There probably aren’t a whole lot of 1974 big Chryslers out there anymore, as they weren’t exactly a hot item in 1974, in the throes of the first energy crisis. But here’s clean looking Newport that I spotted at a little car lot in Eugene. I’m really not in tune with the car market these days, other than knowing everything that moves seems to be somewhere between 50 and 100% more expensive than it was in 2019. So maybe $2995 is a pretty good asking price?
I just gabbed a few shots through the fence, so I can’t tell exactly what those dual exhausts are connected too, but I rather suspect it’s not likely to be the big 440, which wasn’t exactly a hot option that year. The standard 400 wasn’t exactly a gas-sipper either; in 1975 the 360 LA became the standard engine. At least they didn’t throw in the 90 hp slant six in desperation.
Yes, 1974 was a bad year for the car market, most of all for the big cars. The Chrysler brand, despite being completely restyled (“new”), had nothing but big cars in its stable; sales tumbled exactly 50% from 1973 (234k units) to 117k units in ’74. Ouch. It was the beginning of the end for big Chryslers (and C-Body Plymouths and Dodges). Except for a bit of a bump in 1977, sales were in terminal decline. It’s a mighty good thing the Cordoba came along in 1975, and then the LeBaron 1977. The last big Chryslers rolled off the lines in 1978, and the dies for making big block V8s were permanently retired. The end of an era.
But here’s your chance to relive those wonderful days of gas lines and prices that were changing almost daily. The beginning of the Malaise Era!
Related CC reading:
Car Show Classic: 1974 Chrysler Newport – Sorry, Please Play Again
I lived through that odd/even gas era in NJ. Dealers couldn’t give the guzzlers away, and the imports were full sticker and in B/log for desired specs. I bought a new Mazda 626 for the MPG. After moving to the Midwest and the first significant snowfall, that Mazda was history as it was like a big ice skate. Traded it in on a used 79 Caprice and put the significant cash difference into a 15% CD. The big Chryslers and Buick/Olds/Cadillac beasts from the 70’s looked so whale-like after that whole experience, and even more morbidly obese today.
Ahh, odd/even. I remember going to a party about 30 miles from home, with a low tank of gas. No problem, I’ll just fill up on the way home. But I stayed after midnight so that would be a problem, figuring that the few gas stations still open might check my plates, especially as this was when they still noted your plate number for a credit card sale. So I borrowed my friend’s Slant6 Dart, which had the right plates and/or a full tank, and picked up my own car a few days later. It didn’t end up a particularly cheap option with the extra driving plus leaving my friend a full tank in return for the loan, as I think gas cost over $1 per gallon then (this was later than 1974). Yes, that was a lot of money then.
Thanx for the story dman! If you remember being at that party, you obviously didn’t drink enough! L0L A short but true story..Circa 1992ish. I had a rusty old 1966 white Meteor convertible. It had ZERO brakes, NOT even an emergency brake, bc the frame was so rusted that it was bent outta shape, and STRETCHED the cable! I don’t remember leaving a party by the PNE in Vancouver. I lived close to 12th/Lonsdale which is on a MOUNTAIN, so I needed brakes, unless I drove it home VERY CAREFULLY using a certain route where I was never driving DOWN any hills! I remember waking up in a PANIC, bc I immediately looked out my window and NO car was to be seen in front! Upon further investigation, I saw the heap was neatly parked down the block! WHEW!!! I’m NOT religious but God MUST have been guiding me that early morning! BTW, I’m 8 yrs sober ATM with God’s grace!
growing up through that time period (I was 23 in 1974), gas-guzzling vehicles were one thing–to me, however, were as follows–the huge UGLY, ungainly bumpers on many of the cars AND that stupid interlock system (seat belts that had to buckled before the interlock system would allow the car to start…. and in many cases, the interlock system would malfunction!!!!!
Thanx Bruce! We are close to the same age, and I’m glad I am not the ONLY one who HATED those 1973 onward MONSTROSITIES! We were lucky to live and see some real CLASSICS tho! Up until 1972 that is…Then, the party was…OVAH!
Wow a 2 door!
Sort of Cordoba meets Eldo styling……
@MX5, CorDOHbah?!? L0L Methinx U R hinting about that “fine Corinthian leather”?!? W0W! What a sales-job Carlos MENTALban lol did with that unforgettable phrase of the 70s! Thank God the 70s are LONG-GONE!!!
My aunt/uncles, neighbor had a “75” , like this. Was white, green top, green brocade inside.
1st. thought Wow, it’s a two door hard top ! =8-) .
I remember these beasts and not too fondly but at that time big American cars were still a serious aspirational thing ~ many Blue Collar Americans didn’t think they’d ‘made it’ until they owned one .
I like riding in big boats but never liked driving them, I’ve had some but all were dirt cheap fixers I soon tired of driving and feeding .
As an elder this car looks much better than I thought it did when new .
If it’s rust free and runs on all 8 cylinders I might well be a good hobby / fun car .
Disable / circumvent the various power robbing smog devices other crap and fix the AC you’d have a very nice good riding and handling land yacht to tour American in .
-Nate
Thanx Nate! Your comment reminded me of being 12 yrs old. It was 1965 and my dad who was a salesman, had bought a new 1965 Pontiac Parisienne.(with power steering) It was a family car, and I never noticed much about it until I was shipped back East to Motown Canada for the summer! (Windsor,Ont.) My grandparents had also bought a brand new 1965 Dodge Polaris, and after riding in that a few days I could feel a significant difference in the ride! (no power steering) The Pontiac had a FLOATING much softer ride than my Gramp’s new Dodge! Both were BORING family cars to a 12 yr old of course. At home in Vancouver, I was making model cars like the 1963 Buick Riviera! The BORING continues to this day! Just yesterday I was walking by a Ford dealer in town, and 90% of the new cars/trucks were/ARE boring colours! Most of them were the metallic greys, metallic blues, black, etc., and only a few had some LIFE to them! There was ONE bright orange, and another nice bright green Bronco, which caught my eye!
Yes Nate! Owning a ‘Caddie’ was THE symbol of financial success from the 50s onward! (Only if you were a MOBSTER lol) Reminds me of a Rockford Files episode with “Lance White” (Tom Sellick) in it. Jimbo called his car a PARADE FLOAT! L0L It was a Huge convertible but I forget which model. Maybe an Eldorado? Jim’s car got a lot of love in that era for some reason. The FireChicken lol was just an ordinary ‘sporty’ car to me! Probably the BORING metallic colour again? Paint that car candy apple red, or some other HOT colour, and it will look 100% better!
Hi Nate! I Googled the BIGGEST production car ever a few years ago, and again just now. It STILL is the 1974 Chrysler Imperial. The Imp was/IS one of my ALL-time favs! https://driving.ca/features/feature-story/these-are-5-of-the-largest-production-vehicles-ever-built
To look their best, wheel skirts almost a necessity on these.
So, a big block with electronic ignition but probably not Lean Burn. Could be worth a shot. Wonder if the lot would take $1,500? I might go as far as $2,000.
It doesn’t matter what’s for sale… any item is only worth what the buyer is willing to pay. Never be afraid to walk away saying “Excuse me, is that the door?”
My dad was a sales mgr at a new car dealer, and I worked there a few mos too as a car jockey. Once they get you into the ‘chute’, it’s almost impossible for a customer to say no! It’s quite CRIMINAL what they do in there! Let’s just say the INTIMIDATION factor is VERY high!
Chrysler made several poor management decisions that almost led to their downfall by the end of the decade, but they just got unlucky with the timing of both the new ’74 C bodies and the R bodies that replaced them in 1979. I’ve always thought both of these were competitive with GM and Ford’s offerings in those two years, but buyers seemed to think otherwise.
la673, 1972 was the LAST year that American cars had any STYLE at all! I lost interest in anything that had 4 wheels that year, and beyond! BTW, I was 20 yrs old in 1973! Luckily there were NOT many on the road yet, bc they were/ARE eyesores! The 70s was a DEBACLE of a decade, as men wanted to be women and ‘VICE’ versa! Luckily in 1973 I went thru a Navy Seals-like training that made a man outta me! I wore my hair short, and my nick-name was…”Nick The Narc”! lol Kinda IRONIC bc most real narcs had VERY long hair so they could work under cover! The styles/fashions for mens’ clothing also went DOWNHILL very fast! Remember those Bozo The CLOWN ties that many men were wearing? Excuse me while I chunder!!! (=
To my eyes these full sized Mopar 2 doors looked SO much better without the reduced size back seat side windows.
Any interior pics, Paul?
If I buy that car, will Joe Garagiola give me a check?
@Bob B. Yup! Too bad it will be a bodycheck tho! (=
Big cars weren’t the only thing Chrysler had in ’74. They still had the midsize Coronet/Belvedere and the Compact Dart/Valiant/Demon/Duster.
What they didn’t have (and it certainly didn’t help Chrysler) was a Vega/Pinto/Gremlin type sub compact.
Yeah, the UK-sourced Plymouth Cricket and the Simca 1204(1100) aren’t a big success https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/cricket-of-a-lifetime/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/un-curbside-classic-simca-1204-1971-small-car-comparison-no-2/
Dealers have to rely on Colt/Arrow from Mitsubishi to sell something during these times.
Big cars WERE the only thing offered under the Chrysler nameplate. To get anything smaller, you had to accept one with a Plymouth or Dodge nameplate. Buick, in contrast, would sell you a Century or an Apollo in 1974, in addition to the big cars.
REMOVE those railroad ties from the front AND back, and you MAY have a decent-looking car!
Like most Chryslers, it´s pretty derivative. It looks like they might have thought a bit about Cadillac when doing the styling. Of course, it isn´t very Cadillac but a bit, in the way 90s Toyotas sometimes had subliminal styling themes blended into the mix. Is the Chrysler a shade of the 1969 Eldorado, perhaps?
In October 1973, Egypt and other Arab nations invaded Israel during their holy Yom Kippur holiday. Because we opposed those actions, OAPEC blocked oil to us and other nations. So this wasn’t the result of a natural consequence – it was the result of a political one. At that time we heavily depended upon Muslim countries for oil because it was profitable compared to other sources.
Consequently, no one was ready for this. Few of us in 1973 had concerns regarding the enormity of our dependence upon Middle East oil. The idea that these Muslim countries could do this to us was a revelation. The embargo effectively cause an economic impact especially upon our auto manufacturers.
Chrysler isn’t to blame for doing what looked perfectly fine right up to October 1973. There was no reason to believe that on the immediate horizon was an economic and political convultion that would cause their new line of cars to tank 40%. There was no reason to believe that the banks were being foolish loaning Chrysler millions of dollars to develop a new line of full sized cars.
So, what we see here is a perfectly fine 1974 automobile. The gas mileage would probably be under 10 miles per gallon, and back in 1973, that meant you went to tank up on .35 per gallon gas regularly. There really isn’t any reason to scorn this car other than that. Steering, quality, handling, acceleration were all on par for the competition. On its own, this is a fine car.
Since then, we are no longer as heavily dependent on Muslim countries for our oil – yet the price we pay globally is still impacted. The more oil on the market, the lower the price. OPEC no longer controls the same percentage of global production as it had in 1974. Nations that suffered due to the Yom Kippur war began developing oil reserves in other parts of the world afterwards.
This Newport was a pretty good looking car. I like the last of the hardtop coupes. GM and Ford had cars as large or larger than this- GM up until 1977, and Ford up to 1979. Chrysler’s full sizers failed to be paid off and they damaged Chrysler Corp’s bottom line until the Federal Government bailed them out.
In isolation – in that unique isolation that about 320 million people seem still to live within today – I agree that the car is unquestionably on a par with what the domestic opposition was churning out. I agree too that to pick on it for the failings writ large after the unknowable events of October ’73 is irrelevant – the competitors all had the same problem. And I also quite like the styling.
But as a car, on its own?
At 6’6″ wide, near-19ft long,2 metric tonnes, 10 mpg, 0-60 in 12+ seconds, no handling to speak of, it is not a fine car at all. It is a risibly bad one.
Not so Justy ~ these had better handling than Ford or GM products at the time and simply replacing the no doubt original and worn out shocks and other suspension bits will make it fun to drive quickly if not actually fast .
Old Chrysler products tend to be very easy to up grade the handling on by doing research and swapping out better (usually thicker) sway bars and adding pre load to the torsion bars. etc. , etc .
-Nate
It wasn’t just the OPEC that made the 1973 and up models such dinosaurs.
A progressive tightening of emission standards beginning with the 1971 models was starting to affect engine tuning, economy and performance. The effect on drivability was relatively modest for the 1971 & 72 models though performance began being reduced.
In 1973, the changes began to have more drastic effects on drivability. We mechanics used to question our factory rep how the new models burning more gas could pollute less than the older models that got better mileage. Never did get a good answer.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the methods employed to clean up engines originally designed without thought to emissions were inadequate at best.
I worked mostly on Fords. Their 73 through 76 models were terrible, but I think the Chrysler engines were worse. Even when relatively new, it was really difficult to get them to run right while continuing to meet emission standards. Age didn’t improve things.
Fuel economy and performance? Fuggetaboutit.
In my opinion, the 73 through 76 models of any US engine probably represent a low point of efficiency. The combination of the OPEC oil embargo with tightening emissions standards created a perfect storm for
US auto makers. They were far more dependent on large car sales than their overseas competitors.
That price seems quite reasonable to me, especially given the rusty wrecks I commonly see in my area with asking prices far higher. This is pre-lean burn, and ought to have the rest of the old Chrysler gremlins worked out. I like it.
The first thing that struck me about this was – where are the wheels? 🙂 They seem almost comically far inboard compared to what we’re used to today. Just look at the car next to it. Was there any sense to draping a wide body over a narrow track?
But it is nice to see a proper hardtop with proper side windows. And for 5mph bumpers, they don’t look too bad.
The angle Paul used to take the photos really emphasizes the narrow track on this Chrysler compared to the wide body. Not quite as absurd-looking as a 59 Chevy in this respect, but close!
Agree 100% with you Peter. Why I said above, these badly needed rear wheel skirts to mask that gaping wide cavity inside the rear wheel opening.
Thats been for sale for years
I am certain this is the same car (broken front turn signal) that was for sale in Oregon for months as low as $2250 or so about 3-5 years ago. IIRC it had a 400. Interior was the cool Indian Blanket design. Love it!
If one wished to mooch about in a (very) large potful of nostalgia, that price can’t be too bad these days. Its looks are less malaised than a number of others, and, not having seen a two-door of these before, it’s quite handsome all up. I’d certainly take it for some Sunday strolling if was free, as they say, and at $2999 in 2023 “classic” car prices, what with it seeming to be rustless and mobile, it pretty-much is!
I agree with Justy .
Don’t forget that you’ll $oon be $pending close to the $ame $ you paid for it if you want it to be turn key and road ready, safe, reliable etc., etc…….
I don’t mind this, to me it’s not a ‘hidden expense’, it’s just part and parcel of owning an older vehicle and why I never buy for resale, I buy because I like it or want it to teach me new things……
I agree that this could be a very nice hobby car .
-Nate
OH! Damn it. Now I’m missing my $120 70’Plym. Fury 2dr 383″ 2(!)bbl Cpe beater I left to the storage auctioneers in 09′ Bad year for the oil pumps as per tech bulliten I also found at a flea mkt in Cali.! Thats just PART of my beater fleet! WHagh!!//
The 360 was never the standard in the 1974-75 Newport, standard was the 400 with two barrel, with the 440 as an upgrade. I’ve never actually seen a full size C body Chrysler with an LA series engine, though have been told that it was an option in California on the 1978 models, on Dodge and Plymouth that would be a different story.
1974 was a bad year for Chrysler, but sales took a dump across all their makes, Plymouth and Dodge as well, it was basically a recession year. It would be interesting to compare late 1973-74 car sales between Ford, G.M, and Chrysler, I have a feeling that theirs took a dump as well. All three companies sold smaller models (Chrysler ones were captive imports like the Dodge Colt) but made their profits on big cars. Likely the only winner may have been American Motors since their cars were already downsized, except the Matador and Ambassador,