It’s common knowledge that the short-lived Chrysler R-bodies were a catastrophic flop for the then-struggling automaker. With the majority of them going to fleet sales, these R-bodies took a lot of abuse in the public sector, and were therefore mostly obsolete within decade. Even those that went to private customers, particularly the über-plush New Yorker Fifth Avenue, didn’t seem to stick around quite as long as a comparable GM B-body or Ford Panther.
Even considering Chrysler’s historic overall third place in sales behind GM and Ford, 1979 R-body sales were weak and of course, for 1980 and 1981 they were just pathetic. For various reasons, the R-bodies failed to move in the volumes that a full-size American sedan should have in these days.
Some of these, such as their rather prehistoric underpinnings, production delays, quality issues, poor fuel economy, larger size relative to the competition, and the initial lack of a Plymouth variant, are more obvious explanations for their failure. Yet, all of these combined still don’t account for why sales plummeted to such extremes.
Despite what was underneath, visually, the R-bodies were all-new, both inside and out. The Newport and Gran Fury, with their cleaner styling, were especially handsome. With their added length, rounded corners, and thinner pillars all-around, the Newport came off much sleeker and airier than a Ford LTD.
A large part of its airiness was owed to Chrysler retaining frameless windows against the industry trend (likely as a weight saving measure). While not true pillarless hardtops, chromed A- and B-pillars helped evoke the hardtop look. Unfortunately, these frameless windows also let in more road and wind noise, something not particularly appreciated by buyers looking for a comfortable full-size sedan.
The open feeling continued inside, with plenty of space, visibility, and a lack of stuffiness in its materials. This particular Regent Red car sports the standard cloth-and-vinyl bench with fold down center armrest in matching red. Yes, this was the standard interior! Try finding upholstery and a seat design that nice in any Caprice or LTD, or even any Marquis or LeSabre for that matter!
This picture the seller posted better captures the still-vivid, unfaded red color of the interior.
In the past, I have expressed disdain for this instrument panel design, which was shared with the J-body personal luxury coupes. In hindsight, I may have been a bit quick to judge. When compared to what sat before front passengers in any other large American car, Chrysler’s design looks far more modern and cohesive.
The Newport’s dash looked especially tasteful, with glossy black trim in place of that popular-as-ever matte phony wood. Full-instrumentation and round gauges were also major pluses.
That rear seat looks especially comfortable. Call me a commoner, but I’d much rather have these fine corduroy seats over loose-pillow, button-tufted velour.
Under the hood of this Newport is the optional 318 (5.2L) V8. With a 2-barrel carburetor, for 1979 it made 135 horsepower and 250 ft. lbs. of torque. Its single transmission choice was the tried-and-true TorquFlite 3-speed automatic. The 318 was bookended by the standard 225 (3.7L) Slant Six and the 360 (5.9L) V8. With the optional 4-barrel, the 360 made a total output of 195 horsepower and 280 ft. lbs. of torque.
While that was plenty power for most private customers, as Paul can attest, many police departments around the country had trouble getting their R-body squad cars past 85 mph. Zero to sixty time for the as-listed 3,860 lb. Newport with the 360 V8 was clocked in at 9.8 seconds (the 318 did it in a more modest 13.5 seconds).
As a Chrysler, these rather nice-looking 15-inch full wheel discs were standard. I think they give the car a modern look, as opposed to the optional wire wheels.
The ’79 Newport’s egg crate grille was easily the most handsome of all the R-bodies. It’s true that I’m a big fan of the Chrysler Pentastar hood ornaments that would arrive in 1980, but this car’s “C” hood ornament was another small styling touch that pointed towards simplicity and modernity, especially over the ’78 Newport’s gilded coat of arms hood ornament.
As we all know from Paul’s numerous curbside classic finds, Oregon’s climate is like the fountain of youth for old cars. The undercarriage’s lack of rust indicates it probably spent its whole life in Oregon.
I could literally go on and on about this car. I wasn’t alive then, so I can’t say what my feelings on the R-body would have been like when they were new. From a present perspective however, I do really like these cars, and have deep interest in them. The only running example I can ever recall seeing in recent memory, several years ago in rural Connecticut, was a cream-colored rusted out New Yorker Fifth Avenue.
While their obscurity plays a huge part in my fascination with the R-bodies, I truly find them attractive vehicles (at least in Newport form). While they had their shortcomings, I think these cars get an undeserved amount of hate. As others have brought up before, if Chrysler had continued production a few more years, I wonder if R-body sales would’ve picked up along with other large cars as the economy improved.
But the truth is that they were only on the market for 3 years, and the top-selling Newport sold less than 80,000 units over the course of production. I’m willing to bet that “civilian” models like this one accounted for less than 25 percent of that total. Now I’m really starting to sound like a used-car salesman, but if you like these Newports, this has to be one of the best ones left in existence. The price keeps climbing on this 89,000 mile example, so get it before it’s gone!
Related Reading:
This car is in freakishly good condition. Red is prone to fade and there is none here. The underside looks to have been painted over in black — with just 89K miles, and coming from Oregon, it shouldn’t have needed that. Why do dealers do that kind of stuff? The worst is when they steam clean an engine and then clear coat it. Yuck.
Too bad this car couldn’t have been purchased directly from the private owner. I like to hear the story right from the horse’s mouth and the old guys selling these love that you are interested.
As nice as it looks always run a Carfax to confirm no accidents, number of owners, true mileage and locations that the car was owned. I can’t imagine buying a car without a Carfax.
You can’t do a Carfax on vehicles before 1981. And even if you could, there wasn’t enough computer infrastructure back then to provide the information you might be looking for…
In Calif. you need a smog check every two years and those appear on the Carfax report along with the mileage. Not sure how far back the Carfax data goes but I would say at least 20-25 years. Let’s say 1994 is the earliest, I’d rather have 94-2014 on this New Yorker than nothing. If 1981 is the earliest that would be awesome, I didn’t think it went back that far.
It has nothing to do with how good or bad the infrastructure for data collection was, CarFax just doesn’t support pre-1980 VIN numbers. There could be plenty of info on file for this car, but as far as CARFAX is concerned, its VIN doesn’t exist.
Has to the a 17 digit VIN, standardized since 1981, to enter a CARFAX report.
There are other companies that sell this information besides Carfax you know. [Carfax is lacking in this field].
This is excellent info. Carfax has avoided me wasting time to go see a car that I won’t like. I knew there was a cut off for the 17 digit VIN but did not know the year.
Even if the car is post 1981, Carfax is late to the gate and not always accurate with the info!!
When researching a used 2010 vehicle this past winter (Nov 2013), Carfax only had “one” record on the car in question and it wasn’t accurate.
I sent a complaint to Carfax and they just blew me off with a “Happy Talk” explanation stating that they are not responsible for anything. No attempt was made to correct the info.
Another agency had multiple records on the car and they appeared to be consistent with the vehicle.
“I sent a complaint to Carfax and they just blew me off with a “Happy Talk” explanation stating that they are not responsible for anything. No attempt was made to correct the info.”
===================================
Hey Carfax…I’m reversing the credit card billing because it’s not worth paying someone who is not responsible for anything…!
GPoon – keep in mind they can only collect information that is reported by repair shops and insurance companies.
Dave,
Please read my entire comment. I had consulted a second reporting agency and they had complete and accurate records on the car I was researching.
In my opinion, Carfax had a PP attitude when it came to customer service.
This car suffered from a perfect storm: a horribly botched launch with quality problems galore that gave these a bad name early on. Add in the second fuel crisis of 1979 which sent fuel prices skyrocketing into the early 80s and also a horrible economy. The final kicker was that Chrysler’s demise was expected at any time, certainly through most of 1980.
I continue to maintain that had these been developed as much as the M body (which wasn’t much development) these would have been very popular in the 1980s and would have given the Panthers a run for their money after GM killed the big B/C body cars after 1984. Remember that Panther sales over at Ford were pretty pathetic too in 1980-81, but they had the benefit of a stronger opening year in 1979.
Always thought that the Newport/Gran Fury was a bit too plain and boxy. However, that seemed to be the current style, and these seemed to have better proportions than the Panthers. As much as I shill for these, maybe I need to buy one some day. That’ll probably teach me. 🙂
That’s what I was kinda thinking. Panther sales did pick up significantly, and with the K-car’s success, Chrysler’s fortunes dramatically improved in short time. With minor updates, Chrysler may very well possibly been able to get a whole decade out of the R-body, much like the Panthers and Caprice.
To get the Loan Guarantess, Lido had to show that he was ‘making fuel efficient cars’, so he killed them off. GM and Ford were sharpening their axes too, but were lucky to have waited a bit.
Still in the long run, trucks and Jeep(R) were what eventually became Chrysler’s bread and butter.
This is not true. The loan guarantee drama went on in 1979. The L body was the only 4 cylinder car they had, and the fact that the K body was so far along in its development (but still over a year from production) turned out to be huge in selling Congress and the public on the company’s future viability.
The J and R body cars were killed for one reason only: Iacocca did not believe (in 1979-82) that Chrysler had a realistic chance as a full line car maker. GM was at a market share peak and was flush with cash and could afford to blanket the market with new products. Iacocca saw Chrysler’s only realistic chance in carefully choosing to compete in markets where it had a realistic chance of being competitive. He saw the market for rwd big cars as being doomed and made the decision to get out of it and concentrate on the fuel efficient fwd stuff.
You are right.
1979 was horrible.
There was a real stench of death hanging on Chrysler and there was a lot of confusion regarding the future of automobiles looking into the 1980s. The Panther wasn’t embraced as the future it ended up becoming, and the GM full sized cars seemed to have reached saturation point.
Detroit became sensitized to Washington during the 1970s and when they realized that politicians could use administrative laws to overturn how automobiles were made, Detroit seemed to get overly cautious. There was a real war upon traditional full size cars while Japanese brands became the new darlings of the Baby Boomer generation. It became cool to be in a new Corolla, Celica, Datsun and Civic. Detroit was still offering their sporty-designed mini-pony car themed cars, and Chrysler was clinging to Mitsubishi for anything.
It was as though everyone in Highland Park was told to work on the K Car, and ignored the other lines. But without the K Car, Chrysler had nothing to offer customers except the dreaded Aspen/Volare, and cars based off of it. Then there was the full sized cars, like this one.
These cars seemed to be a stop gap for Chrysler. It seemed they didn’t want to completely dump full sized cars, but there was suddenly no demand for them. The shift away from traditional BOF, rear drive cars for Chrysler was swift and breathtaking, especially considering what it meant for their image, and there just was no room left in the market for a “good-enough, me-too” sedan like the Newport, St. Regis and Grand Fury.
With AMC collapsing in the market, it appeared that Chrysler could move into the small car market being vacated by AMC and never loved by Ford or GM. While the Newport was new – it didn’t look like the future. The future was the K Car.
It isn’t a great car. It is a good enough car. Now that it is old, we can better appreciate it for its own qualities. But in 1979, Malaise was in full-swing and no one was foreseeing a booming 1980s revolution ahead. When Ronald Reagan smiled and said he could fix what was ailing us, few believed him. It was a bad time to be a full sized car – especially from the number three US manufacturer.
These cars were rear-drive. However they were not body on frame design as were the GM and Ford big cars. Almost all Chrysler Corporation cars since 1960 (exception the Imperial through 1966) had Unibody construction along with a suspension system of torsion bars up front and multi-leaf springs in back while Ford and GM had coil springs front and rear.
Also, the R-body cars were basically rebodied versions of the B-body design which had been around since the 1962 Dodge and Plymouth “Plucked Chicken” big cars – which later went on to become intermediates with the advent of the 1965 C-body cars including the Plymouth Fury, Dodge Polara and all Chrysler brand cars. The R-body was most certainly not a new car “from the wheels up” as GM’s downsized B- and C-body cars were in 1977 and Ford’s Panther body in 1979 for Ford/Mercury and 1980 for Lincoln. Running concurrent with the 1979 Chrysler Newport/New Yorker and Dodge St. Regis were the “old” 1975-vintage Cordoba and Magnum (which would be downsized to the J-body for 1980 which was a spinoff of the M-body LeBaron/Diplomat, in turn a spinoff of the F-body Volare/Aspen). Had Chrysler continued with the R-body cars from 1982-on, they would have been more than competitive to GM and Ford products – but Lee Iacocca like the rest of Detroit were shell-shocked over Energy Crisis II in 1979-80 and Chrysler’s near bankruptcy that led to emphasis on the K-cars – gasoline jumped from 60 cents per gallon in early 1979 to $1.50 per gallon by the end of the year and rumors were rampant about $2 per gallon gasoline by 1983 and even $3 per gallon gas by 1985 so Detroit hit the “panic button” with GM proceeding with its second round of downsizing all its cars to be sized more similar to Chrysler’s K- and Super-K cars and Ford making selective moves that included the front-drive Escort and a stretched version of that chassis as the Tempo to compete with Chrysler’s K-cars, along with plans to drop the Panther cars and make larger versions of the Fox-body Fairmont as replacements for the bigger cars.
The fact that the R-body was an ancient car, rebodied to make it seem like it was new and downsized, but quite unlike what GM and Ford were offering at the time, goes a very long way to explaining why it was such a failure (on top of all the other reasons). It’d be great if someone could scrounge up an old comparison road test between the R-body, Impala, and Crown Victoria.
In fact, when you think about it, Chrysler was following in Studebaker’s footsteps in how that company continually rebodied the same old car chassis for years as the purse strings got tighter and tighter. I have no doubt that, no matter how either Studebaker or Chrysler tried, comparing the driving experience between their cars and the same class vehicles from GM and Ford simply made it a no-brainer as to which one people were going to buy.
If not for Iacocca, the R-body, while it wouldn’t be ‘the car that killed Chrysler’, could very well have went down in history as the last car Chrysler built, and that would have been really sad.
” As much as I shill for these, maybe I need to buy one some day. That’ll probably teach me. 🙂 ”
To quote Eugene Levy in National Lampoon’s Vacation… “You may hate it now, but wait til you drive it!!”
Our drivers’ ed car in early 80s!
Felt slow (probably was, remember, this is drivers’ ed!), slower than my family’s slow cars!
Once the instructor challenged us to make it skid. I was unable to do so. Was I too timid, or was the car much better than I gave it credit for, lol?
Was a very uninspiring car, and really underwhelming compared to the late 70s GM cars I had ridden in. I had the chance to drive a 79 Caprice to make deliveries in my summer job–THAT was a great driving car!
I was alive during the time these cars were available new and a few things I think that may have kept sales VERY limited are: they looked too much like unmarked police cars, quality, ALL the different division’s versions looked the same. There was even LESS differentiation between a Dodge and Chrysler than there was (or seemed to be?)between a Chevy and a Buick.
Finally, there wasn’t much of a perceived market push behind these cars.
You are right about the interior and especially the instrument panel. MUCH better than a contemporary Ford or GM product.
My memories from that era match yours. Seeing one of these in 1980 was like seeing a Crown Vic in 2010. One’s first assumption was cop car.
Sales were terrible. According to Allpar, only 168,000 R bodies found buyers in 1979, and sales plummeted after that. I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that half or more were sold to fleets.
I barely remember seeing any of the New Yorker version on the road even when they were new. For some reason I have a vivid memory of the first time I saw one. It was parked, and I got out of my car and walked over to figure out what the heck it was, because I had never seen one. I saw very few others after that.
And to think that 168,000 of something, back then, even for Chrysler, wasn’t worth bothering with, a lot of manufacturers would wish that they they sold 168,000 of something today.
They did do Newport ads with Hal Linden, of Barney Miller fame, of all people. And I think Ricardo Montalban even shilled the New Yorker. But Mopar man that I am, they really did look unfinished compared to even the Panthers, let alone the GM B-bodies.
Also, only offering them as 4 door sedans was bad signaling to the market. Even if the full size 2 door market was steadily declining, in 1979 you still had to offer one if you wanted to be seen as a full-size player – and even moreso for station wagons, which were still quite popular in those pre-minivan days. There were a lot of downsized wagons in my neighborhood, mostly GM (including our ’78 Estate Wagon) but also a fair number of Panthers.
And those weird bumper wraps were abysmal.
The reason there was only 4-door sedans, was that Chrysler simply didn’t have the money to develop and built multiple body styles for the R-body. They were also devoting a lot of resources to the development of the large J-body coupes (Mirada, Cordoba, Imperial) at the time.
I certainly would’ve liked to see a wagon version, even though it probably would’ve sold less than 10,000 units even in 1979.
Check out what I found! Sadly, it’s not real, but a good photoshop. Still, it gives an impression of what a 2-door New Yorker would’ve looked like.
Hey, that’s not bad (the concept, not the ‘chop)!
It almost could have made a companion to the Imperial or something similar…
Interesting. I’d think you’d want a full landau on the back, minus the opera window – side by side with the vestigial rear side window isn’t a good look.
I actually like that a LOT better than the way it looks as a sedan, as you lose the awkward intersection of the landau roof and the rear door.
It does look a little awkward to have the quarter window next to the opera window, but if you fill in the opera window, you end up with an immensely wide blank C-pillar. That doesn’t look right either. I think the best solution would be to make the quarter window longer and the landau section shorter than on the sedan, and leave the opera window off.
Because we’re all stylists on the Chrysler that wasn’t. 🙂
That coupe concept actually isn’t bad looking. And having the doubled-up opera window isn’t all that bad…Ford was notorious for it. And the more basic versions of the Cordoba/Mirada, which were done by Ford stylists, did it as well.
They could have offered it like that, and then a more upscale version that did away with the rear-most opera window. It would’ve made for a noticeable blind spot, but probably no worse than those Cordobas and Miradas that had the second window covered by vinyl, or those fake convertible tops. Or even the M-body New Yorker/5th Ave, for that matter, where they added a fiberglass piece on the back to square off and bulk up the C-pillar, and covered over the quarter window in the door with vinyl.
Very nice!! I like the dark blue color. Adds a bit of class to the overall look of the car.
When I had my ’79 Newport, I used it to deliver pizzas as a second job. Well, one thing I had forgotten, was that in the state of Maryland, where I live, they used R-bodies for the state police cars. And they were painted a light crème color back then similar to the “Cashmere” of my Newport.
There was an off-duty cop who tended to hang out at the 7-Eleven in the same plaza as the store I worked at, and at first, he thought I had found an old Maryland State Police cruiser! When he mentioned that, well at least then I realized why it was so easy to clear the passing lane on the interstate whenever I drove that car…
I’m not sure about Newport statistics, but I vaguely remember some statistic concerning half of the 34,000 St. Regises sold in 1979. Either it was half of them were police cars, or half of them were fleet cars (copcars, taxis, and rentals) with only half going to private consumers.
One reason the Newport might have sold relatively well in 1979 was that it sort of did double duty, filling in for the traditional Newport market, but also the old Gran Fury. A Newport with a 318 had a base MSRP of $6720 in 1979, while the Impala with a 305 started at $6238. My old car book lists a St. Regis base pricing at $6532, but it doesn’t break out slant six/V-8 prices like it does with the Newport, so I think that’s just for the slant six! So these cars were a bit pricey compared to some of their rivals.
In 1980, when the Gran Fury came out, it was priced at $6741 for the base model, or $7116 for the nicer “Salon” model. Again, there’s no breakout for slant six versus base V-8, so I think in cases like this, my book defaults to the price of the standard engine, in this case, the slant six. The Newport was up to $7247 for the slant six, and $7343 for the 318.
I always wondered what Mopar did to the Gran Fury, to justify the $606 reduction in price. That’s roughly 10% of the price of the car! And, as far as I can tell, all a Gran Fury is, is a Newport with the grille blacked out, and St. Regis taillights with some of the detail stripped off. Was there really that much profit baked into the Newport, that they could offer practically the same thing as a Gran Fury at a cheaper price? Or did they really find a way to decontent those base Gran Furys, somehow?
I cannot remember the last time I saw an R-body Gran Fury, in person. I remember in 1998, when I bought my ’89 M-body Gran Fury, I bought it from a place that specialized in selling refurbished police cars. I initially went there wanting a Caprice, but talked myself into a Gran Fury instead. For the same price, the Caprices were all higher mileage, and not optioned as well. My Gran Fury was an ex Sherriff’s car, with cloth seats, power windows/locks, a nice stereo, etc. The Caprices were all crank window, cheaper sound systems, vinyl seats, using the old, cheaper Impala door panels, etc. And had about 40,000 more miles on them. Anyway, this place did have an R-body Gran Fury copcar, but it was pushed off into the weeds in back, and they said that it was shot, and they were just using it for parts (some R and M stuff will actually swap). I wish I had taken a closer look at that R-body Gran Fury, but at the time I just wasn’t paying attention.
As for weak points, the guy who ran the dealership told me that with Crown Vics of that era it was the engine. With the GM cars it was the transmission. With the Mopars it was the suspension. However, the Gran Fury I bought had an engine from an ’88 Diplomat in it. Apparently, in 1989 there was a run of bad camshafts for the 318, and the #8 lobe would wear off. That’s what happened to my Gran Fury, prompting the city of Richmond, VA, to retire it.
Today a rare bird indeed, especially with a decent number of miles on the clock and yet in that amazing condition.
When they rolled out, it was difficult to be impressed. They were replacing the beautiful, if a bit flawed, ’78s. The budget meant that three of the four name plates: Newport, St. Regis, and Gran Fury were essentially identical down to those wheel covers (which while sort of neat today, were very generic in their time, designed to encourage sales of optional covers and wheels). The initial roll out had well publicized flaws, typical of ’70s Chrysler roll outs, and from the A pillar back, these cars are pretty generic boxes. The bumper integration stands out among the worst that Chrylser ever did, which is a shame as they were usually very good at it. I bumped into Motor Trend’s review of the ’79 New Yorker 360, and they knocked it as having gas mileage about as bad as the heavier 400 equipped ’78. Smogged Chrysler drive trains were the most inefficient in the industry – a bad rap when OPEC II slammed sales to the ground soon after these were introduced.
Still, I see some details on this that put it on some par with the ’79 Olds Delta 88, which unfortunately for Chrysler, was a well sorted out machine that year. Certainly, this Chrysler interior is better than the ’80 and up Chevy Caprice interior that suffered a fair amount of cost cutting. The frame less door glass was a nice, and suddenly very rare, touch.
It has been said several times here on CC that if Chrysler had been able to keep these going beyond ’81, they might have become a good car. Work out the mechanical bugs and give them an appearance refresh that showed a little more effort, and these might have developed a loyal following in the ’80s, like Ford’s Panthers did.
I write too slow. I think I channeled everyone ahead of me!
Very valid point about the horrible bumper integration. That’s probably my least favorite styling feature of these cars. Especially the rear, which look like some kind of tumorous growth.
As I commented above, I do think the R-bodies could’ve been successful if they were left on the market a few more years. Getting past 1981 would’ve been a huge hurdle, but with the K-cars’ strong sales, showing that Chrysler could survive, I think the R-bodies would’ve started gaining momentum. A mid-decade “aero” mid-cycle refresh could’ve kept them alive until the end of the 1980s perhaps.
I have a 1980 Caprice Classic, and I don’t agree with the comparison, my Caprice has an interior as nice as this car, if not nicer, I have dual front seat armrests, also, why all the comparison to the “lowly” Chevrolet Caprice, this was a Chrysler Newport for crying out loud, this was at least in the Delta 88/Buick LeSabre bracket.
I know you have a heck of a Caprice, I’ve seen the write up.
My beef with the Caprice was that it started with a very elegant quality interior in ’66 (exceeding the best ’66 Newport Custom interior) that faded maybe a little in ’68, more so in ’69, again in ’71. The ’77 was actually a ratchet back up.
The ’77 – ’90 dash pad was notorious for cracking (as was the ’71-’76). Our ’78 had the vestigial (in stereo cars) dash center speaker grill that literally dried up and fell in. In ’80, Caprice started using a metallic plastic trim piece on the upper and lower part of the door panel that was frequently wavy from the factory. I believe it has a plasti chrome tape finish that peels away, and I believe the trim edges are not finished and do not taper to the door. It’s like the stuff came in rolls and they cut off pieces. I think they used it well into the mid ’80s. The door pull straps tended to be problem areas, and GM was the worst when it came to ceiling fabric droop beginning with the ’77 full size cars. The door mount power window switches were prone to falling out if abused.
The comparison to Olds may seem unfair, but my issue isn’t that it is less plush, its that the materials used were low quality. The ’77 Impala had simple vinyl door panels. Not plush, but pretty bullet proof.
On the other hand, Ford used the high line Mercury interior in its Ford models. It was plush and quality was very good.
GM was easily the leader with interiors in the ’60s, but they let some of the cars slip occasionally during the ’70s and ’80s.
Give this poor Newport a few points – the Caprice easily had the last laugh.
Without any Plymouth for 1979, the Chrysler Newport was seen as the base model R-body. Starting prices for ’79 Newport 6s and 8s were less than $100 more than base Caprice 6s and 8s.
Wouldn’t the Dodge St.Regis be the lower end R-body?
I didn’t know they were that cheap.
For some reason my encyclopedia of American cars doesn’t have separate base prices for 6- and 8-cylinder St. Regis’. The sole one listed sits in between the Newport’s two. Either way they’re all within a few hundred bucks of one another. I’d just call the Newport and St. Regis even.
I can’t remember for sure, but I think with those American Auto encyclopedias, if they can’t separate the 6-cyl and V-8 statistics, then they’ll list the base price for the 6-cyl. But they’ll average the weights. So that St. Regis price would be for the slant six.
I know we tend to think of the various brands as having a hierarchy, especially GM with its Chevy-Pontiac-Olds-Buick-Cadillac, but by the 1970’s, many of the divisions were really starting to overlap. There wasn’t much difference in price between an Impala, Catalina, base LeSabre, or Delta 88 Royale, But then a Caprice would have most likely been more expensive than any of them. To get a pricier Buick or Olds, you’d have to move to the LeSabre Custom or Delta 88 Royale Brougham, which would be more expensive than a Caprice. And, IIRC, the Pontiac Bonneville and Bonneville Broughams were actually the most expensive B-bodies. Yet it’s common to think of a Pontiac as being less prestigious than a Buick or Olds. The Bonneville came with a standard 301 V-8, whereas the others, even in nicer trim levels, just had Chevy 250-6es or Buick 231’s standard.
Normally I’d think of Dodge as competing with Pontiac and Mercury, and Plymouth competing with Chevy and Ford. But, ever since the 1950’s and especially 1960, it seemed like Dodge and Plymouth competed with each other too much, rather than one being a definite step above the other.
I have stashed away somewhere, an old dealer “cheat sheet” that was used to train the salespeople to pitch the advantages of the St. Regis against its competitors. I remember them specifically targeting the Chevrolet Caprice on the GM front. With Ford though, I don’t remember if they were pitting it against the LTD or Marquis.
I’ll have to dig that thing out sometime and read up on it again. I remember one “advantage” they were touting was the sleek, pillared hardtop styling which they said gave the car a “custom” look.
Without a Plymouth? Wasn’t there an R-body Gran Fury? Unless that was delayed to ’80 for some inexplicable reason…
When the R-bodies came out, there wasn’t a Plymouth one at first, they didn’t add a Grand Fury until 1980, which should have been a big uh-oh that Plymouth was potentially a goner.
I know the Impala/Caprice went in for a slightly aero refresh for 1980, and some versions of the B-body shed 200-300 lb in the process, but did they find a way to actually cheapen the car, in any way?
I think the cars lost a bit of interest, in some respects, because the coupes lost that unique roofline with the wire-bent wraparound rear window. And losing the 350 as an option in civilian cars was a bit of a letdown, as was the introduction of the tiny 267 V-8. I don’t know if the 229 V-6 at the low end would have been an improvement over the old inline-6 or not. The 229 had a bit more power, and was a bit lighter than the old 250, but the 250 had more torque.
It was also a bit sad to see the end of the annual styling changes, although 1980 Caprice and Impala grilles were one-year only. They would change for 1981, but then those grilles held on through 1985.
But still, the Caprice was a nice car in those days, and as for status, I don’t think there’s much difference between a Caprice and a Newport. Heck, when the Newport first came out for 1961, they used to advertise how low-priced it was, and how when comparably equipped, it wasn’t much more expensive than low-priced cars.
FWIW, in 1961, the Newport 4-door base priced for $2964. For comparison, a V-8 Impala 4-door started at $2697. So that’s only a ~9% difference in price. And a Caprice would be upmarket from an Impala, although it hadn’t debuted yet.
I tried to look up 1980 cars in my old car book, but for whatever reason they don’t list prices for the Caprice sedan that year. For 1979 though, a V-8 Caprice 4-door started at $6633, versus $6720 for a V-8 Newport. And for 1981, a V-8 Caprice sedan started at $7717, versus $7869 for a V-8 Newport.
So, by that time they were VERY close in price. A Newport might have had more prestige, among buyers who still equated size with status, as it was on a 2.5″ longer wheelbase, and about 8″ longer. But by those fuel-conscious years, I don’t think there were too many of those buyers left. There also used to be some catchet to having the “prestige” of a Chrysler. But by 1980, that was probably a thing of the past, as well.
I’ve never driven a car with the 250, but I owned a car with the 229 V6 and I can’t imagine it being an improvement on much of anything! That engine had trouble pulling a lightly loaded Malibu around, so I can’t imagine how bad it would have been in a B-body. I don’t think those cars had a respectable V6 option until they started fitting them with the 4.3 in the mid 80’s. The 267 may have only been 10 HP up on the 229 on paper, but in real life they felt *completely* different. I had both in the same type of car, 3 years apart, so the comparison should definitely be valid.
Interesting, I didn’t know Motortrend tested a ’79 New Yorker with the 360. The only R-body test I’m familiar with is one where they pitted a 1980 5th Ave edition with a 120 hp 318 against a Cadillac Seville with a 368 and a Mark VI that had, IIRC, a 351.
I remember the Caddy doing 0-60 in something like 10.7 seconds, almost musclecar-like for 1980! The Lincoln was around 11.6, but the poor Chrysler could only muster 14.1. It would have been better with a 360 no doubt, but I think a 318 was all that MT could get ahold of.
The interior fabrics and textures have a strong K-Car derivative look and feel. While the steering wheel is the same as in the Aspen/Volare.
Given the timing, it would be the other way around. That was my first thought when I saw the pics. I don’t remember this corduroy cloth interior on the R bodies, but my mom’s ’85 K-Town & Country had the same material in dark brown. Very comfortable and it wore incredibly well.
A pretty car .
The Bordello red upholstery looks nice , very nice indeed .
The price is pretty low yet .
-Nate
I’m thinking it’s the effect of rose-colored glasses (or Regent Red glasses in this case), but this car looks better to me now than it ever did. I agree with Brendan on the standard interior trim being nicer than competitors, something I would never have admitted back in the day. I can also appreciate the points about the clean design of the pillarless greenhouse. When these were new though, all Chrysler products were surrounded by the stench of death, making it really hard to justify the purchase for most folks, and there were not enough good qualities to offset the baggage. In 1979, some of my family members bought new full-sized cars, so I got to experience “downsized” product from each of the Big 3. My mother got an Olds 98 LS, which I thought was the best of the bunch (and still do). My grandfather got an LTD, which I hated–I might have liked it better if it had been one of the more upmarket trims, but it was a base car and not very nice at all. My great aunt got a New Yorker Fifth Avenue (I think they were all cream-colored that year, so it was probably like the rusted example Brendan saw in Connecticut). Objectively, I would have rated the Chrysler ahead of the Ford, but both way behind the GM. Subjectively, though, Chrysler was just such a dog then that I would have ranked any Mopar last no matter what.
It is amazing to see such a well-preserved example of any 1979 big sedan, let alone a Chrysler Newport. I hope it finds a good home and continues to be babied.
My mother was looking for a new Omni or Horizon in 1980. Those (and the Mitusubish models) were the only thing selling in Mopar dealers that year. Half of buyers figured the cars were pure crap and the other half figured the company would be out of business within the year. L body cars were on a waiting-list basis only, while all the stuff on the lot just sat there. I thought there were some pretty attractive models in the showrooms – the LeBaron was newly redone, the the Cordoba was new, the R body had most of the bugs out and the final year Volare/Aspen could be had for hardly any more money than the OmniRizon. However, I was in the distinct minority.
My Dodge dealer at that time wouldn’t even talk Omni – what few he was getting in were spoken for in advance. You go in looking for an Omni and you get a hard sell for a 6 cylinder Aspen. Because that’s all he had to sell that was even close to what you were looking for.
Other than a large trunk, the interior space (front and back) and seating position looks very similar to the F and M bodies. Give or take a few inches. Given the Oil Crisis in ’79, I can’t see too many practical buyers opting to buy one of these over a LeBaron or Diplomat. Or an Aspen SE or Volare Premier, for that matter. Let alone the Ford or GM competition.
The problem was I don’t think the M body was significantly better on gas, and it was a LOT smaller inside. To me, the M cars were all the disadvantages of a big car with none of the advantages. Other than fleet sales, the luxurious Fifth Avenue was the only one that ever had any significant retail market share.
I went from a ’79 Newport to an ’89 Gran Fury, so I can comment on the interior space. The F/M body cars actually had more headroom than the R-body. And according to published specs, front legroom was actually a bit more in the F/M body…42.5″ versus 42.3″. The R-body had maybe an inch more legroom in back. Might not sound like a big deal, but it is if you’re tall. You get about 5″ more shoulder room in the R-body…something like 61″ versus 56″.
I found the steering wheel to be in a really awkward position on my Gran Fury…way too close to the driver. More like a late 60’s/early 70’s car, than a modern one. The front doors on the R-body are also larger, so it’s easier to get in and out of, for me at least. And the B-pillar is further back, it doesn’t block my view to the side as bad.
However, the LeBaron/Diplomat, and Aspen/Volare, were some of the roomiest “compacts” of the era, and they were also pretty big on the outside. So an F/M body would probably make a better alternative to a full-sized car than something like a Nova, Granada, or Fairmont would have. The ante would be upped though, when GM downsized their intermediates for ’78, coming out with cars that were smaller on the outside than the Mopar F/M bodies, yet more space efficient.
As for the trunk, if you got the compact spare on the R-body, it was stowed upright in the well on the right side of the trunk, and on the nicer models at least, hidden by a cardboard panel. That made the trunk seem really huge! However, it was pretty shallow, much moreso than the Ford/GM rivals. I currently have a ’79 New Yorker 5th Ave that I take to car shows on occasion, and I have to position the beer cooler just right, or the trunk won’t close. The trunk on my ’89 Gran Fury was fairly small, and had an oddly shaped floor. It was also an ex-police car, with a full-sized spare mounted on a 15×7″ wheel, so that really seemed to take up a lot of space. I don’t know if a compact spare would have stowed off to the side somehow, or not. I don’t think there was enough room for it to fit upright, like on the R-body, but I can’t remember.
Another thing that I thought was odd…despite the Gran Fury being smaller, I swear my old Newport (and my New Yorker) felt more maneuverable. I wonder if the R-body had a tighter turning circle than the F/M? Even though it was a bigger car, maybe the transverse torsion bars hindered tight turning on the F/M?
Howabout structural rigidity? I always thought that the F/M body had a bit too much flex in its structure, especially being a unibody. Is the R any more rigid? The rigid unibody structure was always one of my favorite parts about Mopars up into the 70s.
Now that I think back on it, my ’89 Gran Fury seemed to have a little flex in the front-end when you went over rough surfaces. I don’t know if that’s what they call “cowl shake”? But, the whole front clip…hood and fenders, did seem to flex. I haven’t noticed that with the R-bodies, although sometimes the hood might jiggle just a bit.
But, I’ve seen worse. With Ford’s Panthers, I swear sometimes when you’d hit a rough bump, you could almost see a shockwave ripple from the front of the car, across the hood and fenders, and back to the cowl and dashboard. And I’ve even seen the newer, aero-style 1992 and newer models do that!
The M-body seemed more solid though, when you closed the doors, although that’s probably because the windows are framed. The R-bodies also had more squeaks and rattles, but that might just be a 1979 thing in general. My Gran Fury might have had the benefit of being 10 years newer, plus quality control in general being better by 1989?
The only direct GM competition I have any first-hand experience with was my Grandmother’s 1985 LeSabre Limited. That thing was a nice car, but it didn’t feel quite as solid as the R-bodies. It was definitely put together better, quieter, had fewer squeaks and rattles, etc. But the R-body just had a heavy, hulking feel to it, where if you put it and the LeSabre in a demolition derby, it felt like the R-body would win.
Thanks for the benefit of your experience. I have a lot of miles in both the GM B bodies and the Ford Panther cars of the 80s, and despite the Mopar R cars being right down the middle of my personal strike zone, I have never spent any time at all in one. This has been a huge gaping hole in my firsthand knowledge of classic American land yachts. I have either ridden in, driven or owned one of every single generation of full-sized Mopar from 1949 to 1978 but never one of these final examples. This probably explains my obsession with these. 🙂
The F-body Aspen/Volare had more fore-aft space in the rear seat than the R-body predecessor (Small) Fury/Coronet-Monaco. They rode as well and were quieter. A side by side, one-after-the-other test drive proved it to me in 1977.
It just seemed a bit strange that Chrysler had stretched the B-body, with its 1962 Dodge-Plymouth ancestry, to these modern-looking “all-new” 1979s. And though they felt airy and spacious, they felt strangely disconnected from the road, not like typical Chryslers. The F-body and derivatives felt more “tied-down”. Perhaps this isolation in the consumer R-bodies was deliberate.
I did like their looks!
I could see that, actually. I remember sitting in a B-body Fury or Monaco sedan awhile back, and trying out both the front and back seats. It was roomy enough, but not huge. One thing I remember about the back seat is that it seemed really low, and the shape of the door opening made it really hard to get in and out of.
Even though GM gets credit for offering the first downsized intermediates, with the ’78 Malibu et al, I think Mopar should get some credit for the ’76 Volare/Aspen. They were marketed as compacts, and had some compromises, but I think they were probably the first car of that size that truly was a worthy alternative to a bigger car. Although their predecessor, the Dart/Valiant, was actually pretty space efficient for the time, as well. Consumer Reports noted that the ’68 Dart sedan they tested had more front and rear legroom than the ’68 Impala they tested. However, Darts and Valiants, for the most part, were just cheap, basic transportation. The Volare and Aspen could be really nice, in the Premier and S/E trim levels. There was a Dart S/E and Valiant Brougham offered for a couple years, that had enough velour and shag to rival a Caddy or Lincoln, but they didn’t make up a very big portion of total Dart/Valiant sales.
One reason the Mopar R-bodies might have felt disconnected was that the sub-frames were isolated from the rest of the structure by four big rubber bushings. The ’74+ B-bodies were also this way. However, so were the F- and M-bodies, and I’d imagine the J- as well.
When I rescued my ’79 Newport from the junkyard, those four bushings were in various states of decay, so in spirited driving around corners, it definitely made things interesting, as you could feel the subrame shift a bit. I’ll confess that I drove it around the neighborhood illegally every once in awhile, on weekends, until I finally got it inspected and all legal-like. The subframe bushings were one thing that failed inspection. Once they were replaced, it made a world of difference.
Nice car. I agree that these look much more integrated than the shrunken LTD and Marquis that debuted the same year. Shame Chryco couldn’t get the details right.
Looking back, these were attractive cars, moreso than their Ford contemporaries. I wouldn’t mind taking a ride in this one just to experience it. But I don’t know that I’d ever want to buy it.
It’s surprising to see a survivor like that. The R-bodies were not known for their quality. I remember that Consumer Reports had to buy a second St. Regis to complete its testing because the first one had so many problems. I can’t remember a car before or since where that was required.
The launch of the R was Iacocca’s baptism by fire. He took over at Chrysler just as these were ready (or not) for release.
Yep, CR tested a St. Regis against an LTD and either an Impala or a Caprice. The biggest problem I remember with the St. Regis was that one of the torsion bars was cracked!
I still remember the 0-60 times on those cars from that test. The LTD, with a 129 hp 302, did 0-60 in about 13.9 seconds. The Chevy had a 305-2bbl that was choked down to 130 hp that year (145 in earlier years) and did a miserable 15.4 seconds. The St. Regis, with its 135 hp 318, pulled a horrible 15.9 seconds! A new wave of emissions regulations came around for 1979, so horsepower was cut, and performance went down, in general.
I always wondered though, if there was something wrong with that St. Regis that it took so long to get from 0-60? My old ’79 Newport, with a 318-2bbl and well over 200,000 miles on it, would still do around 12.5-13, when I took a stopwatch to it. Not the most scientific method compared to Consumer Reports, I know…
For comparison though, Motortrend tested a 1980 New Yorker 5th Ave with the 318, and that year it was choked down to 120 hp. They managed to get 0-60 in 14.1. In those days though, I think Consumer Reports was a bit more gentle in their 0-60 launches than MT or C&D were. I think CR would just stomp on the pedal and go, whereas MT might have held one foot on the brake and revved it up a bit first.
ah, the five digit odometer… remember when making 100k was a big deal?
A good friend of mines parents bought a loaded St Regis in 1980. I thought the car was a really sharp looking car. Only one of a few I had seen with the level of equipment theirs had. They traded a 77 Newport Custom for it. Do not know how it held up. Seems like it was not quite as roomy as the B Body or a Panther of the same age.
You know, I’ve never seen an R-Body in the metal. I’m sure they were still around in the 80s and very early 90s when I was quite young, but I don’t remember any.
I actually like the looks of this one. I am also struck by its reasonably strong resemblance, especially in front, to the Electra and LeSabre of ’77-’79, and somewhat to the Electra from the back. I think this was alluded to above, it seems to combine certain K-car styling cues with a B/C body look and size.
The slanted shape of the front is very reminiscent of the Electra/LeSabre. I think it’s rather original for the time, considering everyone else was doing totally vertical front ends.
And, despite these cars not lasting very long, they did basically set the styling trend for most Chrysler products until the mid-to-late ’80s. The K-cars would’ve looked nice next to them in showrooms, had the R’s discontinuation and K’s introduction not have coincided.
I always thought that these looked like a 1977-1979 LeSabre described to someone over the phone.
Well the K-cars were out in 1981, the last year for the R’s, and judging from how slowly these moved off the lot, I’m sure that there were plenty of these side by side with K-cars maybe into early 1982.
Spot on on the reference to the LeSabre, but I have to say Buick did it better. The chrome on these cars looked particularly thin.
Buick did it better because Buick did it first.
And doing it first keeps you first, which keeps us first….first.
GM.
True, true. Although you could say the same thing about the ’61 Plymouth!
And people say cars look angry today……
Without a doubt, the R-body is an all-time Chrysler favorite of mine.
Brendan, you are spot on in your description of this car’s airiness and clean lines. Maybe it was inspired by the ’77 LeSabre, but Chrysler eliminated the droopy butt of the Buick and instilled it with a certain allure that was sadly diminished with the initial quality woes.
I like the Newport, but still prefer the St. Regis.
Chrysler did do a really good job with the rear styling of the Newport, St. Regis, and Gran Fury (the New Yorker’s didn’t come off as streamlined). The sheet metal comes together quite nicely. And I’ve always liked the chrome line dividing the upper and lower portions of the taillights.
It’s funny, I was about to say why I don’t like the St. Regis as much, but giving it another look over, it’s front end styling is really starting to grow on me. It’s probably because I haven’t seen many pictures of non-cop ones before, but in up-level trim, it looks especially attractive.
Is that photo from “The Hartford Guy” on Flickr? He has tons of pictures of these seldom seen R-bodies on his site.
No, it’s from some random online forum. I just googled “Dodge St. Regis”, and it’s one of the first hits.
I am familiar with “That Hartford Guy” on Flickr, and he does have a lot of good pictures of R-bodies, as well as M-bodies. Although I should say that many of his pictures are from eBay and other online listings, and not taken by him personally.
No most aren’t his, but its a great catalog for lots of Broughamporn.
The New Yorker was an unfortunate victim of too many do-dads on the exterior; it was the Tammy Faye Bakker of the R-bodies. With a vinylectomy it would have looked a hell of lot better, but as built the vinyl roof looks like it is devouring the rear door window. Not good.
On the other hand, the St. Regis looks like a four-door Dodge Magnum. It’s intentional, I’m sure.
Not only that, but it looked weird when you opened the door and that big piece of vinyl opera window went with it, the Slantback Seville also had a curious quarter window with frameless glass.
I kind of liked the New Yorker. Its detail work gave an otherwise plain vanilla car some distinction. The appearance of a thicker c piller gave the car better proportions.
The St. Regis was the best of the bunch, especially up front.
Love the St. Regis – easily my favorite R-body. I do prefer the subtly bladed fenders of the Newport, but those glass-covered lamps–such an unexpected touch on a full-size car and also a definite call-out to the Magnum. And from the A-pillar back, essentially identical to the Newport. Though if I was in the market, I’d give a good long look at the featured newport–that’s in *impeccable* shape given the age and mileage. And that dash, with gloss black instead of wood trim? Damn nice. Actually a really good-looking design.
The St. Regis is actually the only R-body I remember from childhood also, even though there should have been a fair many of these around in my younger days (I was born in ’80). I don’t remember seeing any Newports, but maybe they blended in with the Electras? All the police forces in my part of the world used Caprices and Crown Vics, so that eliminates the Gran Fury. And I was pretty surprised the first time I saw an R-body New Yorker online, as I had no idea what it was. No memory of ever seeing one in person.
I always thought the Newport, and Gran Fury, looked like how a LeSabre would look if it was done by Ford stylists. Which would make sense, since a lot of Ford stylists jumped ship to Mopar a few years before Iacocca did.
One big difference, however, is that on the LeSabre (and Electra), only the area around the headlights was raked back. The grille itself was still fairly vertical. And for ’79, the Electra actually got blockier up front.
The R-body also had a more rakish windshield, than its rivals, and a lower roofline, which made it look sleeker overall. And yeah, the elimination of the droopy butt that the ’77-79 GM cars had helped make the design seem more cohesive as well, I thought.
If you really want to see a Buick-y Chrysler though, check out the 1981 Newport. Chrysler actually went through the effort to change the grille on the Newport and New Yorker for that final half-year, and at a quick glance, the ’81 Newport’s grille makes me think of something like, perhaps, an ’82-84 Regal sedan.
Dave B reminded me of another reason why these sold so poorly….that fuel efficiency versus available power bugaboo that made all but the 4 cylinder powered Chrysler products very poor choices.
No one has said it, though the earliest comments allude to it: the too perfect red paint job for the year…but even more, the trim pieces for what is a non-existent vinyl roof. I think I remember seeing similar cars in 80s movies and tv shows with these little chrome strips and no factory vinyl roof so it’s possible this car never had one, I guess.
This car has a vinyl roof – look at the 5th picture down.
Yep, definitely vinyl, though remarkably nice. The roof may well (probably, even) have been recovered. Paint could be original if the car was garaged its entire life.
I think someimes the chrome strips cover weld lines or panel joins that they couldn’t be bothered to smooth out when the vinyl was missing. Or, as you said, if the vinyl had been removed. I looked at an ’81 Malibu Classic Landau coupe back in the 90’s that had been relieved of its landau roof and it had the trim still present. (Should have bought that car…mint green, no rust, very nice…)
Say what you will and heap scorn as you like, but I have not seen a car featured on CC quite as well-preserved as this one. Obviously, fleet use will take its toll on any car, and this model would be no exception. A lot of TLC went into keeping this one looking like it does, and this is especially evident when looking at the underbelly, and the condition it is in. I think more autos like this one need to be displayed, as they reflect the realities in our automotive history.
It is certainly refreshing to see a car of this age and rareness that’s so well preserved. I only wish I could have seen this car in person and taken the photos myself.
This was my first car – mine in brown/tan with the slant six. Good memories, extremely underpowered, but a first car always has such good memories. Drove mine all over New England until it rusted away.
Glad to hear from someone who personally owned one of these and had what sounds like a good experience with it. I’ll bet that rust is a huge reason as to why I don’t see any R-bodies in New England except that one New Yorker I saw.
The frameless glass may have did these in, since extreme wind noise would make any buyer head for another brand.
But also, Mopar’s big car business was mortally wounded in 1974. Many buyers left and never came back. So, the R body was too little too late. The M Body was really a mid size car, and enough to keep loyal Pentastar owners, who loved their Darts, happy. Plus, they had framed windows.
Early samples’ door windows would pull away from their weatherstripping at highway speeds, and dealers had a h*** of a time trying to fix that. By 1980 the problem was apparently solved; I was a city police officer at the time, we had the Dodge St. Regis and ours didn’t do that. I preferred our oldest car, a Plymouth Volare with the 360, though.
I’ve had that happen with my ’79 5th Avenue. If I’m going too fast down the highway, and put the driver’s side window down, the glass will get sucked outward, and if I roll it back up, it won’t quite go back up into the groove at the top of the door opening.
They won’t suck outward when fully closed, though. I don’t know if there was an easy fix for this, or not. I guess they could have just tightened up the window lift, so that it didn’t have so much flex. Or possibly put thicker glass in…the window glass in these cars does seem kind of thin, although maybe it’s par for the course for this era? I’ve had a few GM intermediate coupes from the ’80-86 era, and don’t remember having that problem. I can’t remember if their glass was thicker or not.
Another problem that’s specific to the New Yorkers, is that those thick, padded opera windows built into the rear doors tend to let water in. The top of that padding acts like a catch, and it works its way in, and ends up ruining the material on the door panel.. I’m sure it gets worse with age. For some reason, on both of mine, the left side would leak worse than the right. A few years ago, I even noticed this on a ’79 New Yorker that was for sale at one of the Carlisle PA swap meets…evidence of water damage in the cloth on the left side back door panel under the opera window, but not the right.
The Gran Fury/St. Regis/Newport, which didn’t use the opera window, and instead just had a stationary glass window that mated right up to the weatherstripping when you closed the door, seemed a lot more water resistant.
The door window thing seemed to be a problem for Chrysler. I once knew a guy whose elderly parent died and he brought their early Aspen from Florida to Indiana. He said that every time he cracked a window for a smoke while the a/c was on, the glass would try to push out of the track. Turn off the a/c, and it would roll right up. I never heard of this issue in other F bodies, but it sounds like a similar problem to the one you have experienced. And the Aspen was even a 4 door sedan.
My mom actually had a similar problem with her 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee. The weather stripping on the inside of the rear doors pulled away around the top corners. You could pop it back into place, but it would pull away again. It was only really noticeable when going through the carwash, but water would come in. It did let in a lot of road noise though.
I remember that the shady city councilman in Used Cars drove a New Yorker version of these, probably borrowed from the same Chrysler-Plymouth dealer that was standing in as Roy L Fuchs used car lot.
For some reason, these make me think “Hill Street Blues”
If I recall, these were available with the 225 Slant 6 all the way until the end of their run in 1981, so would that make these the last big domestic sedans with a straight 6?
Chevrolet dropped the 250 6 from the Impala after 1979 and I don’t think that Ford even offered any kind of 6 in the Panthers from what I recall, they all seemed to be 302’s from the start.
I do believe you are correct on it being the last straight six powered big car in the U.S.
They never offered a six in the Panther at all, which seems weird considering GM was sticking the 3.8 and 4.1 Buick 6’s in all their big cars from the Impala to the Fleetwood at one point or another.
I don’t think Ford really had a 6-cyl engine with enough power to go into the Panthers, although I guess you could argue the slant six had no business being in the R-body!
What Ford did instead though, was to inflict the tiny 4.2/255 CID V-8 on the Panther from 1980-82. It had around 115-122 hp, depending on the year and application. I have a friend whose Dad bought an ’80 or so Thunderbird, brand-new with that engine, and he said it was a dog, even compared to their previous car, which was a Granada with the 250 6-cyl! He might be exaggerating though, or perhaps the T-bird used taller gearing? Or emissions had strangled it down so that it ended up being worse than that 6-cyl Granada?
Anyway, Ford’s 250 6-cyl was pretty weak, and probably way too little engine for a car like this. And the 200 6-cyl, which had okay power for its size, was really too small. Ford also had a 300 CID engine that it used in the trucks, but I hear it was a guzzler. Oh, there was the Ford 232/3.8 “Essex” V-6, but it didn’t come out until 1981. It might have done as well in a Panther as a Chevy 229 or Buick 231 did in GM’s full-sized cars, but for whatever reason, Ford chose not to use it.
My first car was a 1980 Chevy Malibu coupe with a 229 V-6, and while it didn’t seem bad at the time, looking back, it was pretty mediocre. I can’t imagine how slow that engine would have been in a full-sized Impala.
As for the slant six, it was the base engine in the Newport, St. Regis, and Gran Fury up through 1981. It was also the standard engine in the Mirada/Cordoba and the M-body through 1983. For 1984 the Cordoba/Mirada were dropped, and the M-body went with a standard 318-2bbl. However, the slant six stuck around as the base engine in full-sized pickups through 1987, I believe.
Yes, the trucks had it until the Dakota came out and Mopar created their own “4.3” out of the 318.
You most definitely COULD get better seats in an LTD/Marquis. They came standard with the folding center armrest, and even their base models offered 50/50 split bench seats with a reclining passenger seat. And I’m talking about the downsized models.
I never said you couldn’t get nice seats in a LTD or Marquis (as you could), I was just referring to the standard seat offered. Maybe you were thinking of later models, but the early Panther LTD’s standard bench was non-split, without a folding center armrest and lacked any kind of contouring. I’d hardly say this Newport’s seats have side bolstering, but they are contoured for better comfort. They also have nicer fabric and a center armrest.
The LTD’s standard bench is the burgundy colored one.
Yech, mash those two pictures together and you have the inside of my grandfather’s LTD: Wedgewood Blue vinyl bench. These seats used a nasty, industrial grade vinyl, and they were as flat as a pancake. Also, details like the door handle just hanging, with no framing as on GM or Chrysler products, seemed very cheap. The plastiwood was terrible. No horn pad. Weird door lock locations. I could go on and on… There is no doubt that this Newport beats Ford’s base trim.
The underpinnings were very similar to the previous ‘B’ bodies. These cars were the former mid-size Mopars redone as full size models. Instant downsizing. I remember the combination windshield washer bottle-battery heat shield! Made cahnging the battery a bit of a pain, some brands of aftermarket batteries wouldn’t fit under that contraption.
In retrospect, I’m surprised it wasn’t accompanied by a wagon variant using the Magnum front clip and the unchanged 1971-78 body.
As much credit as GM gets for their ’77 B/C bodies as being “all new”, I’ve always wondered if they just took the old ’73-77 midsized frame, and dropped a new body down on it? And, then stretch out the frame 3″ for the Electra/98, and another 2.5″ on top of that for the DeVille/Fleetwood?
I always thought it was a bit of a shame that there were no coupe or wagon variants of the R-body. But, by that time, coupes in general were starting to fall from favor, unless it was a personal luxury coupe like a Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, or Cordoba.
Chrysler dropped all of their full-sized wagons after 1977, even though they kept the Newport/New Yorker sedan around another year. I don’t know if it was dropped specifically because of poor sales, or also partly because they thought the heavier wagon body would drag down the CAFE averages too much?
Kind of a shame, as I think the R-body would have made for a nice wagon. I think the old ’71-78 B-body was the only midsized wagon that could pass the “4×8” test, where you could lay a 4×8 sheet of plywood flat between the wheel wells, and still get the tailgate shut. Or if not fully shut, it at least laid flat on the floor. Ford’s ’72-79 Torino/LTD-II wagons, and GM’s ’73-77 intermediate wagons weren’t as roomy, with less fore-aft room, and less room between the rear wheel housings. Now that I think about it though, the AMC Matador wagon may have been able to do it…those cars were pretty roomy inside.
Put this next to a 79 Buick LeSabre in the same condition and the interior of that GM product would compare quite nicely in materials and design. My Dad owned a 78 Estate Wagon with the red vinyl notch back seating…Great quality vinyl with the chrome trim on the seat edges and fold down center arm rest. The instrumentation was austere bute very classy…round gauges in brushed silver with the giant quartz clock in front of the passenger…The new B bodies were some of GM’s finest and were far superior to the R or Panther
That thing is sure bereft of options. I’m surprised it has AC.
I want a 360 model (like any of those were actually built for the civilian market or survived…) 😉
The odds seem a wee bit long that a 360 model would be around today, but my parents did have a civilian ’80 Newport with that engine and 2 bbl carb. They picked it partly for its ability to tow a 5,000 lb. travel trailer. It did OK at that, and was a roomy car, for sure. But even as young as I was then (age 4 when the Newport was purchased brand new), I remember quite a few issues in the first few years (exhaust, electrical and A/C problems, interior bits falling off, etc.) that seem in line with Chrysler’s shaky quality rep from that era.
If you want a 360, you might want to look for a New Yorker. It was standard in them for 1979, a 2-bbl engine rated at 150 hp. However, it was banned in California and high-altitude areas, which got a 318-4bbl with 155 hp instead. The 360-4bbl was pretty much a police car motor, although it ended up in a few R-bodies, mainly with towing packages.
For 1980, power was cut across the board. The 318-2bbl became standard in the New Yorker, but only had 120 hp. I think the 318-4bbl actually got a slight boost, to 165. The 360-2bbl was cut to 130 hp, which sounds horrible, but it was still probably pretty torquey. The 360-4bbl went from 195 hp down to something like 180 or 185.
I always wondered how bad one of these cars would have been with a slant six? In 1979, it was at least a 2-bbl unit with 110 hp. But for 1980, it was a 1-bbl, and cut to 85 hp! I’d guess 0-60 must have been around 20 seconds, maybe even worse, for the 85 hp version?
How bad were things for Chrysler in 1979? One of my neighbors, a steel company president whose company was a big supplier to Chrysler, told me a story back then I’ll never forget.
The head of purchasing at Chrysler calls him and says “We can’t pay you…in cash. So we’re going to pay you in Chryslers. A Volare counts for XXX, a Newport for YYY (and so on). We don’t care what you do with them – scrap them, give them out as company cars, resell them. But we’re paying you in Chryslers.”
Which is how he ended up driving a dark blue ’79 New Yorker – an early build car he replaced as soon as he could.
After looking at the listing. the price is low enough to be tempting, but wouldn’t this have Chrysler’s infamous Lean Burn technology?
Yeah, it would have Lean Burn, which, when it works, is fine. I’ve heard that if the system totally craps out, it’s not too hard to convert it to non-lean burn. I’ve had three R-bodies, and still have two. Luckily, no problems with the Lean Burns…yet!
Back in 1980, my then girlfriend, now wife and I went to visit her father in Atlanta. He worked for a glass manufacturer who was a supplier to Chrysler at the time. All of the management had new-ish Chrysler products as company cars.
IIRC, my to-be father in law had a St. Regis, which he hated. It had the slant six, with lean burn and a/c. My 18 year old self remembers the car as roomy, but it seemed underpowered even for malaise-era freeway driving (55 MPH speed limits). When asked about the car, he complained a great deal about poor materials and assembly (which I thought odd since his company was a supplier…), and how underpowered and thirsty the car was.
As luck would have it, while we were visiting he took delivery of his new company car, a 1981 Dodge Mirada with the slant six and similar equipment. He liked that car much better but in later correspondence with him, we found that the dreaded Lean Burn issues continued with that car, too.
Recalling the environment in the late 70’s early 80’s, it was a very bad time for Chrysler. Many folks had become aware of the quality issues with the Volare and Aspen, and deserved or not, those issues were transferred to the rest of the lineup. Especially after the hostage crisis and the ensuing gas crisis part two, the only thing really selling on car lots were smaller cars. When my middle brother went to buy a car in 1980, everything Honda, Toyota, VW, Ford Pinto and Fiesta, Chevy Monza & clones, Omni/Horizon were all on waiting lists. He managed to buy a Dodge Colt without too much markup, but still had to wait weeks for his, as they sold out as soon as they hit the lots.
These R-Bodies really didn’t stand much of a chance against the formidable B-Body GMs with their already established reputation. The combination of reputation, fuel economy and price really hurt them. But I’m sure by 1979, Chrysler was going full blast to get the K car launched. As it turns out, it was the right decision.
Still, it’s a real blast from the past to see one of these in this condition. The vast majority of these cars didn’t live a life so well pampered. The last few that I saw were the New Yorker variants, about 15 or so years ago. They held up pretty well, but the rust monster never sleeps. I can’t tell you the last time I saw a St. Regis or a Newport on the road. In this part of the midwest, I think they’re all gone.
Ah, the late seventies’ ‘coffin’ cars, along with the Aspen/Volaré, the poster children for a Chrysler ‘slam-o-rama’. Honestly, when looking at them, it’s hard to figure out how Chrysler stylists managed to make them look so much worse than the Impala or Crown Victoria. The lines for all three are remarkably similar but, for some reason, the Chrysler comes off, just, bad. And to think, just a decade before, were the fuselage cars.
In any event, the feature car, nice as it is, sure looks like strippo. For starters, is that an AM radio? In a higher level carline? Geez, how far the auto industry has come in standard audio equipment. Likewise, it looks like it has roll-up windows but it’s hard to tell. If it does, those cranks have to be in the absolute worst place on an interior door panel, ever. At least the seat fabric looks a bit upmarket.
Keep in mind that there was no Plymouth model in 1979. The Newport was essentially what should have been (and would be in 1980) the Gran Fury. The Chrysler brand was already moving downmarket and this car followed that trend. This basic Newport was similarly priced to a Caprice or LTD, not a Buick or Mercury as Chryslers had been in the past.
Yes, and the C-body Plymouths were dropped altogether for ’78, leaving the reskinned B-Body Satellite/Fury as the largest Plymouth. Since Chrysler was downsizing the C-Bodies to B-Body size, I can see the initial logic of not fielding a Plymouth. Especially as it had become increasingly hard to justify a big Plymouth when a base Newport was in the same showroom for a couple hundred more. The Newport was a real brand killer – a true “price” Chrysler.
I remember in the early 80s you could still find brand new 78-80 mopars still on the lot unsold . My father was partial to Buicks but we would always look at other offerings and then head off to the Buick dealership to pick out a new car.
This is a rare car…a product of it’s time and if nothing else…interesting to look at. That St. Regis model is beautiful, but even in the basic form of this Newport, it’s so much more interesting than a generic Ford or Chevy of the same vintage just because it’s so rare.
Nice looking car! I’ve always had a fascination with these things, even when I was a kid and they were new. They looked much more modern, I thought, than their GM and Ford competition, even if underneath, they really weren’t.
I had a ’79 Newport once, a $250 car that I rescued from the junkyard back in late 1996, and got a few more years out of it. I always thought it was amusing that the cloth interior was standard on these cars, with vinyl being an option! Mine had vinyl, and while it was nice vinyl, I would’ve rather had the cloth! Mine was a light cream color called “Cashmere” with a matching interior, and had the optional 15×7 road wheels with the turbine style deep dish hubcaps.
I replaced that car in 1998 with a 1989 Gran Fury ex police car. I figured a car that was 10 years newer, and less than 1/3 the miles (73,000 versus 250,000) would be more reliable, but alas, it wasn’t. I always missed that Newport, and never was all that fond of the Gran Fury.
I ended up finding a ’79 New Yorker 5th Ave edition on eBay back in 2001 and bought it. Still have it. Then, in 2007, one of my friends told me about a ’79 New Yorker, base model in “nightwatch” blue that was sitting at a gas station. I called and inquired about it, found out the owner was interested in selling it. So $500 later, it was mine!
One thing I like about these cars, compared to their GM and Ford rivals, is that the B-pillar is further back in relation to the driver’s seat. I’m tall, and have to put the seat all the way back in just about any car. With most 4-door cars, that means I’m about even with the B-pillar, which blocks my view to the side. But the R-body’s B-pillar is far enough back that visibility is much better.
They’re also good handling cars, considering their size and the era that they were built. However, I think the ride does suffer a bit because of the leaf springs in back.
Oh, as for engines, there were a couple of other intermediate V-8’s. There was a 360-2bbl V-8 with 150 hp in 1979, standard on the New Yorker and optional on the others. And banned in California. For California/high altitude areas, a 318-4bbl with 155 hp was used. The 360-4bbl, with 195 hp, was mainly a copcar motor, although it did find its way into a few civilian models, mainly with the trailering package, I think. At the Mopar show in Carlisle, PA, there’s one that shows up on occasion that has to be about the most fully-loaded 5th Ave I’ve ever seen…360-4bbl, factory sunroof, and the optional steel road wheels.
As for why they didn’t sell? Well, for one reason, GM got a 2-year head start on both Ford and Chrysler with their downsized big cars. Ford’s downsized ’79 models weren’t very hot sellers either. Also, big car buyers abandoned Mopar in general after 1973, when the Arab Oil Embargo set in. Sales of all big cars suffered, but GM and Ford would make a comeback. Not so Chrysler. The Newport and New Yorker had some modest success in the wake of first oil crisis, but the Plymouth’s Gran Fury never really recovered. And Dodge hadn’t been a really strong seller in bigger cars for awhile, even before the fuel crisis hit.
There was no full-sized Dodge or Plymouth for 1978, and by 1979, when the R-body came out, rumors of Chrysler’s impending bankruptcy were imminent. So, a lot of private buyers were probably reluctant to buy a pricier full-sized car. For 1979, the R-body didn’t too *too* horribly. Something like 34,000 St. Regises were sold, 78,000 Newports, and 54,000 New Yorkers, of which about 1500 had the 5th Avenue Edition package. But in 1980 the market fell hard. For 1981, the cars were dropped half way through the model year, which explains why production was so low that year. Also, Iacocca wanted these cars gone. He thought FWD was the wave of the future, and wanted everything RWD gone ASAP. The only reason the M-body was spared was because enough police and taxi buyers protested. And with the M-body around, that probably gave the J-body a temporary lease on life, as well.
So you actually owned two R-bodies? Wow. Any photos? And do you still have both, or only the 5th Ave?
Actually owned three…a 1979 Newport that I rescued from the junkyard in late 1996, but got rid of around late 1998/early 1999. Then a ’79 New Yorker 5th Ave, and a ’79 New Yorker base model. Still got the two New Yorkers.
I’m attaching a couple pics…one is the Newport, taken in early 1998. The other is my ’79 5th Avenue, sporting some alloy wheels from an ’80-83 Cordoba/Mirada, and whitewall tires I just had put on about two months ago.
Love it! I always liked these New Yorkers in that two tone beige/cream combo. It was a very subtle look that was quite different from the highly contrasting two tones that everyone else did.
These were the ones I saw the most back in the day. Nice cars, truly.
Thanks for sharing your collection with us!
Oops, looks like it’ll only upload one pic at a time. Here’s the Newport. Not the prettiest thing in the world, but it had about 250,000 miles on it by this time!
Oh, and here’s my base model New Yorker. This was taken back in 2008, when I put it into a classic car show in Macungie, PA…
Great cars Andre! The Nightwatch Blue looks so right on this.
Thanks! Oh, and if any of you guys ever get to the Carlisle, Pennsylvania area, there’s usually a few of these R-bodies that show up for the Mopar show in July. I’ve had my 5th Avenue in the show every year since 2002. A year or so ago, there was a gorgeous 1981 5th Avenue, in sort of a walnut/mahogany 2-tone, with an extra-thick padded roof and a tiny, limousine-like rear window. I think it had stainless steel over the forward part of the roof. That same year, there was a Nightwatch blue ’79 New Yorker as well, could have been a dead ringer for mine, except that it was in much better shape.
This past year, the only R-body other than mine was an ’81 St. Regis ex police car. It was a bit beat-up, but the owner was in the process of slowly restoring it. It was interesting to see some of the changes they made between 1979 and 1981. For instance, the ’81’s had regular torsion bar/trunk hinges, whereas the ’79 uses gas struts, like a modern car. Those struts must have been ahead of their time, and troubleprone? Also, the part of the B-pillar where the front door latches to is actually welded onto the B-pillar. In 1979, that part was just bolted to the B-pillar.
Actually, these changes might have come around for 1980; I’m not sure. I can’t remember the last time I saw an ’80 R-body.
Very nice! I think I like it better than the Fifth Avenue.
Thanks. I actually like my Nightwatch blue New Yorker better than my 5th Ave as well, because of that color. I don’t drive it as much though, because it can be a bit cranky, whereas my 5th Ave is pretty reliable.
And, I’ve just had a few too many cars in a color similar to my 5th Ave. In addition to my ’79 Newport, which isn’t that far off in color, I once had a crème colored ’69 Dodge Dart GT, and also have a ’67 Pontiac Catalina convertible in a pale creamy yellow that they called “Montego” or “Capri” cream…I forget which…it was some Mercury-sounding name, though!
Almost as if to mock me, the day after I bought my ’79 5th Avenue, a ’79 St. Regis popped up for sale, parked on the street, right around the corner from my condo. It was a 2-tone green, identical to the car in the sales brochure where they show it by the World Trade Center, and had the more upscale cloth interior with the thicker corduroy. It was a 318 car. They only wanted $500 for it, and I was really tempted, as I love that color scheme. But at the time, I was a bit strapped for cash, and even buying the 5th Ave was a big splurge.
If you had bought that St. Regis, you’d only need an ’80 or ’81 Gran Fury to have owned one of every R-body!
I’m often faced with a similar situation. I’d love to buy an older car (I won’t even say which one, as my wish list is way too long) as a toy, but I really shouldn’t spend the money nor do I have the space for another car.
I knew we would eventually find someone who would be a big enough R body fan to actually own one. I have such a fascination with these but have never actually ridden in or driven one.
I’d almost be tempted to bid on that eBay Newport, although I’d be leery of buying a car sight unseen, even though it does look good in the pics. Plus, since I already have two R-bodies, I don’t want to end up like an old lady who hoards cats.
+1
Andre, Thank you so much for sharing all of your personal experience, insight, and photos about the R-bodies. Hearing stories like your’s is one of the many things that makes CC so great!
I was actually thinking of planning a trip to the Mopar show in Carlisle next summer. Hopefully I’ll get to see one of your cars there. In the meantime, have you ever though about writing your own Car Of A Lifetime post here on one of your R-bodies? I’m sure it would be very popular. If you’re ever interested, let Paul or Perry know. They’re always looking to bring in new contributors, even if it’s just for one post.
You’re welcome…glad to find a forum where I can actually spout all this stuff. Most people couldn’t care less about a Mopar R-body. Or most cars from that era, I guess.
You should definitely come out to the Mopar show at Carlisle, if you can. Of the Big-Three specific shows, I think it has the most variety. The Ford show is heavily biased towards Mustangs, while the GM show is mostly Camaros and Firebird/Trans Ams. I’d say the closest equivalent at the Mopar show would be the ’67-69 Dart GT and GTS, and to a smaller degree, the ’70-74 Barracuda/Challenger. But, the Mopar show also has a wide variety of “Forward Look” era cars, and the intermediate and full-sized cars over the years always have a good showing. Except, of course, the R-body. There have been some years where my 5th Ave would be the only R-body there. So, I guess it’s almost my duty to represent!
I have a friend who has a ’78 Mark V Diamond Jubilee, and he usually puts it in the Ford show at Carlisle. I’m usually at the GM show as well…I have a ’67 Catalina convertible and a ’76 Grand LeMans coupe, so I guess I am a bit of a hoarder…
As for doing a writeup of something, sure! Would love to! It’s a shame there wasn’t as much interest in the R-body back then as there seems to be now…maybe it would have hung on for a few more years!
I think I speak for many here when I say that a post from you on one of your cars would be very much enjoyed. I’d love to see more pictures of them too!
I just marked my calendar next year for the Mopar show at Carlisle. Hopefully I can make it down, and if I do I’ll be sure to find you.
The undercarriage of this car looks so good because someone just gave it a rattle can undercoat or semi gloss black spray can job, you can see the rusty spots they failed to cover.
I wonder if the simple act of relocating the Lean Burn/ESC(Electric Spark Control) computer from the air cleaner housing to somewhere on the firewall or inner fender near the battery or even under the dash might have solved most of Chrysler’s drivability issues? Complex(well for that time) computer modules don’t like to be shook around thanks to vibration due being mounted on top of the engine nor do they like being baked in the heat that comes off said engine.
The police-package 318-4 barrel M-bodies had the option of moving the ESC box inside the car (relocated to the driver’s side kick panel).
When the computer controls were moved into the kick panel, was it readily noticeable? For instance, did the plastic of the kick panel bulge out any? My ’89 Gran Fury ex copcar had the Lean Burn box on the side of the carb, but I never had to tear into the car enough to see if there was actually anything inside it or if it was just a dummy.
I remember when GM started putting their ECU’s in the passenger side kick panels of the midsized cars for 1981, the panel itself was re-shaped to accommodate it, so I wonder if Mopar did the same thing, or if there was enough room in there to leave it, as is?
I’d take one of these in unmarked cop car trim, I remember the FHP had them, and not knowing back then they were dog slow, they did seem to have an authoritative look at the service plazas, this was still back in the old days when the FHP still wore 10 gallon hats instead of the Smokey Bear hat they have now, and these cars did scream “the law”.
My buddy in high school had the New Yorker version of this car with the closed in rear window that hurt visibility of course. The interior of the car literally fell apart piece by piece starting with those fake rear window blank outs which rattled like a bastard. Then the cloth covering came unglued on the pillars along with the headliner, the dash cracked and the door panels started warping from the sun. It also never ran right with the sluggish 120 HP 318 and wind leaks were a constant companion traveling at any speeds over 30. The 318 and Torque Flight were a durable combo but the lean burn just had to go and soon an older simpler 2BBL carter was swapped in and she ran better than ever.
The Chrysler’s had nicer interiors from what I remember but I seem to recall the Plymouth and Dodge variants as being plainer inside with shiny black instead of wood trim and a cheaper lower rent look overall.
The other thing I remember about that car was it’s flaccid sloppy handling and how it dog tracked over rail road tracks if you went too fast over them. It was a very crude suspension and an upgrade to the HD setup was almost mandatory on these cars.
Overall I find the Bonneville/ LeSabre/Delta 88 as superior in most ways to these. Most of the magazines and publications back in the day agreed.
My Dad had a 79 New Yorker, the rear window wasn’t a problem…Nothing broke off etc…Never had any leaks.. Comfortable , quick ,reliable car from 1979-1989..My Dad soon missed the car,didnt have a car he liked until the 2005 Chrysler 300 C HEMI, now he always owned a HEMI 300 ! 2005,2011,2015 All were Hemi powered ,reliable ,fast, awesome handlers,good gas mileage ect..
Remember 5 digit odometer so after 99,999 it went to 0 again….These had over 100,000 miles on average by 1984..My dads 1979 had 120,000 in 1984…(he also had a new 1983 5TH AVE) My dad had a 1968 GTX and it had 240,000 miles by 1982 and it looked like a 40,000 mile car…He would have kept it but it was stolen in Oct 1982..He was pissed off to no end.He bought a 173,000 mile very nice 69 Charger RT in replace of his beloved GTX.in 1983.He still owns the Charger today..
The dealer removed the lean burn on the 79 NewYorker and Mopar ecu was added along with a non smog carb…
The 79 was a 360 4bbl with no lean burn and performance carb…the car could peal out and it ran very quick…14 second 1/4 mile times would be had with it,but never ran it….It had almost had jam like my 1976 Fire Bird Trans AM.. 455… and I did run 14’s in the 1/4 mile with it,street tires and it spun a little not like pre 1971 cars though…
They didn’t handle as good as the C Body Chrysler’s.. The Chrysler owners who bought these or drove them noticed they couldn’t take corners at high speed like the old 1965-1978 C Bodies…
These 79-81 Chryslers handles like GM and Ford products..and Chryslers leader in handling would soon disappear…But to say these leaked etc..Must have been a high mileage well used one..
I am a GM fan and Mopar fan..my dad was a Chrysler guy,back then I was a GM guy but those Chryslers did handle good…I had a 76 FireBird Trans AM 455
Ditch the lean burn…
Mopar orange box ecu, vacuum advanced distributor, splice in needed wire.. And Change the carburetor !!!!!!! When People remove the lean burn but keep the smog carb….You get no power gain..
Change the carb, remove lean burn and you have a quick car ! The 360 2bbl will be a 7 second 0-60 or better(depending 2 or 4bbl and axle ratio’s) and the 318 2bbl will run 0-60 in the 8’s….I had a 360 2bbl 78 Cordoba with 2.45 axle it ran beside a SuperCharged 1992 Pontiac Bonnville SSE ! look up specs on those,7’s 0-60 and 15’s 1/4 ,mine was stock 360 (minus lean burn,changed carb still a 2bbl,)single exhaust and 2.45 gearing..
Remember these cars also had 2.21 rear axle ratio’s..
YES 2.21 really high..change that to 3.21…Some even had 2.45 axle ratio’s…**Note 3.23’s were not avail starting in the late 70’s..it was 3.21.
My Dad had a new 1983 318 5th Ave Dealer removed the lean burn when new, put a carburetor from a 1968 model 318 (brand new one) the car actually had power, it would run beside my 1985 Monte Carlo SS 5.0 4bbl and 3.08 gears .. Those 318’s really woke up with delete lean burn and new carb…Well all Lean Burn cars ran smoother,better on gas and more power without leanburn..
Better on gas without lean burn because you had more power and less throttle pressure to make the car move….