How much does car styling change over the course of 20 years through three different decades? Quite a bit actually. Avid Cohort contributor Canadiancatgreen recently posted a number of interesting junkyard photos, among them these four full-size Chryslers, three of which served the brand’s flagship during its respective decade. The rear-quarter view from which each is taken especially highlights the dramatic change in styling trends from the 1970s to the 1980s to the 1990s.
First up is this 1975 Chrysler New Yorker. Debuting one year prior in 1974, the redesigned C-bodies followed the Fuselage Chryslers, replacing swoopy, curved sheetmetal with straighter body lines and more chiseled styling throughout, while still maintaining an ever-so slight resemblance to the Fuselages. These cars were still massive, with acres of overhang, and a girth allowing for true three-abreast seating in each row. Among their most distinctive styling traits were their sweeping rooflines, which I can only describe as being canopy-like in nature.
Less than a decade later, Chrysler’s largish M-body LeBaron was given a facelift in 1980, highlighted by more regal styling and the near-vertical “formal” roofline then in vogue. Following the discontinuation of the larger R-body, the M-body became Chrysler’s “new” New Yorker flagship, a name that soon became New Yorker Fifth Avenue, and then simply just Fifth Avenue. The Fifth Avenue’s roofline was achieved through a fiberglass cap, resulting in its standard landau roof. Aided by the fact that it was a smaller vehicle, simpler sheetmetal with straighter body lines and sharper angles gave the Fifth Avenue a more businesslike look in the true 1980s way.
The M-body lasted until 1989, upon which all full-size Chryslers would be front-wheel drive until 2005. A slightly longer front-wheel drive C-body, dubbed the Y-body, debuted for 1990 with the Chrysler Fifth Avenue and Chrysler Imperial. Styling, especially for the Fifth Avenue, was near-identical to this shorter, rather tiny “full-size” C-body New Yorker that was released two years prior, itself a very evolutionary continuation of the M-body Fifth Avenue.
Revolutionary would be the term that described this 1994 Chrysler LHS, a dramatic departure from all recent flagship Chryslers. Highlighted by its “Cab-Forward” proportions and styling, length was stretched while overhangs were minimized, front and rear windshields stretched towards the corners of the car, and organically-shaped sheetmetal throughout. Once again, it was the roofline of the LHS that was among this fullsize Chrysler’s most distinctive feature. Rooflines truly can set the overall impression and tone of a car’s design, as evidenced by these excellent comparison shots. They can genuinely can make or break a design.
Photos by Canadiancatgreen
A wonderful insight into the changes in Chrysler’s full-size design language over that span of time. It’s a nice tie-in with your piece from last week about the ’99 Cirrus, and a time period where the Chrysler stable was full of different (and different types) of cars.
I don’t see much Fuselage in the ’74-’78 body, but I do see an updated echo of the ’65-’68 New Yorkers. These are the two best-looking generations of big Chryslers to my eyes.
I’ll also vouch for the shape of the FWD C and Y bodies, Not because they’re beautiful – the proportions are a bit off and it sure is boxy – but for their practicality. Just look at those near-rectangular door openings, and how easy they make it to get in and out of the car, either in front or in back. Look also at how it yields excellent rear-seat headroom, and a good view out for the driver (compare that to the low, arch-shaped rooflines on new sedans). Now look at that open trunk. Look at how you could just drop a large box or piece of luggage into it, thanks to the long deck lid made possible by the upright rear window. New cars still have big trunks, but 3/4 of it is hidden underneath the highly sloped rear window (look at the current Honda Accord to see what I mean). To retrieve something from the rear two-thirds of a new-car trunk, you have to first remove whatever’s in front of it to get to everything else. If sedans still had as practical a shape as this New Yorker, people would still be buying sedans.
If the boxy look dissuades you from practicality, the later LHS (also offered in New Yorker trim) is a great example of how the aforementioned ease of ingress/egress and luggage access can still work with a more rounded shape. The large trunk lid, tall/wide door openings, and near-vertical rear window are still intact here. They wouldn’t last through the next- (and last) generation LHS though.
“If sedans still had as practical a shape as this New Yorker, people would still be buying sedans.”
But then CAFE won’t be met due to the aerodynamic penalty, so there’s that.
Somehow S/CUVs and today’s monster trucks get a pass on CAFE regulations, or so it would seem.
If people wanted practical doors and rooflines, SUVs wouldn’t have replaced minivans before they replaced sedans.
People like SUVs because they look awesome, and minivans and sedans look dorky. Making sedans look dorkier will hurt, not help.
“People like SUVs because they look awesome, and minivans and sedans look dorky”…
You’re certainly entitled to this opinion, I’d like to challenge that claim with this :):
The color is awesome. For all the heinousness of the design itself I’d still choose it over a any sedan in beige or silver.
I’m also going to challenge the claim that SUVs look awesome. Well, some SUVs do; the Jeep Wrangler to name one. But mundane momwagon crossover blobs like, say, the Hyundai Santa Fe don’t look awesome, just generic.
Perfect example. FCA can’t give away the 500e? Dress it up like a leather daddy and put a butch brand on it, and away it goes!
Awesome is a ludicrously strong word but I otherwise basically agree. I think whether conscious or not people look at S/CUVs as uncompromised in that these are the products their respective makers put the most effort towards, much like cars of the old days that weren’t marred by various sociatal and regulatory pressures.
Sedans are in an awkward place now trying to fully sell themselves on style, but will forever live in the shadow of 2-door coupes. Yeah there are good looking sedans today, the best ever really, but everybody begrudgingly knows the only point of those rear doors is to put a child seat into without pulling their hair out.
With both these points in mind, the 70s New Yorker offers all the functional advantages brought up with the FWD New Yorker, ample space for all passengers + lots of easily accessed space for trunk cargo, AND it looks awesome. The cost of that awesomeness of course are ludicrous exterior dimensions in ever denser traffic, fuel consumption and laggered performance , which is why people stopped buying land barge sized cars en masse. The light truck category today fills that missing void better now than the car segment that is bogged down by everything. Even the environmentally conscious seem more inclined to buy a crossover with the marketing angle of going anywhere and seeing nature with them.
Yet another reason to get rid of CAFE. Leave the manufacturers free to build what people want to buy. Tax the fuel purchased, like other countries, and people will naturally look for economy – the same end is achieved without ignorant government meddling in things they don’t understand.
But the CAFE system is probably too entrenched after, what, four decades, and doing away with it would leave bureaucrats unemployed, and we can’t have that…..! 🙂
I’ve been pondering lately what will happen to CAFE when EVs become dominant. Many proponents for CAFE up until now act as though car makers will just go back to 5mpg behemoths if it were scaled back or repealed entirely, but if the fleet ends up being entirely EV sooner or later, will they still be trying to justify it for the minority of ICE cars left?
I disagree vehemently with the fuel tax as an alternative, it’s a tax directly on the working poor who can’t necessarily afford the latest and greatest of ever more efficient cars on the market. Not everything Europe does should be emulated in America. And also, I don’t want to pay it 🙂
There are plenty of highly efficient cars out there for the “working poor”. They’ve been building them for decades. In fact the least expensive version of virtually any new internal combustion vehicle is generally the one that gets the best gas mileage, no? As far as used cars go there’s even more of those, America likes their gas guzzlers so the efficient versions tend to drop in value quite quickly but there isn’t a vehicle on the road that can’t get its owner to work on time due to a lack of power or whatever.
If CAFE went away, the general car market wouldn’t get much less fuel efficient if it did at all. It’s a global market and even if we were the only first world country without fuel mileage standards the cars still get sold elsewhere so manufacturers still develop efficiency. And even with CAFE it seems for example that FCA doesn’t care, they just were assessed a $77 million penalty for their results – which was fully anticipated and likely baked into the cost of every one of their vehicles. Buyers still speak louder than manufacturers, plenty of people currently buy efficient vehicles of their own volition, not because there isn’t a big-engined vehicle available somewhere.
That isn’t the point, and it’s CAFE that has encouraged automakers to continue making low profit affordable fuel efficient cars. They’re both social engineering tactics looking for the same result. The difference is CAFE will only hit people buying new cars with the built in cost. Gas tax screws everybody, but the people who’d be most financially impacted to the point of needing a more fuel efficient car are low income.
I get your viewpoint and am not looking to argue but over the last fifteen years there have been several sustained (not short) periods where gas has cost $4 or more per gallon in many locations (last year, then several years before that, again a few years before and again going all the way back to Katrina) and also under $2 per gallon (such as it is right now). My $ figures aren’t exact but it has pogo’ed from low to high by a factor of 2 quite a few times now.
Are you happy with $2 gas right now? Probably, certainly compared to last year. However when gas initially rose to $2 years ago most people likely bitched about it. Then they adjusted and got used to it over time. Now $2 seems like it’s practically free.
Wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) those affected by the high gas prices have eventually seen the light and when the time came to replace their gas guzzling hooptie replaced it with something more efficient? I’m on board with not causing anyone greater difficulties in their life, but I also think that people cause many of their own issues (not poverty itself, but definitely choosing the V8 when the 4cyl will do). It’s very hard to feel sympathy when someone consciously chooses the less efficient option and then acts surprised when the fillup price rises above their comfort level. I don’t think anyone can say that the only inexpensive cars for those with limited means are those with poor fuel mileage.
It’s not like gas has been pegged at exactly $2/gallon for the last decade either, lulling everyone into thinking this would last forever and now someone wants to add a dollar or two of tax to that. In fact with how low gas prices are, now is the PERFECT time to add a tax to it if one was so inclined. Heck, make it a sliding scale to make sure it doesn’t hurt too bad, i.e. if the wholesale price of gas is low then the tax is higher, if the wholesale price rises beyond the highest average retail price within the last decade then the additional tax goes away until it drops again. There are ways to engineer this so that the price (due to taxes) isn’t higher than what people seemed to find acceptable very recently.
Who is more frivolous with swings in gas prices, the poor to middle class or the upper middle class to wealthy? Which group flooded the used car market with their late model V8 SUVs when the gas prices skyrocketed to ludicrous levels a decade ago? And this is still beside the point, if the cars get equal mileage the poor are still more disproportionately affected by a gas tax, period. CAFE only has an impact on new car buyers, which ultimately trickle down into the used market after a few years.
Also, I live in the Chicago area, and like many metropolitan areas it’s already taxed well above $2.00/gal. Ironically a lot of local politicians are now looking for alternative revenue streams from fuel taxes as ever more fuel efficient gas cars, hybrids and EVs have drained their coffers.
Yet another reason to get rid of CAFE. Leave the manufacturers free to build what people want to buy. Tax the fuel purchased, like other countries, and people will naturally look for economy – the same end is achieved without ignorant government meddling in things they don’t understand.
Are you unaware of the EU’s CO2 emission standards for cars and light trucks? They’re quite stringent, and are tightening. And they affect the technology, size, weight, aerodynamics of their cars quite a lot. It explains why they’re investing vast sums in EVs.
High European fuel taxes have been around for almost forever; they’re not just a scheme to reduce CO2 emissions and improve fuel economy; it’s simply a way to generate tax revenue. In Europe, cars were always seen more of as a luxury than a basic necessity, hence the high taxes. Much of that tax supports their excellent mass transit. The dense European built environment provides a lot of rationale for that approach.
The US (and Australia) are a different reality. Sparsely populated wide open expanses with poor mass transit have made high fuel taxes politically unfavorable.
Here’s the EU’s CO2 emission regs:
https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EU-LCV-CO2-2030_ICCTupdate_201901.pdf
Im looking, Im looking…
I guess the missing link here is the R body, but it is not surprising that one of those would be difficult to find in a typical junkyard.
I would have to say that I rank them most to least favorite from first to last, in the order you have put them. The C pillar/rear window of the LHS always seemed wrong to me. Where the 1974-78 car had a gentle sway there the LHS reversed it into a curve going the other direction and it just never looked right.
It is hard to overstate how overwhelming that GM-inspired look of the near-vertical back window was in the 80s. Even the CrownVic/Grand Marquis had a roof package that made that rear pillar look more upright. Who would have thought that GM’s design dominance was dissipating even then.
And a 75 New Yorker 4 door hardtop is a rare bird. Chrysler sales were in the toilet in 1975 and just a touch over 101k (non-Imperial) Chryslers of all kinds were built, including the much more common Newports. Chrysler still offered 4 door sedans for the New Yorker which (I believe) got most of the sales.
Chrysler C body sales were trending down, but brand sales were the highest since 1969 thanks to the Cordoba. Chrysler brand sales increased to an all time high by the end of the 70s because of the expanded product line that substantially cannibalized Plymouth.
Chrysler C body sales had a dead cat bounce after 1975, but Plymouth and Dodge never came back.
I have to agree with the ’94 LHS roofline just not looking right somehow.
I much preferred my Dad’s ’94 Concorde a little better…
Love it!
Agreed. The “regular” first generation LH sedans sported a much more elegant and visually appealing roofline.
I’ve never been a fan of the LHS/New Yorker roofline either. I feel like designers were definitely trying to go for a retro theme, something reminiscent of cars of the 40s and early 50s, as the LHS/New Yorker were meant to be more formal. Something got lost in translation though.
The thing I find interesting with the M body formal roof cap is basically what had been done to execute the aerodynamic rear glass on the 1970 Superbird, with polar opposite results.
The LHS roofline was interesting, it was a new take on the near extinct formal roofline when designs got much more rounded. I think these look excellent in profile but certain angles, and I’m going to say this one, are not so flattering. The little sliver filler panel under the rear glass is infuriatingly crude looking, it provided a logical place to put the CHMSL I guess but it overall looks half baked.
These examples aren’t the most representative, but Chrysler seemed to have the most distinctive rooflines of the big three for many years.
The LHS roofline always reminded me of the Mark 10 Jaguar, which is not a bad thing.
I also see a Jaguar resemblance in these Chrysler’s. I also agree, that’s not a bad thing.
My first “adult” car was a 1995 Intrepid. It handled commendably and had tons of room. I remember thinking Chrysler finally got it right with the cab forward “LH” platform after enduring years of vinyl roofed grandpa-mobiles. It was a step up from the much loved (by me) and maligned (by my father and the rest of the universe) ’75 AMC Matador Coupe I nursed through high school, anyway.
The LH cars sprung from the Chrysler/Lamborghini partnership in the late 80’s. Apparently a concept car called the Portofino, which I think was Chrysler bodywork on a stretched Lamborghini floor-pan was the inspiration for the cab forward look of 90’s Chrysler.
I knew of the Portofino, but never made the connection before – thanks!
Great photo find! Just an R-Body short of masterpiece
Love this. If you go back, the fuselages are an outlier, but the ’65-’68 -Body 4 door sedans and their ’74-’78 counterparts have strikingly similar outlines. I wonder how they would have fared if introduced in place of the fuselages, especially 2 years ahead of GM’s new bodies.
An LX platform Chrysler 300 would make a good book end to this list, since they are starting to go to ‘self serve’ salvage yards. Rumor is they will not bring a new generation RWD sedan for Chrysler, just Dodge.