Although Chrysler offered bucket seats on various sporty models throughout the ’60s, buckets were also available on and off on the posh New Yorker. Quite oddly, they hadn’t been available on the New Yorker two-door hardtop coupe since 1961, even though they were available on the four-door hardtop — and actually standard on the ’63-’64 Town & Country station wagon. (Now that seems really strange!) But in 1965, Chrysler once again offered optional bucket seats on the two-door New Yorker. This snazzy Mist Blue 1965 New Yorker coupe has that seldom-seen option.
Chrysler began offering bucket seats in 1959 in the form of “swivel seats”: front buckets with a concealed cable mechanism that rotated each seat 45 degrees to the side when the front doors were open. Through 1961, swivel seats were available on many Chrysler models, including the senior New Yorker. The ones shown above are in a two-door hardtop, but they could be ordered in any New Yorker except station wagons.
For 1962, the swivel seats were dropped in favor of more conventional bucket seats. Except on the Letter Series Chrysler 300-H, these were combined not with a typical console, but rather a fixed center cushion section with a fold-down armrest.
The idea was that the center section would still allow six-passenger capacity in a pinch, with individual adjustability when carrying a middle passenger wasn’t needed. In the Chrysler line, these “six-passenger” buckets were limited to the 300 Sport convertible and two-door hardtop in 1962. (The 300-H had bucket seats front and rear, with a full-length console, so it was a strict four-seater.)
For 1963 and 1964, Chrysler also made buckets available as an $86.10 option on the New Yorker four-door hardtop, upholstered in vinyl rather than leather. Unlike the 300, the New Yorker wasn’t positioned as any kind of sporty car — it didn’t even offer any two-door models in 1962 or 1963, and when a two-door hardtop was reintroduced for 1964, it wasn’t offered with bucket seats. I think the object was to provide individual adjustment, and to encourage buyers to order the 4-way power adjusters (which cost a hefty $93.30 per seat). Also, bucket-seat cars included a passenger-side recliner, so a front passenger could put their seat back, like on a passenger train or airliner.
Remarkably, the bucket seats and center cushion/armrest were actually standard on 1963–1964 New Yorker Town & Country wagons. The headrests costs extra; you could have them on both seats for $43.10 or passenger-side only (to go with the passenger-side recliner) for $21.60.
It wasn’t until 1965 when bucket seats once again became available on the two-door New Yorker. The all-new, fully restyled 1965 full-size Chrysler line has gotten a lot of love at Curbside Classic (skip ahead to Related Reading for some links), but it was arguably the peak of post-Exner Chrysler, with its trapezoidal C-pillars and sharp-edged concave body sides, offset just slightly by the curved side glass. (The chrome road wheels on this car, incidentally, were not yet a factory option in 1965.)
Unlike the contemporary Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight and Buick Electra 225 (their likely rivals), the New Yorker sedans and hardtops were the same size as the cheaper Newport, now 218.2 inches long on a 124-inch wheelbase. (The Town & Country wagon shared the shorter wheelbase of the big Dodge wagons.) The New Yorker was distinguished by rear fender skirts, and the New Yorker two-door hardtop featured wider sail panels that didn’t taper at the bottom like the pillars on the hardtop Newport and 300, giving a more formal look that closely resembled the four-door hardtop.
Padded vinyl covering for the C-pillars was standard on four-door hardtops and optional on the two-door.
The New Yorker was further distinguished from the Newport by a more elaborate grille treatment and glass-covered quad headlights.
To me, these cars have the air of that older relative or coworker who is always stubbornly formal even if they don’t have to be. There’s a stiff uprightness to both the shape and the detailing that makes a 1965 Sedan de Ville seem like Hugh Hefner. If you like these Chryslers — and I know a lot of you do — that’s the charm of them. They’re just so serious.
Given that air of sobriety, finding the bucket seat option on a New Yorker of this vintage, even a two-door hardtop, is somewhat unusual. I don’t currently have installation figures for this option, but I suspect most buyers preferred the standard bench. At the beginning of the model year, the buckets again listed for $86.10; the price was lowered a bit in early 1965 following a reduction in the federal excise tax. The original buyer didn’t spring for the 4-way power adjustment, but that’s not entirely surprising given that this car also has wind-up windows.
While buckets still cost extra on New Yorker hardtops, they remained standard on the Town & Country station wagon in 1965 and 1966. A front bench seat was available in both years, but it didn’t become standard until 1967, when the buckets were dropped from the wagon option list entirely.
On New Yorker hardtops, you could trade the center cushion and armrest for a more conventional center console with a floor shifter and manifold vacuum gauge, an option that had previously been limited to the 300 (and standard on the Letter Series). The console was NOT available on the wagons, and was quite expensive: $129.10 (or $140.25 when combined with a power trunk release), in addition to the cost of the buckets themselves.
The interior of the 1965 New Yorker still had some echoes of previous Chrysler design gimmicks, like the translucent steering wheel (although it was now round rather than oval or rectangular). However, it had been toned down quite a bit, in keeping with the new exterior styling.
There was still a hint of the previous Astra-Dome instrument panel, although it was less elaborate (and no doubt cheaper to build), and the full instrumentation used on early ’60s New Yorkers was down to an ammeter and a fuel gauge. Note the quadrant for the column shifter — TorqueFlite was the sole transmission available on the New Yorker in 1965.
Walnut woodgrain was included on the instrument panel as well as the steering wheel spokes. This car has factory air conditioning and an AM/FM radio.
The back seat had a bench seat, but its bucket-like padding made clear that this was primarily a four-seater. Even the four-door sedans were uncomfortable for a middle-seat passenger, although there was plenty of room.
Standard engine on the New Yorker was the four-barrel 413 cid V-8, with 340 hp. The 360 hp version from the 300-L was available for $62.20, but I don’t think this car has that option. The 340 hp engine had plenty of torque to move this 4,600 lb car, but the lazy 2.76 axle ratio meant that it wasn’t a great deal quicker than a Newport with a 383. The optional 3.23 axle (standard with the 360 hp engine) provided more go, but also drank more gas.
Big Chrysler cars of this time still offered better-than-average handling by full-size domestic standards, and they had firm enough damping to give them reasonable composure on rougher surfaces. The downsides, which made these cars an acquired taste for contemporary buyers, were a rather high level of road noise and more harshness over small bumps than you’d face in a comparably priced Buick or Oldsmobile. Fit and finish were also more variable than one might prefer in a car stickering for around $5,000 without power windows.
On the whole, I think the most pleasing aspects of this car are probably the appealingly quirky Solid Citizen exterior styling and the color combination.
I’m especially keen on the attractive blue shade of the vinyl upholstery. (It IS vinyl — leather buckets weren’t available on the New Yorker in 1965 — but Chrysler did an effective job of making it look like leather.) The center cushion/folding armrest combination makes a bit more sense in a car like this than the bulky console, but either was far less practical than a split bench, an option Chrysler didn’t yet offer.
Bucket seats remained available on the two-door New Yorker through 1973, although they were deleted from the option list of the four-door hardtop after 1968, only to make a brief comeback in 1972–1973. From 1967 on, many New Yorker buyers were instead ordering the new “3-in-1” seat, a split bench with dual armrests and a passenger-side recliner function (which is why it has a headrest on the right side only). When it was introduced, Chrysler called this “the most luxurious and personalized seat ever developed.” Seats like this proved to be the gold standard for big domestic luxury cars for as long as that genre continued.
Related Reading
Car Show Classics: 1965 Chrysler New Yorker 2-door Hardtop (by Aaron65)
Curbside Find: 1965 Chrysler New Yorker Six Window Sedan – Why Do I Want One Of These So Much? (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1965 Chrysler New Yorker – The Last Great Chrysler? (by Paul N)
1973 Plymouth Fury Gran Coupe: The Last C-Body Full-Size Plymouth With Bucket Seats (by me)
I had a friction-powered toy of one of these, one of the kind with the stamped sheetmetal body. For a long time I preferred the detail changes on the 66, but I have been gravitating towards the 65 over the last several years. I always loved those clear outer taillight lenses. But I will confess that I never understood the roofs with the vinyl-clad C pillars. The full vinyl roof was taking over the industry by 1965 and these looked odd.
I can see the point of those who prefer the more fluid direction GM was going in the styling of its biggest cars, but I am one who loves that Chrysler developed that angular look longer than anyone else. What is not debatable is that Chrysler Division probably gave us more great dashboards from the 40s through the 60s than anyone else.
Bucket seats were quite a novelty at the time. My father told me a story about how the bucket seats were stolen out of his ’59 Thunderbird that he bought new. He traded his 57 Chevrolet convertible on it. Teal with a white top. Those were the days.
He never liked that t-bird – burned oil like crazy, he had to keep a case of oil in the huge trunk. Dealer told him there was nothing wrong with the car. His last Ford until he bought an 86 Topaz. He never was a Ford guy after that. Buick and Oldsmobile mostly.
He ordered a black Pinto wagon with wood grain for my mother – they messed up the order – confirmed his dislike for Ford so he walked away and bought her a Regal instead. Took me to kindergarten in that car – I can still remember it.
He had to drive home sitting on a milk crate! These were the wood and metal milk crates, not the plastic ones of today. I am sure he wasn’t very comfortable and angry about having his buckets stolen!
There was a previous CC article about where and when the domestic bucket seat craze began but I can’t find it now. Like most sports cars, the Corvette had them from the very first 1953 car but, weirdly, the Thunderbird didn’t get them until the 1958 ‘SquareBird’ PLC arrived. That kind of explains how someone would steal them out of a 1959 T-Bird; there simply weren’t many cars (especially that large) that had them back then.
IIRC, the general gist was the fad really started in earnest with the 1961 Corvair Monza coupe. After that car came out, seems like everyone and their brother wanted bucket seats in their car, however awkward it might have otherwise seemed (like being standard equipment in a Town and Country station wagon).
Here you go: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/history-history-the-bucket-seat-era-started-modestly-in-1958-and-now-theres-no-more-bench-seats/
I didn’t include the Corvette and Tbird as they came with buckets standard. The article focuses on “regular” cars that started offering bucket seats as options or standard on certain trim lines. The ’58 Bonneville was the first.
They are both interesting articles. I think the point was, back in the go-go sixties, in order to infuse some sportiness into a lot of car lines, bucket seats got offered where they really didn’t fit. Big Chryslers would be a case in point, with the possible exception of the 300 2-door and convertible.
Then, when the small car boom of the seventies hit, bucket seats didn’t seem nearly as ridiculous. As cars got smaller and smaller, well, front bench seats began their steady decline until, eventually, they all disappeared, along with the larger cars in which they were most appropriate.
Frankly, I miss front bench seating, but I’m almost certainly in the minority.
I had kind of thought that too, but looking at the trajectory of buckets in the New Yorker line, I think the hook for Chrysler specifically was not sportiness, but the opportunity to sell individual adjustment and dual power seats. The last seems like a big factor; if a buyer was willing to pay $86.10 for buckets in a full-size Chrysler, this gave the salesperson an opening to try to upsell them on both left and right power seats, potentially adding another $186.60 to the tab (with a retail markup of about 30 percent!). That was a nice bit of change, and somebody buying a New Yorker was probably more likely to go for it.
The split bench seat achieved the same effect in a way that was more practical. Split benches didn’t really start showing up until 1967–1968, but the development lead times make me think they were a direct outgrowth of the 1962–1964 bucket craze: Interior designers belatedly said, “Okay, what if instead of sacrificing the front middle position completely or having a fixed middle cushion, we made the middle position part of the passenger side, with an armrest or armrests mounted on the seat rather than a center console?” Since domestic bucket seats generally weren’t very “buckety” to start with, it wasn’t a big sacrifice in lateral support, and it still offered the possibility of selling right and left power adjusters. (The buckets in GM big cars of the early ’60s generally only had 4-way power assist on the driver’s side, but the later split bench seats often offered both.) So, in that respect, it seemed basically evolutionary.
With subcompact cars, it was a different story in a couple respects: The cars were usually too narrow for real three-abreast seating (except with little-bitty kids who today would be in child seats), and because they were often short on legroom, having individually adjustable front seats gave more flexibility when trying to accommodate a rear passenger older than 6. So, a front bench seat was no great advantage, and in many cases was less practical than individual seats.
I agree with your points, Aaron, and add one more. They may have pushed a passenger side recliner, especially on the 4 door’s and wagon’s, for long drive passenger comfort. The image of the 1964 New Yorker wagon shows a passenger side recliner and two headrests, which makes me wonder if the driver’s side also had a recliner. Probably not, as it seemed to take the American manufacturers many years to figure out the driver might want one as well.
Thanks for the article. I appreciate your efforts to bring out the minor and oddball details on the old cars of the past.
Thanks! Yes, the passenger side bucket could recline. (I should have noted that in the text, I’ve added it now) In 1964 and 1965, this was a standard feature on bucket-seat Chryslers, not an extra-cost option, although headrests cost extra. I don’t think the driver’s side reclined, so offering both seems to have been more for symmetry than anything else. (You could get dual headrests or right side only, but you couldn’t get one on the left side only.)
When I was a little kid, when I first heard the term “bucket seats,” I though the front passengers were actually sitting on buckets. I heard the term often enough and it seemed to take on kind of a fantasy thing from the future.
My family’s first car with bucket seats was my mom’s 1970 Toyota Corona, which was purchased in 1973. It had a lovely interior, full of high quality materials. The vinyl on the seats was thick and never cracked in the time we had the car. My older brother eventually wrecked it.
This furniture is what I considered bucket seats when I was a kid ages ago. I don’t remember if that’s what they called them in the old Sears catalog where I saw them, but to my young mind, that’s what I thought.
And I’m actually really surprised they’re still available to this day.
Love this car!
The taillights had the slenderest of chrome lines in them… like tinsel.
Up until about twenty years ago, I had the impression that the Chrysler was a Cadillac competitor, and that Imperial was on a higher level again. I’m sure Mopar fans are delighted to hear that!
But this car is a perfect example of what gave me that idea. Really, how could it look any more impressive? Why would anybody want a Cadillac or Lincoln instead of this? Or even (say it ever so softly) an Imperial?
I agree with you. I read the 1965 New Yorker was designed to compete w/ Cadillac and was a better car than the Buick and Olds alternatives. I’d also say by this time the 1965 New Yorker was in many ways better than the more expensive but older Imperial. I’d certainly take this over the squared out 1965 Cadillac, a designed which not aged so well.
I remember the 3d “wood” on the dash being more realist than anything I have encountered and I love the ejector door releases brought over from the 1964 Salon – I think only the New Yorker had those that year. That dash with that thick steering column puts Cadillac to shame.The passenger “bucket” reclined. Chrysler clearly added content that year while GM was at the start of its de-contenting. That said, I prefer the 4 door hardtop New Yorker to the 2 door.
In terms of price and cachet, the New Yorker was really more comparable to an Electra 225 or Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight than a Cadillac. A heavily optioned New Yorker was just getting into the realm of a basic Cadillac Calais. As with the Olds and Buick, I don’t doubt some people who could have afforded a Cadillac bought a New Yorker because they saw it as less ostentatious, but they were not directly competitive.
What beautiful cars these are, it must have been so nice to have a matching color interior.
I do prefer the 4 door hardtop in these, otherwise make mine a 300 or a Newport 2 door with the swoopy roofline.
The wheels on this one really do suit the square cut style, however I would say these are 14” and look a little small especially on the front, I think cars of this size deserve 15” wheels, they are big cars and need a bigger size than what was fitted to a (Australian) Valiant.
“What to do with a baby in a bucket seat car?” I guess this presented a problem for a lot of folks, which led to this product. Probably not the safest accessory in the world – I’m a bit unclear about whether/how this actually fastens to the seat. But it’s fun to admire in retrospect:
My father’s 1973 Sunset Orange Dodge Tradesman maxivan had three bucket seats: two from the factory and one from the jobsite–a taping cement bucket. My seat. To the youngest goes the spoils…
Long trips were truly a pain in the butt. Turns and stops an adventure of balance and dexterity. The good ol’ days.
The blue New Yorker is a beauty. Compared to the recently posted Buick elektra 225 the choice is easy for me–New Yorker unless the Buick came with the Mansfield option.