There was a sad and dark time in the 1980s when the world was shrinking, and the big American sedan was forced to shrink with it. The conventional wisdom was that the only way the traditional sedan would survive would be to reduce to 60 percent of its former self, but in a way that left the proportions of the traditional car largely intact. DeVilles, Park Avenues and Ninety Eights held their breath, tightened their belts and switched their drive wheels, but lived to cater to their graying customers another day (or decade).
But pity the poor New Yorker. By 1983, it was a glorified K car with a mere four cylinders. This was the first four cylinder Chrysler since the 1920s. Oh, the indignity of it all. True, there was the Turbo version, but make no mistake: the car was a bitter pill for the traditional Chrysler buyer to swallow. Many, in fact, refused to swallow it at all, opting instead for the educated Volare that became the Fifth Avenue. How the mighty had fallen. No golden lions were to be found anywhere around a Chrysler dealer.
By 1985, Chrysler was out of crisis mode and was planning for the future. Lee Iacocca was still running the show, and knew that his strategy to bet the farm on small front drive cars had been unavoidable, but limited his options. Fuel prices were receding, and the few V8 rear drive sedans that the industry had kept from scrapping were selling in ever larger numbers. He undoubtedly knew that the Fifth Avenue was a flawed solution, and a new Chrysler flagship was necessary. The C body was to return.
But not the C body of yore – the one with torsion bars and leaf springs and fender mounted turn signals. That car was gone forever. This would be a modern C body that would make concessions to the realities of the New Chrysler Corporation. The greatest of these would be the car’s width, because the new C body would essentially be a stretched K body.
A modern flagship would have to be front drive, but six cylinders would now be providing the power. The car would be luxuriously trimmed and would feature the cues familiar to lovers of the big New Yorkers of old, both inside and out. The car would be competitive in every way with the front drive Ninety Eight and Park Avenue. Only narrower.
Mechanically, the car was pretty much a Chrysler minivan. When the redesigned New Yorker hit the market as a 1988 model, it was equipped with the Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 coupled to a three speed automatic with a lockup torque converter. The following year, the car got the four speed Ultradrive transmission. The 1989 model saddled with both the Mitsu engine and the first year Ultradrive is probably not the version to own today. By 1990, the new Chrysler-built 3.3 V6 would replace the Mitsu unit (and its ever-present blue cloud). But the Ultradrive (now known only as the A604) remained.

The Ultradrive counts as the first full-on fiasco of the New Chrysler Corporation. From the company that brought us the legendary Torqueflite, this was a real letdown. It is true that there were some severe manufacturing issues, but sources on Allpar indicate that much of the problem came from using the wrong fluid. The unit was designed for a new fluid (ATF+4). However, dealers, mechanics and owners had been pouring Dextron into Mopar automatics since the ’50s, and the need for the new fluid was not universally understood.
Why the early dipsticks and owners manuals in the cars themselves advocated Dextron in a pinch (when it was actually wholly unsuitable) is a really good question. It appears that the ghosts of the old Chrysler Corporation had not been completely exorcised from the premeses.

By the time this ’91 model came along, Chrysler was turning out a pretty decent large-ish sedan. But the car was never really competitive with the GM offerings. Chrysler faced some of the same constraints that Studebaker had faced a generation earlier – the need to make a small car and a large car share the same basic structure. The Studebaker Land Cruiser was a long car on a genuine big-car wheelbase (CC here), but showed its family resemblance to the compact Champion in its unusually narrow width. This New Yorker had the same problem. The new C body shared the basic underpinnings with the K body, a constraint that the big front drive Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs did not face. The GM cars were substantially wider, and thus roomier on the inside and better proportioned on the outside.

But still, the Chrysler faithful finally had a passable modern luxury car. In its second year (1989), Chrysler sold over one hundred thousand of them, in addition to another twenty six thousand Fifth Avenues (in that car’s final year). Through the end of this version’s run in 1993, Chrysler would steadily sell at least fifty thousand every year. The dropoff may have been due to the new fwd Fifth Avenue that hit the showrooms in 1991 to replace the ancient rwd version. The new Fifth Avenue was a slightly stretched and plushified fwd New Yorker. The same basic car, but longer (and with an optional 3.8 V6).
This car also shows what a conservative place Chrysler had become by the early 1990s under Iacocca. This car screamed “playing it safe” from every perspective. The excitement would have to wait for the Bob Lutz-led product renessance that got rolling towards the end of this car’s run.
Ever since Lincoln offered a Bill Blass Mark V in a navy and white color scheme with a fake convertible roof, this look became a perennial among the more – ahem – traditional cars. I will confess that I have a certain affection for the look, and have seen several Town Cars, box Mercuries, Cadillacs and other big sedans with this sort of nautical scheme (most commonly a white car with navy blue interior and fabric roof). To me, the look improves the fwd New Yorker.
This car belongs to a co-worker, and I have actually driven it. It has somewhere around 140 thousand miles (the odometer quit at about 125 thousand) and has been owned by someone in her extended family for its whole life. If you have ever driven a Chrysler minivan, the experience is very familiar. The 3.3 V6 is plenty of engine for this car (it weighs about 1500 pounds less than a ’90s Chrysler minivan) and provides plenty of the good old fashioned American torque that a Chrysler buyer would expect.

Another observation: Chrysler spared no expense in the quality of leather supplied for the upholstery. At twenty years of age, the drivers seat looks virtually new, despite it being several years since the car has seen the inside of a garage. And I will report that it is quite comfortable. In truth, I kind of like the little thing. And it is little. Parked next to any recent minivan (or even a last generation Accord), this car’s K body roots are apparent. Luxury has gone large again.
Sadly, the little New Yorker needs to find a new home. It has been getting a mite temperemental in its old age, sometimes starting, sometimes not. An old car with formerly modern electronics systems is not so inexpensive to own if one does not twist his own wrenches. So, New York New York has been replaced (with my old ’99 Town & Country with a fresh transmission, of all things, but that is another story). But driving a minivan just won’t be the same for the owner. The T&C does not have that luxurious navy blue leather, and there is certainly no jaunty looking fake convertible top. So, if you want something to drive while you wear your yachting cap and white loafers (feeling like either Thurston Howell III or your grandfather) I know where you can get just the thing.









My dad was a big fan of full size Chryslers until the big downsizing wave. He switched to Lincolns in the mid-1980s. I rented one of these New Yorkers to get back from college. I was promised a Town Car or Sedan DeVille from the rental agency, but when I went to pick it up, they gave me a New Yorker. My dad told me they did a bait and switch on me.
Speaking of the nautical scheme, see my daily driver in the photo.
Does that daily driver have the 4.9 or the 4.6 Northstar? BTW personal bonus points for the 4.9 in the new body style. I’m always facinated by a mishmash of old and new – ie: old engine in new body.
Bonus- It’s a 4.9. From what I’ve read, I’m lucky; those early Northstars are very expensive to repair. Car still has under 100,000 miles on it.
I love your car. Maybe it is just me, but that navy blue fabric roof improves almost any old-style sedan it has ever been put on. Actually, your DeVille is one of the newer ones to receive the treatment. It was a fairly popular look in the midwest for a time.
There was a 90-91 Grand Marquis in this style that was driven by an old guy in my neighborhood a few years ago – I really wanted that car.
I love that generation Cadillac – and the fabric roof actually suits the car well!
This is traditional American Luxury for a new era done wrong. I understand the need to make as much hay as possible while the sunshines but to me these have always been an abomination.
For FWD American “CAFE friendly” luxury done right see the 1992-2005 LeSabre, Park Avenue, 88, and Ninety-eight. If I was a Chrysler fan and in the right income bracket at the end of the 80s I would have bought a RWD M-body Fifth Avenue and held on to it until the first RWD hemi 300 was built.
These cars were widely reviled when new, but IME driving one now reveals a fairly appealing, trim little sedan with a very pleasant interior. The drivetrain is crude, but the later V6es had a bit of grunt and were fairly durable when cared for properly.
@geigs: Nice car — to me that was the last big, stylish Caddy. They never looked right after they opened up the rear wheel openings… Probably didn’t help the way they opened them up — looked like it was done with tin snips at the end of the assembly line.
Right, and you could always opt for an Imperial for a little more show. And thanks for the call out. I agree with you. 1997 was the first year of the wheel openings.
Your thoughts echo mine on this. I wanted to like these back then, but just couldn’t get there. But the couple of brief times I drove this one, I kind of liked it.
I should have given a bigger shout-out to the Chrysler 3.3 V6, which is almost slant 6-like in terms of durability. This was the first new engine fully developed under Iacocca’s reign, and may be one of the best of its time. The one in my old 99 T&C would be ready for a quart of oil at about 3000 miles even at 209K on the odo. I am told that these will routinely run to 300K with even minimal maintenance. The GM 3.8 eventually got there too, but after some teething issues. I believe that the 3.3 was quite stout right out of the box.
The 3.3 is indeed stout. When I worked at Chrysler, I only saw one failure, that caused from going 80,000 km without even a single oil change. Amazing that it lasted that long. We saw loads of them because Mopar had put them in so many products, especially the Caravan. The rest of the car, however….
By the time this New Yorker came around, most of the K Car bugs had been worked out. The drivetrains were not too bad except for the A604. It is not just a fluid issue with the A604. There was not enough friction material in the clutch packs which led to premature failure, especially on the 1-2 planetary. Any owner would be lucky to get 140,000 km from an A604, and with AWD this would be much less. Also the Ultradrive suffered terrible quality control and some were better than others. It was the electrics that make this cars hard to own at this stage. When I was at Chrysler, we had one customer who just loved this car but there was always an electrical issue dogging him. He spent a lot of money trying to keep it on the road in drivable condition.
The 3.3 in our ’92 Caravan was indeed utterly reliable. We finally got a “keeper” transmission – on the fourth go-around! Unbelievable. And we never put the wrong fluid in them, didn’t have any of them long enough to need to put fluid in them!
The Chrysler dealer I worked at got the A604 delivered by the five ton truck load. The techs made good money on them; it was a six hour job but with practice they could do it in three.
I inherited my grandmother’s ’89. Quick enough, smooth ride, comfortable, and I almost always got 30-33 mpg on the highway cruising at 70-80 across the West Texas High Plains. Great car when it’s seen for what it was, not for what it wasn’t designed to be.
Oh, this makes me miss my old Dynasty. Would have been a great car to pass on to a teen driver someday.
Good stuff, here. That interior holds up against anything GM threw at us back then. Especially the handsome leather.
The Chrysler 3.3 in a mini van I had years ago gave the little fridge on wheels surprising zip.
Nice car. I always liked these, especially the Fifth Avenue version. A friend of my Dad’s got a ’91 Fifth Avenue in about 1998. It had hit a deer (on the driver’s side doors, of all places) and since he worked in the body shop at the local Dodge dealer, he fixed it himself, drove it for a while, then sold it. It was white with burgundy leather and the lacy spoke alloys. It was a very sharp car.
Finally! The long-awaited CC of the official blue-haired ladies car (safety-goggle sunglasses and disabled parking permit hangtag sold separately).
My Stepdad has one of these still (a 1991 with the 3.3) and I don’t know if there’s anything I like about it.It floats, and can’t stay on a straight path. it has the gawd awful “brougham” seats in cloth (that have held up remarkably well though). Maybe the 3.8L of this generation of engine is better but to me it seems more sleepy and lifeless than even a Vulcan V6. There’s a moderate amount of torque through a good part of the rev band, but no useful peaks, really. It’s a good dull OHV V6, but if I were to pick a better dull OHV V6, I’d point to a 3800 or the Vulcan first.
I’d choose a Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron over these because at least they have a slim chance of having a decent handling suspension. Sad that the 3.3 wasn’t offered (couldn’t fit?) in those. Or outfitting a 3.3/Torqueflite in your favorite K-Car? I wonder if that drivetrain would fit in a ’86 Town & Country Convertible.
Say what you will, but we owned K-cars and their offspring for almost 20 years and weren’t disappointed. Our Plymouth salesman let me drive a new Imperial back in 1991. A very nice ride. Trouble is, I liked the bathtub Roadmaster, too, but as I’ve said several times, anything more than just-above-basic-transportation was simply out of the budget, plus those were our young family years (80s-early ’90′s) and guess where all our energy and money went!
But…I’m still cheap, but have moved up to my Impala, so I’m making progress!
Sorry, every time I notice a vinyl or fabric roof with door seams in it, I just go nuts.
When vinyl started showing up on ’60s cars, it was on two-door hardtops shaped like convertible tops, like this Impala. Some even had creases where the ribs would be that looked sharp in steel as well. That Continental top looks fine. (Below its belt line is another matter.)
But a four-door sedan, with door seams cutting through the “top”? The chrome-tipped “seam” makes it even more egregious. Is there fabric on that B-pillar? I saw a Caddy once with half the fuel door cutting through the “top”. Must be the engineer in me, it’s such a jarring conflict of form and function, my teeth hurt. Sorry, and thanks for the chance to vent.
I feel your pain!
I’m definitely not the target market for this car. That said, I would have liked them a lot more if I had never driven a Dynasty. I had gotten a Dynasty as a dealer loaner car, the damned thing died on I-79 just north of Pittsburgh, left us stranded there for hours until a State Policeman came by and called a tow truck for us. There’s a reason why I referred to those cars as Die-Nastys. This car looked too much like a tarted up Dynasty, I could never warm up to it.
It looked like a Dynasty when it was released, and what’s really sad, the LH cars that came after just blew these things out of the water, no matter their charms. I’m glad to hear they have some redeeming qualities…
Stylistically you’re right about the LHs, but they brought a whole new set of bugs that, in my experience, had been worked out on the K-creatures by the early ’90s.
I don’t know much about these, but I recall reading that another weak point of the FWD Chrysler transmissions, in the minivan at least, was the torque converter lock-up. More specifically, the computer modulated the solenoid that provided fluid pressure to lock-up the converter clutch, so that engagement of the clutch would not be sudden and jarring. Well, they didn’t provide enough pressure to prevent the clutch from slipping when it was fully engaged. This would burn-out the lockup and cause lots of heat build-up in the ATF. Apparently, you can’t just bypass the system and tie the solenoid to +12V either because it will overheat and burn out.
I read about someone’s exploits on their website to bypass this system. They found another signal output from the transmission control computer that was a squarewave at higher duty cycle, and was guaranteed to be active any time the computer would also wish to engage the converter lockup. He made a circuit that detected any pulsing on the converter lockup line and activated a relay which fed the higher duty-cycle signal to the lockup solenoid instead. Apparently it was successful.
IDK, OHV engine, hidden headlights, down-sized exterior, button-tufted seats, a digital dashboard, great visibility, and tons of interior room.
I can dig it, sounds like a good representative of the times.
If I ever find a good condition 3.8L Imperial from this era, the Diplomat is getting a For Sale sign in the windshield.
Its horrible to look at the clown car proportions certainly dont say luxury while it may be ok inside having to see it to get in would make me puke. Lido really did live by the Banham motto are you really sure he didnt just reskin the awful Mitsubishi Magna because all the mechanicl ailments are identical.
i worked in the rental car industry during this cars heyday. I remember the first year Dynasty had a 4 cylinder engine. back in the day, Chrysler leasing gave a “complimentary” fully loaded car for every 50 or so cars leased. Needless to say the boss and the owners had a New Yorker, 5th Avenue or finally an Imperial based on this platform. I always joked back then that the bosses Imperial needed bull horns on the front. As mid-management, I got to drive a Lebaron turbo, had a 2 door and then a 4 door. Later on I got the bosses hand me down Cherokee Laredo. He hated it. God I miss those days in the car rental industry.
Like Laurence I would have gone for one of the AA bodies as well. They had a little less of the “play it safe” attitude in the same basic package.
One of the owners at a plumbing company I worked at had a Dynasty of this vintage. It took a beating and at over 200k it was finally sidelined by a catastrophic rear suspension failure. He was pulling up to the shop one day and the right rear spring broke through the tower in the trunk..
Having just googled it I can see where this K car originated, Mitsubishi sawed a Tredia in half down the middle widened it mounted an Astron 2.6 crossways mailed it to Aussie as the new Magna it was a modern aerodynamicly efficient car well recieved but the trans was crap the manuals are ok but the autos could not do 80k kms and the blocks liked to crack the later model was also built as a Hyundai Sonata had a V6 that likes to blow headgaskets crack heads and exhaust manifolds burn valves and eat trannys The stretched wheelbase was not used by Mitsi.
Lido picked this up changed the glasshouse and glued on a Chrysler badge and anything else he could get away with. Without the Aussie spec suspension these cars would have a nice soft isolating ride Japanese Brougham style yeah I can see why they were popular the basics were well thought out just not baked quite long enough.
“The C body was to return.”
Ouch, JP, don’t tease us like that!
+1
I rented one of these for a trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles via the famous California Highway 1. I can tell you it’s totally the wrong car for such a trip. My friend got seasick from all the pitching and wallowing…
I think this is a prime example of cars created by accountants (or cynics). All the luxury ‘features’ of the days are ticked, but there’s nothing really substantial beneath. Landau roof? Check. Comfy sofa-like leather bench seat? Check. Chrome? Check. Fake wood vertical dash with column shifter? Check. Soft and quiet ride? Check. And for the piece of the resistance: a hidden headlights. Ooooh, the luxury car buyers won’t be able to resist those! But the whole thing is about as soulless as can be. Beauty is indeed skin deep with this thing. Surprising that this car was as successful as it is in its day. I guess Iacocca really knows what American consumer wants.
In Iacocca’s defense, he had just pulled Chrysler out of a death spiral and was being conservative. It was his belief that only GM had the resources to put competitive products all up and down the market (hindsight shows that he and everyone else vastly overrated GM’s abilities) and that the smaller companies had to wisely pick and choose where they would make a stand.
In 1985 or 86 when development was starting on this car, the reasonable assumption was that fuel prices would soon resume their upward march, and Lee was unwilling to place a big bet on a new platform for big cars – it was an unacceptable risk to a company that could not afford to lose the investment if the car did not sell. The only existing platform available to base a new car off of was the K body, so that is what they used. There was only so much you could do to take a K and make it a luxury car, and I think that Chrysler did an amazing job considering what it had to work with.
Within a few years, Chrysler was in better shape and big cars were a safer bet. These factors (and Bob Lutz and Francois Castaing) brought the LH cars, which were quite competitive. But durability-wise, I think that the fwd New Yorker/Fifth Avenue/Imperial were much better cars than their successors. If only the LHs had been as good (long term) as this version of the C car, history would be different. Although, isn’t that the whole tragi-comedy of post WWII Chrysler? The good ones are unappealing and the appealing ones are no good.
I think I’m stuck in the spam filter!
This was the car my late grandma got after her and my grandpa’s fiasco with the late 80s FWD 98 Regency. She got a New Yorker Salon with a Cabriolet roof. It was comfortable and I did notice that it wasn’t much wider than my 89 Plymouth Sundance. She stopped driving it after her stroke. My uncle pretty much took over the car. I was allowed to drive it to take her to the market or to visit her equally aging and ill sisters. She never complained about my driving; we were both fast, impatient drivers, and I’d get her wherever she needed to go. It was comfortable, but not as luxurious as the car pictured here – the seats were covered in a cashmere-like cloth and it only had an AM-FM stereo. The roof got a couple of permanent stains in it; my uncle bought some shit that allegedly was designed to clean the cloth-like cabriolet roof. Someone took his money. The tranny went out on it twice and there was always something wrong with the suspension – it made clunking noises that the mechanics could not figure out. Somehow my uncle got the title from her and used the New Yorker to pay for his Dodge Intrepid. He is a pretty underhanded SOB, always was. Greedy as hell. My grandma passed in 99; she and her four surviving sisters all died within months of each other.