We’ve had a number of 1965 Chryslers appear on these pages, but there’s no way I’m not going to stop when I see one parked curbside. I’ve had a special place in my heart for these since they appeared, and that love was deepened when my father’s cousin, a traveling salesman of fine Austrian opticals, showed up in one. He had good taste in cars, and a Chrysler’s trunk could hold a lot of cameras, microscopes and telescopes. Including a telescope for me.
This one is obviously a Newport, but I was a bit confused when I walked up to shoot the front.
That’s not a Newport grille, but a New Yorker, although without the clear headlight covers. Hmmm…. I’ll assume someone swapped it out later, rather than it being an assembly line mix-up. My father’s ’68 Dart came with mismatched upholstery, the rear seat coming from a higher trim version. Maybe Newport grilles had run out temporarily? Not likely.
Have I read somewhere that some jurisdictions were not happy about the clear headlight covers? But then a number of cars used them up until 1968, when they were outlawed by new federal lighting standards. They’re not here, and truth be told, when I fist looked at this front end, I didn’t register that it wasn’t the Newport front end, in part because of the missing headlight covers. I had to go back to the brochure to make sure there wasn’t a Newport Custom or such that used the NY grille, minus the covers.
Given the dual exhausts, one might assume this Newport has the optional 325 hp four barrel 383, but then its rear end might be as in-authentic as its front end.
Elwood Engel recycled a lot of his 1961 Continental themes in these new Chrysler’s, although the chrome-tipped horizontal crease on its sides is not as high up and out as it was on the Contis, a reflection of the changing times and a move towards a smother transition from the window base into the body side. Exner had pioneered that in his 1960 Valiant and 1962 Dodge and Plymouth, and it would come back on the 1969 fuselage cars, but for 1965-1968 it took a slab-sided hiatus, although as these pictures show, it was less exaggerated on the Chrysler than on the Continental.
The lower line of that edge allowed Engel to incorporate the door handles into it, similarly to the 1961-1963 Thunderbird.
I got to ride in that ’65 Chrysler my relative had when he came to visit, and what a contrast it was to our ’62 stripper Fairlane. Now this is a real car! Why couldn’t my dad have bought one of these instead? And our friends, the Blodis, also from Austria, had just bought one too. Chryslers were the next best thing to a Mercedes, which is exactly what my dad’s cousin (“Uncle Leo”) bought next: a 280 SE. The trunk wasn’t as large, but who cared? Not me or him.
When I was a kid, my parents had friends that traded a 54 Ford Mainline for a 61 Plymouth 2 door hardtop. Even before then I thought they were my parents coolest friends. That Plymouth was followed by several Chryslers, including a Newport of about this vintage. The only family I knew that went Mopar products and stuck.
It wasn’t until the husband died that I found out his brother was a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer. Don’t remember anyone else buying a Chrysler product, except my mother’s maiden aunt, who stayed with a Chrysler product. But they are great looking cars, well engineered, but sometimes spotty build quality.
While it was obvious on my street in the ’60s and ’70s that GM was a force to be reckoned with, there were families here and there in the neighborhood that were loyalists of Chrysler brands. Several of those loyalty chains broke in the ’78 – ’81 period as Chrysler transitioned to virtually all front wheel drive. Most of those folks moved to GM. ’80s Mopar products always seemed very scarce.
Same thing in my suburban neighborhood in the ’70s, and among the families I remember who had Chrysler Town and Country wagons, the father was usually an engineer.
Those wagons always seemed nice, but I always noticed more creaking and wind noise than in my dad’s Ninety-Eight; however, that could have been due to the T&C being a wagon, versus a sedan. But at any rate, to this day it still colors my perception of Chrysler products (particularly the cars), and after 40 years you’d think I’d be rational enough to let go of this perception. ?
It is amazing how Chrysler has had periods when it could do little wrong, and ’65 – ’68 was one of them. The gradual slide that began in 1969 was a freefall by 1974. What a difference a few years can make.
I wonder about the ‘do-no-wrong’ ’65-’68 Chryslers and how differently things might have been if it hadn’t been for the go-go sixties economy (and the sales picked up from Studebaker’s failure). Frankly, it didn’t seem like any auto manufacturer, even perennial loser AMC, could do anything wrong during that period.
Chrysler had some pretty major foul-ups in the beginning of the decade, and without the solid financial climate up until the ’69 recession, the classic Chryslers of the mid-sixties might not even have made it to market. Or, if they did, with only slight, inexpensive changes from previous years, a la Studebaker.
I mean, look at what happened to the company in the seventies when the economy tanked. Chrysler might have done no wrong from ’65-’68, but they sure didn’t seem to be able to do anything right from ’75-’78. Well, except for maybe the Cordoba and Omnirizion. But those two minor successes sure couldn’t cover the other massive blunders.
Quibbles aside, it’s tough not to like those mid-sixties full-size Chryslers, even above the better selling Ford and GM products.
US economic growth was quite good from 1976-1979, and GM boomed those years. Ford and Chrysler started to falter during this time because their products were becoming increasingly obsolete. It wasn’t just economic factors.
AMC came perilously close to bankruptcy in early 1967 after its all-new Rebels and Ambassadors failed to sell.
A big part of the problem was competition from the Big Three. During 1965-66, the GM intermediates were too much competition for the Ambassador and higher trim levels of the Classic, while Chrysler stole sales from the American and lower-level Classics with the Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart.
AMC’s 1967 line-up didn’t do much to reverse these trends. A downturn in total car sales that year also didn’t help.
Chrysler missed every boom market after 1965 until the mid ’80s. The 1969 recession was considered mild, lasting only 11 months. 1969 U.S. auto sales stayed about even with ’67-’68 between 9 and 10 million units. 1970 and 1971 total market sales slumped, but some of that is blamed on the massive fall 1970 UAW strike at GM.
Chrysler product did slump a lot. The new for 1969 C bodies, the new 1970 E bodies, and new 1971 B bodies not only did not bring the usual bounce in new sales, they generally underperformed and then slumped further in subsequent years. That left the A bodies, which did do well, but this meant Chrysler’s product mix was shifting from higher margin large cars to lower margin compacts. And, of course, Chrysler finally botched the A’s in 1976 when they cancelled them for the new F body – letting Ford run away with a big portion of the compact market with its Granada / Monarch.
The 1973 total market set an all time record at over 14 million units, with GM’s high margin C / D range setting records, Ford’s large cars surging (particularly Lincoln-Mercury), sucking the high margin business away from Chrysler.
The 1974 Chrysler C body fell flat on its face, and never really recovered. A slightly resurgent Chrysler New Yorker during ’76-’78 did nothing to make up for the eventual death of the Plymouth and Dodge large cars after 1977, while GM’s new B/C range rode the total market to a new record of about 17 million units in 1977.
Chrysler all but missed the booming mid-size coupe – personal luxury car boom of the ’70s. The Cordoba was a hit – for a Mopar product, but GM and Ford each had several entries that individually outsold the Cordoba. Chrysler never played in the highly profitable premium luxury coupe market.
Chrysler came back to life in the ’80s, but really didn’t hit a “do no wrong” streak until about 1995 when it seemed to have bonafide hits or was at least competitive with fresh product in every segment it competed in. That brought Daimler-Benz sniffing around, and we all know how that worked out.
Love the full size Chryslers from the 1960s to the 1970s when the 440 was finally dropped.
The styling of these made you want to get on the interstate, point the hood at the horizon and not stop until fatigue forced you to.
What fatigue? You’re sitting on a couch, there are no blind spots, and the power steering and brakes are effortless. You only have to stop when you run out of gas money. 🙂
A lot of sheetmetal and other parts such as the grille are interchangeable between the same-year Newport and New Yorker in this era. I’m going to guess that, in this case, the car was in a front-ender at some point and the donor for at least some of the repair parts was a New Yorker.
The front bumper and hood aren’t even close to being aligned correctly. The rear edge of the drivers front fender isn’t lined-up with the door all that well either. The rear bumper has the chrome corner outline moldings, which were optional on Newport, but the front bumper is missing these moldings.
The front bumper also has bumperettes, which were much more commonly ordered on New Yorkers than Newports. Of course, since the original purchaser splurged on the bumper corner outline moldings and stainless door window trim, they may have ordered the bumperettes as well.
Don’t get me wrong, this is a great find curbside, and I would be ecstatic to come across this car myself.
A real beauty, Paul. The family Newport many moons ago….
“Chryslers were the next best thing to a Mercedes”…
Fifty years ago, that sentiment was actually plausible.
Today, the natural response might be to question the person’s credibility, if not their sanity.
IDK if it’s because of today’s being the 30th anniversary of the Challenger disaster, or the royal limo story posted earlier, stating ChryCo’s #2 position in sales behind GM back in 1938…or Sergio’s total mishandling of the company piled upon Cerberus’ and Daimler’s prior misdeeds…
But it just seems so profoundly sad today. And unnecessary.
#NameDebasement
Did you see my earlier comment? FCA sales in 2015 were not that far behind Ford’s. They had the biggest growth of the “Big Three”.
While FCA is not in ideal shape long-term, I think Marchionne has done surprisingly well, given the basket case he took over. Who could have done better? How? Yes, the growth of the industry these past years put wind in his sales, but he took on a mammoth challenge to make FCA viable.
The Chrysler part of FCA is highly profitable, and FCA is able to pare down debt and build up its cash position.
A lot of folks (including my son Ed) predicted that FCA would be dead by now. That’s hardly the case.
Meh. I’ve been in and/or driven plenty of Benzes and they are fine cars but when I get into my 300c, I assure you that my thoughts aren’t, “Man, I wish this was an E class…” Not because I can’t afford one, but because it just doesn’t push my buttons. I also don’t really think it drives much better, but I don’t carve corners. Its certainly screwed together better with better materials, but like I say about Dom-its good champagne no doubt, but I don’t know if its two hundred dollars good.
Different strokes for different folks.
FWIW, the 300C has some genuine Mercedes DNA in it.
Sure does. Funny how it took input and a platform from M-B and a plant I Canada to bring back a car that is unabashedly ‘American’ in its style and flavor.
The deal with Mercedes was a royal screwjob on Ma Mopar in many ways, but the LX is one platform that they really got right. Much like the Viper and the ’93 Ram, it brought credibility and enthusiasm to the Pentastar. Even now at 11 years old, those cars are still amazing and like nothing else on the road.
I agree. Mopars came with torsion bar rear suspension not cart springs, hemi engines and not OHV and unibodies instead of frames. More European than Ford
and GM. Would a buyer be considered a “bIt different” by his piers back then?.
Sorry to nitpick, but a Chrysler hemi engine of that era is an OHV engine, pushrods and all.
And Ford was making unibody vehicles in the US at that time (Lincoln, Thunderbird, Falcon, Mustang), not to mention in Europe.
Coil springs were not uncommon on all four corners by that time, and Chrysler used rear leaf springs (cart springs) in cars for longer than GM and Ford. And as much as torsion bars have their advantages, why aren’t they in widespread use today?
Torsion bars also have disadvantages, most of all the lack of a variable rate of springing, which is built into most coil springs. And undoubtedly, they’re more expensive.
They’re only real advantage is the ability to adjust ride height, but that’s not one that was commonly used by most Mopar owners. And arguably, they’re more durable than coils.And in some cases, the packaging may be advantageous. But strictly as a springing medium, they have no advantages. If Chrysler’s front suspension/handling was superior, than it wasn’t specifically because of it having torsion bars.
Chrysler’s reputation for better handling really comes from the fact that they were generally lighter and more firmly sprung during the early 60s, a time when the competition had mushier suspensions and were heavier.
But that advantage pretty much all went away after 1966, when Chrysler started to soften the spring settings on its cars, and GM and ford started to improve theirs. By the 70s, Chryser was increasingly at a disadvantage to GM’s efforts to improve handling on their cars.
Another advantage to torsion bars on these cars didn’t relate to handling characteristics, but to front end repairs. When replacing any parts, all you had to do to release “spring” tension was back off the height adjuster bolt. The suspension would then hang loose without risking the potential hazards of using a coil spring compressor.
Torsion bar FRONT suspension, not rear suspension. As BuzzDog says, Mopars still used leaf springs in the rear. Detractors pointed out that they were “buggy springs”, but leaf springs were a fairly elegant solution because they provided springs which could support the required load and provide axle placement without excess mechanical complexity or weight from trailing arms, Panhard bars, etc.
Rear axle wind-up on take-off was addressed by adding extra leaves to the forward part of the springs and adding pinion snubbers as standard on every car, though performance enthusiasts often made modifications to improve this further. Most pickup trucks still use leaf springs in the rear today.
A reason torsion bars aren’t used today is that a transverse FWD drivetrain with MacPherson struts is very compact and can be assembled quickly on the line. MacPherson struts are really a subassembly that incorporates shock, spring and rotating upper mount for locating the suspension. Dodge did go back to using torsion bars on their RAM1500 pickups, though I think that was just on the 2002-05 generation, then they went back to coil springs up front.
I will join in Chrysler celebration day with this car too. These look uncommonly good in that deep green color. I am with BOC in guessing that some New Yorker donated some pieces for a collision repair.
There is just something so “right” about these cars. They were quite un-stylish compared to the Buicks and Oldsmobiles, but they were so conservative and dignified. These big 60s C bodies were really good driving cars. I would own another in a heartbeat.
They were also tough as nails and incredibly reliable.
“They were also tough as nails and incredibly reliable.”
Bingo!
Also, might I suggest an alternate proposal for the name of this particular hybrid model: the Chrysler Newporker. 🙂
HA! Good one, jp!
Much better! It’s been changed.
The deep green is about perfect. These cars’ lines work to best effect in very dark colors (black and midnight blue also work quite well).
Chrysler was definitely at its zenith with the 1965-68 Chrysler’s, I can see why these were a good seller, I’ve thought the 1967-68 front end’s looked better than the 1965-66 front end’s.
The ’68 I can see, cleanly faired into the fenders, but the ’67? The ’67 just looks ponderous and clunky to me. An outlier amongst the clean ’65. ’66, and ’68 designs.
A clean, elegant design, although the huge trunk throws off the proportions a bit. Why oh why does the owner feel the need to put on those tacky chrome exhaust tips? I’m sure the duals are aftermarket, as only the 413 came with factory duals this year and that was a rare option indeed for a Newport.
The Town & Country wagons came off better and were a real standout. I recall our next-door neighbor had the similar ’66 Town & Country with the 440 TNT to tow his huge Airstream trailer. Had the cool roof rack that took up the entire roof. Still recall the awesome sound of the 440 as he would back that Airstream up his hilly driveway.
I can’t recall where I saw it (probably here) that, for some reason, tailpipes with the old-style turn-downs in front of the rear bumper aren’t available anymore (or are quite pricey). I guess it’s too difficult to make those final bends and they just run them straight out the back for extensions. A real pity because those extensions generally detract from an otherwise nice, original car.
The factory pipes actually curve upwards slightly, then turn down. And they look a thousand times better than these.
Love the Chryslers of this era. Well-proportioned, clean but with great details. The ’65 NYer is my favorite expression of it, and this one comes close–in my opinion the New Yorker grille is more attractive than the Newport piece.
Even though this car doesn’t have the glass headlamp covers, I just love that detail also. Why did they become illegal, exactly? DOT having a stick up its a$$ about lighting as usual, or was there a legitimate safety concern?
A number of states didn’t allow them, and after Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) were passed in 1966, you saw a lot of harmonization of these state safety regs.
My guess is that a sheet of even the clearest glass will block and/or distort the amount of light coming from the headlamps.
It did, and with many owners neglectful,of the need to keep them clean, things would go downhill from there.
But these days, people drive around with cloudy, frosted, semi-opaque polycarbonate headlights with the same issue. The round-headlight Mercedes look the worst (is their plastic really worse?) but what the heck? “I drive a Mercedes…”
There were no states that disallowed glass headlamp covers. The ’65 Chrysler and Imperial models, the pre-’68 Porsches and Jaguars and VW Beetles, and probably one or two others came with them, in every state. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard № 108 (lamps and reflective devices) was in the first batch to take effect, for 1/1/68. The most visible changes it made were to require front and rear side markers (lamps and/or reflectors until 12/31/69, then lamps and reflectors from 1/1/70) and to prohibit headlamp covers. That prohibition remains in place; while many of today’s headlamps incorporate a clear outer lens, it is considered part of the headlamp, and an additional cover is not allowed. Moreover, state standards were not harmonized when FMVSS came into effect—they were preempted.
The close-ups of the tail on the Newport made me think (euro) Mk1 Granada. Hadn’t noticed the similarity before.
Very good point. The tail lights themselves are eerily similar to what Mercury would later use on their 1969 Monterey.
To me, the most beautiful car Chrysler ever made. I’d love to have a ’66 New Yorker in the same green.
+1 I never much liked the fuselage bloaters that followed. After that it was all downhill.
And +1 to you too, Gem; I never took to the fuselage look, either.
When the 1965-68 generation was new, the one that made the biggest impression on me was the ’68 300 4-door hardtop. I could see they’d made an effort to make the side windows a bit less square, and I liked the hidden headlamps.
These days, I’d probably prefer one of the six-window sedans, or a Town & Country.
Regarding checking brochures for accuracy: It’s rare, but sometimes we run into mistakes on sales brochures, as they were sometimes printed before last minute changes in the cars. This can be misleading. About 15 years ago, I had a 1966 Plymouth Valiant wagon. When I picked up a brochure at a flea market, I noticed a glaring misrepresentation in it. I’ve never found out why it happened, but, although the main illustration of the car is correct, there are several smaller ones that show the wagon without the full rear wheel cutouts that all Mopar compacts had in this body (1963-66). There never was a wagon that looked like this, as far as I know. Anyone ever heard a story that explains this? Was it planned and then nixed at the last minute?
I’ll give a shot at an explanation. The reason the Valiant and Dart wagons had that large round rear wheel cutout is because they used the rear quarter panel from the ’60 – ’62 Valiant (and Lancer) wagon, with some changes to the external sheet metal. It must have been cheaper than to create a new die altogether. That big round cutout never matched up with the ’63 Valiant restyle, but they kept using it on the wagon.
What happened in the brochure is that the artist who did the renderings undoubtedly used the sedan body and modified it for the wagon rendering; much quicker than doing it from scratch. But he failed to catch that it still had the sedan rear wheel cutout.
There’s no other explanation. There was no way Chrysler was going to change the tooling for that in its very last year. These wagons were not big sellers.
Interesting – does it show the same error for the more upmarket wagons or only the 100? I have to say, the wagon looks better with the wheels part-covered like this.
That is interesting. I have had that brochure for 50 years now, and I don’t recall ever noticing the discrepancy. I have seen differences in other brochures (although no examples come to mind), but they were all changes that happened after the actual production of the cars began.
Not in the Valiant brochure, but the full line Plymouth Brochure shows a 200 wagon as part of a montage of many models, and it has the sedan wheel cutouts as well. There actually isn’t a 100 represented on the page, however there are identical 200 sedans shown in two colors of blue. Like a school of fish, the individual car counts for little in this illustration; it’s value is as part of the greater whole. If Paul’s theory is correct, which seems likely, ChryCo might even have encouraged the agency to do it this way to save money (although it’s much more fun to imagine it as a mistake or dastardly conspiracy to slip one past the client to pad profits). After all, Mopar had no problem selling the car itself with completely mismatched wheel arches (like the first gen Rambler American).
IMHO, the ’63-’65 A Body wagons benefit from the radiused rear wheel wells. It’s a lighter look that speaks of utility. Didn’t they even carry this approach over onto Valiant sedans in Australia?
(Both images in my responses are from oldcarbrochures.com)
Yes, our 63 AP5 to 65 AP6 Valiant sedans had the radiused wheel cutouts
The 1966 VC sedan had a flatter rear cutout while the wagon and ute had the radiused cutouts
Yes, but it looks to me like the entire rear body is different from the earlier U.S. models. The deck lid, rear quarters and back panel appear to be entirely unique.
This is not terribly surprising since these car bodies were fabricated entirely in Australian factories. Tonsley Park here….
The finished product. I think it’s WAY better looking than the U.S. version.
Barko: You do realize that you were the only person to ever notice this? 🙂
And that the poor kid out of art school who had to put together all of these endless variations on this page of the brochure was thinking about something other than rear wheel cutouts?
The 63 Valiant’s rear fender is the only major sheetmetal change that Elwood Engel made when he came from Ford in late 61. I’ve always assumed that Chrysler opted to keep the original 63 Valiant rear fender in Australia, but I’ve never known for sure.
The illustration used also includes the rocket shapes that fared into the bumpers as on the 63-64. Chrome trim spears were used on those in 64 and I installed them on my 63 Signet not long after I bought it in 1980.
“All information in this brochure subject to change without notice” is the usual disclaimer found in the brochures somewhere in the small print.
If I were to ever obtain another ’60s model car, I think a ’65 to ’68 Chrysler would be at the top of my very short list. Once upon a time I thought these looked a little bizarre, but their overall goodness escaped me until discovering and writing up a 1968 Newport.
I had a ’65 Newport 4 dr sedan. It was in perfect shape on three sides and the interior. But on the passenger side it had evidently been sideswiped as there was no straight sheet metal from bumper to bumper but the bumpers weren’t damaged neither were the door handles. I paid $150.00 for it in ’84, it ran and drove perfect. I bought it for the 383-727 to put in my ’67 Dodge Camper Special PU which had a 318-4sp. The engine and transmission were still working great when I sold the PU 6 years later.
When I drove the Newport before parting it out I wish I could have saved it, but it would have cost a fortune to do the bodywork. As one of the other posters stated it was made to cruise the freeways and it did that with comfort. I always wanted another one but the closest I came was my ’70 Sport Fury I had for 7 years but I really would have rather have had a ’65-66 Chrysler Newport.
Magnificent.
I’ve always liked the 1965 Chrysler cars.
A very nice car indeed , I think it’s stylish and beautiful .
Having owned several MoPars of this vintage I can attest that they’re very good cars indeed although often wildly bad initial build quality .
Twice pipes are a very subjective thing ~ I’m one of those who likes to hear the engine working but not fart cans nor mufflers that deliberately increase noise just for noise sake .
Dual exhaust with a proper crossover and flow through mufflers not only sounds good it helps the engine breathe better for increased power and fuel economy both .
-Nate
“Twice pipes are a very subjective thing ~ I’m one of those who likes to hear the engine working but not fart cans nor mufflers that deliberately increase noise just for noise sake .
Dual exhaust with a proper crossover and flow through mufflers not only sounds good it helps the engine breathe better for increased power and fuel economy both .”
Agreed. A V8 needs to breath free to be at maximum power/efficiency…the added benefit is beautiful music. Its just wrong to silence such a beautiful sound…like playing old school Metallica at a ‘reasonable level’.
Chrysler’s dual exhaust systems of the sixties were top-notch, with the best being the system used for the Hemi cars, which employed not only a crossover, but reverse-flow mufflers which, on top of sounding great, flowed without much back-pressure.
But it was Ford who did a really great job when they brought back true dual exhausts for the V8 Mustangs of the eighties. In addition to using a crossover pipe, one of the more clever feats was eliminating the highway drone by staggering the position of the mufflers so they weren’t both located the same distance in the chassis.
With the Hemis, they even made cast iron exhaust manifolds that looked like a set of shorty headers!
Yeah, unless you were a die-hard drag-racer who intended on running open headers all the time, the Hemi’s stock exhaust system (including the exhaust manifolds) was best left alone.
Great looking car and it absolutely dominates that street. A 2 door hardtop, or even a convertible would be more my style, but theres just no denying what a clean and handsome design these are. Engel’s work may have been seen as ‘conservative’ in the day, but its stood the test of time. Organic looking aero-blobs NEVER looked good…and they sure wont have this kind of appeal when theyre half a century old.
Interestingly, those are look to be the standard New Yorker headlight surrounds, with just the glass portion removed (or broken out?)
A classic, elegant design. I’ve always liked the Chryslers of that era – for me they always stood out among the other big Detroit cars. I rode in a few as a kid, and I loved the bright, airy interiors with plenty of room for everyone. I’ve never had the pleasure of driving one, but it’s great to see a well-preserved example.
My grandfather had a 1965 New Yorker in a maroon red. A beautiful car, with all the options. I remember being fascinated as a kid with the power windows – we had never had them in the family cars. Grandad was a “trade every four years” kind of guy, but he kept that car until 1972, when he traded it in for a 1972 Newport. The difference was very clear, it was nowhere near as nice a car, even accounting for the New Yorker/Newport trim differences.
IDK if the local Chrysler dealer was a “Volume Discounter” or that the locals knew a good thing when they saw it; but my middle class (barely!) suburban New Orleans neighborhood had this generation of Chryslers ALL OVER the place! Newport 4 doors and station wagons were part of my childhood and early twenties.
I used the car in the driveway more than the actual house address when “throwing” my morning paper route in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s (easier to identify the car than the address numbers in the pre-dawn hours).. I lost count of how many Chryslers of this era got a paper plopped down behind it’s back bumper.
My first everyday car was a ’66 300 non letter series coupe with a 383. It was very sharp with its white buckets and ball return console, and quite a handful on the Saw Mill River Drive. I actually did a painting of it in 1978 that I hope to write a COAL around.
If you mean the Sawmill River Parkway in New York, I bet it was! Wide car on a narrow road with no shoulders. It built between 1926 and 1955 when cars were smaller and speeds were lower.
Thaaat’s the one, Gene. A dangerous, if picturesque highway. With the Chrysler’s sloppy front end (I never had it properly rebushed) it was hard to keep it off the guardrail when traveling with a car to the right. Any of the highways of that era, The Merit, Taconic and even the Palisades Parkway have short, curvy ramps that don’t work well with the well suspended, quick cars of today. And the Saw Mill is particularly frightening, as you can round a turn at 60 to a wall of cars stopped at a traffic light.
Then, there were the car tracks. The old surfaces must have been half an inch deeper where the tires rode, so you were, effectively, driving a speed boat in heavy rains. The car I replaced the Chrysler with, a ’67 Mustang, would easily stall out on the Saw Mill from puddles splashed onto the front mounted distributor. I go used to rolling off into the grass and spraying the cap out with WD-40.
I’m sure a loose front end only added to the excitement, Barko. I’ve had my share of hair raising moments on that road, too.
Just a few years ago, I was heading home on it from NYC in my trusty ’93 Corolla. Two or three days in the city would wind me up so tight that, when it came time to leave, I would relieve the stress with some “spirited” driving. The smaller dimensions of the Toyota gave the illusion of a slightly larger margin for error.
Traffic was very light and I was ripping along at between 75 and 80 m.p.h. when a guy in some tuner car blasts by me like I was standing still. Sure enough, about a mile up the road, I come around a blind turn and there’s a group of about half a dozen cars dead stopped in the both lanes of the road. I was just barely able to stop in time. The tuner guy had lost it, bounced off the center guard rail and come to rest partially blocking the travel lane.
By some miracle, he hadn’t taken anyone with him on his little thrill ride, but when the traffic finally started to move slowly around the smoking ruin of his car, I got a good look at all the damage: front fascia torn off and lying in the road, one front wheel and axle traumatically removed and the rear end completely stove in. Skid marks told the tale that he had spun it, backed into the guard rail and then come back around and kissed it hard with the nose.
And the driver? He was standing next to the car talking on his cell in a highly animated fashion. LOL!
FWIW : ” buggy spring ” means transverse , not two parallel leaf springs .
I had a 1969 Chrysler station Wagon when it was just a four year old car with 383 V8 Torqueflite slush box tranny , AM radio (worked great) and dead AC .
I bought it for my Girlfriend when the Renault Dauphine died ,paid $125 for it and wound up driving it off and on as a daily driver .
it was comfy and dead reliable , with gasoline @ .34 CENTS the gallon I didn’t need to sweat the fuel economy .
I remember driving it into the mountains on snow days but I can’t remember if it has the third seat or not .
A great car to be sure , it had been ridden hard and put away wet yet was always ready to go .
After a year or so I bought her a cherry red 1956 VW Beetle (last year of the toe burner) and sold the wagon to the first viewer for $350 .
-Nate
my dads 66 coronet deluxe had the blacked out grill from a 500 from the factory—things happen