Let’s hold our nose and consider the decline and fall of the Chrysler New Yorker. Twenty years earlier, that name typified the grace, comfort, style and performance that New Yorkers had been know for since the first one ran off the lines in 1939. The ’55-’56s (CC here) are modern classics. But the energy crisis and the decline of the big car brought on a prolonged slide that should have ended with its natural death in 1982. But God Iaccoca would have none of that: the New Yorker would be reinKarnated!
Add three inches to that infinitely malleable K-car platform, slap on a healthy dollop of all the usual faux-luxury car trappings of the time, and presto: a mini-me New Yorker. A blessing bestowed upon the faithful, at least those with short memories. In case you’re one of those, here’s what it looked like in its prime.
But don’t think just because you were getting a four-cylinder Reliant K-car with a couple of hundred dollars worth of plasticky body add-ons bought in bulk from J C Whitney and a turbo conversion with all the subtlety and refinement of a home-brew job, that the new New Yorker was going to be a bargain. Inflation adjusted, both of these cars cost about the same: about $30k in today’s dollars. Is that deflation, inflation, or stagflation?
Chrysler hadn’t yet invented a V6 engine, so slapping a turbo on the 2.2 liter four was the only game in the big apple’s attempt to invoke luxury car performance. That is, if you were willing to shell out the extra bucks for it, because Lee had no compunction about the New Yorker having a 101 hp four as the standard engine. Your investment in turbo lag worthy of a stubborn mule yielded a magnificent 146 hp, once it spooled up.
The little turbo four might have been some fun in the Omni GLH with a stick, but in the New Yorker teamed up with a three-speed automatic it was about as sporty as when the same combination was put to work powering a long-wheelbase Grand Caravan. Lagflation.
But once ensconced in that luxurious interior of soft Corinthian leather, all was well with the world; until you turned the key, that is. The instant response and torque of a healthy 413 V8 was now just a distant memory. Press on that go pedal, and eventually something happened, after a (turbo)fashion. But it was all worth it, to save gas. Ironically, gas prices were already plummeting by the time the New Yorker hit the streets in 1983. But there was always the Fifth Avenue, a former Dodge Aspen also given the full Iacocca treatment. Its 318 V8 had less horsepower (140) but some vestige of low-end torque.
Some of the finer examples of what your $15k bought you in 1985: wire wheel covers worthy of the Pep Boys , fake fender vents and a turbo badge. We’ll have to go to the next picture to show you the hood vents, the true mark of a refined luxury car.
There they are! The package is complete. Your New Yorker awaits you, sir! Sir; come back!!
Lido fakery at its worst did anyone buy these, I thought it was a shame Chrysler pulled out of our market as I liked their cars but not now when they returned it was with crap but not these things thank god.
Why, why. Let the poor thing slink away to die in peace.
In fairness to Iacocca, it looked like this was the way of the future in 1980-81 when these were being planned. Even FoMoCo took gussied up Fairmont/Zephyrs and called them LTDs and Marquis in 1983. And look at the Cadillac that would be out in 1985. Nobody planned on big rear drivers to survive past 1983 or 84. That they did was purely by accident, and that lowering fuel prices coupled with the fear that the big ones were going away caused them to start selling strongly by 1983-84.
Iacocca truly believed that there was no way that Chrysler could survive as a full line manufacturer. In his view, GM was the only company capable of blanketing the market. Smaller companies like Chrysler would have to carefully choose which niches to fight over. And in 1979-80, the most expendible platform was the “big” R body New Yorker/St.Regis/Gran Fury (and the Cordoba/Mirada/Imperial based off of it). They were selling horribly and Iacocca decided to cut his losses. He has said that he bet the farm on $2/gallon gas, which turned out to be a bad bet.
But as much as I understand what he did, it still sickened me. I wanted Chrysler to succeed, but there was not much about the New New Yorker that was very exciting. The Chrysler showrooms became a very sad and lonely place for people like me who liked the classic big Chrysler.
Didn’t the Cordoba/Mirada/Imperial was based on the F-body Aspen/Volare like the M-body Diplomat/Caravelle/LeBaron/5th Ave/Gran Fury?
You are correct. I have always had a mental block on this subject. The 1980-83 Cordoba/Mirada always looked/felt to me (both inside and out) more like the R platform than like the Volare-based car that it really was. It was an outgrowth of the LeBaron coupe.
Paul, you missed one quintessentially 80s option: These were “talking cars.”
“Don’t forget your keys.”
“The door is ajar.”
“Thank…you.”
My grandmother talked back to hers. Not always in terms that can be shared on a family site. Let’s just say that Estelle Getty as “Sophia Petrillo” was pretty much on target. 🙂
When is a door not a door?
When a door is a jar, I mean …………… ajar 🙂
Piercing, insightful automotive commentary.
Oh man, do I remember that. A friend had one of these things, and that voice drove everyone nuts.
Somewhere around 1990, a buddy of mine had an ’84 Chrysler Lazer with that talked. During the car’s short life, most of the sensors associated with the system had failed. It was a constant barrage of phrases from the “lady” telling you what she thought was wrong with the car. Then again, maybe it was just that the entire car was falling apart after those 6 or so years. Seem’s like it read somewhere that those voice modules were sourced from Texas Insturments who had used the technology originally in the Speak & Say/Spell/Read devices.
I distinctly remember an ’83 Dodge 600 ES (same body and platform as this New Yorker) having a male voice. Nissan used a female voice; the first-year Maxima had a tiny phonograph record encoded with a single message saying you left your lights on. The second year’s car onward got about 5 messages and I think used a different technology.
Yes, Chrysler’s system was developed with assistance from Texas Instruments who of course also made the Speak & Spell et. al., which used digitally recorded real voices. Here’s a Youtube facing the two of them off:
The voices do sound similar.
I always saw cars of this era as an exercise in cynicism, the mantra being, “If we build it, we the will come.” This not only applies to abberations like this, but the whole myriad of cars of the era, from the X Car to the Tempo. All the Big 3 were building cut rate junk that did not stand up very well. The were sold on brand loyalty alone and when these wonderful pieces of American engineering grenaded soon after warranty (or often before), a customer was lost forever.
Even when we were making a fortune wrenching on this dreck, this thought was always in my mind:
“Why in Buddha’s name can’t Detroit makes as good a car as Camry or Accord? ” I also knew that the writing was on the wall for us, since the stuff replacing Citations and Tempos would not need a lot of retail repairs.
By 1986 there were loads of Camrys being sold in Victoria. In past years, we could count on seeing cars just out of warranty for repairs. The only thing we every saw the Camacord for was brakes and oil changes. By 1990 the day of the jobber repair shop was in decline. We just didn’t make much off non-Detroit brands.
I guess you weren’t doing something right in the early 90’s, late 80’s early 90’s Japanese cars particularly Hondas made me a ton of money. Can’t say I’ve replaced but one engine in a Tempo but I did dozens in Accords and Civics along with lots of head gaskets, rubber bands, valves, axles, wheel bearings and untold numbers of ignitors, distributors, and main relays. GM was second place in terms of profitability for me.
The 1980s was the absolute low point for automotive design and Chrysler fell furthest. Hard to believe that the same company that built the 68 Charger, 69 GTX and 70 Challenger was foisting off this FWD junk on taste-challenged buyers just a decade later. The Camry/Accord were built better — but about as exciting as a microwave oven. Sad times for people who liked cars.
If you believe that the K car was in any way exciting to drive, then you have never driven one. They were more like disposable appliances than any car I have ever driven.
A mid-80s Accord, on the other hand, was a very competent car for its day; the manual transmission models were excellent drivers and with the four wheel control arm suspension, the cars were heads and above better than any competitor coming from Detroit.
Not to mention Germany.
Not really a fair comparison. The BMW 6 series was ridiculously expensive and didn’t get cheaper once the warranty expired.
Growing up in the 80’s my neighbor had a blue one of these New Yorkers, an 84 or 85. It had a blue cloth interior and those same wire wheels with the turbo. I remember asking him about it once – he said “that car never breaks”!! He had it for a long time, too. In Chrysler’s defense, all the American companies were scrambling to put “luxurious” cars out that they felt the public would accept in rougher economic times. Does anyone remember the Pontiac Bonneville Model G – a rebadged Lemans sedan? My aunt had a Brougham model and she really liked it – had it for about 7 years! Or the fairmont based Marquis and LTD (Beverly Hills Cop – banana in the tailpipe LOL). I remember them selling the LTD and Marquis, loaded, for around 10K. And they were everywhere! There were other cars that totally changed too – My grandmother drove a rare cream colored 1987 Fleetwood d’Elegance with cream cloth interior – basically a rebadged FWD deVille – after having a 1979 Sedan deVIlle which she thought was too big to handle. She loved that 1987! It was very roomy and comfortable, and decent on gas, not to mention very easy for her to maneuver. It gave her some trouble towards the end (15 years old and 70k miles) but overall she cherished that car. So yes, the true luxury cars were big and well loved, but the ‘little’ ones did have their share of happy customers too. If only they could have perfected them a little bit more……
It’s true that a lot of people were happy with their smaller FWD cars from the ’80s. It’s hard to compare a FWD Turbo New Yorker with a FWD De Ville, though! At least the Cadillac had a V8! And it had almost as much room as the RWD car. My main memory of the baby New Yorkers shown here is our family friends who got one exactly like the one pictured here. I remember hearing that buzzy idle in the church parking lot. That sound certainly didn’t say luxury car! But back then, at least in Texas where I grew up, many of the loyalists stepped right up and tried out those smaller cars when it was time to trade. The next time around (early ’90s maybe) they were probably relieved to find something bigger and more stately was available!
“Small cars are like Vodka. Sure people will try them out but they won’t stay with them.” – William Mitchell, General Motors vice president of design – 1974.
The turbos in those ’80’s Mopars were very unrefined, to say the least. My mom had an ’87 Plymouth Sundance with the 2.2 turbo and a 5 speed stick. Once you got past the heavy clutch, crappy shifter, and turbo lag, it moved along pretty well. It was just a matter of hanging on once the turbo got spooled up. Still, she got over 200,000 km out of it and it still ran well when she traded it for a Voyager minivan. I drove a VW Passat with the 2.0T engine a few months ago, and it was a much better and far more refined ride. Tap the gas, and you were well past the speed limit in the blink of an eye with no drama.
Harummmpf! I take serious issue with some of this article.
We owned an extremely beautiful 1984 Chrysler E-Class and I’ll defend that car forever. It was a beaut. Silver with that two-toned gunmental blue hood and narrow beltline ending at the C pillar window.
If I had a scanned photo handy, I’d post it. Up to that time, it was the finest car I had ever owned when we bought it in 1986. A real pleasure to drive, too.
The New Yorker? I hate landau padded roofs and excess doo-hickeys that add no value to the car, like stick-on portholes and sharkfin/B pillar chrome trim and fender vents.
At least our car was “honest-looking”…
I agree with you on the E Class. I did like these, but didn’t see many when they were new. They look especially nice with those color-keyed wheelcovers.
As much as I liked Broughamed out cars, this is much nicer looking than the New Yorker.
The E Class was intended to invoke a certain Mercedes-Benz model with a similar moniker, which also had body-color-painted wheel covers before alloy wheels became ubiquitious.
How many New Yorker prospects were upsold to the Chrysler Executive Sedan in that group photo? A.K.A. the stretched K-car, not to be confused with the even-longer K-car limosine.
Mercedes didn’t start using the term ‘E Class’ until 1993.
The Metcedes E-class never had body color painted wheel covers. The 123 & earlier did but not the w124.
the “Mercedes-Benz model with a similar moniker” I was referring to was the S-class, which they did call it in 1983 iirc.
These New Yorkers were EVERYWHERE in Atlanta in the late ’80’s-early ’90’s and then one day just disappeared, along with the rest of their K-car brethren, like God reached down and scooped them all up at once. They seemed pretty reliable, and then probably had one major thing fail which doomed them as being worth more than the car was fixing.
In retrospect these things seem cynical but they offered what the average American luxury car buyer wanted . . . roomy, comfortable, and loaded with plushy buttons. Certainly better than the 86 Toronado/Riviera. Not to mention when they were being planned at the end of the ’70’s-early ’80’s everyone thought gas would be $4/gallon in 1984. Chrysler couldn’t afford another chrysis (ha)caused by a flop. Almost certainly an improvement in quality and reliability over the ancient and frumpy R-Body. This would be fun to SRT-4, or put the 3.6 in and make an awesome sleeper
These were the dark ages of automotive, sadly for all makers really. Which is why Chrysler were able to sell a few of these, despite being seemingly so ridiculously bad today.Truly a bad time for an auto enthusiasts.
Good think I came of age, automotive wise, after these era were gone (though just barely), my first car only had 160hp, good if it was a small, lightweight car, but it was a pretty much full size car… But it was considered pretty good back then, with 0-60 of around 10 seconds!
Though the K-car were not without merit, as a simple basic (and cheap) transportation they would be quite OK if not for the self-destructing Ultradrive. As any kind of luxury vehicles, though, it’s akin to putting lipstick on a pig and attempting to pass it as a high class escort girl.
@MrWhoopee:
At that time in my life, it was all about fuel economy. Sound familiar?
I was in my early 30’s and raising a young family on not much money and wifey recently going back to work a couple of years after our second child was born.
Road-worthy excitement for me was our original, basic 4 speed K-Car 1981 Reliant and at that time, what became my “new” car, a 1976 Dodge Dart Lite – the Reliant had more pop that that car, but it sure was sharp-looking.
Ahhh…the 1980’s…a different time, for sure. At least the music was good…
Looks like time has a way to roll around. What’s old is suddenly new again. Nowadays we’re once again start seeing luxury cars with turbo 4 cylinder, except now they came from Europe and elsewhere. And thankfully they now make more than 146hp (about a hundred more), with zero turbo lag. Hell, we even had Darts once more! Funny, ain’t it?
The (horrible) Ultradrive didn’t come around until later on, all of the 70’s/80’s front-wheel-drive Chryslers used a 3-speed mechanically controlled transaxle that was based on the TorqueFlite. It was pretty indestructible, but it was an awful match for the turbo motors, sucked all of the life out of them.
The quicker gearing on the manual transmission cars made the turbo lag only slightly noticeable, but on the automatics – with only three forward gears and small diameter tires – they needed to use a ridiculously tall final drive ratio to keep the RPMs sane at highway speeds. I think most were like 2.6:1 or something like that… really needed an extra gear (or two!), but as far as late-70’s tech transaxles go, they really were very robust.
If gasoline had gotten to $2 or $3 per gallon by 1984, these cars would have been hailed as the product of genius minds. Remember how crappy the Hondas and Toyotas and VWs of this time were. They weren’t fast, or powerful, just good on gas. Well, some of the VWs were pretty quick, but not much else was. And some of the cars were well built, but others, not so much. Yes I am talking about Japanese cars here.
The Detroit 3 were just trying to plan ahead of what was thought to be the future fuel price increases, that never happened. At that time they still had the wherewithal to be able to change product (in this case revive) that had been sent off to pasture, at least to reclaim some profits.
I’m not trying to be an apologist for the D3, but at the time there were serious articles in serious magazines claiming we’d all be riding bikes to work by 1985. I remember that vividly as I bought my 1980 Mercury Capri RS Turbo. With the 2.3L turbo, I thought I’d be OK once gasoline got to be $2.00/gallon.
It never turned out that way, and actually, I’m glad it didn’t. I made a lot of money in the 1980’s, if fuel prices had gone up as dramatically as expected, a big portion of my life may have turned out completely differently than I’d originally imagined.
All that said, the mini New Yorker was a nice variation on the K car, but lousy as a big car. I can remember my wife’s cousin’s wedding. Her father had one of these cars, and they tried to use it to transport the bride to the outdoor wedding. Even though her cousin was a petite woman, with her wedding gown, she did not fit in the back of the mini NYer. They had to borrow someone’s B body GM (not ours) to get her there, because the hoops did not fit.
The uncle had other problems with the car later on, and all I remember is that I had my Dodge Lancer ES Turbo at that time, and thought, oh boy! But I never had the issues he had with his Chrysler. Luck of the draw, I guess.
@Geozinger:
“Her father had one of these cars, and they tried to use it to transport the bride to the outdoor wedding.”
Ha ha ha, my friend!
That sounds about like our wedding limo in 1977 – my best man’s MOTHER’S 1976 Chevy Nova sedan! Silver with red interior, of course!
Being an old guy who bought a nice 85 Lebaron convertible a few months ago, I can say that it’s a fun little car to go to the store or golf course. Don’t be in a hurry to get there, though. Honestly, I can’t see how Chrysler could tout this as a luxury car. At around $ 13,000 in 1985, these cars were expensive. I can’t see how Ricardo kept a straight face in those commercials, describing the Corinthian leather and luxury.
But as someone else said, most of Detroit’s offerings weren’t much better. As far as exciting to drive, the excitement is driving a nice example of an almost extinct car. But back then, the loyal brethern would never abandon Chrysler. Iacocca counted on that. The same guys that bought 50’s -70’s Imperials, New Yorkers, Monacos, and Furys would be old guys lining up for the “luxurious” new offerings. A retired dentist I used to golf with, now deceased, had a 92 Imperial. It had a fake Continental kit and gold package installed. He seemed quite happy with it, albeit it seemed too small to be an Imp.
I always thought the compartments under the a/c controls look like a wood covered file cabinet. I took a really clean one of these in on trade when I sold Buicks in the late 90’s, it was champagne colored with a full on red victorian whorehouse interior, it was an 86 or so with the turbo motor, even clean, it was worthless even back then.
Wow that is pretty horrendous… particularly photo 7, but the rest are not much better. I can fully see them as a product of their time, but the execution is so poor. The thing that gets me is continually stretching the wheelbase without ever addressing the width – surely its not that hard, when you are making a bunch of new body dies anyway. It was a fundamental process for Mitsubishi & Holden cars for 15+ years.
As noted by a previous poster, the “clean” version of this car, the E-Class (and its Dodge sibling, the 600ES) were pretty good looking cars for the time. It was only when all the “luxury” touches like the padded roof, excess chrome and phony wire wheels were loaded on that the car became ridiculous. My Dad worked for Chrysler and I was living at home after college at the time, so I saw a number of these cars (not the New Yorker) cycle through the family garage. The voice alert system was annoying though.
Yes the clean versions were nice, certainly no worse looking than GMs A-body offerings.
I’ll third or fourth this (forget how many people chimed in on them), the E-Class was probably one of the only tastefully executed examples of marrying new world front-wheel-drive car with ridiculous 70’s styling flourishes, if that’s even possible… but that’s what Detroit’s game was at the time.
When the E-Class died after a couple of seasons, it became the Plymouth Caravelle. It didn’t exactly fly out of the showrooms either, despite being similarly unadorned and offering realistic expectations of what a “premium” car of this packaging and class should offer. What’s the lesson here? The only kind of people buying these cars in the 80’s were stylistically retarded: “Give me Landau roofs, or give me death!”
Forgot the picture for reference…
I just have to say, as a Mopar fan and a kid of the 80s, these were competitive cars. I knew lots of people who traded old school body on frame V8s for these and were happy with the tight unibody and electric gizmos.
Also, at some point they rolled out the smooth mitsubishi 2.6- that was a great driving motor in these cars.
I think Paul is too hard on Chrysler. Not everyone who wants “luxury” appointments needs lots of room and power. Certainly Chrysler hung on too long to the “brougham” look, that wasn’t all that unusual among the Big Three in the early-80s.
Chrysler saved itself in the 1980s by basing virtually its entire car line on the K platform. Indeed, that was one of the few times during the post-WWII period where Chrysler wasn’t overextended.
The only things that look nice are front seats, except for them what a piece crap! One of the deadly sin of the American car industry!
“Hard to believe that the same company that built the 68 Charger, 69 GTX and 70 Challenger was foisting off this FWD junk on taste-challenged buyers just a decade later…”
If one was not alive back then it is hard to, but the gas panics of the 70’s made ‘big powerful cars’ obsolete overnight. It is so easy to laugh off the smaller cars that were mandated by CAFE. People are fickle, they demand ‘better fuel economy’, but think the cars should be big as ever. But it took quite some time to make FI cars that get better performance and MPG.
And by the way, the FWD cars “foisted” by Honda, Nissan and Toyota certainly sold well to “taste-challenged” buyers. Try driving a 1968 Hemi Charger daily in today’s traffic, gas prices, and insurance. Would go broke. They are great toys and relics, but from a distant time.
A co-worker bought one of these new. I remember how quickly it looked old. The wire wheel covers stuck out too far and she knocked off the caps against the curb, the pale pink rose metallic paint and velour upholstery faded. And lots of electrical/mechanical problems developed. Yet I just saw a modest little K-car on the street here in SoCal this afternoon, an original example in good cosmetic condition with period plates and a disabled sticker, most likely the original owner. Not as impressive as the glittery gold 63 Riviera with cracked black leather, A/C, on-dash headlight dimmer, and black and gold plates parked two spots away but a survivor nonetheless.
Too much Brougham for too small of a car. I’ll buy almost any turbo Mopar but not one of these. One positive note is that the Chicago chapter of SDAC managed to get a write up in Mopar Muscle with one of these. I think it was “12 seconds for under $1200”.
In addition to my comments above, boy does this car bring back memories!
My dad had an ’85 New Yorker Turbo just like the one in this CC, except that it was baby blue over darker blue leather. At the time, I thought it was way cool. The only cars I had been personally familiar with up until that point were a Disco Nova and a Ford Fairmont… the little blue Chrysler TALKED! THERE IS A POLITE MAN TRAPPED IN THE DASHBOARD!! AND THE DASHBOARD IS A COMPUTER SCREEN!! IS THIS THE FUTURE OR WHAT?!?!
He had it as a company car and usually got a new one every 24 months, so it wasn’t around that long (and it was replaced by a first-year fleet only ’87 white Corisca, blech) but I’ve always remembered it fondly.
And now? Despite my comments about the lack of taste anyone who bought these new must have had, I still do think they’re cool – in an ironic, ridiculous way – and also for the fairly impressive shoestring budget engineering that went into them. I love how Chrysler threw the turbo motor into nearly everything they offered at the time. These may not have been the greatest cars from a design or business standpoint, but as an automotive enthusiast seeking a cheap, fun car to tinker with – they’re a blast. Nowadays, they’re getting pretty rare… but back in the late 90’s/early 00’s they were a dime-a-dozen and very easy to turn into legit head-gasket blowing, torque-steering, Mustang trouncing monsters with a few junkyard parts and a trip to the hardware store. Crude? Yes, very much so… and you can only put that power to the ground through a power sapping automatic or the loosest, notchiest shifter known to man… the chassis (I’m talking about K-Cars in general here) is nothing remarkable at all and is set up for snow plow mode, but it’s light and small enough to be very chuck-able – and for all of the SOHC motor’s rough tendencies, it is actually a respectably sturdy, durable powerplant. Many of them were good for over 200k miles with little maintenance. The biggest reason they’ve become a rare sight is that they’re just totally disposable and have no monetary value whatsoever, except to a small niche of car nerds.
Before they vanish from the streets entirely, I would really like to build myself a Lebaron Town & Country convertible (or wagon!) with the later 175HP Turbo II and a 5-speed as a weekend project, although the New Yorker would be a fine choice as well.
I own an ’87 New Yorker and I love it. It’s just the right size for me; it’s not big and bloated, and it’s not too small. The designs in those days really showed a sense of style and proportion, unlike today’s cars with their garish-looking grilles and oversized wheels. My car is smoother and more comfortable than a Chrysler 200.
Too bad you don’t appreciate a nice little car with possibly the most comfortable 6 way power adjustable leather seats ever made by Chrysler. I have one of these cars with a turbo 2.2 with only 65k and it runs and drives like a dream. Smooth ride and comfortable that puts the current 300 models to shame. Not the best car ever built by Chrysler, but one that rides like driving on a cloud. Appreciate it for what it is, not for what it is not. A great little car thT turns heads and lots of people comment on when I drive it.
My parents had an 83 E-Class similar to this car. I remember being about 4 years old and asking my dad where the electronic voice asking me to “please fasten my seatbelt” was coming from.
His tongue in cheek response: “That’s God talking to you. He wants you to wear your seatbelt. Better do what he says.”
Always wore the seatbelt from that day on 🙂
My grandma had one of these brand new back in 1986. It was silver and had the turbo with plush cloth seats. I LOVED THIS CAR. Still to this day is one of my favorite cars. I still have it, it has 95,000 and still runs great. It has held up very well and that turbo is fun to drive. I LOVE MY TURBO NEW YORKER AND AND AM GLAD MY GRANDPARENTS BOUGHT IT !
Wonderful.
My ’84 has a 2.6 Mitsubishi, but I wish it was a 2.2 turbo. I always wanted one of those. I’m sure you’ve read a lot of trash about your turbo being weak and not lasting long. Chrysler is an easy whipping boy. Your experience (as well as mine) just shows those BMWphilic snoots are full of beans.
Thanks for sharing.
I bought a 1984 Chrysler New Yorker on ebay for $1,300 in excellent condition–paint, no rust, no big dings, and the leather seats look new. I’ve had to spend some money on it (air conditioner, new front axle), but almost three years later, I’ve put some 35,000 miles on it, bringing it up to 115,000. A Chrysler New Yorker getting 25 MPG on the highway?? You bet! True, it’s a paradox (pretentious, yet self-conscious), but I love my very comfortable, pimped out K-car!
I have a1985 new yorker down here australia love this vehicle have had no trouble with it! No spares down here though! Can anyone help?
I have always liked the 2.2, going back to the day I first saw one. My friends mom, who was dating the owner of a local Chrysler dealer who had clout (still does) drove one of the hand built, pre production test mule K-cars for a better part of a year. So I got to see a 2.2, and ride in a K-car, long before most had ever heard of them. Two things I remember. It had no badges. And thinking to myself I hope the production ones are built better than this rattle trap. But she didn’t seem to mind; she had owned a few Chryslers and was probably used to rattles.
RICARDO MONTALBAHN: “Chrysler New Yorker Turbo. Once You Drive It – You’ll Never Go Back to a V8 Again!