–say, Walter P. Chrysler, Jr.–nabs another. It simply demonstrates confidence in the product.
image source: www.fototime.com
Cough up one example (18% of your total production) for use as the pace car at the 1941 Indy 500, since doing so will ensure a boat load of pictures in all the magazines–and thus create the perception of the Newport as a truly high-end car.
Step 2:
Wait ten years, until 1950, when two-door hardtops become all the rage. Upon introducing your two-door hardtop, slap the Newport name on every single one. Repeat for seven model years, until 1956. You are betting people will remember the Newport show car from just before the war; in turn, people will say such desirable things as, “Damn, Roy, you bought a Newport! You gettin’ too high-falutin’ for us regular Dodge drivers?”
It will be a sign you have arrived.
Step 3:
Cancel the name as both your new Forward Look cars (and a non-vehicular product with the same name) are introduced.
image source: www.morningcigarette.com
Nobody wants to be viewed as having a smoking car, much less driving a cigarette. Thus, abandon the Newport name and leave the name plate looking for a new port…er, home.
The name must be cancelled despite a young ad man’s brilliant idea of getting a supply of Newports with the purchase of a new Newport. It could have been a real barn-burner; the tragedy of missed opportunity never fails to resound in one’s mind.
One can only ponder the ruckus that would be caused by the introduction today of a cigarette branded “Charger”, “Fusion”, or “Brougham”.
Step 4:
Let the name simmer and/or ferment for four model years. Reintroduce in 1961. Nobody will notice how this new Newport was introduced to plug the self-created price gap between Dodge and Chrysler that was left when DeSoto was tossed aside like yesterday’s underwear. In turn, expect to sell about 57,000 of your new stripper Chryslers versus 34,000 “regular” Chryslers.
Let the name debasement begin! As an added bonus, not only have you cheapened the Newport name, but you have also managed to sully the Chrysler image–just as Packard did to itself in the mid-’50s. Congratulations, Mr. Auto Industry Executive: Your negative double-play has rightfully earned you a promotion and a big, fat bonus. Great job!
Having recounted all that formulaic behavior, we can now turn to my find: this wonderfully-hued ’68 Newport. This was the last iteration of the Newport design cycle that began in 1965. Still sitting on a 124″ wheelbase three years later, the Newport was now available in two trim levels: the base Newport, or the slightly less-base Newport Custom.
Of course, Chrysler still had the New Yorker for their hardcore and more moneyed customers, but do the two series really look that much different? Obviously, many others were thinking exactly the same thing, as the two Newport series comprised the bulk of total Chrysler production in 1968.
So just what did $12 more than a top-end Dodge Monaco (Polara shown) net a person?
A nameplate.
Okay, it also netted you a standard two-barrel 383 in lieu of Dodge’s standard 318; nonetheless, going Newport also got you a three-speed, column shifted manual transmission, extra-cost air-conditioning and very little chrome trim on its flanks–in retrospect, not an entirely bad thing. But from any angle, it was a Chrysler with only a Plymouth level of base equipment. That does seem rather bi-polar, does it not?
Going downmarket wasn’t exactly without precedent; like Packard, Cadillac went that route with its downmarket companion, LaSalle.
Times certainly have changed since 1968. Gone are the days of full-sized cars with 124″ wheelbases, 6-liters-and-then-some engines and manual transmissions. While some of you may be shouting “hooray!”, I’m not quite in that camp.
Admittedly, this car is so long I had to stand at an absurdly far distance just to get a profile shot. With its 383 (or better), it likely drinks like a sailor on shore leave. But regardless of trim or name, it’s a Chrysler! Back then, Chryslers were something to behold (as were the Lincolns of the day), vehicles far removed from the dreary–well, dreariness–permeating most of Chrysler’s current lineup. Do you really think Chrysler would have allowed a minivan into the stable in 1968? Absolutely not.
A Chrysler like this was for the man with a terminal five o’clock shadow, or the woman who always wore heels. They were for the crowd who wanted a Chrysler that didn’t include the visual and financial slap administered by the New Yorker. Similar to the people who always drove Buicks, the buyer of this Newport wanted to be subtle in proclaiming their success. Once upon a time, discreetly proclaiming one’s success was the essence of good taste.
Perhaps I possess a weak spot for Mopars in black, my favorite automobile color (here’s another black Mopar). Fortunately, this particular black Mopar wasn’t for sale. It possessed recently expired plates and was parked in front of an automotive repair shop. Over the next three weeks, I periodically saw it parked outside while being refreshed for more intimate encounters with the local highway system.
Never having really gazed at a ’68 Newport for an extended period, its looks certainly have grown on me. It’s always seemed to me that this generation’s body just doesn’t quite mesh with the greenhouse–
while the rear view seems positively cartoonish.
Despite the nitpicking, this Chrysler is simply, absolutely dripping with presence–there was no mistaking that it was on the lot as it confidently exuded its ample charisma. Were there even any other cars on the lot? I sure didn’t notice any.
Hmm. I think I just figured this Chrysler out. Ingenious.
What an incredibly strange automobile.
I’ve always had a thing for the mid-’60s slab-sided Chryslers, despite being innocent of ever having driven one, but only got up the chain as far as a ’67 Plymouth Satellite. Make my Newport a ’65, please.
I had a 68 Newport convertible. I always thought it was a very cool car though that was not the reaction most car people had. I had it for a few years and it was completely reliable. In fact it was the most trouble free car (classic or otherwise) I’ve ever owned. The guy I sold it to told me his Winnebago got better gas milage.
“Chrysler’s Deadliest Sin” in my mind.
Reaching downmarket with the Newport screwed things up pretty bad. Chrysler’s position in the market has always been a bit wishy-washy ever since then. Over the past 5 decades, Chryslers have competed with every make from Chevrolet to Buick to Cadillac, and even Plymouth and Dodge.
Is it more deadiest sin then the Cordoba with its rich Corinthian Leather?
In Australia, the situation was reversed. I bought the recent issue of Collectible Automobile about the luxury car derived from the Aussie Valiant called “Chrysler…by Chrysler” replacing the local VIP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_by_Chrysler Unfortunately it didn’t got enough design differences to distinguish from the Aussie Valiant.
Yes, the most noticeable exterior change was the full-loop bumper. Mind you Ford and Holden weren’t much better in that year.
The CbC was like the Fairlane, you had to look twice and note the extra length, otherwise it could have been the considerably cheaper model.
Holden went to the opposite extreme – at launch they wanted you to think of the Statesman as a marque in its own right, and not as a Holden Statesman. Didn’t work.
My favourite comment about the Chrysler by Chrysler was somebody’s (Tony Davis’?) quip to the effect of “In case you were worried it was a Chrysler by Ford”.
+1 That made me laugh.
Brendan, are you sure this is Chrysler’s deadliest sin? Not the Chrysler’s TC by Maserati, like such as?
Learned to drive on one of these (’68 Newport Custom) back in 1971.
My dad purchased it new in 1968, to replace his ’64 Chevy Impala. He was understandibly proud of the upgrade. I suspect he would have thought the New Yorker to be a bit too showy.
Although not particularly luxurious or well equipped, this car certainly had presence, and a quality feel. I remember the dash being very attractive and mostly metal, before cheap plastic and fake wood became the norm.
It was also very reliable. Only problem I remember was carburetor icing when the temperature approached freezing.
In 1974, my dad offered to sell me car for a very attractive price, but I was looking for a younger image. I opted for a 1975 BMW 2002 instead.
These are a favorite of mine. I drove a 68 Newport Custom as my everyday car for about two years in the late 90s. It was certainly a big car, but drove very, very well.
I have to add a dash picture, as this was my favorite feature of the car. The main structure was supposed to be the largest single diecasting ever used in a car, and virtually everything you touched or saw on it was a nicely plated or finished diecasting.
Mine was a Custom, which was hard to distinguish, mainly stainless trim on the door uppers and a nicer quality of upholstery with a center armrest in the bench seat. This is one car that does not look quite so good in black, at least to me. The generic 1950s Mopar wheel covers don’t help it, either. This was one of my very favorite cars, and I missed it as soon as I sold it. I would absolutely own another.
> This is one car that does not look quite so good in black, at least to me.
It has been said that you should never order a 1967-68 Chrysler in black because it highlights two flaws in the design.
First, the body panels have a concave shape. Engel was not allowed to do concave panels on his designs at Ford, but he had free reign at Chrysler. At the microscopic level, convex shapes stretch the outer surface of the steel and smooth the grain structure, while convex stamping compresses the grain of the steel so it looks rough, and the factory paintjob will not look as shiny.
Secondly, the panel shape in the rear door just ahead of the wheelwell is very complex. The panels never held that shape 100% after stamping. From some angles the car would look like it had been hit and poorly repaired. Look at the rear passenger door of this car, especially in the rear-3/4 shot. See how warped the reflection of the ground looks?
My thought is that the car has so much complex body sculpturing that is all obscured by the black finish. A lighter color (as in the brochure shot) shows off many highlights and shadows that are created by the shapes in the panels. I think that a white car would have much of the same problem as a black one, but perhaps not quite so bad. Also, with so little chrome trim on the car, the black one looks sort of like a big black block of metal. Perhaps the Newport Custom with the bright door uppers, or one of the 4 door hardtops would look better than this one.
As an aside, it is funny how this generation of Chrysler creates a real divide among we C-body fans: you are a 65-66 guy and I am a 67-68 guy. Personally, I have always found something not quite right in the roof and deck of the older style, but others do not like the concave sides of the newer one. I love both dashes – the 65-66 is more of a flashy-retro style, while the 67-68 is more subdued but with such a strong horizontal focus that makes it look a mile wide, and with with that fascinating slight convex V shape of the face.
All very good points. Fortunately there seem to be fans of just about every car ever made. On that note, I know of a mint 67 New Yorker 4-door hardtop for sale that you would probably love. 🙂
I actually believe the 1966 model looks more modern than this 1968. I think the 66 nailed it with the smoothness of the styling. The front end ‘leans forward’ into the wind as it were, while the taillight wrap into the fenders is a work of beauty. There is a convex-concave-convex design element to the sides however, perhaps an unnecessary complication.
I know what you mean. I have a real fondness for the 65’s, since my grandfather had a teal New Yorker 4-door hardtop, without the vinyl C-pillars, but I really like the 67-68’s. In both generations, I prefer the first year models to the second year – in my eyes, the designs were better overall, and there was more differentiation in the model lines.
What’s always interested me is how much the ’74 C-Bodies feel like the natural extension of these 67-68’s, especially the 4-door sedans. It’s like the fuselage years were a side-trip.
The trunk lid looks just as long as the hood! I find it very attractive in a skinny tie sort of way.
Well done! My grandfather was the ’60s Newport owner you describe, a Dodge driver since the ’30s who had moved up to something nicer but not too flashy.
Just fetched my own black Mopar yesterday. I am confident you’ll someday join us on the Dark Side, Young Shafer!
I have never driven a “slab” ’65-’68 c-body, but I’d love to do a comparo with my Fusie-lounger. BigOldChryslers, when are you coming east? 🙂
You both can bring them to Iowa City on the 11th!
How about bringing her to the Walter P Chrysler Museum on 6/8/13? That date is the only date the museum will be open this year (so far).
How far east are we talking? The furthest trip east I have planned this summer is the Syracuse Nationals in July, but unfortunately I won’t be driving a Chrysler there. Bringing the family and we’re going to camp nearby.
You could come west to the New Hamburg Moparfest on the weekend of August 17.
I’m in Massachusetts. With kid obligations as they are, I don’t think a trip west is happening this year, but it would be great to hit the road and meet a bunch of you fine folks.
Didn’t realize you were in MA… I (and my ’67 Monaco hardtop) are in Boston. Maybe you’ll show up at Larz Andersen, or one of the other local shows?
No kidding! I showed it at “Extinct Car Day” at Larz last October. Been meaning to write that up since forever. Where else do you like to go?
You must’ve heard a lot of “Why’d you bring a Chrysler?” questions!
I’ve never shown my Monaco before; I only got it a couple months ago. And it has quite bit of, shall we say, patina. Still, I think she’s a looker.
Anyway… until I got this car, I had a semi-classic Benz, so I took it to a different set of shows. Topsfield is a fun one, of course. So I’m still trying to figure out the right crowd for the Monaco. Any suggestions?
I’m also hoping to take the car up to LeMons on May 11/12 (just a spectator, not racing)… technically not a car show, but the parking lot is close enough!
A 4 door hardtop in Turbine Bronze – I am in love with your car! A Monaco 4 door hardtop has to be one of the very rarest C bodies. There was a guy locally selling a Monaco fasttop a while back that had me tempted. You absolutely MUST do a “My Curbside Classic” piece on this car.
Thanks JPC, glad you like it! It’s also my first hardtop; even though it has tiny mirrors, it’s way easier to check over my shoulders than my daily driver.
The color, alas, isn’t turbine bronze. It’s “medium copper.” (At first I also thought it was turbine bronze–that would be so cool–but the paint code revealed the truth.)
Still, the color looks great on the car, and on a sunny day it really brings out the lines. Though I love the interior of the Imperials (who doesn’t?) I think this has one of best exteriors of the “slab” c-body sedans.
A couple months ago(?) I saw an an amazing ’67 Monaco hard top on ebay. It looked pretty worn out, but the options were out of this world: 440, disc brakes, a/c, power seat and windows, passenger headrest…
Ah, it looks like the listing is still visible:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1967-Dodge-Monaco-Hardtop-Rust-Free-Bucket-Seats-Disk-Brakes-440-/321091918253?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item4ac291d9ad#ht_500wt_743
That is a sharp imp.
You should to fix the wiper park mechanism, and the headlight motor.
I am a big fan of the fuselage C Bodies.
They look great in black!
Good eye, brother! And nice 300!
The door motor’s been rebuilt but I think the relay quit last summer. I have a new generic Bosch waiting to go in. The wiper park gear has been kaput since before I owned the car, I’ll get to it someday. I did replace the ugly black blades with some NOS bare-metal Tricos a few hours after taking this pic.
The black blades are a pet peeve of mine, they just look better with stainless blades. You could pick up a used c body 3 speed wiper cheap, check the demo derby sites. That relay will work from a 69-71 300, 70-72 sport/gran fury, and the 70 charger. My 300 has a headlight motor from a 71 sport suburban.
Is that a ’70 300? We had one when I was a kid. I love the front and rear styling on that car! Sleek and handsome. Awfully big and heavy things going on between that front and rear, though!
It sure is. Its a tank, and huge, but the front and rear do look sharp on the 70. It’s my favorite combo of the 69-71 years.
About the only thing I can add to this thread is: These Chryslers and 1965-66 Galaxies wore the pillared-sedan style better than anyone else due to their square, upright, angular lines. All others: NO!
I have never driven one of these, but wish I had/could. Me and my fedoras would look splendid in one of these, especially in PILLARED-SEDAN form – there…I said it, and it really hurt!
BTW, May 1st is when I switched from putting away the winter hats and getting out my summer straw & Panama…lookin’ good…
How could Chrysler resist the temptation to reach downmarket? GM and Ford were doing the same thing over and over and over.
I wish the Big 3 had remained true to their brands but alas it was not to be, everyone had to bow to the altar of volume.
This is a very well done article! The pacing and writing is excellent, the visuals are creative and most importantly, you took a black hunk of curb steel a lot of us had grown up around and presented it to us in a way to make us look at it again. Bravo!
+1
Nice but I like the previous generation (’65-up) Chrysler New Yorkers a bit better. Preferably a four door hardtop in deep green with green interior. An almost-relative of the family had one, and it still sits in my mind vividly.
I love the idea of “Brougham” brand cigarettes. Hopefully a tie-in with something as politically incorrect and loathed as cigarettes will ensure that the concept never, ever, ever returns to automobiles.
I don’t know, since cigarettes were what Cool People did, as opposed to sissy hypochondraics, they may make a comeback in reaction to puritanical official nagging about personal health. They make a natural complement to mean-faced cars, hiked-up SUVs, obscene bumper-stickers, & tattoos.
Look at Lauren Bacall light up in “To Have & Have Not.” Is that cool or what? I bet women mobbed the cig vending machines after that film.
It never ceases to amaze me that automobile manufacturers, in the blind pursuit of ever higher sales figures per model, will willingly debase a given model even to the point of cutting into the sales of another marque within the corporation. I seriously question where is the profit in cutting out, say, 10,000 sales of Dodge (Oldsmobile, Mercury) to get 10,000 more sales of Chrysler (Buick, Ford)?
Especially when, in the long run, you’re cutting down the prestige of the higher priced marque? Maybe it seems overly simple to me, but I’d think it makes more sense to put a maximum allowable price on one marque, with the marques beneath it and above it never being allowed to overlap in the slightest.
+1 Back in the 70s when Cadillac started chasing volume and sold 300,000 in one year, how much of their cachet did they kill? Prior to that, Cadillac demand always exceeded supply and the assembly plants concentrated on putting each one together like it was special. Guess what that did for resale values?
Now – about debasement.
Prostituting a brand is a common practice in many industries. Calling the cheapest Chrysler a Newport makes it much more attractive than calling it a Chrysler Stripper, a Chrysler Lite, or a Chrysler HalfPrice. There are a lot of nice names a manufacturer can put upon a fender and blowing a decade’s-long wad of glamour and magic to pull in a few more year’s of coin in tough times is understandable. If Dionne Warwick can huckster Miss Cleo in television commercials we normally associate with dime store plastic crap for two million dollars a year, Chrysler can put the name Newport on what should have been called a Chrysler Miss Cleo for even more loot.
Its the American way. A bunch of wealthy folks seclude themselves into a gated community – give it a name like Beverly Hills or BelAir, and eventually someone is going to come along and put that expensive sounding name on a mole removal cream.
“Got an intimate itch?”
“Then put some Waldorf Astoria Vaginal Cream on it!”
“Act now and we’ll throw two more cases of this exotic cream into your order! Operators are waiting!”
Gloria Vanderbilt put her multi-billion dollar heritage upon what was once work wear no one in her family ever wore, and then sold them across the world in KMarts, Mumbai slums, and secretly in Tehran. She made millions. Paris Hilton over the past ten years has been debasing two famous names in order to find a klieg light and a network camera. Not everyone can be Dina Merrill or Marjorie Merriweather Post and respect their heritages while earning a living at the same time.
English is composed of debased French words. Once William the Conqueror settled into London, toothless English shepherds wooed toothless buxom dairy maidens by calling their pig stys “mansions”. We use our Germanic words to describe farm animals, what falls out from under their tails, and how they copulate. We use French words to turn them from hooves into succulent meals.
Debasement is what we have done at least since October 15, 1066.
Your avatar, please… and welcome to “CC”!
For some reason beyond me, it is not showing up. I bet Bertel is jacking with it.
Ah, there he be!
Thank you for the welcome.
It is nice to be back with good friends discussing great cars.
Good to have you here, Dude. Enjoyed reading you over at TTAC and look forward to your observations here!
Thank you.
I’ve learned a wee bit more since I got locked out at TTAC:
Avoid politics.
Focus on the cars.
I had a great run at TTAC and did some nice work, especially about the cars, their era and our shared heritage. So, I was especially satisfied to read this particular piece referencing and humanizing the men and women who would buy these wheels new.
Paul asked about some guys picking up some slack while he does some work around the house.
I got an idea:
Auto Archeology
We take apart a curbside classic and point out how the car reflects the contemporary culture in which it was built. Reflect on the market it aimed for, what kind of folks bought them, and use a curbside classic to gain some insights into yesterday. Kind of like Social Archeology, but using curbside classics instead of Bronze Age farm implements. A car’s styling, it’s maintenance needs, use and other angles could all be a part of it.
I like that idea. As someone who got into cars as a passion rather than just as a need, it has always fascinated me the stories behind the metal. Some things like paints in the Louvre or the Statue of Liberty you try to go see once in your life, they are important but static attractions. Cars are ubiquitous, at least in many countries, and so intertwined in peoples’ lives and activities you could almost write an autobiography about it.
Until January, I never really had time to peruse websites in depth like this with comments. I had been to TTAC occasionally, but everything I have heard about them, on here and elsewhere, is that they are a veritable hornet’s nest of personality and discourse, and not all of it good. I sort of expect those that own a car, or those that were involved in its creation to have strong opinions but seems like a lot of intense third-party action going on.
As far as your above comments, well at least here in the US, everyone plays the cars they are dealt. No sacred cows. Everyone wants to get ahead and they will exploit their advantages to the fullest. Works in business, politics, and life in general. Most of the time its not too bad, occasionally its almost humorous, once in a while distasteful. Of course, remember its only one person’s opinion.
VD: Auto Archeology: excellent idea! Bring it on. Send it to me at curbsideclassic(at)gmail.com Time to turn your extensive comments and musings into posts!
Yay Vanilla Dude!! Glad to see you here – I quit commenting on TTAC myself after the threat of lockouts began; looking forward to your insights (and Auto Archaeology sounds amazing!!). CC 4eva (as the kids say).
Actually, I always thought that the French (actually Normans, a fancy way of saying Norsemen) save England from being some historical backwater.
The Normans are from Normandy France. They are not Norsemen, who are from Scandinavia. Norsemen showed up in England a thousand years earlier, but didn’t smell as bad.
The Normans were vikings who had settled in france and spoke french.
I think Charles the Simple bought off the Viking Rollo, in effect saying, you get title to all that if you’ll pay homage to me. It must’ve been cheaper than keeping a standing army around.
The Normans were a fascinating, pragmatic bunch. Their Kingdom of Sicily (within a century of Wm. the Conqueror) was notable in that they didn’t give a rip who you were so long as you didn’t cause trouble. Hence Greeks, Moors, Jews, et al. were all tolerated.
Probably the funniest post I’ve ever read on this site.
Nicely done, Dude.
Its the American way
YES! Thank you. I really enjoyed Jason’s summary of the components of nameplate debasement, but all the way through I was rattling my brain for examples of the same in non-US marques and I can’t think of any.
Other than the tendency at BL in the 70s to plonk storied named like Riley, Wolseley and Princess onto their Austin/Morris mainstays, I can’t think of another example outside of US marques (doesn’t mean there are none, but…) and BL’s game was more about using up the remaining cachet in absorbed/defunct marques than moving a nameplate steadily down-market.
The American way. That explains it.
I would think a 3-speed manual ’68 Chrysler would have been even more rare than a 5-speed Mercury Milan today.
I’m with you there. I saw a beautiful burgundy 1966 300 2-door hardtop on ebay a couple of years ago that was a factory 3-speed car. The only one I’ve heard of.
…and back in my WPC Club days another member who was a counterman at a parts store told us that he’d had a guy come in for a clutch for a 1969 Newport. So I guess Chrysler built the minimum number of them either on order or to prove that the 3-speed tranny was actually available.
I recall reading that, in 1969, Chrysler was having trouble with a new computerized ordering system, and the troubles affected the all-new C-bodies. Fortune noted that the glitches resulted in the construction of several 1969 Chryslers with manual brakes, steering and transmission. They supposedly were forced on Chrysler employees, as the cars were unsalable to the general public. Maybe that was one of those cars?
I have seen several 69 and 70 newports with the 3 speed MS MB combo. I have also seen some furies and polaras with the 3 speed. One of the furies was a slant 6 3 speed. The newest one I saw was a 71 fury custom with the 318 and 3 speed.
I am not saying that the manual transmission was common, but a few left the factory that way. Definitely a rare bird.
We had an interesting 68 Newport at the auction Saturday. One of 965 hardtops made that year and probably one of the nicest remaining. Mercury got into the game offering “Yacht Paneling” but it must have been a 1968 only fad.
There were like 195 wood paneled ’68 Newport convertibles, also. It was also available in ’69, but production was so low, Chrysler would never ‘fess up about it.
I saw a 68 Newport convertible with wood at the 2010 NCPC meet. That would have to rank as among the rarest non Hemi Chryslers that I have seen.
I believe ’68 was the first year for fake wood on the Town & Country as well.
I distinctly recall seeing one of these around my hometown (Newark, OH) in the early 1970s. It was white, IIRC, with the imitation wood panelling. The only one I’ve ever seen in person. Exceedingly rare like the paisley “Mod Top” Plymouths.
Jason, I am rather torn about this article. While what you say is essentially true, your saturnine view of the Newport as a destroyer of the Chrysler brand image is disconcerting to me. Three big old Chryslers in our fleet are Newports or Windsors (Canadian equivalent of the Newport).
However, comparing this 68 to the 65 and 66 Chryslers, it’s easy to see there was further decontenting going on through the slab-side years. The chrome outline mouldings along the fender edges, with integrated doorhandles, have gone away. The dashboard isn’t as nice. The grille has been simplified.
Also keep in mind also that the low advertised price was intended to get prospective buyers into the showroom, then upsell them on features. Chrysler was hardly alone in this practice. I know of exactly one Chrysler that was ordered as a stripper with no options whatsoever. It was purchased by a farmer that was happy to pay the small amount extra to upgrade from a Plymouth with the 318 to the Chrysler’s standard 383. When my Grandad went to order his 66, he tried to get it with neither power steering nor power brakes. The salesman flatly refused to sell it to him that way, and made him choose one or the other. (He got power steering, thank goodness.)
Yes, I do not generally agree that Newports had any real bearing on bringing down the value of Chrysler (car) or Chrysler company. Chrysler (Corp) always tried to sell Imperial as their flagship marque so I suppose a Newport is no different than a basic Buick LeSabre and the New Yorker like an Electra. People liked big cars until OPEC (a lot of people still do but circumstances usually dictate otherwise) so the Newport became the car for Chrysler fans to get into something big nice with a decent motor without all the frills of the New Yorker or Imperial. As we all know, Chrysler was hit hard by OPEC more so than any other company because they thrived off of big cars and did not really have the money to invest in downsizing. Of course we lived through the K-Chryslers of the 80s but it was either that or die. Today, the 300 does a pretty good job of carrying the Chrysler name on a car. It’s full size RWD nicely designed and Fairly popular. Of course back then, people paid more attention to names of cars and supposed “class division” so it was always more acceptable to buy a cheap Chrysler than a loaded Plymouth.
I have to agree. First of all, the trajectory of the Newport name was pretty typical for automotive marketing in the pre-alphanumeric days — the trick was to keep adding models at the top end as an enticement for people to want to trade up. Since in those days the difference between, say, a Bel Air and an Impala wasn’t much more than trim and perhaps option/body style availability, the identity of each series was pretty arbitrary anyway. The challenge, of course, is when you run out of decent names.
Second, Chrysler had always relied pretty heavily on the lower end of its model range. The old Royal and Windsor sixes outsold the New Yorker by a sizable margin. You have to remember that Chryslers tended to be more expensive than a comparable Buick, so the lower-end models were considerably more attainable. Also, Buick got into the lower end of the middle-class market very heavily with the Special, doing no great particular harm to the brand’s image. (For that matter, Mercedes has sold an awful lot of diesel taxicabs that looked just like its big luxury sedans, minus some bits of chrome, and you see how that’s worked out.)
Tex Colbert did consider getting rid of the Windsor in the late ’50s, fearing that it was cutting too much into Dodge and DeSoto’s business (which was partly a result of Keller and Colbert’s attempt to make the divisions more autonomous). However, the dealers freaked out, since the Windsor accounted for a hefty slice of their business. Eliminating the lower-end model would have crippled Chrysler in the late ’50s, as Mercury found out the hard way in 1957-58.
Also, in the ’50s and ’60s, a lot of areas didn’t have the vast strips of car dealers we have now, where you could wander back and forth and cross-shop practically everything. Chrysler-Plymouth dealers didn’t often have Dodge or DeSoto franchises (although there were some) and even if there was a Dodge or DeSoto shop in the area, why would you want to send a customer to a competitor? It made since for C-P dealers to have a model they could conceivably talk a high-end Plymouth buyer into choosing (although that did Plymouth’s VIP no favors, as we’ve already discussed).
I’m of the mind that DeSoto and Dodge suffered in large part because their identities weren’t clearly defined — even Chrysler often seemed uncertain which order they were supposed to fall in hierarchically. The late ’50s were also a rough time for mid-priced cars, which tend to suffer worse in recessions. Even Buick really took it on the chin.
If I were to point fingers about brand management at Chrysler, I would look more at the inconsistent application of the Imperial nameplate, rather than Windsor.
You’re right – they followed the classic mid-range model lineup of a solid base car that wasn’t a stripper, a mid-model range that was usually sport/performance themed (going back to the original Buick Century) and then a more luxurious top range – in the old days with an 8 and a longer wheelbase, and at GM with a body shared with Cadillac. Strippers were for the low-price three.
Speaking of Cadillac, they did violate that rule in 1965 when they replaced the Series 62 – which was always simply badged “Cadillac” – with the Calais. That was a deadly sin all its own.
BOC: I was actually on the fence about what the Newport nameplate did to Chrysler – when I started this it was negative, but over the period of time it took to write it, I started to see a bit of genius with it. In all likelihood, it didn’t hurt the Chrysler name, but I don’t think it helped it, either.
Fusion Cigarettes. Sounds plausible. Just need to put a name like “Camel” or “Marlboro” with it, and you’re done.
Sounds like the name of one of those new “smokeless” cigarettes.
Grand Prix had cigarettes
There are literally dozens of Cars and Cigarettes that share names. Just a few, BelAir, Malibu, Tahoe, Caviler, Rivera, Sonoma, Regal, Monte Carlo, Cimarron, Capri, Cobra, Maverick, Mustang, Monarch, Montclair, Saratoga, Windsor, Dakota, Omni, Colt, Cherokee, Lark, Ace, Eagle, Echo, Eclipse, Accord, Commander, Quest, Alpine, Cheyenne, and of course the aforementioned Newport and Grand Prix.
Special mention: Harley Davidson which was actually licensed but HD changed their mind and it was changed to Maverick.
Yes I Googled a list of cigarette brands, but back in college I worked part-time as a merchandiser for a cigarette company installing racks and signage in stores and back then I found it interesting that you could smoke and drive the same brand.
Smoke Brougham 120’s…the Length of Luxury!
Now with Landau tops…
It’s not like there isn’t every other conceivable consumer product already named “Fusion”.
I had a ’68 Newport back in 1976. Light metallic blue convertible with a 440 and white interior, to be exact. Forget exactly how I ended up with it, I know it involved trading a smoking, rusty four-year-old Vega…
But after a tranny change and a freeze plug, I was good to go.
Or so I thought…
Bittersweet time in my life, that particular fall…at age 19 I was out on my own living with relatives near Pittsburgh but jobs were hard to come by. When I lost the one I had, the end result was to move back with my parents and get a job in the paper mill where my dad worked.
In Brattleboro VT – 500 miles away.
The Newport performed beautifully on that 12-hour trip (I-88 didn’t yet exist so several hours were spent on NY7 between Binghamton and Albany) and was the first car I’d driven that didn’t cause back pain after a long drive.
The paper mill paid well and I started to climb out of a hole of debt into which I’d dug myself…(that ’72 Vega I’d mentioned earlier was a big contributor!) But the car became more and more difficult to start…and a tune-up didn’t help…the car had developed a miss and by the time the snow flew, the Newport was a lawn ornament.
Someone to whom I’d told my troubles told me to look for a blown head gasket between two cylinders, causing crossfire. Sure enough, that’s what it was. Only the crossfire had gone long enough to leave an arc in both the head…and the block.
A $200 ’67 Plymouth Sport Fury Fast Top replaced it…but that Newport was fun for the five months I had it.
————————————
I remember Chrysler was running radio spots back in the late 60’s proclaiming…
“If you can afford a Ford you can afford a Chrysler”.
Debasement indeed.
Even though the Newport name seems to be on a “lesser car” It still looks like a wonderful car which offered comfort, style and luxury.
Now real debasement(aka prostitution) was with the 1983-1996 New Yorker. First that glorious nameplate was put on a stretched K car(from 83-88) then it moved to the C body platform and became a gussied up Dodge Dynasty with a landau top on it from 89-93. Then the 94-96 model which looked like a Intrepid with more comfy seats. Thankfully the powers that be killed the New Yorker nameplate off in 1997.
+1
I enjoyed this article, but while the Newport may not have helped Chrysler build brand equity, Chrysler was hardly the worst offender in this regard, or the first medium-price marque to take this route. Remember that Chrysler’s equivalent in the GM camp – Buick – was selling Specials that weren’t much more expensive than Chevrolets in the early and mid-1950s, and that was how the division pushed Plymouth out of third place in sales during 1954, and held that position through 1956.
Both Buick and Oldsmobile had senior compacts from 1961-63, followed by true intermediates beginning in 1964, that were smaller than a full-size Chevrolet and could be purchased in stripped versions, too. Chrysler, meanwhile, constantly reminded people in its ads that it made “no junior editions,” and that there were no “little Chryslers” – direct jabs at the intermediate Special/Skylark and F-85/Cutlass.
If I recall correctly, the 1961 Newport was indirectly pitched as an alternative to smaller cars – why buy a shrunken Buick like a Special when you could pay a little more and have a REAL full-size Chrysler (just trimmed less expensively than the New Yorker)? If anything, Chrysler initially seemed to view the Newport as a way to minimize the debasement of the Chrysler nameplate while increasing total sales.
To me, the real debasement began in the 1980s, when Chrysler began selling gussied up K-cars and completely abandoned the R-body Newport/New Yorker/Fifth Avenue. That was when Chrysler effectively lost its status as a step-up from the lower price models.
Great insight into those cars I like em but they are very rare in this country. Chrysler US virtually evaporated here and left us with Chrysler Australia not a bad thing as we got the Valiants but we saw very few US Chryslers like this
I just loved this line-“Once upon a time, discreetly proclaiming one’s success was the essence of good taste.”
>? Is that not even true any longer? I agree, a mark of good taste it was!
Great Write Up on a car my aunt drove, so I drove when my cousin was too drunk to drive it.
It was quite the undestructable tank. Hers was flat gold. Rather dull and tired at 7 years on.
This was an excellent read on a morning when
I have really appreciated the opportunity. Thank you.
When I bought my 68 Fury III 2 dr ht in 1973, the dealer had a 67 or 68 Newport 4 door sedan priced the same, ($ 895). The Newport just did not appeal to me in the least, probably being a sedan. If it had been a 2 door, I would have preferred it over the Fury.
If I had been financially able, the Dodge white hat Polara would have been my choice in 68.
My Aunt was regretfully replacing her yellow 68 Fury Convertible that her daughter had Smashed somehow. Her insurance ck. must have barely covered the Newport. It Was boring to her, and she said so. But it took all the abuse we secretly threw at her. My cousin John let all of us take turns driving; as he was a year older, hated always having to drive. Silly man. Still my best buddy.
“But regardless of trim or name, it’s a Chrysler!”
“Newport is no different than a basic Buick LeSabre and the New Yorker like an Electra. People liked big cars until OPEC …so the Newport became the car for Chrysler fans to get …without all the frills of New Yorker…”
Yep. Many middle aged buyers, pre Gas Crisis 1, [1965-73] got plain ol’ Newports, with that idea. Same for LeSabre, 88, and Monterey buyers. Wanted the upper middle brand name.
But, Mopar had to add Cordoba to compete with Cutlass Supreme and get many middle agers dumping big plain cars for ‘smaller, sportier’ personal lux cars.
For the price of a plain full szier, one could get a luxo mid size.
So it goes today with large/big cars selling in niche numbers, and mid size as the ‘battleground’ for car sales.
The Cordoba was originally conceived to be a Plymouth but management felt they could squeeze out extra profits by calling it a Chrysler. Seeing as how well the Cordoba sold, I wonder if Chrysler would have survived without those profits. Even though the Cordoba was based off the B body, the name of the game in the 70s was personal luxury so it made sense to tag it as a Chrysler.
My dad bought a two-year-old ’68 Newport — pea green with black vinyl roof (in keeping with his time-honored philosophy of letting somebody else pay the depreciation) for our family transport. Don’t know what trim level, but it did have A/C.
I always like the design of these cars. To me, they’re sharp, straightforward, honest style. I would love to have a convertible version.
My mother had a 2 door hardtop ’56 Newport, inherited from her father when he died far too young. It was gone by the time I was born though.
Well, looks like I’m late to the party again! I had a ’68 Newport in the early 70s. It had lots of power, but I never felt the gas mileage was that bad. Mine ws that kind of pea green similar to what is in the one advertisement. I don’t believe I ever owned a car that ever gave me as good vision all around as the Newport!
I recall that in 1971, my father bought a light blue with matching cloth interior 1967 Newport Custom sedan from an older couple who had just purchased a new “fuselage” body 1971 Newport sedan. With no one in the family tall or long-legged, the power front seat position allowed for really impressive back seat space. There were times we had passengers over 6 feet tall sit in back who had never been in a car with that much back seat room. They always loved it. The 383 and TorqueFlite transmission made for more than adequate power, and the car was a smooth and comfortable highway cruiser.
Check out my chrysler 4 door hard top. I been trying to get her in the road for some time now. Having lil engine problems here and there but shes almost ready 🙂
Mines is a custom 4 door
what is my car worth 1968 Chrysler Newport 34,800
2 turntables and a microphone
1968
Looks like a Newport Custom? One of my favorite cars. Unfortunately, they are not worth much. Condition would be everything. I suspect that you would have a hard time getting over about $3500 or so unless the car is really, really sweet (meaning it has never lived outside and there is no chrome pitting). It is not that hard to find super-low-mile versions of these on Ebay, this was the kind of car that someone’s grandparent would buy and keep for years and years. Lots did.
I have always had a sweet spot for the 65-68 Chryslers. The slab sided concave body contours were just so different from everything else and in my opinion made the car look much lighter than it actually was. Whenever I see them I get the feeling that Chrysler was defiant with arms folded at the time…saying “screw this modern look, we are going straight and square!” I did ride in ONE – the father of a friend of mine in elementary school had a 67 dark blue Newport.
The 1968 New Yorker got different taillights in the same rectangular opening as the Newport, but overlaid with rather busy grille work. Bet this wasn’t fun to wash.
Besides Newport, Chrysler’s other great debasement trick was the 300. And, just like the Newport, it worked.
In most instances, I didn’t think the added bits of glitz helped the New Yorker’s appearance. But where the Newport could be a little too plain, the non-letter 300 was ‘just right’.
It’s worth noting that, after the 1962 downsizing debacle, Lynn Townsend seemed to mandate Engel to simply ape the designs of the previous GM model cycle. This worked with varying degrees of success.
However, the 1965 full-size C-body was a take on the previous model Mercury. Many consider this generation to be the pinnacle of Chrysler’s full-size models. I can’t argue much with that sentiment, and I’m particularly fond of the convertibles, one of which can be seen driven by Ray Liotta (as mobster Henry Hill) in Goodfellas.
It seems really unlikely that Elwood Engel or anyone at Chrysler thought that aping a randomly disguised Ford was the road to prosperity for 65. Ford very openly half assed the 61-64 Mercs, and the previous cycle of unique Mercs had stiffed in the market.
Engel had already restyled Imperial in the image of Lincoln for 64, and the 65 Chrysler line continues that look. That’s the look Lynn Townsend bought when he hired Engel.
I recall seeing a lot of these on the roads in my first few years at grade school in the early ’70s. I remember thinking they weren’t as pretty as the Fords and Chevies. I was able to car-spot even at the age of 6 or 7.
It’s a pity these Chryslers were so homely, when just a few tweaks here and there would have helped a lot. Smoothing out those concave body sides, for example, or putting a little kickup at the back edge of the back door and raising the decklid a bit. They were just so “boxy” looking, even the later K-cars were nicer looking IMO.
Gazing over the back roofline of this ’68 Newport reminds me of my ’64 Falcon for just that reason: It’s so very boxy-looking. No surprise I like it this Chrysler.
When I was a kid, I didn’t see my father but once a year or so. When I did, he would always have some cool older car. Around 1983 when I was 12 he had one of these. I had never really seen them, and it seemed odd looking to me. The body went in when it should go out and the front angle looked like it should be in the back, etc. I remember it was very smooth riding and quiet except for a nice Chrysler “glug glug” sound. He had a radio hooked up that played 8 tracks that he recorded himself. Mix tapes from the radio. He played “King Of Pain” by The Police over and over. When I saw him again in 1986, he had a ’78 Scirocco with American Racing snowflake rims. Always something interesting. Don’t care for the look of this car much (I am.a big fuselage fan) but it is associated with good memories of my MIA father. And I still love King Of Pain.
The whole point of LaSalle was that it *didn’t* debase the Cadillac name. GM dropped the LaSalle brand for 1941 and expanded the Cadillac range down-market.
My father turned in a leased ’65 Galaxie 500XL for a Newport Custom 4 door hardtop in 1967. I was away at school at the time, and when I came home for the summer I was a little surprised to see that we had gone from being a ‘Ford family’ to a Chrysler one. Now I’m beginning to understand. 🙂
It was a nice car, a little more ‘grown-up’ than the Ford, but one detail did puzzle me – dog dish hubcaps.
I usually saw Newports with elderly drivers in the 1960’s to the mid 70’s. Seems like most were traded in for Valiants in the oil crisis. Then K cars, etc.
My paternal Grandmother never drove, but always said she’d get a Chrysler if she ever got her own car.