(first posted 5/3/2017) It’s 5PM, Tuesday. I’ve just come in from tearing a bathroom apart while thinking about the Promaster conversion. There’s no CC scheduled for Wednesday morning. What to write up? Where to find inspiration? I flip through the pages of my notebook, where the hundreds (thousands, actually) of cars I’ve shot but not written up reside. I see “1977 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham Coupe”. Hmm. I think I have an angle on that, if not a terribly inspired or original one.
This New Yorker is of course a recycled ’74-’75 Imperial. So why not recycle some of my ’74 Imperial coupe CC, from back in 2010 at the other site? I wrote that article under somewhat similar circumstances: needing to create a CC for the next morning. But back then, it was late in the evening and I was on my third glass of wine, or so. The result was a bit…different. Inspired? I’ll let you decide. Here’s the opening (the two previous CCs had been the VW Rabbit and Toyota Starlet):
Enough with these pathetic little Briggs and Stratton powered sidewalk toys like the Rabbit and Starlet! We need us a real car to counterbalance that axis of Cozy Coupes. Hell, this Imperial weighs a half a ton more than both of them together. Its 7.2 liter engine is almost three times as big as their egg beaters combined. And its got enough torque to twist those little tin cans into shreds.
There must be something about these big Chrysler coupes that inspires rather extreme comparisons. How about another one, and not borrowed?
I guessed that the big Chrysler was about the same length as the Promaster. Looking it up, it’s actually three inches shorter. Close enough. And the New Yorker actually weighs 200 lbs less than the Promaster. Close enough too. But these two really are the ultimate extremes of how to turn ∼20 feet (6 meters) into a production mass-produced vehicle, especially when limiting them to ones sold by Chrysler. I don’t think I need to elaborate on all the differences. The real question is to find something they have in common. Actually, with this white Imperial, it would be four wheel disc brakes.
This is a New Yorker dressed up as an Imperial, due to the demise of the marque after the 1975 model year. The New Yorker got the Imperial’s hand-me down exterior for 1976, minus the rear disc brakes, and ran with it through 1978. And it enjoyed a bit of a renaissance, as sales ticked up; quite a bit for 1977 actually, due in part no doubt to an improving economy as well as a reaction to the downsized 1977 GM cars. Lincoln got a nice bump from that too.
Seeing this interior, I’m going to go grab and recycle another paragraph from that old article, which makes reference to the impact and eventual demise of these giant cars from the 1973-1974 OPEC oil embargo:
Yes, the Arabs put a kibosh on this barge that Cleopatra would have been proud to float down the Nile on. And her tush would have been sitting pretty on all those acres of gen-u-ine Corinthian leather. The 440’s blubbering dual exhausts didn’t even need to be submerged under water to sound like an old Chris Craft speed boat. They don’t call these barges for nothing.
And since I’m looking for as much inspiration (more like plagiarization) from that old article, how about from the comments? Our own Jim Cavanaugh owned a sedan version, and he left this comment summarizing his experience:
I owned a 77 New Yorker. Mine was factory equipped with HD suspension and was one of the best handling big cars I ever owned. Mine was anything but floaty. You want floaty, go with a FoMoCo car of that era. The GMs were floaty too, but not as quiet or as smoooth. And I drove many examples of those big-uns back in the late 70s.
My biggest complaint with mine was that miserable lean burn system. An early 70s 440 swap would have done wonders for mine. Also, I didn’t like the “wide ratio” Torqueflite as well as the old unit. I must also take exception to anyone who questions the structural rigidity of the bodies on these never paid attention. It is odd that the sedans (with pillars) of this series of C body was not very rigid. But the 4 door hardtops (pillarless) were tight, tight cars.
It is another example of Chrysler’s horrible timing that its all new C body cars hit the market during a terrible recession. The poor Imperial didn’t stand a chance in 1974-75. But as a New Yorker, they sold scads of them.
My mother bought mine used in about 1982. It was a new car trade at a Chrysler dealer and had 34k on the clock. It is still one of the most beautiful cars I have ever seen. Russet Sunfire Metallic (a reddish burnt orange) with beige vinyl on the roof and beige velour inside. A pretty, pretty car.
The other problem on these was the electric headlight doors. We learned to open them and unplug them during the winter months, as ice buildup on the bumpers could prevent them from opening or closing, and they would make a terrible racket when they got stuck.
Another issue on these was the severe tuck-under of the rear quarter panels. That lower surface would get a terrible sand-blasting from the rear tires. I had to repaint mine more than once. The light colored cars showed a lot of rusty lower fenders after a few years.
All in all, this more than any other is the car I wanted to love, but that kept kicking me. Sort of like the handsome ivy league kid who is an underachieving alcoholic. Worse, I owned the New Yorker right after my little 71 Scamp, that was kind of like Rudy Rudiger (of the Notre Dame Football movie fame). I didn’t expect much from it, but it just worked its heart out for me.
Anyway, the Imperial today brings back a flood of memories from one of the great love-hate relationships of my life.
I should just have had Jim write this one up. But it’s not the first time I’ve taken one of his invariably insightful comments and used them in a post. In fact, I “turned” him, into an author here, by taking his comments about a ’59 Plymouth Fury and turning it into a post, his first of so many. I can’t link to it right now, because it’s going to re-run here shortly, which puts it in limbo temporarily.
And there’s one more comment I’ll filch from that post, by a current owner of a ’78 new Yorker, who went by Moparman426:
I happen to own a 78 New Yorker Brougham, which is the same car. The difference was that Chrysler dropped the 4 wheel disc brakes, and made some of the equipment which was standard on the Imperial optional on the New Yorker.
Motor trend picked this car over the Lincoln and Caddy in July of 75. They rated the car superior in handling, road feel, materials used in the interior as well as fit and finish, and trunk space. They also praised the car in many other areas. Road test magazine also talks of the car’s superiority in handling over the Lincoln and Caddy in their august 75 issue.
These cars go down the highway very well, especially for their size, with none of the pitch and wallowing that most cars from this era are known for. I put about 1,500 miles per year on mine going to car shows and such, these cars are very comfortable on the highway.
The space inside is cavernous, and the transmission hump is smaller than in the Lincolns and Caddies as well. The interiors in these cars are made of great materials, and use far less plastic than any Camry or Accord; sorry, posters. The bottom of the instrument panel is metal. The knobs are even metal, except for the wiper and power antenna switch.
The car has 118k on it, and has no squeaks or rattles whatsoever. Everything in the interior is intact, and the driver’s door opens and closes perfectly with the original bushings in the hinges. Not many GM cars can make that last claim.
To the poster that said these cars have crappy brakes, these cars use the exact same brakes as the fullsize 1/2 ton trucks of the 70’s.
To the poster that made the comment about switching to an earlier motor without lean burn…..they are the same engine. All you have to do, is replace the distributor with one from an earlier engine, as well as the carb. Or you could use an aftermarket distributor and carb. I switched mine to an earlier factory electronic unit, and used an edelbrock 750 carb for better driveability, power and mileage. I used an open element air cleaner, and advance the timing a few degrees. The car has excellent throttle response and runs very well on the highway, and with the cruise control set at 65 I manage 14 MPG easily, which is a big improvement over the factory thermoquad/lean burn system.
I plan to add a gear vendors overdrive to the torqueflite, which should easily add 2-3 mpg. These cars weigh in the vicinity of 5,000 lbs.
People that bought these cars were luxury car buyers, so I doubt that many ended up buying Camrys or Accords. Maybe a Mercedes or something similar, but not Accords or Camrys.
This New Yorker borrowed its duds from the Imperial, and I borrowed this New Yorker CC from an Imperial CC. How’s that for a bit of appropriate circularity? And so, with a little help from the past, we’ve got us a semi-doable CC now, in just about an hour. Necessity is the mother of recycling. Chrysler knew that back in 1976.
I wish Chrysler would recycle this design! Still sweet.
Way better than the ubiquitous beche de mer packed in traffic jams and loitering in carparks today…
beche de mer = sea cucumber. You mean the jellybean shape of many of today’s cars?
Yes, indeed I do.
I’ve been classifying things more accurately since getting the keys to the 2016 Mazda soft shell mollusc. Like most of the mollusc family it thrives in water thus saving the 280S from wet weather duty.
This state of affairs will continue until the new boot and tail lamp seals are installed. Seals like water too.
Well crap, now I have nothing left to say in a comment. 🙂
Except that I always wished mine had these luscious road wheels.
Actually, I do have something to add. The emblems on this car were designed by a man named Don Butler who was a longtime stylist at Chrysler (and at Hudson before that). Don did a lot of interior and emblem work over the years before he retired in the late 70s.
I know this because Don was related to my mother. We drove there for a visit in the early 80s in our 77 New Yorker. Don said that management wanted something with a regal connotation for the badging. I think he delivered. I need to write something about him sometime.
Yes, please do.
Holy crap! Ready Killowatt !! I grew up in the rust belt western Pa.. town of New Castle. On a hillside overlooking the town was a huge animated neon sign with a big clock and Ready Killowatt using a lightning bolt to point out the narrative on the sign and then the clock. Penn Power was our provider!
You should. I have his Plymouth-DeSoto and Hudson Crestline books. Very knowledgeable guy about the business.
Me too….
I wasn’t aware of these cars all that much when they were new and since the Imperials have all but disappeared I just thought this was forever and always a New Yorker.
I do prefer the Imperial’s vinyl roof treatment over that of the New Yorker, but if I was ever to buy one of these I think I’d rather have a 4 door.
BTW, I am surprised that the New Yorker is (marginally) shorter than the Pro Star.
I always preferred the earlier hardtop coupe or four door hardtop to the heavy padded vinyl top two door sedan style. Nevertheless they were a pretty nice vehicle. I never owned one but drove a few over the years and was impressed. In their time were right there on top,
I’m pretty sure the hardtop coupe style (which I also prefer) was available right through 1978. The 1978 Chrysler brochure at oldcarbrochures.com shows the “optional St. Regis formal padded roof” on a New Yorker Brougham coupe.
My parents had a ’77 4-door for a few years, and the Lean Burn 440 was indeed awful – especially by comparison to the ’72 Lincoln Continental (with regular-gas 460 motor) that preceded it.
That is a good looking automobile. Enormous, symmetrical and old school masculine. You can envision its pilot chomping a cigar.
The 74+ mopar cars may have been out of date, but some were so handsome. This is a better application of the big bumper than the other big two.
No article on mid-70’s Chrysler New Yorkers would be complete without a Trailer Park Boys mention, so here it is. 🙂
Mr Lahey’s car – Where else could you see a chase between 2 similar vintage Chryslers.
These cars are underappreciated gems, and I always thought these big Chryslers (along with the Cordoba) epitomized the great Brougham epoch as much as any Lincoln Mark.
Great idea for a post, too, Paul.
I consider these Imperial/New Yorker Broughams the best big Chryslers of the 1970s. I’ll admit I am biased, since my Great Aunt Berta in Memphis had a ’77, and 10-year-old-me thought it was an incredibly opulent car. Hers was the 4-door hardtop in Coffee Sunfire Metallic with a beige top and the tufted leather seats in dark brown. These maroon leather seats bring back memories, since they look so similar to her brown ones–and man, were they posh. Certainly as nice, if not nicer, than anything Cadillac or Lincoln was churning out that year, at least for lovers of overstuffed American-style decadence.
I can’t comment on how it drove, but the ride was proverbial whipped cream. I’m sure it had Lean Burn, but I don’t recall her having any issues with it (and she was vocal when her Chryslers had poor quality, like her ’75 New Yorker). As with all her cars, she traded at every two years and so the brown beauty was turned in for a literal cream-puff–the downsized, cream-colored New Yorker 5th Avenue. It was still posh, but so square, and nothing like the oversized grandeur of that ’77.
If I were looking to add a ’70s barge to my lotto garage, one of these would be at the top of the list. And I’d just sink down in those leather seats and cruise…
Any vintage reviews on deck, GN? It would be interesting to read a period perspective!
You read my mind! I’ll be digging out the Motor Trend and Road Test reviews mentioned in this post–so stay tuned!
That silver New Yorker… mmm, yes.
My Dad told me of a friend of his who had a New Yorker. Dad always said he was impressed with those cars.
Cue the B-52s. I’m with others that prefer the 4-door hardtop, though this one is still very nice, particularly that color combination. And the room in that backseat is amazing. This was one of the lower periods for the typical poor Chrysler quality (which is really saying something) but I still think I’d take this over a Lincoln or Cadillac if I were in the luxury market at the time.
Now, the follow-up, downsized R-body version, that’s another story.
It is a whole lot of car, but I don’t know if I’d try seating about 20 in this one. I will bring my jukebox money, though.
??
It’s a reply several years late, but: In their excellent song “Love Shack,” the B-52s mention driving a Chrysler that’s “big as a whale” and “seats about twenty.” They also advise the listener to come along and “bring your jukebox money!”
I’ll join you. I prefer the 4 door hardtop as well.
Fred Schneider must’ve had a thing for Mopars. Not only did he have this “Chrysler that’s as big as a whale”, but didn’t he also drive his “Plymouth Satellite faster than the speed of light” as well? (Einstein’s laws notwithstanding, of course. ;o)
This is certainly a car suited for heading down the Atlanta Highway looking for a love getaway.
It is certainly a nicer design than Lincolns or Cadillacs of the same years, just like the 1964-1968 Imperials.
Thanks guys, now I have that song stuck in my head.
Loved this one. I’ll agree that this really is a beautiful car, inside and out. So great to read about some genuine love for these. And I’m still laughing at the words of extra-unfiltered Paul.
What a cracking car. I well believe these are great on the motorway/highway, and that interior is splendid.
It may be well out of place 40 years later, but who cares? Just look at it.
So the new yorker had the 4 whl discs until 75. What about the imperial? Can someone please inform? Thank you.
Personally I saw a 78 brougham here in brooklyn and I wasn’t quite impressed with the quality of the interior. The lincolns and cads were higher quality in my opinion.
The older models I would assume to be better. From that Era, after 77, downsizing / cheapening / weight reduction started to come more into play in general. Not necessarily with every car, but this was an issue.
I can’t understand why the value is with the classic muscle cars when u can buy as good or better today for 100k or less while the luxury boats max out at about 45k. And have no direct comparison.
I like these big chryslers very much.
Only the Imperial had the 4 wheel discs in 1974-75. For 1976, the Imperial was cancelled and lower Chryslers all got a promotion with the New Yorker taking on last year’s Imperial body/interior. (The Newport Custom took on the prior year’s New Yorker styling too, though without the gaudy lower body cladding). In making the transition from Imperial to New Yorker, the car lost the rear discs and a lot of standard equipment in order to bring the price down. It also nearly quadrupled sales.
Was it still possible to option up a ’76 New Yorker all the way to the level of the previous year Imperial, or were the 4-wheel disc brakes completely eliminated, even as an option?
It’s odd how the Imperial name seemed to spell doom to an otherwise salable car. All they had to do was change the name, lower the price via decontenting and, voilá, back to solid sales numbers.
The rear discs went into the dustbin after 1975. I understand that the 74-75 Imperials were the only Mopars to use that system, ever. Otherwise, I am pretty sure that anything you could get on a 75 Imperial you could get on a 76 New Yorker by checking option boxes. Most New Yorkers I ever saw were very well equipped. The one I had came with Auto Temp, telescoping steering wheel, 8 track stereo (along with the other “normal” luxury options) and carried a sticker when new of over $10k.
In fact, I wonder how much less expensive these New Yorkers actually were, because they were very pricey cars. Of course direct comparisons are tough because inflation was really ramping up between 1975-78, which caused many price increases during that interval.
I’d be willing to bet there’s some marketing psychology between an Imperial compared with a virtually identical, fully loaded New Yorker. Someone looking at the sticker of a Imperial might thing there wasn’t much since everything was already included.
But looking at an identical New Yorker window sticker, you’d see a whole slew of options and their prices. Someone would thing, “Wow, this car is really loaded, compared to that ‘stripped’ Imperial”.
Then there’s the customization aspect. Some well-off folks want to have a car tailored specifically for their tastes beyond just different colors. It goes a long way to explaining the wide variety of ways to option up the expensive German marques.
My ’77 New Yorker had every opyion, plus, on the window sticker was “Imperial package” for $19,00 which replaced all NY emblems with Imperial eagles, including hood ornament. pics in the ’90’s
Thank u jp.
this is the exterior pic i meant to post
I think jp cav answered my question.
I think Paul should drink three glasses of wine before writing CC articles more often. 🙂
There are pros and cons to that. Sometimes it doesn’t look (and I don’t feel) as good in the morning as it might have the night before. 🙂
I want I want I want I want.
This gray New Yorker is gorgeous and has the “road wheels” that only further stoke my lust for it.
Seeing this car brings back great memories, as well as a funny story (part of our family lore–we still laugh about it) that demonstrated how in the late 1970s this Chrysler was considered quite a showpiece.
It was the summer of 1978, and I had the opportunity to travel to Memphis to see my Great Aunt Berta. The occasion was that Berta’s daughter Helen and her kids, my second cousins Will and Caroline (who were around my age), were coming in from Denver and would be spending a week in Memphis. The adults thought it would be fun to have the kids together, so arrangements were made for me to fly, by myself (huge deal), from New Orleans to Memphis on Southern Airlines (anyone remember them?). My parents put me right on the plane (pre-security era) and Berta got me off in Memphis. After we got my suitcase (checked, of course, back in the day) we headed out to the parking lot, and there we saw two men, probably in their 30s, leaning against Berta’s ’77 New Yorker Brougham. They were chatting up two comely ladies (maybe late 20s/early 30s) and clearly trying to impress them by making it seem like the fancy Chrysler was theirs. Berta, who was 77-years-old at the time, maybe 5’1 or 5’2 and rather round, was the classic Southern Belle. She marched over to her car and said in her most syrupy-sweet voice: “the only lady you’ll catch with that car is me, because that car is mine! Now if you’ll excuse me, we must be on our way.” The ladies being wooed burst out laughing, and even the two men cracked up. It was a classic moment.
Hahaha! I’ve often done things after a 3rd glass of wine Paul, and the results can be quite mixed! But I think you did really well with this CC. I really like this New Yorker Brougham though I’d prefer the 4-drs more. That’s some nice interior! It’s amazing what a slight decontenting, a name change and a price reduction can do – Imperial was a sales slug but NYer sold very well and was maybe 99% the same package!
Beautiful,just beautiful, and majestic. My ABSOLUTE favorite car from the 70s. I always liked them in white, but after seeing this gray coupe, I can easily change my mind.The only thing wrong with it is that its not in my driveway.
I’ve always been awestruck by the sheer size and elegance of the final C-bodies – to quote Mae West, “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful!”
These were replaced in 1979 with the R-body, which of course was based on the older B platform, so in some respects, the final C’s were a more modern design, and may very well be the last truly well designed vehicle from Old Chrysler before the K-cars came out (overlooking the F/M-bodies). The comments I’ve read here from JP Cavanaugh and others who have owned them about their tightness and handling prowess have always made me want to find one. There are a surprising number of survivors that routinely show up on Kijiji, etc.
I love these big coupes. Very, very much. This one is just about perfect for a late car–right color, road wheels, right interior color. Just fix the headlamp doors and you’ve got it. The Imperial does have slightly better lines as a true hardtop, but those were gone by ’77, were they not?
As mentioned above: The brochures indicate that the true 2-door hardtop style was available for all five years of the New Yorker Brougham, 1974 through 1978, with the padded St. Regis opera window treatment as an option starting in 1975 (and available on the ’75 Imperial as well).
However, it’s possible that the majority of two-doors sent to dealers starting in 1975 or ’76 had the roof treatment, and that someone wanting the more elegant two-door hardtop style had to special-order it without the option. In any case, I wouldn’t be surprised if the rear quarter windows were fixed in the later cars, despite the hardtop appearance.
Has any CC about a great, big, pre-downsizing American car ever provoked such a landslide of positive comments?
I never drove one of these, nor its Imperial predecessor. But I’ve driven their Dodge Monaco and Plymouth Gran Fury cousins and they were every bit as competent on the road as the Chrysler is described here. Tight handling, a comfortable, controlled ride, and quiet. They were not as plush as the Imperial/Chrysler inside; indeed, they were pretty much identical to each other, with too much blackout trim paneling on the interior and dash; but the basic car was just fine. If a nice one showed up now, I’d…no, it wouldn’t fit in the garage!
I’ll echo what everyone says and say that I really like these cars. These initially never did anything for me, but overtime, I’ve grown to like them a lot. Of course, mine would have to be a 4 door 76 version, because 1) I prefer the styling of the four door, and 2) No Lean Burn.
The weird thing though, is that these cars seem to be very rare. I don’t know if it’s because of the sales, or Chrysler’s inconsistent build quality, or both. But compared to the other big 70s luxury cars, you never see these anywhere. Of course, if you do manage to find one, I bet you anything that they’re being sold for pennies.
If I ever get to a point where I can get money for an old car and all the Lincoln Mark Vs are getting a bit too pricey, I might try and scout for one of these instead. It would make a nice substitute.
I actually have a 1978 New Yorker Brougham sedan. It needs some work to bring it up to snuff, but I will echo the earlier comments about its surprisingly sharp handling (relatively!) and the solid structure. I think it was the last pillarless hardtop sedan offered in the US.
If you swap the lean burn for an electronic ignition, it’s a great way to get the American land barge experience. It has size and style, almost-modern roadability, and the mechanicals and electronics are pretty robust (or at least easy to repair–especially if you can find one without Auto-Temp). And you get all this in a car that’s more affordable than the equivalent last-of-the-breed Cadillac or Lincoln.
A friend of mine has a 59 Chevy truck mounted on the frame of something like this. We aren’t exactly sure and the man who built it has passed on. My buddy isn’t a super nut and bolt car guy, so all he knows is that it’s a 78 Chrysler…maybe. First time I looked at it under the skin, he was asking me to identify something under the hood. I looked when he opened the hood and assumed SBC. Then as I got closer, I realized it was NOT an SBC but something way more familiar to me. Apparently it has a 318. It is a small block Chrysler engine. But finding parts is always an experience.
I would be surprised at that – every Chrysler (and Plymouth and Dodge) car made from 1960 on was a full unibody. Perhaps it was a Dodge pickup truck frame, because the only other Mopar full frame vehicle made after the 50s was the Imperial up through 1966, and it would only have come with the big 413 or 440 RB block engine.
Mmmm…nope. The wide-ratio gearset didn’t exist in ’77. It came out in ’80, and only for the smaller A904–A998–A999 Torqueflites, not (ever) for the larger A727 units in the likes of the New Yorker. The A727 Torqueflite in the ’77 New Yorker had the same 2.45, 1.45, 1.00 ratios as all Torqueflites going back to the very first cast-iron units of 1956.
Hmmm, perhaps I remembered it wrong. I just recall that it never felt as crisp as other TFs of my experience.
Shift quality is a different matter. There were changes made to the Torqueflite’s valve body in the early ’70s to make the shifts softer/mushier, especially the 1-2 shift. I’m told this was done to woo buyers accustomed to GM’s sloppy-shifting Hydramatics—and I can easily believe it.
never heard anyone call the gm turbo Trans sloppy shifiting. As a matter of fact the turbo 400 was faster in the 1/4 mile than the 4 speed. It was also chosen by rolls royce because it was superiority. Unfortunately, I never owned one of these beautiful cars – yet! Lol. However, my dad and I have owned maybe 15 -20 buicks over the past 35 years and never was a trans ever anything less than flawless. Worn out 350 turbos yes. Though never sloppy. We have also owned a 75 mercury grand marquis with the 460 and the c6. Another flawless trans. Then there’s the 90’s – 2000’s mercury grand marquis and town car. More flawless trannies. But one trans is as flawed as can be…… my 98 dodge ram v10 tranny. Those electronic 727’s also known as the 47re and 48 re. Now these trannies are garbage and ask any dodge ram owner of these years and they will tell you about how many times they had to have their tranny rebuilt. Thankfully suncoast transmissions will rebuild yours for about two grand and use GM electronics within. Thankfully. As for me, I was the mule who changed every sensor / solenoid and valve body on the 47re to fix a double shift problem that regardless of my work, still remained. This tranny I wouldn’t say sloppy. I would call it weak and mindless. If ur turbo 400 or 350 was sloppy, it was prob low on trans fluid or jiffy lube used the wrong fluid or something.
Well, sure, GM probably didn’t deliberately set out to create sloppy-shifting automatics, they just programmed them to their idea of what drivers would perceive favourably as “smooth”. Other words for the same effect: slushy, sloppy, mushy, slurred.
You’re mistaken about the problematic Dodge truck/van transmissions; they are not “electronic 727s”. The 727 is a 3-speed automatic transmission; the ones that fail in the Dodge trucks and vans are 4-speed overdrive items. They’re based on the older 3-speed units, but they are substantially different and their engineering is not up to the standards set by the A727 and A904 3-speed units. As you found out all by yourself (the expensive way, it sounds like), faffing around with solenoids and sensors doesn’t countervail the sloppy engineering.
As for the Ford transmissions you’d like to believe are “flawless”, well…I don’t agree, but thanks for the good chuckle, sir! 🙂
I’ll agree with you, Dan. My th350 was sloppy. Smooth, but lubricated with molasses at only 65k miles.
Believe it or don’t, an export model with amber rear turn signals:
My best friend from high school had a 77 NYer as his first car, so I’ve always liked these. His was a triple-black 4-door with the 400. It was 11 years old, and had always been in Wisconsin, so it was pretty rusty, but it still felt and drove great. The interior was in perfect shape, he wanted to take the seats out and use them as couches. My friend joined the Marines right after graduating, and his step-dad had it towed to the junkyard as soon as he went to Basic (after saying it could stay in the yard while he was away, grrr)
A superb car with the exception of the Lean Burn system, some of the dashboard switchgear, and the removal of some the Imperial’s toys. I think the late success of these cars was in large part to its value. Chrysler gave the buyer a car that looked more expensive than it was while besting, in my opinion, the plainer DeVille and the blocky and bulky Town Car.
If only FCA could offer an extended-wheelbase 300 with an extended rear deck and a Broughamified interior…
At first glance without reading further, I thought Louis Broderick might be involved here.
That’s not a bad thought.
I can see some resemblance of the taillight/bumper design between this New Yorker and the 2011-14 300. Surprised no one has caught this yet.
Speaking of the 300, the 2015+ took away the snazzy look of the taillights (they now look melted and sort of Cadillac-ish). The waterfall grille was nice too, unlike the honeycomb version, which is more reserved for sporty.
“as a reaction to the downsized 1977 GM cars” ?
If this were true, then GM would have had lower sales for their new B/C bodies, which it isn’t.
Maybe a few die-hards switched brands, but overall, the downsized GM big cars were a success. By the mid 80’s, these die hards bought new downsized big cars since they “got used to them”.
This or the 4-door version of it is one of my wife’s dream cars.
The high sales numbers for these really makes them a easily-found bargain now in the collector car market. Because they were bought by older, more affluent customers who took good care of them, the survival rate seems to be quite high too, with corresponding low prices since demand for ’70’s luxury ‘barges’ is quite low.
So, spec your color, equipment, year and price, start searching nationwide. Eventually you’ll find the car that perfectly fills the bill, even if you have to travel for it, buy it!
Always love the styling myself, the waterfall grille, pendant taillights and sweeping lines are far more appealing than the increasingly stilted lines of the Lincoln Town Cars and the bloat of the prior to ’77 Cadillac. Have considered a number of nice ’76-’78 New Yorker Broughams myself……maybe one yet!
If you know where to look, you’ll see me semi-daily driving the Dodge version around the Detroit area. Rain, snow or shine. (mine is heavily undercoated, oiled and rustbulleted). Great cars. A shame that people who have only experienced “beater” condition examples malign them.
Cars like this one are why I love land yachts 🙂 . What a babe!
MOPAR seemed to go against the grain by offering the canopy vinyl roof instead of the landau on their big cars. But for some reason, it looks better on the New Yorker/Newport than the Gran Fury and Royal Monaco. The mid-size Fury and Monaco looked better with them as well. But on the Gran and Royal, they looked dorky.
> I plan to add a gear vendors overdrive to the torqueflite, which should easily add 2-3 mpg.
I’d like to hear more about this. Is there really an easy way to add a fourth gear to a Torqueflite? (or add a gear to any transmission for that matter – my stick-shift VW Rabbit Mk5 cried out for a 6th gear; I investigated a swap but nothing was an easy fit).
After reading this, I had a full on time travel minute. For nearly the entire decades of the ’80’s and ’90’s, I worked in and managed wine and liquor stores. Our restaurant, bar and club trade customers were referred to as wholesale accounts. Meaning they received a small discount.
A very large percentage of those establishment owners drove ’76 and ’77 New Yorkers. A couple of them had slightly older Imperials. An odd Fleetwood or two. Perhaps 25 out of 60 wholesale accounts. In addition, most of the old school liquor sales reps owned them as well. Those sales reps were holdovers from what they called the “glory days of the brown goods”. Guys who were employed directly by Seagrams of Canada, Hiram Walker, old man Kasser, etc. since the 50’s. Not regional contractors for sales as it totally became later. The New Yorker was somewhat of an official booze bidness vehicle.
I’ve likely seen those trunks swallow 800 lbs of wine and liquor, perhaps more.
By the mid 90’s most left had moved on to something different but no truckish stuff. I still have a permanently damaged back from arching on my toes and tying to gingerly drop 70 lb. cases of champagne into the deep well of a New Yorker trunk.
I always liked the tail end of these cars. Then again, I thought the same about the similar tail on my ’73 Fury.
The weird thing is the car looks better with the hidden headlights unhidden. The round headlights help to contrast with the waterfall grille, which is otherwise “too much” in the white Imperial at top.
Back in the 1970s drove many nice cars on long road trips. A 1972 Marl IV,, 1975 Imperial, 1976 Eldorado. Most comfortable was the 1975 Imperial 2-door. Drove the Imperial from Richmond VA to Fort Lauderdale, non stop, cruised @ 95 mph when I could. Arrived Fort Lauderdale so relaxed went out clubbing.
He is one you Never see anymore I would say It’s a Plymouth with the blackwalls and dog dish hubcaps although it has the optional vent windows, perhaps a company car? This was a screen grab of a Cape Cod Facebook page.
I know this is an old post but I thought I’d resurrect it, in the same way that I’m hoping to resurrect my pre-xmas purchase, a 1977 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham 2dr. It’s probably what you’d call a “survivor car” as it’s a factory spec car with some rust and vinyl roof issues, but unrestored or modified (except the moon disc wheel trims, which I’ve since removed). The plan is to restore it to a useable classic, but not a “show car”. I don’t need a car I’m scared to take out in case it rains, cars need to be driven in .my opinion. When it’s worth £30k I might change my mind… 😀