I’ve read lots of variations of the adage “clothes do not make the man”, or conversely “clothes make the man”, which has come up just as often. Meanings obviously differ along with the context in which these phrases are used, but in most cases, there’s some attempt at connecting, or contrasting, external appearances with the substance underneath. I like to present myself in a certain manner, fully understanding that any nicer item of clothing I wear on any given day will be no substitute for inner confidence. Stated another way, if I’m not feeling great about myself, making a new, expensive purchase, whether it’s shoes, a jacket, some jeans, etc. isn’t going to fix the way I’m feeling at the time. By the same token, I can think of instances when dressing more nicely has lent itself to me sitting up a bit straighter, standing with better posture, and speaking just a little less informally.
Chrysler’s M-body platform is a great example of how exterior sheetmetal “clothing” can be transformative and completely alter the character of the car underneath. After the big, short-lived, R-Body New Yorker (and related Newport) departed after three scant model years and just 74,700 total sales (Newport sold 97,000 units over the same period), the New Yorker was reborn for ’82 as a downsized M-car on a 112.7″ wheelbase. It had effectively replaced the rear-drive LeBaron which had originally been introduced for ’77 and restyled for 1980, with this nameplate then affixed to an even smaller, front-drive car on the K-platform for ’82. The New Yorker’s taillamp units were borrowed from the related Dodge Diplomat, but with a rectangular, chrome-and-red center section between them to give the impression of full-width taillamps. A slightly extended roofline under a vinyl landau top provided for a much more upright rear backlight, a hallmark of luxury cars of its day.
For ’83, the New Yorker was moved to Chrysler’s FWD E-body platform, which was a stretched K, so the older car was renamed the New Yorker “Fifth Avenue” to distinguish it. The Chrysler-faithful loved the old-school luxury of the rear-drive New Yorkers, and it became the brand’s volume seller from 1983 through ’87, the latter year being when the new J-body LeBaron coupe and convertible arrived and outsold it. The exception was in ’82, when only the newly downsized ’82 LeBaron did better, with sales of 90,300 against 50,500. However, for ’83, not even the combined sales of the E-Class and New Yorker (73,100) could match the 83,500 number of Fifth Avenues sold that model year, the one of our featured car. Among the other M-bodies for ’83, Dodge sold only 24,400 Diplomats, and just 18,100 Gran Furys moved out of Chrysler-Plymouth dealerships. Fifth Avenue sales would then break the 100,000 sales mark in both ’85 (110,000) and ’86 (104,700).
The 1983 Plymouth Gran Fury duplicated the refreshed 1980 Dodge Diplomat’s styling.
Getting back to the clothing metaphor, it has often come down to the taillights for me with these M-bodies, which also included the aforementioned Diplomat, and Plymouth’s Gran Fury, which would belatedly arrive for ’82. If viewed directly from the back, and without the Chrysler’s chrome rectangle between the taillights, all three cars would look almost indistinguishable to me, especially if I couldn’t make out the silhouette of the Fifth Avenue’s vinyl roof. However, rotate that rear view even a few degrees in any direction, and it’s clear just how much difference is in the details, with all the gingerbread ladled onto the Fifth Avenue, like the front fender louvers and the well-executed and attractive wire wheel covers or turbine-fin wheels.
Then, there’s that front end with Chrysler’s trademark “upside down” turn signals perched atop the quad headlamps that give the impression of haughtily raised eyebrows. This was an unconventional look that didn’t appeal to everybody, but stylists knew what they were doing by making these New Yorkers, and the preceding LeBarons, look like they’d ask you for a jar of Grey Poupon in a stuffy accent if they could talk. The Diplomat / Gran Fury twins had the more conventional, “proper” placement of the turn signals below the headlights. Those downmarket cars were also pretty forgettable looking, even if they had a purposeful, bantamweight boxer-like appearance within the guise of serving as law enforcement vehicles. There were some of these Dodges and Plymouths sold as private passenger vehicles, but many if not most were fleet sales.
Every major U.S. manufacturer has taken a basic platform under which an inexpensive version was intended to be sold by their volume make, given it a luxury makeover, and charged more for it. A semi-recent Curbside Recycling essay by Jim Klein that featured two different years of Cadillac Cimarron had many of us in the comments dusting off the pros and cons (mostly cons) of this approach to building an upscale car. In the case of the M-body, the Chrysler’s terrific sales figures (to private owners) meant that not only was it more appealing luxury as car than a workaday family hauler like the Diplomat and Gran Fury, it was also seen as a more substantial offering than the smaller luxury or near-luxury cars Chrysler was offering for less money.
For ’83, the base price of the Fifth Avenue with standard, 90-horsepower 225 Slant Six cost about $12,500 ($37,100 in 2022), close to $2,500 more (~ $7,400) than the front-drive New Yorker. The smaller car was powered by one of two four-cylinder engines that had only slightly more horsepower, displacing only 2.2 or 2.5 liters. Granted, the Fifth Avenue weighed literally over 1,000 pounds more. An EPA Gas Mileage Guide from ’83 rated the smaller New Yorker and E-Class at a combined 22 miles per gallon, but the six-cylinder Fifth Avenue was rated at 18 MPG, and with the 318-cubic inch V8, it was estimated to get only 17. For the same reason I would have chosen an ’80s Cordoba over the much more fuel-efficient, front-drive LeBaron two-door which probably had comparable usable interior space, the added heft of the Fifth Avenue would make it seem like I was buying a lot more substance for the extra premium it cost over the front-drive New Yorker.
My grandparents had owned one of these Fifth Avenues in silver following a couple of years with a navy-colored 1980 LeBaron, and even though it was the same size and seemed very familiar on the inside, my impression of it at the time was that it was a much nicer car. The ’85 Ford LTD Crown Victoria that replaced it was perceptibly bigger, as it was a proper full-sized car versus the Chrysler’s midsize dimensions. Still, the posh, button-tufted, velour seating, ice-cold air conditioning, and my grandpa’s intriguing CB radio unit under the center of the dashboard over the transmission hump made the inside of that car a very cool place to spend time. Had my grandparents opted to save money and go for a nicely equipped Plymouth Gran Fury, my memories of riding in it would have been completely different and not nearly as special. Their Fifth Avenue felt like a little limousine compared to any car my parents were driving at the time.
Frustration abounded as I saw this factory Crimson Red beauty coming westward on West Irving Park Road as I waited for my bus. I fumbled with getting my lens cap off before managing only a few frames of it, completely missing the opportunity to photograph its distinctive frontal styling. I have been searching for one of these in the wild for years, a car that had once been so popular, and one of which I’ve seen only two examples all year. There’s something that speaks to me about the extra-ness of these Fifth Avenues, the idea that adding a whole bunch of stuff to a pleasing if nondescript midsize car made it wholly appealing to a completely different, upscale demographic that would would see a Diplomat or Gran Fury as primarily a police car or taxi cab.
A revised roof, attractive wheels, and other luxury appointments made the rear-drive, midsize New Yorker stand up a bit taller than its M-body brethren, and buyers took notice: close to 560,000 of them through the end of this series in ’89. In retrospect, its popularity shouldn’t come as a surprise. Contrasted with the midsize, domestic luxury car competition for ’83, like the bustleback Lincoln Continental which cost 68% more to start and Cadillac Seville which was 72% dearer, what the Chrysler lacked in the cachet of those other makes, it more than made up for with a solid, proven, reliable drivetrain (unlike the Cadillac) and looks most such buyers could agree on. They were archaic by the time they said goodbye at the end of the decade, but these cars must be considered a solid win for the Chrysler Corporation of the 1980s.
North Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Sunday, August 21, 2022.
Brochure photos were as sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
There are some (like me) who still admire the Fifth Avenue’s styling and who (not so) secretly still would like to own one, even considering that it is from a different era, and that Chrysler and its successors have done so much more in the intervening decades.
These are attractive, sensibly-sized classics that wouldn’t break the bank to drive around. I have such a renewed appreciation for them.
This is such a perfect retirement car for the time. A way to signal that you have made it through the trials and tribulations of career and raising a family with enough success that maybe you deserve the extra helping of comfort and dignity as the days get short.
Of course outcomes now are different, so one can understand why today’s retirees order and wait for their Broncos. Instead of a victory lap that the Fifth Avenue was for, the escape into the woods from the broken family and the glad to be rid of you career, is more realistic. Notice Chrysler never even tried such a treatment in the many years of the 300.
One like this car was part of a procession of retirement cars my grandparents had owned after my grandpa had retired from farming. And to them (born in the 1910s), this car represented the extra helpings of comfort and convenience they had probably come to associate with luxury. For two people who remembered using ration stamps during WWII, their NY5A was all the extra they wanted… until they traded for the Crown Vic.
If memory serves, there is a way to distinguish a Diplomat versus a Gran Fury from the rear…but it’s subtle. On the Diplomat, the trim around the tail lights is silver-ish versus dark on the Gran Fury. Don’t ask why I know that as I cannot tell you.
Having my ’86 Gran Fury while these Chryslers were still a frequent site, it always amazed me how people never carried on about the vast similarities among the three M-bodies. The interiors were way similar in addition to the exterior similarities mentioned. Perhaps people just had different expectations of Chrysler Corporation.
This was a great catch. Like you, I haven’t seen one in a long time.
Jason, that’s fascinating about the taillamps! Hello, internet, here I come. You’re a treasure trove of factoids like this.
Interesting dive into the marketing and sales differences among a group of cars that I have to say pretty much entirely passed me by in terms of interest at the time they were new. I suppose that this was because I was at nearly the opposite age of the targeted demographic. In the early 1980s, I was just starting out career-wise, I was also in a strongly NYC orbit (both geographically as well as in terms of where the majority of my friends and acquaintances lived).
To me, the “New Yorker Fifth Avenue” just screamed OLD PEOPLE…old retired people (as John C. mentions in his comment above). Furthermore, even “Fifth Avenue” seemed silly to me as a symbol of luxury. Yeah, I knew people whose parents lived on 5th Ave in palatial apartments with private elevators; but when we went into The City, we purposefully rode the trains downtown to hang with the junkies and the punks and to bemoan how NYC was losing its real crusty roots that were the reason why we came to love it in the 70s.
Anyway, the point is, marketing is all about perceptions, and the New Yorker Fifth Avenue was a car that was squarely aimed at a perception of luxury that had nothing to do with (I contend) most buyers under the age of 55. It kind of doubled down on a promoted idea of what a particular kind of east-coast NY luxury was, which certainly wasn’t the ideal for most of the real NYers that I knew (in my demographic) at the time.
And now that I am the age where a car like this would be aimed (if this were 1983), I guess I see that most of my contemporaries would be like those folks who want their Broncos to “escape” (versus to ride around like retired titans of finance/industry).
Thanks Joseph for another interesting piece…and something to think about as the day (and years, I suppose) unfold!
I definitely can understand boomers cosplaying Studio 54 or CBGB as a youthful tie to NYC. The earlier generation, here represented by Lee Iacocca with his Fifth Avenue and Ed Mertz at Buick with his competing Park Avenue were first generation Americans with perhaps more youthful experience in the tenements, viewed easy street as a prospect after the hard work expected of them wound down.
Well, for some of us of a certain age it wasn’t cosplay…it was quite real. 🙂
But I get your point. Lee Iacocca was the age of a neerdowell uncle, and a person who as a youth I always confused with Ed McMahon…for some reason.
I’m 53, by the time of my youth, CBGB, Studio 54, Apollo Theater were all past their prime and mainly attracting cosplayers.
I remain unclear as to why CBGB was so named – it stands for “Country, BlueGrass, and Blues, three types of music you were unlikely to ever hear at CBGB’s. It’s sad that they closed. Studio 54 by contrast is still around, but talk about a place whose heyday is permanently in the past. The Apollo thankfully is still around too.
Exactly. I’m 62 and personally missed seeing the Talking Heads at CBGBs, but quite a few friends (those who actually grew up in the City) were there. I saw the Ramones in the late 70s (although admittedly that was in W. Mass). The Peppermint Lounge in the early 80s, that was a place…and for pure dance and debauchery, Studio 54 was a weekend regular destination. I lived for a summer in 1982 at 124th and Morningside, so the Apollo…yeah. I don’t miss any of that at all now…but it was fun at the time.
John, I had you pegged wrong, I seriously figured you were at least 70. Oops 🙂 We are the same age.
You missed the heyday or at least the supposed “peak” of CBGB and S54 by perhaps less than a decade and certainly they all morphed/generated/transformed into other places and styles that had their own attractions. The romanticized “work one job/career/employer until you hopefully don’t drop dead at your desk and get the gold watch instead” and that the good old days were better is just that, romanticized. Rampant alcoholism, repressed emotions, people staying in unsuccessful/unhappy/violent marriages, minimal creative outlets, and a misplaced duty to make someone else successful rather than succeeding on your own and on your own terms made those years you consider fondly anything but for huge tracts of people. A retiree may remember their 45 years on the same job as an accomplishment, their employer probably doesn’t know who they were. Loyalty in the workplace is only one way and went away FAR longer ago than I think you realize if it ever existed when viewed from above rather than below.
Mor most, there is no attraction to retiring and purchasing a “luxury car” as a reward in order to waft to the store and the bingo parlor and the lounge. I assume the Bronco, or Subaru, or Tacoma pickup to get to the trails/nature/whatever is the purchase/payoff to finally get to enjoy the stuff that has been missing to so many for so long. However, more and more people have realized that there is no reason to miss out on that stuff during their “working years” and now try to generate a balance by doing that all earlier, why wait. Work to live instead of living to work. By the time you hit 65 and slaved behind a desk owned by someone else it’s too late to get back what was missed out on over a lifetime. Hence the word “lifetime”, for living a life, not “worktime”.
You’re 53, you ARE in your youth. Enjoy what’s there, the opportunities have never been better..
Jim, I was a late in life kid from parents born in 1919 and 1929 so my upbringing was probably more like a boomer than a gen xer.
I do romanticize it. This is just an opinion but to me those guys that started with nothing and whose legacy we are still feeding off of were heroes, if I may use an old fashioned term. The greatest generation may be insulting to the even more long gone doughboys who had even less at their starts, but I am old enough to have seen what the greatest accomplished despite all the poverty and stupid wars they faced.
Maybe they needed such challenges, because those that have come since seem to just fart their way through life. Myself included.
Conversations such as these are a big part of this site’s appeal to me — cars serving as a cultural and historical touchstone. Reading the forums here has given me a lot of perspective on times I wasn’t alive to experience myself.
Thanks to Joseph for the great article, and all who contribute to the discussion!
Thanks so much, Jeff! And I’ll admit… when I was writing this, the association with the Fifth Avenue that most often came to mind was the parking lot at Denny’s. But not at all in a bad way!
I do like a good brougham, but that’s probably more of an adulthood appreciation for me. I do actually remember deriding my grandparents’ choice of cars as being “boats”. All the time. Not to their faces, of course – I loved them, and maybe that’s especially why I like these cars. By association with them. I’d like a decent amount of these cars to survive, also because there will never be anything else like them ever made.
That whole “populuxe” ilk of mass-produced Americana luxury fascinates me, and I like that people liked it. People may not like the things I like (and I’d guess that many don’t), but if they respect that I like the things I like without deriding them, we can be cool. I love the the owner of this car clearly treasures it.
Respect! 🙂
My wife and I were married in December of 1984 and our honeymoon was to be in Fort Myers and Sanibel. A quick trip to Budget rent a car, we were given a brand new 85 Fifth Avenue! At 8 miles on the odometer, we went about our day, spending time at the beach. When dinner came, we crossed over the bridge away from Sanibel only to have this new car refuse to run. Bucking, black smoke, the whole thing. So I pulled up to Budget, where they were unloading two more trailers of these cars! I went in, told the lady that while it was certainly a nice car, it was my honeymoon and I had no time to play games with inop cars!! What would you like to drive, she asked. I’ll take a Town Car, in black. She was happy to oblige. Yes, Chrysler made a nice car with the Fifth Avenue. But, according to the service tech at Budget, they all had carb issues from the start. Btw, 38 years later and we’re still together!
We married in the same month, four days after Christmas, in a suburb of Philadelphia where my family flew and rented a champagne gold Chrysler Fifth Avenue which they drove to the small ceremony and an open-house reception afterwards.
We went in my in-laws’ 1974 Ford Pinto wagon.
At the time my Dad had a five year old Cadillac Eldorado Diesel. He said the Caddy felt roomier but the Chrysler rode and handled better, and was quieter inside… for which the Diesel was much to blame. For a trimmed-up Volaspen, it was not a bad performance compared to a designed-from-scratch Cadillac. And it didn’t belch smoke as it accelerated…faster.
We are still married here after all that time, too. That day was unseasonably warm for the Philadelphia area…72F, still a record for the date.
Oh, wow. What a story. I’ve been on that causeway to and from Sanibel from Ft. Myers, and it’s narrow and two lanes in some spots. I can’t imagine having that happen. I’m glad you were able to get the car back to Budget, safely for you and your bride!
Yea, me too! Coming up on 39 years! She’s a keeper!
We still laugh about that whole thing! To make it right, I took her to the Brown Derby that night for dinner!
December ’84 means your brand-new rental Fifth Avenue was an ’85. That was the first year for the problem-prone Holley 6280 carburetor, replacing the dependable previous Carter BBD. The problems were aggravated by the severely lean jetting, a cheap and nasty way of squeaking these cars, with their outmoded fuel; ignition, and emission-control systems, past emissions type-approval tests so they’d be legal to offer for sale. In perfect tune the cars surged noticeably at steady throttle. There were a bunch of service bulletins as well as some, ah, undocumented fixes to try and make the cars run better; perhaps we’ll get to hear about the one I’ve got in mind, involving the EGR system.
I hold a permanently dim opinion of Ford Panther cars, but the ’85 Town Car, by contrast, had a modern fuel injection and engine management system, and a 4th speed in the transmission.
For sure. The lot attendants told me that the two truck loads they were receiving in were going straight to the shop to be adjusted!!
Funny thing you mentioned about the Panther platform…
We have two classic cars: a 1976 Mark IV and a 1978 Thunderbird Diamond Jubilee. Recently my wife talked about maybe finding a mid 1980’s Monte Carlo. She saw a picture of a 1995 Town Car and said she’d rather have that!!
We couldn’t find one exactly like we wanted, but a local dealer had bought from an estate an 04 Grand Marquis LS Ultimate. She saw it, and now it’s on our driveway!!!
Beautifully written biography Joseph. And a very nice find. Your last photo is so telling. A bevy of indistinguishable and near-anonymous modern SUVs in grey and white, can’t match the presence, or individuality, of the almost 40 year old Chrysler.
From the Seville-like roof extension, to the Chevrolet Nova Concours-like thick wheel arch moldings, rocker panel chrome moldings, and bumper rub molding design, the Fifth Avenue has various General Motors-like styling details. Another of Chrysler’s many design successes, mimicking GM styling cues. But the Fifth Avenue managed to possess a uniquely Chrysler personality. It didn’t have the pretense, or inflated prices, of the Seville or Continental. More of an affordable, accessible luxury, that drew many practical American buyers. Who had perhaps a little less affluence. Or desire to impress others, with premium-priced luxury cars.
Thanks, Daniel. I didn’t find and reference pictures of a first-generation Seville while writing this, but reading your comment, I might have done well to do so to see the similarities you point out, with the GM styling influence.
I think that by the ’80s, these Fifth Avenues had the most “Chrysler” (the brand, not the corporation) flavor. Now that you point out the various GM-influenced styling cues, it’s easier to see them.
Oh, it’s not just mimicking GM styling cues. In some cases it’s shamelessly all but lifting GM parts entire. Take a look at the taillights on this ’75 Buick, also shot and described by J. Dennis.
That was a great article, and find by Joe.
And a great spot by you Daniel, making that connection. I guess I am no longer surprised, at how without shame, manufacturers take each other’s ideas. Whether design, manufacturing, or technical ideas. The whole gamut. Must be so disheartening, to the individuals who first come up with original concepts, that get cribbed. Flattering too, to a degree.
These days it seems the market is bimodal: an enormous amount of me-too benchmarked copycatting (…and me! And me! And me! And me! And me!), with a smaller amount of pretend-rebellion and an even smaller amount of actual design innovation or uniqueness.
Now get the hell offa my lawn.
These were clearly the apotheosis of Iacocca-ism, with plastered on luxury and stuffy styling, but at least it was imposed on a rock-solid chassis. At the time. as a lover of full-sized cars, I dismissed them as mere pretenders to the C-body Olds 98/Buick Electra class of car, and would prefer those still, but have come to appreciate the role these top-of the-M cars played and understand why they had an enthusiastic audience at the time. Thanks for featuring this great example Joseph.
Thank you so much. I remember reading in an ’88 new car buyers’ guide how an editor had written how Chrysler wanted new car shoppers to “think” these were full-sized cars, and that always stuck with me. Even after the wave of downsizing that started in the late ’70s, where entire platforms were simply re-designated up a size class, I never saw these as quite full-sized, but they seemed like a smaller, more rationally-sized example of the same basic idea.
Fitting six people in my grandparents’ Fifth Avenue was a bit tight. Once they moved to Ford’s Panther cars, there was a bit more room. But how often were people who bought these types of cars moving five passengers plus the driver?
That the Fifth Avenue was the Chrysler brand’s sales leader is an interesting fact to ponder. Today, we tend to think of these cars as anachronisms – which they were, but they were popular anachronisms.
Incidentally, I had a negative view of Chryslers at the time in large part because the Chrysler-Plymouth dealer closest to where I grew up (Broadway Chrysler-Plymouth in Jenkintown, PA) was the sleaziest, most obnoxious dealership that I could imagine. Somehow I equated these quasi-fancy Chryslers (but not Plymouths… they were too bland to have an opinion about) with the loud-mouthed ads and over-the-top holiday decorations that Broadway was known for.
In an odd twist of fate, my father bought a Voyager minivan from Broadway – he hated giving them his business, but they offered the best deal. But afterwards, I still couldn’t stand the place.
I remember reading somewhere that it takes at least three times as long for someone to overcome a bad impression as it takes for a good one to be made. Or something like that. I’m butchering it, but my point (to your point) is that once a bad customer service example has been set, it becomes much, much harder to reverse in the minds of consumers. What you’ve written about Broadway C-P seems to illustrate this.
Very true!
I have not been able to find a photo or postcard of that dealership, but they were know for ridiculously extravagant holiday displays (painted windows, inflatables, etc)… for pretty much all holidays big and small.
When Dad bought his Voyager, he found out to his dismay that they’d put their dealership badge on the tailgate (like the one below, but it was shiny). I remember him yelling at them about this (he’d previously asked them not to), but he was hesitant to take it off since it was stuck onto the fake wood trim. For the four years he owned that van, he was mildly annoyed that he was a mobile advertisement for a dealership he detested.
I know it was strange times, but I just can’t fathom a Slant 6 Fifth Avenue.
Would be rather pointless.
I do wonder what the actual breakout was, between the Slant Six and the 318. And for one, lousy increase in combined MPGs. My encyclopedia didn’t break out the numbers.
My uncle in Montreal drove a steady stream of Chrysler New Yorkers, including a ’65 or ’66, a fuselage, a ’76 or 77 Brougham, an R body, then a Fifth Avenue from ’83 or ’84, the only not-New Yorker he drove in my lifetime, as he balked at the four-cylinder K-based version being sold then. When he heard someone mistakenly refer to his car as a “New Yorker”, he quickly stepped in and corrected her – “this is not a New Yorker; it is a Fifth Avenue!”. I really wanted to respond “this is not a New Yorker; it’s a Volaré” but knew better than to speak my mind at that moment. He later resumed buying New Yorkers when the redesigned 1988 model debuted, which he replaced with a ’93 NYer Fifth Avenue, his last car.
I wonder what percentage of buyers realized this was just a gussied-up 1976 Volaré or Aspen. If you’ve been behind the wheel of both (as I have), there’s no mistaking them for the same basic car as the dashboards are nearly identical. The 1980 restyling (back when these were called LeBarons) helped obscure the resemblance, as did the thick C pillar and vinyl roof treatment first used on the LeBaron Fifth Avenue. Although I generally like Broughams, I’ve never cared for the Fifth Avenue. I have to believe many of its buyers would have preferred an R body if they were still available, as they were much roomier and modern-looking; sad thing is the much larger R body got the same EPA fuel economy as the M body did. Discontinuing the R was one of Lee Iacocca’s few major mistakes at Chrysler, not that I can blame him. Sales were abysmal in 1980-81, gas prices were high and expected to go higher, and few predicted big V8 RWD sedans would make a comeback. GM and Ford were originally set on dropping the B/C body and Panther respectively in 1983 or thereabouts; NOBODY at Ford or elsewhere could imagine the Panther platform lasting well into the 2010s. Imagine what a cash cow the R body could have been – a 1979 design that was rooted in the downsized 1962 Dodge and Plymouth full-sizers. This long-amortized big sedan could have given the Crown Vic serious competition for the police, taxi, and fleet car business for the next 30 years.
” Imagine what a cash cow the R body could have been – a 1979 design that was rooted in the downsized 1962 Dodge and Plymouth full-sizers. This long-amortized big sedan could have given the Crown Vic serious competition for the police, taxi, and fleet car business for the next 30 years.”
There was already the Caprice doing volume in those segments too. Adding a third player may very well have made all three less viable/profitable, perhaps they all would then have disappeared earlier and a lot of that market went to the M-body already. The biggest gift to the Panther and what kept it alive was GM pulling out of the segment. Chrysler was all in on FWD K-cars and probably surprised themselves with the M-body’s success. Things do come around though, the Charger seems quite popular as a law enforcement vehicle, at least for open highway use.
One other by-product of the M body’s success was Chrysler striking a deal with AMC to use their underutilized plant to build them, which led to Chrysler buying AMC outright, thus acquiring Jeep just before SUV sales went through the roof. I wonder if buying AMC would have ever crossed Lido’s mind had the M body been discontinued circa 1983.
In any case, the Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth big cars successfully vied for police and taxi sales for decades (I recall AMC Matadors being popular fleet cars as well), so I think there was room for more than two players. I’m actually quite surprised that Toyota, Nissan, Honda, or Volkswagen were never adopted as police cars (although the Camry has become wildly popular as a taxi, both the traditional and Uber/Lyft varieties.)
Volvo offered a police package on their 240. Augusta, Maine ran them for about a decade back in the 80’s. I’ve heard that they were used in Canada too.
The city of Falls Church, Virginia also used Volvo 240 police cruisers in the 1980s and ’90s. It’s an affluent city that (not coincidentally) contained a Volvo dealership as well.
Here’s one from the early 1990s parked outside of their City Hall:
Yep. Here’s a link to an expanded Volvo police car brochure…for those who are into such things.
http://www.volvotips.com/brochures/240-260/1979/Volvo-244-245-special-vehicles-policecar-brochure-1979.pdf
Interesting about the Volvo Police cars. I joined the police force in 1995, and due to my auto background, they had me doing the squad records keeping and fleet stuff. With that, I went to the Michigan State Police squad evaluations for several years, first one in 1995. In 1996 or 1997, Volvo had a sedan (850 GL?? turbo). They were fast and everyone enjoyed taking it out for a spin since Volvo provided several cars for the officers to test drive. That was my first experience with a Volvo and boy was it nice. However, they never got them to gain traction due to the high price, front drive and lack of overall room compared to the Caprice and Crown Vic.
I tend to agree with LA673 on this one – My recall of the time was that the folks in the demographic who bought these also bought the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic. The Caprice seemed to appeal to the longtime Chevy buyer, but I remember many former Olds and Buick owners who bought either a 5th or a Grand Marquis. Those folks had long ago graduated from Chevys and weren’t going back.
These cars sold well, but I believe that an R body New Yorker would have sold even better – with much of that coming out of the hide of the Grand Marquis. That buyer prized a traditional size. The petite 5th Avenue probably appealed to some, but the big RWD cars were in their final years as mainstream sellers and many older buyers wanted them.
As a 3 time owner of ’79 and ’80 R-bodies I also feel that if kept in production, and seeing that many of the kinks had been worked out already by ’81, given time for continuing production and improvement, they could have been a very credible Mopar alternative to full size Fords and GMs, especially as the post ’79 lightening of the GM C-bodies imo significantly degraded their quality, I too feel it was a major mistake for Iacocca to axe the big Rs, I really liked ours, flaws and all.
Perhaps, but what’s being overlooked is that I see this car as a cheap alternative to the Seville. Especially so since the gen2 Seville’s bustleback was very polarizing, and looked too blingy.
The 5th Avenue was quite similar sized to the gen1 Seville, and certainly evoked it stylistically. And for a lot of two-person households, the Seville and 5th Avenue was big enough. The reality is that a lot of folks, even in this demographic, had soured on truly big cars for hauling oneself and the missus around in.
I’ve always felt that the 5th Avenue’s smaller size was a key reason it sold so well.
And I’m not so sanguine about how well a R-Body version would have done instead. Chrysler’s big car market segment had been melting ever since…1962. How was their big car market share up to 1978? Not very good at all, and declining.
Buyers had mostly come to see Chrysler as a purveyor of smaller cars, and those had a mostly consistently good rep. As the big car market continued to shrink and shrink, AMC was the first to bail, and Chrysler was the obvious next one to do so. I feel it was inevitable, and that the R-Body would never have amounted to much except as a fleet-mobile.
I agree. The R-body’s B-body –
chassis– underpinnings were unusually good in 1962, but that advantage had evaporated by 1979. If there had been more of a big-car market, and if the R-body itself (metal, fixtures, interior) hadn’t been so obsolete; ill-designed; and poorly-built, maybe Chrysler’s big sedans might’ve held on long enough to be modernised. Chrysler’s 4-speed RWD automatics, relatively flimsy though they were, would’ve been available by ’90, and Magnum 318s and 360s by ’92. But those wouldn’t’ve been enough on their own; it would’ve needed a clean-sheet, new car through and through. There’s just no way that could’ve happened in this universe we live in.At the time, I thought the more attractive (and upscale) instrument cluster on the Diplomat/LeBaron, helped distinguish them somewhat from the Aspen/Volare. Though, the dashes were identical, otherwise. Besides the more expensive looking quad rectangular headlights, and fancier grilles. The cleaner bodysides of the F-Bodies also somewhat helped them avoid the trap of the Granada/Versailles. Where the bodysides so closely resembled each other, the Versailles looked like a Granada with luxury elements, fitted to the body.
The R-bodies were big cars. Larger than the downsized LTD and Caprice in some dimensions. Did retired empty-nesters really need that large scale, in a luxury car? I know, I would have given up some stretch-out space, for a more manageably-sized car, with similar luxury. And importantly, the F-Bodies drove, and rode, like large cars. They were not cramped in interior space, or trunk volume.
The F/M bodies (coupes excluded) were indeed quite roomy for their size and time – I rode in back of these frequently and they had a bit more legroom than a Granada or Versailles, and much more legroom than a Nova. But the R body still felt much more like a traditional big car inside. My uncle drove his ’79 R-body NYer at the same time my parents had a ’77 Bonneville Brougham, both cars being green inside and out which made them mentally easy to compare. Compared to the GM B body, the R body felt significantly wider and more open. The lack of frame rails in the unibody R, smaller driveshaft hump, thinner pillars (surrounded by frameless glass), less intrusion from the rear wheels on the edge of the rear seatback, and the lower cowl all made the R body feel roomier. It was indeed larger, sized more like the GM C bodies (Electra, 98, de Ville) than the B’s. The basic interior and exterior design just looked a generation ahead of the M body (in fact it was just three years newer, but Chrysler’s design language had changed quite a bit in that time).
I was always a bit torn over this car. At 19 when it came out, I was definitely not the demographic for it. But, as a person that really appreciated traditional big American cars, I had to admit it had a certain appeal.
It was unabashedly headed the wrong way for the times, but, when a middle class person, 55 and up opened Time magazine, and saw the ad, it’s slightly funky front and C pillar treatment made it look fresh, and the plush interior was inviting. It was definitely a car for the retired set, and if those folks enjoyed it, what the heck – it was great car, no matter how much the Yuppies may have sneered at it.
I’m with you. If I was in that target demographic, I’m sure I would have liked one of these just fine. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Not everybody needs to be a tastemaker. If one would rather have a button-tufted La-Z-Boy than an Eames chair, even if one can afford both, for goodness’ sake, one should get what one wants!
Yeah, my parents were 30 something boomers when this came out and they wouldn’t have been caught dead in it. Fastforward to the late 90s and they are driving around in a gray 98 villiger, which was in its way just as much an old persons car as this. Times change, I guess.
As a teen, I remember picking up the ’83 Fifth Avenue brochure, and being somewhat blown away by the quality of the illustrations. Very well rendered. And the Canadian brochure was also printed on a slightly textured, near matte finish stock. Besides the ’81 Imperial brochure, one of the best presented Chrysler printed advertising samples, from that era.
I notice the owner added a bodyside molding to protect the paint. Smart decision. They picked a good location too, following that lower bodyside sheetmetal crease. Interesting, that Chrysler chose not to incorporate bodyside moldings on these. They certainly do more elegant and clean without any.
A slightly extended roofline under a vinyl landau top provided for a much more upright rear backlight, a hallmark of luxury cars of its day.
I guess Mercedes, BMW and Jaguar and other European brands didn’t get that memo. And of course that GM-trademark upright rear window was applied liberally to millions of GM low end N and A Bodies.
stylists knew what they were doing by making these New Yorkers, and the preceding LeBarons, look like they’d ask you for a jar of Grey Poupon in a stuffy accent if they could talk.
I imagine them asking for a ballpark frank with that bright yellow French’s mustard in a regional blue collar accent.
Sorry, but I can’t even remotely consider these as genuine “luxury” cars. They were the equivalent of a Lazy Boy recliner on wheels, with a few horribly out-of date styling affectations. They obviously were popular with a certain demographic, but then so were white belts and a few other clothing anachronisms at the time. In this case, these automotive clothes clearly make the man, a retired one that is very much out of touch with the trends and tastes of the times. That’s perfectly ok, but these sure weren’t the clothes I would have been caught dead in at the time.
Now they’re a charming period piece and a reminder of a time when it was much more possible to be out of touch with the times than it is now. There’s something endearing about that.
> with a few horribly out-of date styling affectations
I was less bothered by the out-of-date styling than by out-of-date engineering. I mean, the TorqueFlite was and is a great transmission, but rocking a 3-speed anything on a supposed luxury car in 1987 was hopelessly behind the times, and had gas-guzzler-certified highway EPA figures to prove it. Likewise the leaf-spring suspension. These went up against some of GM’s best efforts of the ’80s like the 1985-90 Electra/Park Avenue and 98, both roughly the same size as the 5th but with FWD for space efficiency and better bad-weather traction, smooth and powerful transverse Buick V6s mated to four-speed automatics, coil suspensions, and the extended roofline and vertical-drop rear window baked into its design rather than awkwardly added via a vinyl cap, which gave the GM cars both better proportions and better outward visibility. The Fifth Avenue was an assemblage of old parts that seemed out of place next to GM’s competition, not to mention the early Japanese luxury sedans and improving German sedans that offered better driving dynamics and optional AWD.
> A slightly extended roofline under a vinyl landau top provided for a much more upright rear backlight, a hallmark of luxury cars of its day.
> I guess Mercedes, BMW and Jaguar and other European brands didn’t get that memo
but Volvo did!
This is the Volvo I always wanted.
The Volvo Coupe’s rear backlight wasn’t actually upright. And it certainly didn’t have a landau vinyl top.
And Volvo had been doing boxy bodies and greenhouses since 1966, long before it became a “luxury” styling affectation.
Yeah, I was going to say, that Volvo coupe always looked rather chopped to me. I think that one of the things that many Volvo lovers at the time didn’t like about that was the reduced headroom in the coupe. That – and well, the PRV engine – is one of the reasons why one can get a Bertone Coupe at pretty much give-away prices.
Most of them did have the vinyl landau roof though.
Landau? That’s a half-vinyl roof, just over the C-pillar, like the 5th Ave in this post. The 262 only ever had a full vinyl roof, unless someone created their own landau version.
Paul, I’ve always thought – incorrectly as it turns out! – of half-vinyl roofs and landau roofs as the same thing. They both seem quite silly to me…although I suppose a full landau roof is even sillier.
Many in the US and Canada had been groomed for decades, through mass advertising, to aspire to Detroit-style ‘faux’ luxury. As I’ve mentioned before, we in Canada and the US, are among the most targeted, and influenced, by corporate messaging. How they wanted us to perceive ‘luxury’, ‘better living’, etc. At one time, more profitable to market ‘faux luxury’, than to sell the real thing. Foreign competition, forced that formula to change.
I fully agree with you. Love the nostalgia, mixed with the great analysis on these topics, at your site.
Come to think of it, the front seats in my grandpa’s Fifth Avenue were a lot like his La-Z-Boy. There’s a metaphorical essay topic in there somewhere. And I would 100% wear some of my grandpa’s clothes in 2022. In fact, I wore vintage polyester slacks to work today. No white belt, tho.
I think that you were at a disadvantage with these cars (though many would consider it an advantage) when they were new. For those raised on postwar American cars (especially those in the midwest), these had a deep-down “American-ness” to them that appealed to the over-50 buyer in the 1980s. Trendsetting cars like the Audi 5000 and 86 Accord put those folks off.
I agree that younger people (and many older, upper income people in coastal areas) had no use for these – I certainly never shopped one. But they really appealed to middle-income, middle-aged, Middle-Americans, and especially longtime Chrysler buyers (who tended to be more traditional anyway). For many, a La-Z-Boy was their favorite place to spend time in the house, so what better target to aim for in the car? 🙂
I agree with you 100%. My main point was that these were not genuine luxury cars. A luxury item connotes prestige and exclusivity. These didn’t.
I guess Mercedes, BMW and Jaguar and other European brands didn’t get that memo
Doh! Shall I show some other American and Euopean luxury cars from the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s and 60s with formal roofs?
Actually, I’ll just show you the RR Silver Spirit, which had arrived several years before the 5th Avenue. Meanwhile, the Seville’s formal roof had been cloned on millions of GM cars, including a whole lot of low end ones, taxis included. No, the formal roof was not a hallmark of luxury cars in 1982 and up. It was utterly passe in the genuine luxury car field, although if you dig deep enough you’ll probably find an exception. Keep looking!
Rolls Royce only stopped making the Silver Shadow in 1980, it’s “close enough” in my book. Plus it arguably remained prestigious well out of production if media representation is anything to go by, watch any 80s-90s TV show or movie featuring the rich and beautiful, you’ll see a Shadow somewhere! A viewer pre-internet just might have just assumed Rolls Royce was still making them well into the 90s.
I mean, you won’t find formal rooflines, but styling harkening back to olden times, extensive woodgrain, chrome, hood ornaments, very often whiteline tires fitted … Sounds like brougham, actually describing the Jaguar XJ series III. Hip luxury in the day was Teutonic, but it wasn’t the end all be all of what defined luxury.
That’s not to say the New Yorker was a good luxury car by any stretch, but as far as cosmetics go I think it pulls off emulating Roller like aesthetics than the K car did emulating German seriousness
Bentley offered the everflex roof as a no cost option on the Arnage though it’s end in 2009. As far as I know, the last factory installation of a vinyl roof.
The current itineration of Bentley claims that Mulliner is there to give you whatever customization you require. Wouldn’t the old hand made chromed steel grill, flying B, and everflex roof really make your Continental or Flying Spur stand out from the mass of successful criminal owners of BMW Bentleys?
It’s surprising how well Chrysler concealed the underlying Plymouth Reliant to make a scaled back Detroit style luxury car. It’s definitely a car for grandparents, in 1983 I was hankering after the new to the US VW GTI.
If “clothes make the man”, a Chrysler Fifth Avenue is Tattoo from “Fantasy Island” in his rented white tuxedo.
The car is too small for all this polyester and vinyl. You simply cannot put all that crushed tufted velour, padded vinyl roof caps, schmaltzy hood ornaments and fake plastic wood in a car this small and think it works. The car is cute in a “4 year old ring bearer” at a wedding cute. There is a limit, and this car exceeds it.
This is not a full sized car with all these garrish embellishments, this is a compact car – a Plymouth Volare wearing a Dolly Parton wig.
I’m probably most impressed, a relatively early version (’83), is in such good condition.
Great article. I truly feel in this case of the Diplomat vs. Fifth Avenue, your analogy is spot on. As a young boy, I recall my parents would host card-club about every 4 months. There were about 8 couples in that card-club and they would rotate who hosted. Anyhow, I loved when my parents would host because I knew the cars that would be arriving. One couple always drove an Olds 98. Another always had a Cadillac. There were some Buick’s, a Ford and a few others. My parents at that time drove a Cadillac as well before moving to Buick Park Avenue models. But the one car that seemed to stand out for me was a dark blue Chrysler Fifth Ave. Living on a farm everyone just parked and left the keys in their cars, allowing me to sit inside, pretend I was driving and once in a while cranking up some tunes. I still recall that Chrysler having a “loud” button or maybe it was “amp”. Can’t recall, but all I know is that it made a difference when pushing it and the bass would increase.
Since one of the couples always drove a more base model Plymouth or Dodge, there was a time when their Diplomat was sitting next to the Fifth Avenue. All I can say is that the cloths certainly do (did) make the man (car) in that case.
Thanks so much, Dan. And when you mentioned living on a farm and keys being left in the car, that took me right back to my grandparents’ farm and the context in which I had experienced their Fifth Avenue. I remember sitting in the back (I wouldn’t have tried to sit up front) and the smell of that interior, the feel of the velour, the sound of those Chrysler door chimes, seeing the red light on the door panels when the doors got opened (or was that the Crown Vic?).
Thanks also for getting my analogy. I feel like I can close my browser now and get on with my evening. 🙂
Is there a reliable way to tell a 1983 New Yorker Fifth Avenue apart from a 1982 New Yorker that happens to have the Fifth Avenue package? I’m thinking the ’83 had the cut crystal hood ornament while the ’82 had a plain Pentastar like a Dodge Diplomat, but I’m not 100% sure.
My confession: I was able to identify this one as an ’83 only after a license plate search. Even without that, I doubt very much I would have been able to research it online to find the distinguishing marks between the model years. Great question.
I like this view selection. Not much separates the utilitarian taxi-grade Gran Fury from the Fifth Avenue, beyond the rear roof design, and some styling gingerbread. Using the clothing analogy, like putting a tie and jacket on, over a plain shirt.
Brilliant – Daniel, thanks for putting that together. I was flipping back and forth between the pictures of the two cars when I was reviewing the final draft of this essay.
Great job on this article Joseph, lots of work putting it together, and doing the research. And an excellent capture of that Crimson Fifth Avenue. I thought placing the pics side by side would help compliment your clothing analogy. Enjoyed this!
This was a car that caused me much confusion. I loved Chryslers at the time, and could tell that they really did a nice job on the interior in a smaller package. However, as noted above, the 3 speed auto and the small size were a turn off for me. These gave you less room than a Panther and worse gas mileage. Also, I was underwhelmed by the structural quiver in one of these I rode in back when it was fairly new.
I knew some older people who owned these and really liked them, but many more who were happy owners of Grand Marquis’.
A series of Grand Marquises were the final stop for my grandparents, following one Crown Vic. And that, as they say, was that.
“Less interior room than a Panther and worse gas mileage…” My grandpa was originally a chemical engineer before inheriting the family farm, and I’m sure this was some of the factual data he cited as he was showing off his new Crown Vic.
I’ll take one in the silver-over-black two tone….
Back in my auto detailing days in the Eighties, I drove plenty of these (….a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer being one of our bigger customers). From a detailing standpoint, these really cleaned up and polished up rather well. This was the first Broughamified squish-mobile that I actually liked.
I never really liked these through the years but this one is really nice, I remember all to many in the Chicago area had dents chalky paint, torn vinyl tops, and uncovered black steelies with one or two whiteline tires left. I think these pulled off the Lidoization better than the K car variants with similar accessories and formal roof caps, and if there’s one part I really like about the M bodies it’s that the wheels were pushed right out to the edges of the fenders which was pretty rare in American cars, even Pontiac B bodies and A/G bodies seemed to forget about “wide track”
These Fifth Avenues are the same as the downsized ’77 T Bird. A triumph of marketing. Take a less expensive platform, doll it up, slap a prestigious name plate on it, and let the money roll in. Chrysler gave lots of people what they wanted at a price they could afford. They found a receptive market. Personally, I find the cars to be rather handsome, and they exude a look of quality. Sure they are a pastiche of broughm tastic cliches, but so what. Lot’s of people were very happy to have one in their driveway.
As to the matter of them not being real luxury cars, I can’t see any car as an indicator of wealth. I used to work at a GM assembly plant and lots of my coworkers bought new Cadillacs, Lincolns, Chryslers, Marks and T Birds. I knew for sure that they weren’t wealthy, they were working on the assembly line with me! And I sure wasn’t wealthy. What they had was a decent paying job with lots of overtime, time and a half and occasional double time. And they had that “fancy car.” Lots of my other co workers besides buying a home, were putting their kids through Catholic school, and saving for their college. It all depends on your priorities.
At one time it was common that a retiree would buy themselves a nice car as a reward. I see cars like the Fifth Avenue as a lower middle class, unionized blue collar kind of car. As I said, many of my union co workers bought much more expensive cars but it was seen by myself and others as an unwise extravagance.
I agree with the idea of a balanced approach to life. Trying enjoy the opportunities that present themselves to enjoy with your family and for yourself as an individual. We are all constrained by economic factors, no need to work yourself to death or postpone any pleasure in life for some distant “Golden Years.” Make the best of what you’ve got and enjoy life right now. I am 67 years old and have had a pretty good run, so far.
This was the one of the first american old school sedans I rode in. I spent the day being driving various places on my friends birthday and I remember the rear seats were soo thick I had a hard time getting out. It was very weird, I was used to an 82 Honda so the whole thing reminded me of an old persons living room. Was very comfy though.
Haha – now that you mention it, one may have had to just “roll” out of those seats to plant one’s feet on the ground. That visual was like Comedy Central gold – thanks for that!