(first posted 8/2/2013) For quite some time I’ve been on the lookout for a Dodge Dynasty to use in an article about a long ago road trip plus espousing the virtues of these most formidable and under appreciated Mopars. So it was with great glee I found this one as I pulled into the parking lot of a fast food joint outside of St. Louis.
Then I realized it; this was a Chrysler New Yorker Salon, that one year wonder of badge engineering. As we needed the food to go, I sweet-talked the wife and child to go in so I could stay behind and revel in this oddity of Chrysler history. But then I started to imagine how it might have all began (cue harp music and waving picture)….
One day at a Chrysler executive board meeting in late 1988, the various executives were discussing current market needs. Gathered around a huge board room table, all the various vice-presidents were eagerly listening to their Leader with Intensity (L.I. for short). There was the collective realization of an upcoming gap in product with the imminent – and heart-breaking, since it was cash cow – cancellation of the M-body. The executives realized the need for something between the mid-priced Dodge Dynasty and the higher end Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue Landau – or whatever they were calling it that year. In a collective head (and butt) scratching session, L.I. had taken the lead on soliciting ideas.
L.I. called upon the Junior Vice-President of Marketing, asking him what he thought should be done. The young VP responded: “I believe we should use our synergies to leverage further retail acquisitions in the market segments that are the most vulnerable to our overtures and openly conducive to our projected areas of market penetration and growth via our current product line. I believe that targeting our strongest performers will enable us to fully utilize our most valuable leverage to an unparalleled and crucial advantage.”
Behind his glasses, L.I.’s eyes first glassed over and then narrowed as he furled his brow. “Young man, what you just said is the biggest load of shuck-and-jive, mumbo-jumbo, cockamamie, and mealy mouthed marketing bullshit I’ve ever heard. We are all dumber for having heard that. Boy, I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, so filter out the horse-hockey; what do you suggest?”
“Uh, we could strive to sell more of our current line?” the intimidated young Jr. VP asked.
L.I. sighed. “We aim to do that everyday. It’s like breathing, it must be done. Think of this as like growing a goatee, where you are trying to make something out of your predicament.” L.I. looked around the room and asked, “Which of you geniuses promoted this jackass?”
At that point, the Sr. Vice President of Engineering spoke up. “L.I., I do have an idea. Based upon previous product structures throughout the history of the Chrysler Corporation, I see where we have one of two options. Both are viable, but one has worked better than the other historically.”
Everyone could see L.I. perking up. “Tell me more!”
“Option One is to have a de-contented Chrysler; Option Two would be to have a higher content Dodge. Either way, it should be badged as a Chrysler to prevent confusion with the Dynasty.”
L.I. was jubilant. “Hot damn! Leave it to an engineer to save everyone’s ass! I love this idea. Now, the rest of you sad sacks need to pay attention – this man is an engineer and he has a better grasp of your job than what any of you jokers do.
“What should it look like? Do we strip out a New Yorker or puff up a Dynasty?” L.I. asked his new favorite engineering vice president.
After some discussion, it was agreed to reconfigure a Dynasty to fill the need.
Turning his head, L.I. looked at the Intermediate V.P. of Customer Satisfaction and Marketing Analysis. “What do you propose we call this thing?”
The Intermediate V.P. started to look alive. “Well, sir, I believe we want to give it something with name recognition; we should avoid an entirely new name, as customers generate no mental image from non-tangible names like Civic, Camry, and anything alphanumeric. We should also avoid names that conjure up violent images, such as Beretta – any reference to firearms should be avoided. Place names usually work well, except you want to be careful. You wouldn’t want to call a car a ‘Detroiter.'”
L.I. laughed; he knew the Intermediate V.P. was the only one of his underlings with a sense of humor. “No joke; after everyone in the country has seen Robo-Cop, people will expect there to be a .357 in the glove compartment – and we want to avoid reference to firearms; although if it’s a .357 Magnum, we could make a tie-in. But we just introduced a car with a new name – does ‘Dynasty’ ring a bell?”
“Sir, we named that car after your favorite television show,” said the Sr. Vice President of Engineering. As a group, engineers don’t shy away from saying what needs to be said. Sadly, few appreciate this talent.
“Yes, that’s right you did,” said L.I. “I just didn’t anticipate all the derogatory names for it – the ‘Ming’; ‘Blake and Crystal’s Rumpus Room’; the ‘Die-Nasty’. How about we just use the ‘New Yorker’ name? Seems to work pretty well.”
As all were in agreement, the timeline for implementation was established. Everyone was ecstatic (cue harp music and wavy picture again).
Or, maybe it didn’t happen that way. This is just speculation on my part, after all.
I have to admit – I do like this car. Maybe because it’s a (tarted up) Dynasty, a car which I truly think is one of the best cars to evolve from the K-car platform – although this is official a C-body. Yes, I am familiar with them, as my parents had a ’91, my grandparents an ’88, and when I started in my professional life in 1996, the motor pool was full of them and I drove countless examples in every color available.
It should also be noted I realize these cars were not infallible; I have experienced the whimsical behavior of Ultradrive transmissions.
This Dynasty New Yorker Salon is the automotive equivalent to comfort food for me; you are attracted to that with which you are familiar. Yet like when eating your favorite food, there are times when something is amiss. And something is amiss with this Dynasty New Yorker Salon, like when the flavor of your food is just not quite up to par, as if it has too much salt.
This Chrysler does have a grille that blends in like a bad set of dentures. That doesn’t bother me. This isn’t the source of the out of tune taste. Excuse me, while I stop for a smoke break – a little nicotine always help me think better.
By gummy, that’s it! The name is simply all wrong.
The name of “New Yorker Salon” conjures up images of some snooty, high dollar joint with women getting $400 pedicures and men getting their torsos waxed. The stereotypical “Chrysler New Yorker” was a darn sight more substantial, something this Dynasty New Yorker Salon just hasn’t quite achieved.
No, there is a much better name that could have been used. But what? Think, think, think.
I believe I know. Dare I say it?
It should have been called NEWPORT!!! Why didn’t they call this a Newport? What a squandered opportunity. What do you call a stripped down Chrysler? A Newport. What would the market have recognized as an economy minded Chrysler, a car that would have fit between the Dynasty and the New Yorker? A Newport.
Chrysler had enthusiasm for this car and it was a good product. It just needed a name that was a better fit.
” Yes, I am familiar with them, as my parent’s had a ’91, my grandparent’s an ’88…”
Someone call the apostrophe police! Doesn’t this site have an editor??
? I don’t see any problem!
“parents” and “grandparents” should not have apostrophes in this context.
Thanks for fixing this, Jim. I’ve proofread this at least a dozen times to no avail; I’m one who doesn’t shy away from an apostrophe!
Jason, Jason, Jason. Do you realize how you have just ruined everyone’s day? After we show everyone what a REAL New Yorker looks like, you have chosen to follow it up with one of these. The effect is like enjoying a fine meal of filet mignon and then being served a stale store-brand cookie for dessert.
Seriously, I wanted to like these when they came out. Finally, a “big” Chrysler with a V6 and a 4 speed automatic, a car just as good as a big Buick. Well, uh, no. These things have not aged really well, either. The 3.3 engines are plenty stout, but the trannys and lots of other mechanical and electrical bits are somewhat brittle. These are always among the very cheapest cars on Craigslist. Which is not a good thing.
I wrote one of these up some time ago. It belonged to a co-worker, and seemed to suffer lots of electrical gremlins like an odometer that stopped working, and finally an intermittent electrical problem in the engine management system that no mechanic could diagnose. It went away.
As for a name, I like your Newport idea. But why not LeBaron – Chrysler called about everything else a LeBaron at some time, why not one of these? LeBaron Classic? LeBaron II? (or XXIV?) LeBaron Brougham? Maybe LeBaron St. Regis.
I’m crestfallen. First, I’m subject to all the apostrophe critiques. Then, I ruin everyone’s day – when I thought this would be a brilliant point-counterpoint comparison with your ’55. 😉
Seriously, the ones I drove were either really good or not. There was no middle zone.
That’s it! The Chrysler Crestfallen ! er, no…
Well-there was always the Canadian market ‘Chrysler’ Dynasty….
I remember these New Yorker Salons . . . . pretty much the Canadian Chrysler Dynasty with a “Salon” badge instead of Dynasty. The plot thickens . . .
The interior of the blue car in the advertisement looks inviting without being overdone. It reminds me a lot of the same general character of the interior of my Dad’s fleet car, a 1974 Old Delta 88 Royale that was also dark blue inside and out. The interior was probably perfect from a market position standpoint.
The outside seems uninspired, and too much Dynasty.
I agree the name was wrong. I recall speculation in Motor Trend in the ’80s that an M-body Newport would appear in light of the popularity of the Fifth Ave., but I guess that when it did appear, it was the Diplomat SE with Chrysler front end cues, which was mostly ignored by retail consumers. Right car, wrong name.
If they had made a successful M-body Newport, and they had carried on with the name in a slightly more inspired fwd version with more Chrysler cues, they may have had some success with it.
I drove my father-in-law’s Dynasty a few times. It reminded me of a scaled down ’80-’90 Caprice with (gasp) better looking and screwed on interior trim bits. But, anything could beat the cheap stuff they did to that poor Caprice. The Dynasty probably did live up to it’s Die Nasty name, its wasn’t around long, but my father-in-law is a nice guy who is lousy with keeping up cars. His are always short lived.
I never understood this car. The interior was the same as the previous year’s base New Yorker, but then they put the Dynasty front end on it so everyone knew you didn’t spring for the Landau. If they wanted another C body, why not give it an eggcrate grille and call it a Plymouth Fury?
Badge engineering at its finest. Took about 10 seconds. Here you go:
> ”Hot damn! Leave it to an engineer to save everyone’s ass! I love this idea. Now, the rest of you sad sacks need to pay attention – this man is an engineer and he has a better grasp of your job than what any of you jokers do.”
I really wish this was a verifiable quote, and not something you made-up.
This is based upon personal experience….
Yeah, but I can’t really repeat that anywhere because it’s not a real quote. Best one I’ve heard personally from one of our customers is: “I’ll believe an engineer; I won’t believe a salesman.”
I am not one to complain with this statement….
I wish all cars were as easy to service as these EEK cars. As a service engineer for most of the latter half of my automotive career, it was my responsibility to monitor in field repair procedures as well as to suggest and implement changes to design to accommodate ease of servicing. As such, when I evaluate a car, I tend to assign a lot of value to how difficult and expensive it is to maintain after purchase. Firstly from an OEM perspective and now from the aftermarket perspective. No mechanic wants nightmare jobs even if they pay well.
“… it was my responsibility to monitor in field repair procedures as well as to suggest and implement changes to design to accommodate ease of servicing”. Wow! Such a job actually existed? You must have been the only one, because most cars appear to have been designed with sadistic intentions toward the poor wrench-turners.
Like with most things, it’s not quite that simple. Since this occurred post production, changes were usually small as you couldn’t make wholesale changes to something until the next major redesign. It has slowed down somewhat these days as computers have sorted out a lot of potentials before car’s hit the street. But still with human nature and 150 million cars on the road just about anything that could happen does. I suggested a redesign of an intake’s channeling so that mice couldn’t easily build a nest once.
If I was in control of everything, we would have A B C cars from 1978 minus the CAFE regulations but with updated emissions that didn’t strangle the engine. RWD Nova, Chevelle/Malibu, and the Impala/Caprice all with a proper selection of economy sixes all the way up to muscle V8s. Great efficient downsized but not too small designs very conventional setups HEI with not compucarbs. Any mechanic with half a brain can work on a 78 Chevy, ultra reliable, rugged, stylish, comfortable, and sized appropriately. Quintessentially American. No wonder 78 was Chevrolet’s all time banner year, never to be repeated again by anyone anytime in the US.
My parents (no apostrophe) had a New Yorker like this….with a Dynasty badge on the glovebox door.
If not a Newport, this could have been a Windsor
I always wondered why they didn’t call it Newport too!
Did Chrysler let the trademark run out? Anti-smoking backlash? Did the cigarette maker threaten legal action? Inquiring minds want to know!
The could have gone the other route and slapped Grand Fury on it and been done with it, it would have given poor Plymouth another car to sell. Though from the trim level, you can see that they were aiming this sucker straight at the LeSabre/Delta 88 bracket, with the fancier New Yorker going against the Electra/98, so keeping the cache of the Chrysler name was important.
I wonder if Mopar ever considered a police package for the D-Nasty?
Indeed there was consideration:
http://dodgedynasty.50megs.com/cool/police.html
I also seem to remember reading elsewhere that just a handful were built, all with the 3.8 liter engine.
Neat, never heard of such a thing, I know that there were some limited K-car police/public service aid/ cars, our Metro police dept ran a few of them in the 80’s.
There was a small municipality down here that had an 2nd gen Intrepid with the police package.
I am sort of a fan off one off/odd ball police packages that were considered in the depths of the 80’s, like the aborted 9C1 Celebrity.
There were quite a few.
If all my old pictures weren’t in storage with a lot of my other stuff, I would have dug out pictures of another oddball police package car I used to own. Chrysler did have, for one year only, an A38 police package on the M-body LeBaron in 1981. I found it in 1998 for $250; it was equipped with a 2 bbl 318 and vinyl bench seats. It ran great but was well used. I later sold it to someone in Indiana.
Incidentally, it came from Florida.
Yeah, those LeBarons – the sheriff of the rural southwestern New York county I lived in ordered a whole fleet of those. Probably the only LeBarons in the county; there was old, summer-people money and there was dog-food seniors. The LeBaron didn’t get much play there; I learned to make it in the mirror as a squad car.
Which wasn’t really easy since the standard Sheriff’s Department coloring in New York State in those days was white with red lettering and a red stripe. Or at least, the three surrounding counties used variations on the same theme.
White LeBaron -> another ticket.
2BBL Police Package….for shame! I have a weird perverse want for a police spec detective St. Regis or Grand Fury.
There’s a couple of documented 1975 A38 A bodies out there . I know of one that was under restoration 12-15 years ago.
Dallas Police Department.
As the website pic shows, the government did use Dynasty’s for MP and Air Force Security Police work. They also used Dodge Spirits and Chevy Corsicas for police work also. A friend who was an MP in the early 90s had both for patrol duty. He said the Dynasty wasn’t bad comfort wise, but the Corsica was nasty to spend a shift in in the Alabama heat. Needless to say, these vehicles did not last long. I also remember Memphis PD had a few K-cars for police cruisers in the late 80s/early 90s with a godawful huge light bar on the roof. I could imagine the only thing worse would be a Tempo police car.
This is the real New Yorker Salon.
Yes, Next to the Imperial, it was the most loaded Chrysler you could get at the time. Just about everything was standard on it; certainly far removed from the humble badge-engineered Salon that is the subject of this post.
I was surprised it took this many replies for someone to bring up the *real* NYS. There is one that I see around town from time to time, with a healthy amount of patina but otherwise solid, and it always impresses me. To take what was the most upmarket model/series in the Chrysler family, save for the Imperial, and apply the nameplate to a tarted-up Dodge, seems sacrilege. Newport would have been far better. Windsor would also work, or even Saratoga.
Yes, an early and underappreciated brougham.
Plymouth would later use the Salon name for their top-trim B-Body Furies; my dad had a ’76. And from what I can tell, they used the same metalized plastic Salon script on these rebadged Dynasties. Never let a die go to waste!
Count me in among the doubters.
I WANTED to like these, but to me, it was a hollowed-out Acclaim – I mean, the doors – panels and all were only an inch thick! Okay, a little more than that, I just felt very vulnerable if I had one and got T-boned!
The body? I felt it was cheap. The front and rear fascias, to be specific. Our Acclaim at the time appeared more substantial – and when my son rammed ours into my workbench, almost pushing through our garage wall one evening into the familly room and actually bowed the wall, I think I was right…
However, what I DID like was that beautiful (to me) formal greenhouse! Truly a 3-box sedan in all its glory.
My brother-in-law who lives in Hazelwood, MO, owned one for 10 years and it served his family very well.
“why not give it an eggcrate grille and call it a Plymouth Fury?”
The Dynasty and Diplomat co-existed for two model years, 1988-89. The GF was around til ’89 also. So, if wanted a Plymouth ‘Dynasty’, it would have needed a different name. Like “Dallas”? “Falcon Crest”?.
If really wanted a Newport ‘EEK’, then the 1990 5th Ave ‘stretched EEK’ should have been NY’er, instead.
I don’t know much about these but why doesn’t this one have the hidden headlights? Is that due to it being a Salon? I used to see these all the time, never really got my attention, that perfectly upright c-pillar is a little abrupt especially without a vinyl top. The Imperial was probably the best looking of the bunch, especially the ’90-93 models.
Yes, the Salons were the “cheap” New Yorker version, so they received the simpler front end treatment from the Dynasty but with a Chrysler grille.
Count me among those who like the last Imperials, though the added length really emphasized how narrow the platform was. These were better proportioned.
Great write up Jason! I’m a huge fan of hypothetical management conversations.
As you and many other commenters agree, I think “New Yorker Salon” was the wrong name for this car. Not only is it not a true New Yorker, but Chrysler also offered the New Yorker Landau and New Yorker Fifth Avenue for that year. Too many New Yorkers, and to the average buyer, is there really a difference in prestige between Salon, Landau, and Fifth Avenue? If I didn’t know Chryslers I’d have had no idea.
Newport seems like it would have been the best option. If that hadn’t dropped the name after 1981, I’m sure this car would’ve been the 1990 Chrysler Newport. There were rumors that Chrysler planned to call the 1983 E-Class “Newport”, and Dave B mentioned a possible M-body Newport. The C-body would’ve logically been the next Newport.
Although seeing as the E-Class became a Plymouth, and it was also Plymouth who received a belated M-body variant, this car could have been a Plymouth. If so, then it probably would’ve been the 1990 Plymouth Gran Fury. This car probably would’ve sold better as a Plymouth, and Plymouth having a decent-selling full-size C-body may have helped it get a variant of the LH in 1993.
Regardless, I do like these cars, especially the waterfall grilles.
My Grandfather’s wife had a Dynasty, a black 91 with a “whorehouse red” interior. It had a bench seat, but it wasn’t a split bench so my Grandfather at 6’2″ could not ride in it as a passenger. Otherwise it was a pretty car. She traded it in 95 for an Intrepid that she kept in mint condition until she passed.
As a Southern California native, when I hear “Newport,” I think “Newport Beach” (which locals refer to as simply “Newport”). In 1990, Newport snobs were driving BMWs, Benzes, and if you were poor, Acura or Lexus. Nothing could be further from the Newport lifestyle than this car.
But I agree with you it would have been a great name for the car. Even better, it would have pissed off all those snobs!
+1 about the “Newport” name and fit to Chryslers.
L.I’s die-nasty moment…
He was not far from it. While he was demonstrating his impeccable people-skills, off in another section of the building, the Di-wreck-tors were also puzzling things out. Whether to pay him to quit; or promote him into the Janitor’s Closet; or just hire someone to walk in and blast his head off.
Lido once said of McNamara, that his coming to Ford was one of the best things to happen to Ford. And his leaving Ford almost as great a day for the company. And 27 years later, the exact same thing could be said of himself and Chrysler and with at least as much truth.
Well…let me rephrase that. His departure was a sorry day at Highland Park…but only because he allowed his ego and his vindictiveness to, not only get the better of him, but to take him over like a zombie. The choice of Eaton over Lutz was either deliberate sabotage or the action of a man crazed with rage and revenge.
I deeply respect both men and don’t like what happened here. Bob blew it by showing disrespect to the man who saved Chrysler. Iacocca was a brilliant automotive executive, more so than Lutz would be, even if he had been able to run Chrysler.
You might say Lee screwed up more by passing over Lutz but I dunno, after all Lutz was the guy calling the product shots at GM prior to its bankruptcy. Yeah I know he didn’t have carte blache but he had as much power as any one guy could have in a corporation the size of GM. Without a doubt he saved Cadillac.
As remarkably talented as Lutz was (and still is) I’m not sure things would have ended up much different for Chrysler with him in place of Eaton. They already had “car guys” in Castaing and Gale.
Iacocca was a car guy too and give him some credit — it’s rare to see those from the non-design or engineering ranks (see Jason’s management conversation above).
Iacocca was an able executive; as a car guy, his talents were evident but limited. His was the Mustang; his was ALSO the K-Badge-Engineering plague at Chrysler. There were several times at several companies where he was needed; and he also showed he was capable of staying beyond his utility.
Lutz…was a flawed person, also. But I don’t think it was GM that proved it. Comparing GM to a smaller outfit…that’s like comparing a power boat to an aircraft carrier. Lutz was making his mark at GM; but changing the bureaucracy and outlook would have taken a lifetime. Lutz didn’t have a lifetime.
Would he have run Chrysler competently? I think so; but I could well be wrong. Would he have sold out like Eaton did, with Daimler waving money in his face? I think in the end, yes – but likely he could have extracted guarantees of Chrysler autonomy. Schrempp, at least, respected Lutz and wanted to keep him. Eaton, he practically tripped over himself shoving him out on the street…here’s your money, Bob, don’t let the door hit you as you leave…
It all could have gone better, had the players been more competent and worldly.
It’s a good thing the exec who named it wasn’t watching “Barnaby Jones”. Imagine driving a car called the Barnaby Jones.
Actually I could see Barnaby Jones driving any of the 1988-1993 New Yorker variations.
The Dodge Dynasty (a Canada only thing I believe) was pretty common here in the GWN back in their day. Most seemed to be driven by working class women with their hair in curlers and a smoke sticking out of their mouths. Many were owned by military families. The vast majority were rentals sold at auction so they were cheap, cheap cheap.
And cheap they were. The 3.3 V-6 was good but that was about the best of it. The entire car was designed to self destruct at 140,000 km. Even at 100,000, you’d be fixing on it, especially things like front end parts, window regulators and electrics. When the magic 140k was reached, the tranny would invariably blow up and the cars weren’t worth the money to fix them. I could go on about how awful these cars were but suffice to say, when I was working for Mopar in 2004, these cars were all gone.
Back in the day my dad always had the big Caddys and Lincoln Continentals. Then, for some reason he got the New Yorker. What a disappointment. He was banking on the old school status and platform of the past and wouldn’t believe that Chrysler would do anything to besmirch it’s reputation. As hard as my brother and I tried to explain badge engineering and what a “K car” was, he was bone headed stubborn set to get one. Plus, he got a “good deal”. A K car is a K car. Lipstick on a pig is still lipstick on a pig. I’ve known K cars to mysteriously last forever, with epic reliability. I’ve seen fleet cars implode in less than a year. Overall, no warm and fuzzy feelings here about this vehicle.
My Father in law bought a brand new New Yorker 5th Ave in 1990 when he retired from the USPS at the age of 70. Neither he nor the car get out and about much these days, but both are still with us!
The last new car my grandparents bought was a light blue ’91 Dynasty. He died in ’93; she would continue using it as her daily driver until a fall put her into a nursing home for the last six years of her life. During summers, my brother and I would each spend a week with her. Almost every day during my stay, we’d get in the Dynasty and go on random short road trips through the surrounding countryside. It had the 3.3L V-6 and that engine could move – I recall her hitting 80-85 down a straight stretch of some of those back country roads without realizing it. She must’ve gotten lucky with the transmission – I don’t recall any incidents with the Ultradrive blowing up; if it did, she’d surely complain about it to my parents and I’d hear about it through the grapevine. It was pretty well equipped for being a non-LE version, with power windows, air conditioning, and stereo cassette (along with one of those instructional cassette tapes with music on the flip side). It rode pretty comfortably and the seats weren’t bad either.
After she was put in the nursing home, the car was kept in storage until another family member bought it for his daily driver. At the time it only had about 59,000 miles on the odometer, and would have even fewer miles if not for me constantly asking my grandmother to go on random drives as a kid.
I miss both my grandmother and the Dynasty. These C-Body Chryslers probably wouldn’t even be on my radar except for a close family member owning one.
My Grandma drove one of these cars to around 500,000 miles around a year ago. My parents bought it new and gave it to her at around 100k, motor and transmission were replaced as time went on. Towards the end it smoked so much grandpa would pour 2 quarts or so of 30w Rotella in the crankcase every other day. The body and chassis developed stress cracks at seams and welds.
That sure looks like the parking lot at the Lion’s Choice restaurant in St. Peters, MO along I-70…love their roast beef sandwiches. Not too impressed with the car though.
I have always been fascinated by “one-year-wonders” and the “name-game” by the marketing experts in car companies. Here is an interesting tid-bit for you: the Dodge Dynasty (as well as the Daytona coupe and Intrepid sedan), was sold as a Chrysler, due to our different dealership organization (so I have read as the reason).
I love in the video, how it specifies that the car is designed to compete with Ford & GM’s sedans. Even in 1990, no thought of competing with a foreign car? What the hell was wrong with these people? Seriously? 🙂
It’s funny to look at cars like this in hindsight. Back in 1990, compare this to what else was out there – like the newly redesigned Honda Accord. The Maxima and Camry were recent redesigns — Acura, Infiniti and Lexus were being introduced into the luxury market. What GM, Ford and Chrysler had at the time didn’t even come close — they were pretty much designs left over from the early 80s. Clearly, the target market for these cars were older people who were used to driving American makes — and, now, maybe wanted something similar to what they had in the past…just maybe smaller with better gas mileage. That seemed to be the strategy of the American car makers in the 80s — basically just make a smaller version of the big cars they were accustomed to making. Still plush, still with vinyl roofs, still with a hood ornament or wire wheels — just with a 4 cyl or 6 cyl instead of an 8. It has been said before that the “this is not your father’s Oldsmobile” campaign that was out during that time lead to the demise of Oldsmobile — as it had alienated their loyal customer base — but they really didn’t have much of a choice, if they were trying to appeal to a younger demographic. And, I suppose, cars like this provided a good value and were comfortable for a certain demographic — they didn’t want a Honda Accord. I’m 40, so grew up with cars from the 70s and 80s — and that’s where my nostalgia lies. Over time, though, I’ve felt that the malaise era should really be reattributed to the 1990s — most were largely just warmed over, plasticky designs that were carried over from the 1980s (e.g. the Pontiac Grand Am, Olds Cutlass Ciera, K-car based Chrysler products immediately come to mind). But, again, part of being a car enthusiast for many of us is nostalgia…not necessarily what the best car is by modern standards…..
Hindsight or bias? Because there’s a lot of generalization and unfairness in what you’ve said.
I was very hopeful for Chrysler styling, when they introduced the 1985 Chrysler Lebaron GTS, the 1987 Chrysler Lebaron coupe and convertible, and the 1987 Dodge Shadow. Competitive designs with anything Ford and GM were offering. If not quite up to the Taurus and Thunderbird aero design standards.
When I first saw spy pics for the Spirit/Acclaim, and Dynasty/New Yorker, I didn’t fully appreciate these unusually boxy prototypes, were in fact close to production designs. I was extremely disappointed. Car lines that looked inexcusably more dated than the 1982 GM A-bodies. Insulting and embarrassing, would describe the feeling at the time for me.
The 1979 R-Bodies (St. Regis, Gran Fury, New Yorker) looked more progressive than the 1988 Dynasty/New Yorker. And those were very conservative designs. AMC-level product planning confusion. Paul is right, Iacocca was overrated.
Something I didn’t see mentioned was that this was right around the time the Chrysler TC by Maserati fiasco was occurring. So, that envisioned board meeting could very well be something that happened as Iacocca was surely scrambling for something, anything, to improve Chrysler’s bottom line to take the board’s heat off of him for trusting De Tomaso.
And, thus, the New Yorker Salon was born. Not exactly a game-changer like some of Iacocca’s past triumphs but, at the time, I’m sure he was looking for anything he could get on the quick and cheap.
Agreed, a different name was needed. Dodge Monaco would have been my vote. Above a Polara, below a New Yorker or an Imperial. It might have prevailed on a few more souls to purchase one who may have felt they could afford a Dodge but not a Chrysler.
Man that trunk lid sure looks a lot like one off an Aries/Reliant.
Wonder what ever happened to that Jr. VP of Marketing. Probably went on to a big job on Wall Street. Maybe working in an ad agency who had big car companies as customers.
Dodge Monaco was being used at the time, to name the Dodge-branded Eagle Premier.
I’m pretty sure this and the Acclaim had identical sheet metal from the front doors back. They didn’t even do something much different with the tail lights.
This and the Acclaim share not a single body panel or fixture. Door handles and hinges, sure, but that’s the level of it.
Let me preface that I don’t have a big issue with component sharing. If something works, it works. No need to reinvent the wheel. But oh do the k car roots run pretty deep on these, the acorns fell not far from the aries/reliant tree:
front cross-member:
https://www.tascaparts.com/oem-parts/mopar-crossmember-asm-frt-susp-c-4656078?c=Zz1mcm9udC1zdXNwZW5zaW9uJnM9c3VzcGVuc2lvbi1jb21wb25lbnRzJmw9MSZuPUFzc2VtYmxpZXMgUGFnZSZhPWNocnlzbGVyJm89bmV3LXlvcmtlciZ5PTE5OTAmdD1zYWxvbiZlPTMtM2wtdjYtZ2Fz
Looks to be the inner support panel for the front hinges and cowl:
https://www.tascaparts.com/oem-parts/mopar-support-assembly-4512139?c=Zz1ib2R5JnM9c3RydWN0dXJhbC1jb21wb25lbnRzLWFuZC1yYWlscyZsPTExJm49QXNzZW1ibGllcyBQYWdlJmE9Y2hyeXNsZXImbz1uZXcteW9ya2VyJnk9MTk5MCZ0PXNhbG9uJmU9My0zbC12Ni1nYXM%3D
Some more mopar copy and paste, shared with Lebaron GTS/Lancer!
https://www.tascaparts.com/oem-parts/mopar-support-assembly-4512139?c=Zz1ib2R5JnM9c3RydWN0dXJhbC1jb21wb25lbnRzLWFuZC1yYWlscyZsPTExJm49QXNzZW1ibGllcyBQYWdlJmE9Y2hyeXNsZXImbz1uZXcteW9ya2VyJnk9MTk5MCZ0PXNhbG9uJmU9My0zbC12Ni1nYXM%3D
Oddly, the Acclaim does not show in the list, perhaps a data entry error:
https://www.tascaparts.com/oem-parts/mopar-inner-panel-assembly-5256365?c=Zz1ib2R5JnM9cm9ja2VyJmw9OSZuPUFzc2VtYmxpZXMgUGFnZSZhPWNocnlzbGVyJm89bmV3LXlvcmtlciZ5PTE5OTAmdD1zYWxvbiZlPTMtM2wtdjYtZ2Fz
The two major flaws in these cars were the ultradrive for obvious reasons, and their narrow width due to being genetic descendants of the aries/reliant. I imagine mopar was a bit strapped for cash around the time these were developed, there was only so much money to go around, and they were trying to compete as a full line auto maker with Ford and GM. Yes the minivan and Cherokee were home runs, but there wasn’t much else to generate profits. These were decent efforts, but what was needed was an Accord or Camry fighter, and these were like sending a biplane against a Zero.
We’re using different definitions of “body panel and fixture”, but we can unite behind the common cause of beating the crap out of a dead horse.
Daniel I agree about the body panels, clearly nothing shared, they were distinctive enough from the lesser models with a hint of family roots in their outward appearance. Roughly the time these came out, I was working in an auto body shop that had a business relationship with the local Dodge dealer, and shortly after it went belly up in a prelude to the 90s recession, we struck a deal with the Honda dealer up the street (see what I did there). Quite the experience going from the one to the other. I repaired cars from estimate and negotiation with the insurance company, frame pulling and parts replacement and all the way to paint and final buff. The difference in quality of the two makes was both obvious and sad.
CC effect down under. Last week I saw a car like this on a trailer going through my town. I didn’t see the front, but it had the rear part of the roof in vinyl, white on white.
Once I got over seeing one (they were never sold here), and got over the idea that somebody actually imported one (and not all the other cool Mopars they might have bought), I couldn’t help thinking of Chryslers past (and Chryslers yet to come). “How are the mighty fallen….”
Funny you say this. As a white on white 1990 Chrysler New Yorker had been a fixture at this address on Cooper Street in Ottawa, Canada since before 2009. Until, it disappeared earlier this year. Going back 12 years in streetview, you can see it parked in the same spot.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4197099,-75.6880675,3a,37.5y,206.88h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9_FhGS-la7q8-jZImfUcSw!2e0!5s20210501T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
That looks JUST like the car I saw. And it disappeared earlier this year, you say?
What was that about the CC effect? 🙂
Chrysler was apparently considering reviving the Newport name a few years ealier, not for a C platform Dynasty clone but rather a M body Diplomat clone to be slotted beneath the Fifth Avenue for those looking to save a few dollars or who didn’t like the uber-Brougham style of the Fifth. Evidence is these owners’ manuals shipped with early 1984 cars:
Wow, never knew about that. They also later. revived Saratoga for the international, Chrysler-badged version of the Acclaim/Spirit. I remember seeing those arrive in Amsterdam in the mid 90’s
Chrysler/Mercedes/Fiat security needs to know how you heard those conversations…
Though similar, I preferred the non-1990 base NYers to the Dynasty-based 1991 model. The real New Yorkers have two advantages – a low-liftover trunk lid that opens down to bumper level (rather than above the taillights as in the Dynasty) and to a slightly larger luggage compartment, and covered rectangular quad sealed beams that let you choose the lamps with the best throw pattern (1988-1991 only, as later model used hard-to-find smaller rectangular headlamps with fewer choices). Interiors didn’t change much from 1988 to 1992, with the 93 picking up the Landau/5th Avenue grade interior trim, but with metal roofs outside.
I’m sure Dodge really failed to appreciated see this Chrysler show up to parasite off of their Dynasty.