Can you believe we’ve had posts on the 1959 Imperial, Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, the exclusive 300E and even the fascinating Ozzie market Royal (with cheese), but the standard 1959 Chrysler has never had its day on CC yet? We Well, as luck would have it, your second-favourite Tokyo CCorrespondent found this great big slice of Americana in France last summer. We’re truly going global here, folks.
Nineteen fifty-nine is often said to have been the height of the American car design’s wildest age, and looking at General Motors’ offerings, that case can certainly be made. Mopar’s output, though, still hadn’t reached the finned peak of madness. It’s debatable whether that took place in 1960 or 1961, but the ‘59s were not quite there yet. Virgil Exner still had more very, very weird surprises in store for the world.
Still, from a 21st Century perspective, this Chrysler is pure Exnerian excess and gleaming chrome. Again, not as bad as some (looking at you, Cadillac, Imperial and Lincoln), and certainly not as odd as the canted headlights of the 1961 Chryslers. In fact, the face of the ‘59s is a tad anonymous, compared to say Dodge or Plymouth, but a restrained Virgil is usually preferable to the alternative.
The big news for 1959 was the “Golden Lion” wedge-head V8 (a.k.a. RB engine), which graced Windsors and Saratogas in its 383ci (6.3 litre) form. This engine was apparently only used for MYs 1959 and 1960 and does not seem to have a great reputation, though I’m not sure why. New Yorkers and the 300E got the larger 413ci (6.8 litre) version, which lived on for a couple decades.
These engine options clearly indicate the pecking order of the Chrysler range, which we will explore forthwith. The Windsor, identified by its zigzagging side-trim, was the lower end of the Chrysler range. The 300E, with its carry-over 1958 frontal styling, was the sporty halo car and the New Yorker was the luxury model.
This leaves the middle child Saratoga to complete the range – the best-looking of the bunch with that swooping side trim, for my money. Speaking of which, our Windsor coupe, which would have been the cheapest car in the range, cost a minimum of $3230 back in 1959, whereas the 300E convertible retailed at $5749 at the other extreme.
Base trim though it may be, our Windsor is still a Chrysler, with a superb chrome-festooned dash, acres of tinted glass and plush seats. Can anybody let the rest of us know if said upholstery appears original, by the way? The Chrysler brochure illustrations don’t look like this, but perhaps there were upgrades available.
Speaking of upgrades: rear power windows, eh? Someone went and ticked off the options list with gusto. Ah well, it’s par for the course in a car like this, I suppose.
The fins came at no extra cost, naturally. Remaining very 1957 in their shape, they look less aggressive than those present on most other marques, but still rather sharp.
Not quite sharp enough, as it turned out: Chrysler produced just a shade under 70,000 cars for 1959. Slightly better than the dismal ’58s, but far from impressive and making ’59 the second-worst model year for Chrysler between 1946 and 1980. Not sharp, but certainly painful.
It seems the buying public was not keen on the Forward Look’s last hurrah, Golden Lion or not. This relative rarity makes it all the more appealing nowadays, of course. Though not a roaring success in its day, this Windsor still edges close to purr-fection.
In September of `60, I was brought home from the hospital in a `59 New Yorker 4dr. hardtop! White with metallic rose accents & interior.
You’d hoot a the ‘old ride” I came home from the hospital in a couple a three/four months after you..lol
Am Certain I would have been the slowest to get home one year later, dad had a snail-like (for looks and performance) Austin A40 Devon.
Exner and his stylists junked up the sleek 1957-1958 cars by piling on the chrome and bulk, in effect copying what GM did BEFORE seeing the Chrysler 1957 lineup.
The rear bumper is the most unusual part of it to me, and shared by all 4 Chrysler models. The Imperial is totally different.
I was about to say that contrast piping wasn’t really a thing in American cars then, but our ’56 Olds 88 had metallic silver piping, white leather, and blue fabric with metallic thread. I don’t see any in the ’59 Chrysler catalog, though. It does show the two tone roof on all of them but the 300 and convertibles–even the wagons–so a two tone interior is fitting if not factory.
https://classiccarcatalogue.com/CHRYSLER_1959.html
Ralph, the contrasting piping on the seats as well as the vinyl material aren’t factory, nor is the “white” dash pad or upper side panels. (The sun reflection off that would blind a driver!) But it’s nicely done.
That is really a plain grille, more suitable for a Plymouth than a Chrysler (even the entry-level one).
Sure is.
You’re second to none among CC writers, Tatra87.
I rather like the ‘59 Chryslers in the context of the times. The front end tones down the rather juvenile aggressiveness of some of Exner’s other grilles. And there’s certainly enough bling left over everywhere else on the exterior for all practical purposes.
In the Sweet Temptation ad, the car got larger relative to the minipeople with each increase in model. Higher status = bigger status prosthesis.
Great find and writeup!
I love the interior – though I do strongly suspect that it’s a relatively recent custom job, since the seam patterns don’t seem to match other examples. Very well done, though… has a sort of ’50s diner booth motif, but it’s not overdone.
I like the zigzag side trim. I’ve never seen one of these before.
The car just hollers “Desoto”! It’s quite a looker. Didn’t the “57-62” models have “probs” with corrosion?
I love this car ! if you’re into “go BIG” this or the Saratoga was the MoPar for you .
-Nate
Interesting feature of the front end of the 1959 Chrysler is the fact that the headlights were migrating from free standing to half way into the grill. Since the beginning of the automobile, headlights were almost always free standing from the grill, in there own pop or under their own brow.
By 1959, Chevrolet had the headlights vertically in the grill area, and by 1960 Ford followed. It gave the automobile a completely new and different look – something that is never addressed.
A notable exceptions are the 1948-52 Ford F1 trucks, and the 1953-60 Ford F100 trucks. Odd that the Ford trucks became the precursor of a major styling change for all automobiles some years later. Chevrolet trucks continues the old look with the headlights under a brow and separate from the grill until 1960.
I suppose for the times, that front end was modern and new, but looking back, it isn’t well done. Those turn signals look right out of a JC Whitney catalog or off of a Studebaker, not a Chrysler. The horizontal grille does a little wrap around the front – why weren’t the turn signals placed there instead?
The split in the bumper design isn’t follow upwards at all. Why? If they wanted a horizontal grille like that – why isn’t the bumper designed horizontal too?
The bezels look cheap. By this year, dual headlight designs were the norm, right? Again – along with those cheezy looking turn signals, those pods are Walmart, not Chrysler.
The Mercury was done so much better. See below. The front fender headlight brows are copied across the grille and the bumper design compliments the horizontal design. Much better – in my opinion.
The 59 Chrysler may be one of my least favorite versions of the 1957-59 Forward Look cars. The front end is generic, and I dislike the 2-tone roof, which I see as affectation or gimmick that detracts from the overall nice shape of the car. Also, that Windsor side trim always looked to me like stylists knew where it needed to start and end, but ran out of ideas on how to get from point A to point Z. The Saratoga and New Yorker side trim is far better. However, I do like the taillight treatment with the “hooded” fin treatment. And my, what a complex back bumper.
The engine is an oddball – all I have read is that the Chrysler 383 was a 2-year design that was different from the Dodge 383 (which became the one we all know). The only problems I have read about is that they are scarce, which has resulted in problematic availability of some parts.
Thanks for documenting this one and bringing it to us!
The RB engines (early 383, 413, 426, 440) all used the 3 3/4 inch stroke. The B engines (350, 361, the ’61 and later 383, and the 400 ) were all 3 3/8’s inch stroke (and a lower deck block). The RB 383 had a bore of 4 1/32 inch, was only produced for the two years and only available in the Chrysler, so the total production was probably somewhat limited compared to all the other engines.
The more common B block 383 was 4 1/4 inch bore and was produced for all three car lines and for a much longer period of time.
I agree that the ’59 Saratoga is the best looking of the bunch from the side view, and also that the ’59 Chrysler front end is a strangely under-designed, generic-looking disappointment. The ’59 DeSoto is actually a much better looking car overall.
My grandmother had a 4 door New Yorker hardtop in gray rose poly which she kept until replacing it with a ’65, the year I was born. My grandfather then took the ’59, which was one of the first cars I remember riding in.
These and the DeSotos were the best of Chrysler’s heavy-handed refreshes for ’59. I sense a lot of Bill Schmidt here.
I love all the uniqueness of the “Forward Look” and these great articles and reader comments. It’s like going to an antique car show at the kitchen table.
My dad drove Plymouths and Chryslers from ’55 to 1970. Good ride, handling and power. I preserve and enjoy a 55 Plymouth proudly. Rare car at shows and cruise-ins.