After the newly finless “plucked chicken” Chryslers were announced for 1962, Chrysler spent a lot of money advertising that its entry-level full-size Newport sedan had a base price of just $2,964, offering Chrysler luxury for a Dodge price. This stripped stick-shift Newport wasn’t quite that cheap, but it came pretty close — a very basic big Chrysler.
Chrysler was very keen for people to know that you could have a full-size 1962 Chrysler Newport for prices starting under $3,000. They ran at least four of these full-page magazine ads, with this one appearing in the March 2, 1962 issue of The Saturday Evening Post — a pricey ad campaign for a (relatively) inexpensive car.
A base price of $2,964 is a relative worth of about $40,000 in 2025 dollars. It wasn’t exactly cheap (you could have a basic Chevrolet Impala V-8 for $195 less), but in 1962, it put the Newport between the Pontiac Catalina and Oldsmobile Dynamic 88. It was also the same price as a 1962 Dodge Custom 880, which had the same body shell and powertrain, but less prestige.
Holding down the base price of the Newport may have been why Chrysler declined to follow GM and Ford in standardizing a fresh air heater on all models for 1962. Only about 0.9 percent of 1962 Chrysler cars were built without a heater (about 1,150 cars), but it was a $101.90 option (almost $1,400 in 2025 dollars). It’s about the only extra-cost feature fitted to this car, but it was enough to raise the suggested retail price above the $3,000 mark.
Heater notwithstanding, that was the usual practice for mid-priced cars of this era. Until you went some distance up the price ladder, you paid extra for features like foam rubber seat cushions, backup lights, and windshield washers. This car doesn’t have any of those, or even an outside mirror, which I would be sorely tempted to retrofit.
The only good reason not to order TorqueFlite on a 1962 Chrysler was that it cost $226.90 more than the manual 3-speed. Manual shift probably gave slightly better acceleration, but the transmission had an unsynchronized low gear, and the combination of sizable transmission hump and floor shifter largely precluded carrying a front center passenger except in emergencies. The higher numerical (3.23) axle ratio erased any edge it might have had in fuel economy, and what you saved up in upfront costs would be deducted from resale values.
This car does appear to have power steering ($107.60), which was installed on 96.1 percent of production, but not power brakes ($47.80), which were ordered on 64.7 percent of 1962 Chryslers. Non-power steering had better feel than Chrysler full-time power assist, but it was very slow (5.45 turns lock-to-lock); power steering was much quicker (3.5 turns lock-to-lock), but quite numb.
There are also blanking plates where you might expect to find a radio ($92.80) and a clock ($19.40). It makes me wonder if this was one of those stripped base models dealers used to order in small numbers to ensure they wouldn’t run afoul of local truth-in-advertising laws.
So, having established what this car lacks, what did you get for your $3,173.50 (plus delivery, dealer prep, and state and local taxes)? The Newport was, as Chrysler took pains to emphasize, a full-size car, not a “jr. edition” like the midsize Buick Special and Oldsmobile F-85. Stretching 214.9 inches overall on a 122-inch wheelbase, the Newport was about the same size as the mid-price GM B-bodies.
The 1962 ad reproduced near the top of this post declared, “When you buy Newport, you can rest assured your investment is protected—because there are no small-scale Chryslers running around,” a curious statement given the controversial downsized Dodge and Plymouth models Chrysler Corporation fielded this year. I’ve never seen any indication that the F-85 or Special negatively affected the value of full-size Olds and Buick models, but maybe it was wishful thinking on Chrysler’s part.
The big Newport was no lightweight — curb weight with a heater was 3,890 lb, plus another 40 lb for power steering — but thanks to Chrysler unibody construction, it was around 300 lb lighter than most of its direct rivals. Unit construction also meant the Newport wasn’t susceptible to the rough-roads shake that afflicted most body-on-frame contemporaries. On the downside, road noise was on the high side for this class, and the stiff body structure was prone to squeaks and rattles.
What the Chrysler lacked in noise suppression, it made up in handling. Its famous torsion bar springs had little direct impact on that (other than a slight reduction in unsprung weight), but the standard Newport suspension was about as firm as what other automakers considered heavy-duty: wheel rates were 130 lb/inch front, 135 lb/inch rear. Consequently, cornering was flat, and composure at higher speeds or on rougher roads was well above average. The stock shock absorbers left something to be desired, but this was a fine road car.
The Newport came with the 361 cid B engine, making 265 gross hp and 380 lb-ft. It gave away more than 30 cubic inches (half a liter, if you prefer) to the standard engines in most similarly priced rivals, but the Newport’s lighter weight made things just about even. With TorqueFlite, 0 to 60 took between 10.5 and 11 seconds; with manual shift, I’d expect around 10 seconds. It was thirsty, though: Consumer Reports averaged only 12.1 mpg with automatic and a taller 2.93 axle.
Brakes were not so good. Chrysler’s 11-inch “Total-Contact” drums had more lining area and swept area than average, which was good; they were stuffed into 14-inch wheels, which was not so good for cooling. The brakes also weren’t self-adjusting, which made them troublesome, a persistent black mark in an otherwise decent repair record.
There were a few interior oddities in these cars. One was the “High-Tower driver’s seat,” which had a 3-inch-higher backrest on the driver’s side. This provided better support for taller people, but, obviously, only for the driver. A notchback bench, like the kind that became popular a few years later, might have made more sense.
A padded dashboard was standard on the Newport — many automakers still charged extra for that — but Chrysler specified a curious horizontal turn signal lever, which was mounted not on the steering column, but on the left side of the dash.
Since none of the photos of the Newport showed the turn signal lever clearly, here’s a closeup from a Canadian-market 1962 Saratoga.
The big showpiece was the spectacular Astra-Dome instrument panel, which included full instrumentation in an unusual three-dimensional layout with electroluminescent lighting. Contemporary critics were not keen on this, finding it much too jukebox-y — “Our first reaction was to look for the knob you pull to shoot the marbles,” snarked Car Life — but it was nothing if not impressive.
Its full effect is lost if you don’t see it lit up in the dark. Here’s the display in a 1962 Chrysler 300 Sport hardtop. The featured Newport would look about the same with the lights on, although it obviously lacks the light-up TorqueFlite buttons to the left of the Astra-Dome.
Passenger space was a good-news, bad-news situation. Legroom, hip room, and shoulder room were generous, but headroom was not. Also, this was not so much a six-seater as a 4+2. Consumer Reports found the front seat cushion acceptably comfortable in front, but there was no room for legs or feet; in back, there was a modicum of foot room for a passenger straddling the tunnel, but the center of the cushion was hard and uncomfortable. A 1962 Buick was much more accommodating for middle passengers because its tunnel was much less obtrusive.
Chrysler boasted that the Newport had “fabrics that would enrich any living room.” From a design standpoint, it was okay, but these cars were widely criticized at the time for their trim quality and slipshod fit and finish. Modern survivors aren’t necessarily representative — some of their flaws may have been corrected over the years, or are now hard to distinguish from normal wear and tear — but it was a frequent complaint in their day, which was disappointing considering that these cars were really not cheap. A contemporary Buick LeSabre was generally much better assembled.
As for the styling, well … In the early ’60s, the excitement of Chrysler’s 1950s Forward Look seemed to curdle into eccentricity. You can decide for yourself on which side of that line the 1962 Newport falls.
That sums up a lot about these Chryslers: They were outstanding in certain ways, inexplicably mediocre in others, and in some respects just odd. Those characteristics didn’t change dramatically if you spent more for one of the fancier models. So, while this Newport might have been more pleasant to live with if it had TorqueFlite, power steering, and a radio, it was — for better or worse — the essence of early ’60s Chrysler.
Related Reading
Vintage MT Review: 1962 Chrysler Newport – Big Car Power and Luxury (by Rich Baron)
Curbside Classic: 1962 Chrysler 300 Sport – Funny Face (by Laurence Jones)
Cohort Classic Capsule: 1962 Chrysler Saratoga – Canada’s Mid-Line Chrysler (by Paul N)
Ok let’s order this thing as stripped as possible and combine it with an awful color.
This was the replacement for the DeSoto and even Dodge. I wonder if this was a municipal government car used by some supervisor. I can’t believe a dealer would order one like this for his lot.
As far as styling goes, it sorely misses the 1961 fins. With them it becomes a sort of American Facel-Vega.
And combine that with the ad campaign from Corporate showing an even uglier black car and emphasizing that Ma Mopar *could’ve* come up with one helluva plush Valiant for the same money as this but just…didn’t.
Not really. (The Dodge version, the Custom 880, was essentially a replacement for the DeSoto, but that’s another matter.) This was just the base Chrysler model, which accounted for roughly three-fourths of the total volume of the Chrysler brand. Except for the heater, it was typical of low-end versions of mid-price cars: A basic Catalina or Dynamic 88 was about as spartan, if arguably better-looking.
I can … but the emphasis would be on “one.” Back before most new cars were lavishly equipped as standard equipment, dealers would not infrequently order a stripped-down car or two because it let them get away with local advertising of very low prices. Newspaper ads would have a little asterisk next to that with a footnote saying something like “1 at this price.” The stripper would sit at the back of the lot collecting dust for much of the model year, at which point some lower-income buyer or inveterate cheapskate would pick it up at a sizable discount. (My family did exactly that at several points.)
It is of course possible that someone special-ordered the car this way, but the stripped-down loss leader was not uncommon in jurisdictions that zealously enforced their local truth-in-advertising laws. Naturally, dealers typically preferred to stock cars that were more profitably equipped, but if they knew somebody from the county was likely to come by with a copy of the latest newspaper ad, ready to fine them for advertising unrealistically low prices, it was good insurance.
For a long time, I have been morbidly curious about who was ordering luxury and near-luxury cars without heaters. Your contention that they were ordered by dealers so they could advertise ridiculously low-priced cars certainly has some merit. But you “guesstimate” there were 1150 Chryslers sold without heaters, and that is surely greater than the number of Chrysler dealers in 1962. Even if some dealers actually sold one or two of the cheapskate specials and had to order more to satisfy the advertising police, I have to believe that a tiny handful of car buyers specifically and intentionally ordered cars without heaters. And I want to know who those people were.
I had an aunt who lived in Miami between 1942 and 1965. She said it was common to buy cars without heaters down there as they’d almost never be used. If so, that could account for a small percentage of production. I inherited her last car, a ’62 Nova, which did have a heater, but Aaron says they were standard on GM cars starting that year, so it doesn’t prove anything one way or another.
In Hawaii, granted a tiny market, even Cadillac limos did not have heaters.
The estimate is based on the installation rate Chrysler reported to Automotive Industries for heaters for 1962, times 1962 Chrysler production volume, rounded to the nearest whole number, so while it’s not a precise figure, it’s pretty close to what Chrysler indicated at the time.
Nope. As of January 1, 1962, there were 2,647 Chrysler franchises in the United States, nearly all of them “dualed” with one or more other Chrysler Corporation brands.
Sometimes it would even take pride of place in the showroom or just outside it – show off the base model, point out all that it’s missing (but for just a few dollars more, you can have whitewalls, full wheel covers, radio, TorqueFlite…).
It worked the other way too, in the ’80s the Dodge dealer here took on Yugo as a separate line. For most of a year they had a loaded black-and-silver Yugo GVX that I’m sure anyone who seriously looked at it and its’ over-$6000-in-1987 or ’88 price got the upsell to an Omni or Colt.
I couldn’t help but think of Used Cars reading the last sentence of your reply.
I agree with BlueovalDave– the fins make the car. They are an integral part of the stylists’ original conception. Shave them off and you’re left with a bar of soap. I would buy a ’61 but not a ’62. Why people went from loving fins to hating them in so short a time is hard to explain. Such is the fickleness of fashion.
The car itself is as described: solid, level-riding, good handling. Much like my ’60 Dodge Dart, which is basically the same thing with a shorter wheelbase and different front and rear styling. I have power steering, power brakes, and Torqueflite, which makes my Dodge much nicer to drive than this bare-bones Chrysler would be.
The Astra-Dome is a masterpiece, day or night. The dash-mounted directional switch is so annoying–you have to take your eyes off the road to use it. Luckily, my Dodge has a standard steering column-mounted lever. The Chrysler front end with canted headlights seems inspired by the 1958-60 Lincolns, and I like the way it looks.
After this came the trapezoidal ’63s, which make the ’62 Chryslers look “normal”. In ’63 they actually had advertisements with “respected modern architects” telling us what an ingenious design this is– LOL!
I’ve tried to make the argument (with little success) that the 1962 Chrysler was the car that the statement (typically attributed to Virgil Exner, but may have actually been said by his son) that these were the cars that looked like plucked chickens, and ‘not’ the downsized Plymouths and Dodges. For starters, the 1961 Mopars did not have fins, but the Chryslers still did.
To me, these two photos drive home the point that it was, indeed, the Chrysler lines to which the quote refers.
I bought a 1962 Chrysler 300 Sport at a Kruse auction 26 years ago. I loved that dash and MUCH preferred the rear fins over the ’61 model. Yes, it was also white, but it looked good in white which showed the contrasting gold accents against the chrome most elegantly. It is the only white car I’ve ever owned and I wish I still had it. I got more comments on that car than any other including my 1974 Porsche Carrera (one of 528 made)!
Chrysler has typically had good luck with moves within the Chrysler line-up, as opposed to the bungling of the Dodge and Plymouth lines, and what they did in 1962 is no exception. Not only the creation of the down market Newport, but the non-letter 300 ‘Sport’, as well.
Sales of the 300 letter series were faltering and the extra cost of the long-tube wedge engines couldn’t be justified. The writing was on the wall when Chrysler engineering shifted emphasis to the new, race-bred and tempermental 426 hemi-head, which was never going to fit into the letter’s luxury-touring focus, and it was clear when the final 1965 300-L became nothing more than a trim package on a regular 300.
In short, the letter series had done its job of garnering solid name recognition, but that time was over, particularly with the arrival and success of the GTO.
Not only is it amazing that someone would order a car like this, but also that it would be available in mint condition 60+ years later.
Lowering the Newport’s price was undoubtedly due to the downsized ’62 Dodge and Plymouth. Chrysler clearly was concerned about losing those buyers that insisted on an externally large car (the Dodge and Plymouth were just about as spacious inside) and positioned the Newport to pick up those sales.
Also, the very similar Dodge 880 only arrived in the spring of 1962, as a result of Dodge dealers screaming about not having a really big car to sell while the Chrysler-Plymouth dealers had this Newport.
As to who would buy such a basic Chrysler? The same (but now older) guy who bought a Chrysler Saratoga six back in 1946 or so. There were lots of older guys back then who had no truck for power steering, brakes or automatics.
We had friends in Iowa City that bought a new 880 wagon and it was a real eye opener the first time I saw it, with that floor-mounted stick shift! I had no idea. It seemed so odd, but then all Chrysler Corp.cars were odd in one way or another back then.
They didn’t actually lower the price of the Newport — it was the same as in 1961 — but they did promote its price heavily, presumably for that reason.
And if he had been born in 1975 instead of 1905 that guy would be looking for something with an analog speedometer, all-physical HVAC controls and at least a volume knob.
Wow ! .
Being an actual old Geezer I find the lines of this car very pleasing unlike the black one in the magazine advert .
-Nate
I remember this insipid beige paint on what seemed like 50% of early 60s Mopars on the road when I was a kid.
I have always liked the 62, but prefer one of the hardtop body styles. And the 300 model fixed the generic grille that afflicts the Newport.
I wonder if this Chrysler generation was the first Chrysler with a straight 3-speed since before the Fluid Drive era that started in 1940.
My dad had the problem of buying the cheapest car on the lot. Just as the Aaron said, said stripper always ended up in the back of the dealer’s lot. Dad bought his 1970 Pontiac Strato Chief on March of 1971, meaning it was an unsellable fence dweller. Dad saw driving as expensive (because it was in those days) and insisted on buying the cheapest car he could find.
The aforementioned Strato Chief had the SBC 350 and Powerglide. I doubt many manuals and Thriftmasters were built. It had no power steering and a small steering wheel, making it a bear to park. Mum pleaded to get power steering installed, but Dad would not spend the money. That car lasted five years until it was rusted to nothingness.
It looks amazing. A true, “unicorn”.
Most unfortunate. Spend a little more and see what a nice Newport you could get in 62:
Great! I like his description of the starter as a dying cat. (People who say “hummingbird” have never heard a hummingbird.)
The El Cheapo Newport is what effective marketing will get you. Imagine walking into a Chrysler-Plymouth dealership and seeing a selectively optioned Newport parked next to a better equipped Plymouth Fury. Which would a prospective buyer choose, the Newport or Fury?
Chrysler was counting on them going for the higher profit Newport which, comparably equipped, wouldn’t be that much more. Plus, it would have all the ‘prestige’ of the Chrysler nameplate instead of a plebian Plymouth.
And, although the feature car is an ultra-strippo example with just a heater as an option, it ‘did’ come with a 361 V8 as standard equipment. That’s nothing to sneeze at.
Well, in 1962 specifically, the Fury had been reduced to essentially intermediate dimensions. So, the Fury was over a foot shorter, on a 10-inch-shorter wheelbase, 4 inches narrower, and close to $300 less expensive. A few years later, there would be overlaps between the Newport and the high end of the Fury line, but Chrysler had temporarily precluded that here.
No, but keep in mind that this car was competing with rivals that had 389, 394, or 401 cid engines as standard equipment this year. The only reason the Chrysler wasn’t at a significant disadvantage was that the unibody car was lighter than those competitors.
Certainly good points. From 1962-64, if a Chrysler loyalist wanted a traditional, lower-priced full-size car, their choices were limited to a Newport or very similar Dodge Custom 880.
But the waters became muddied in 1965 with the introduction of the new C-body Fury. That’s when a Newport next to a stimilarly sized Fury in a C-P showroom became an issue, and sales of the new top-tier Plymouth VIP paled next to the successful Ford LTD and Chevy Caprice, cars which sold exclusively in Ford and Chevrolet dealerships. Clearly, that’s when buyers went with a Newport as opposed to a somewhat better equipped Fury for the same money. And C-P dealers certainly didn’t mind, given the higher profit margin of the Chrysler.
How much lighter than the slimmed down in 1961 Pontiac Catalina?
By about 60 lb for strippo 3-speed base models, by 99 lb with automatic, power steering/brakes, and radio.
Good article, Aaron.
Presuming the under hood image is of the featured car, it did have power steering.
I had the 1969 version of this car in the mid 1970’s. It was a Newport 2 door hardtop, so not the cheapest model. The standard engine was the 383 with a 2 barrel, and the 3 speed was on the column. Power steering was the only option that I recall. It may have had Sure-Grip Differential, as that was in Alaska. I was (and am) a big car person, as they did so much better in winter driving.
It was a great car, I really enjoyed it. I took it on a road trip or two and would get up to 18 mpg. So I would do fine with this 1962 model, except I live in Texas now and need air conditioning. The closest I have owned was a 1963 Dodge 880, which I had for only a short time. I have always liked the old Mopars.
Thanks Patrick. I looked back at the engine photos, and you’re right, it does have power steering. Whether it did originally or was later retrofitted, I’m not sure, but I’ve amended the text.
It would be weird if the Newport came with power steering as standard equipment since even a heater was an option.
In fact, looking through the ad copy in the hope of finding a description of what was standard, they actually make a point of stating that the Newport has an alternator with sufficient power to keep a heater and radio going “in crawling traffic…without battery fatigue.” But, then, they also fail to mention that both a heater and radio are extra cost options.
A certain older buying demographic who had consistently bought low-priced, full-sized cars loved the Chrysler Newport for just those reasons. These were the Chrysler Royal buyer when those were still offered. The Chrysler nameplate held considerable value and even prestige, was considered a step-up from all other Mopars, better than DeSoto, only beneath the eight-cylinder New Yorkers that were the ultimate Mopar until Imperial was developed to challenge Cadillac and Lincoln. Small wonder Plymouth VIP never succeeded with Chrysler Newport on the same showroom floor. Only Dodge had as strong a group of brand loyal buyers for decades, who swore their Dodges were superior to the Plymouths.
I believe that if you check, you will find that the Reno Nevada Police Department used the 4dr Chrysler 3 speed manual as their cruiser in 1962 or so for several years
(quote)…The higher numerical (3.23) axle ratio erased any edge it might have had in fuel economy,..(/quote)If the lower gearing on the cast iron-cased Torqueflite-equipped Newport could overcome parasitic losses caused by torque converter slip and the pump needed to operate clutches and bands or at least break even with them.
For trailer-towing and urban driving, my guess would be comparitive fuel savings, when the manual gearbox is employed. In which case, the towing engine would work less hard with a numerically-higher axle ratio which should reduce fuel consumption.
An ideal comparison would be to retrofit the automatic’s test vehicle with a lighter in weight aluminum-cased Torqueflite with lock-up converter and thereafter test it against the manual gearbox-equipped variant
Of course it could. The standard axle ratio with TorqueFlite was 2.93, which produced respectable acceleration and not-bad steady-state fuel consumption. Consumer Union recorded 16.9 mpg at a steady 60 mph, 19.0 mpg at a steady 50 mph, dropping to 10.5 mpg in simulated city traffic. A 2.93 axle was not unusually tall for a torque converter automatic; by comparison, Pontiac used a 2.56 economy axle at this point.
With identical axle ratios (the 3.23 was optional with TorqueFlite, although getting the 2.93 with manual shift would have been a special order), I would expect the manual transmission to better the automatic by something between 0.5 and 1.0 mpg. However, going from a 2.93 to a 3.23 is more than 10 percent shorter, which is a significant jump. Without torque converter losses, the manual transmission with the higher numerical axle might still have a fractional advantage in traffic, but not in road load cruising.
The 1962 Chryslers HAD an aluminum-cased TorqueFlite — this was the first year for the A-727. In any case, that seems like a lot of work to no obvious purpose. Would a 1962 Newport with TorqueFlite get better gas mileage in some circumstances with a lockup clutch? Sure, but so what? The question is, “Would the significantly shorter (higher numerical) axle ratio specified with manual transmission erase most or all of the benefits of its lower parasitic losses when it came to gas mileage?” The ideal way to measure that would be to get two 1962 cars and run them through steady-speed and standardized traffic simulation tests and see how they performed. Installing different equipment not offered in 1962 would only muddy the issue.
Based on what? I’ll readily agree that if you were pulling a trailer, the engine would be happier with the higher numerical axle ratio, but that wasn’t likely to produce better gas mileage.
Not an expert on fuel mileage; but an observation of mine.
1) Throttle position seems to have as much of an effect of fuel mileage as does rpm (to a degree). When I swapped my 3.73 geared F-250 (with 2V V-10) to 4.30 gears; all the “experts” claimed I was going to tank the fuel mileage (as if 12 mpg was “fuel mileage”) .
Not so. Around town and empty; I actually picked up .5-.75 mpg because of less throttle to get going from stops. On the highway, the decrease was minimal…maybe .3 mpg.
Towing was a whole different story. Pulling a 10K lb trailer I saw better fuel mileage. I went from an average of 6.8-7.2 mpg to 7.9-8.3 mpg at 60 mph. I was somewhat shocked, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. The engine has less load against it at steady throttle, so the ecm was running it leaner.
… On the highway, the decrease was minimal…maybe .3 mpg…
At highway speeds, aerodynamics plays a greater role on an F-250 than it would on a much lower coefficient of drag Citroen Maserati.
A popular myth back then was claiming that selecting a two-barrel carburetor was going to save fuel. Upon the arrival of the Quadrajet and later the Thermoquad, the myth was busted, because higher air flow through the smaller primaries was able to atomize fuel more efficiently. The only factor causing a Quadrajet-equipped vehicle to consume more fuel than a similar vehicle equipped with the Rochester two-barrel carburetor was the addiction to the Quarajet’s roar, when the air cleaner’s lid was flipped over to its proper side
Thanks for another excellent article!
‘I have always liked the 62, but prefer one of the hardtop body styles. And the 300 model fixed the generic grille that afflicts the Newport.’
I must say I agree w/JP Cavanaugh on the styling. The 300’s looked fine & the New Yorker (in its last year on the longer wheelbase) was & still is a handsome car.
I recall a story about how the ’62 Chrysler was something of a parts bin special. Virgil Exner had a ‘wild’ design for the ’62 Chrysler (as he had for the Plymouths & Dodges). ChryCo execuitves got cold feet & decided to do a minimum restyle of
the befinned ’61 Chrysler instead. They took the door skin of a ’61 Dodge Polara which had a horizontal ridge on it & re-used it as a basis for design treatment for the side & rear of the ’62 Chrysler.