(first posted 4/17/2015) Why exactly does this car create such a powerful response (in me, anyway)? It projects such solidity, dignity, and self-assurance. It flew in the face of GM’s 1965 coke-bottle styling, and showed that hard-edged angularity still had some serious life in it. Most of all though, this Chrysler New Yorker represents a pinnacle: never again would the New Yorker attain this degree of success, prestige and quality.
The Virgil Exner years at Chrysler were a styling roller-coaster ride. He resurrected Chrysler from the stodgy, boxy K.T. Keller years and set it on the path toward styling leadership with the handsome ’55 models and the more radical ’57s. But those were a seemingly impossible act to follow, and the combination of a heart attack and resultant politics resulted in some very uneven results, some of it bizarrely so. His planned 1962 models showed promise, but the forced downsizing at the last minute and some of their details created another disaster. Exner had to take the hit for the 1962s, and had to resign.
Elwood Engel was recruited from Ford, where he was credited with the milestone 1961 Lincoln. Its angularity and compact was a bold contrast to the over-wrought finned Caddys. Although the Continental was not a big sales success, it saved the brand from an imminent death, and showed a new design direction that had very long tails. Its influence is still seen in the current Chrysler 300.
Engel brought a radical change in styling direction to Chrysler, and in its first few years, like so many new starts, it worked like a charm. The first sign of the new direction was manifest in the very T-Birdish Turbine Car of 1963.
Its distinctive front end, which coincidentally also appeared on the Exner-styled 1963 Dodge Dart, was first seen on Engel’s 1958 La Galaxie concept car. How that coincidence happened is one of mysteries that I’ve not yet cracked.
But there was a lot of cross-fertilization in Detroit at the time. Since it appeared on the La Galaxie back in ’58, the safe assumption is that Exner was inspired by it for his ’63 Dart. And that Engel decided to use that front end theme again because the Dart was already styled when he got there, for some corporate consistency.
It took a few more years for Engel’s angularity to come to full fruition at Chrysler, and it arrived in 1965 just as GM was heading the opposite direction. And Ford was chasing the Pontiac look. Eventually, it boxed Chrysler into a stylistic dead end, and the radically different fuselage Chryslers of 1969 were seen to be the way out. It wasn’t, despite their strangely appealing qualities. By 1974, Chrysler was back to a boxier, edgier look, hoping to recapture the success of the ’65-’66 models, without avail.
Chrysler was still clawing its way out of the 1962 disaster when these were designed, and as a consequence, the coupe shares its roof with the hardtop sedan. Yet the result is equally appealing, if not more so.
This stately New Yorker that I found on a walk in Millbrae, CA called to me; I could practically feel its presence over a block away, standing out among the curvaceous little cars around it, like the Chrysler Building in a trailer park.
These big Chryslers were some of the best built cars carrying that name since its WWII tanks and the passenger tanks it built just after the war. The unibody was tight, the torsion-bar suspension was less floaty than some of its competitors, and interior and trim quality would never again be this solid. But that doesn’t mean it was all that heavy: 4,295 lbs listed shipping weight. The 340 horses (gross) on tap from its 413 CI V8 hustled it down the road effortlessly. Brakes were better than average for the times, and the Torqueflite was arguably the best in class. Chrysler’s numb power steering was the only fly in the ointment, but for its intended purpose, who cared?
Chryslers appealed to buyers who still felt that a finer engineered car was the one to buy. There were several relatives and University acquaintances for whom these vintage Chryslers were the last American cars they ever bought; they all drove Mercedes by the mid seventies. Now that I think of it, that’s the reason why I hold these Chryslers in such high esteem: they really were the end of the road in more ways than one for Chrysler.
Not really, I consider the 1974-78 full size Chrysler’s to be the last great era of the real Chrysler’s, I always loved the 1965-68 mid sized Chrysler’s regardless of model although I slightly prefer the 1967-68 front end over the 1965-66.
Good point, I wonder how the 1974-78 full-size Chrysler would had done if the first oil crisis didn’t happened?
I owned a 1970 New Yorker and always considered it much nicer than the late sixties boxy, busy look. I also owned a 77 New Yorker and agree the 74-78 era was the last great era of Chrysler.
Stunning. I’ll take it, but remove those chrome strips on the door shutlines please.
I agree Don, but ever wonder why both Chrysler
and chrome contain the same first three letters?
😉
…and I always thought the last great Chrysler was the Crossfire ! 😉
My mother’s maiden aunt had a 64 Plymouth Belvedere that I used to think was a great car compared to my parents 64 Ford Country Squire. The one area where the Plymouth did not exceed the Ford was that lifeless power steering.
Early this week, I was passed by this car’s “younger sister” a 68 Newport. Still a striking looking car, even in it’s lower trim level, these cars did manage to walk a fine line between different but not odd. Yet, if I had to chose, it would be EXTREMELY difficult to pick between one of the last of these cars (a 67 model) over the 1st of their successors: a 69 model….the only years that really capture my interest. And yes, I do agree the fuselage look ended badly. But was it anymore a “dead end” than the coke bottle full size cars were at GM?
Wholeheartedly agree that the 65 Chryslers don’t get the respect they deserve. The glass covered headlights were a unique styling trademark that look good even today. I remember how disappointed I was when they dropped them on the 66s (evidently due to several state restrictions).
These were beautiful cars in their very boxy way. Despite their considerable bulk, their low hood and deck lid, concave side, and large greenhouse have them a lean look. I think the ’67 Imperial pulled off this styling best of all, but the New Yorker was still attractive. Those glass headlight covers were really cool and distinctive for their time; it’s a shame they were banned after only two years.
The Imperial is my favorite as well.
I concur, being a longtime Chrysler buyer. A 1975 was my last one then I moved over to Mercury and Ford. I wouldn’t even consider a Chrysler product today.
A neighbor’s grandparent’s would visit in a six window ’65 Newport – baby blue and the Custom trim if it was available that year. The car was pristine into the mid 1970’s, and those distinctive glass headlight covers always caught my attention.
In addition to the attributes Paul mentions, these seemed to be quite durable and rust resistant cars. Seeing a ’65 – ’68 Chrysler on the road was a common experience right through the mid ’80s where I live in salt and snow country.
I rode in a well optioned ’67 Newport Custom coupe once as a kid, and still recall how nice the details were both inside and outside the car.
1965 was an amazing year for American cars – so many of them were at a high point for both style and quality.
I don’t think the 65 Newport was available with the glass headlight covers – at least my aunt and uncle’s car did not have them. Was it part of a Custom trim package to which you refer?
You are right.
That’s what I get for posting before the coffee has kicked in. They had a New Yorker now that I think about it. It was a fully chromed 6 window sedan, a bit low on the optional equipment – not likely more than AC, so it wasn’t that different from a nicely trimmed Newport.
By ’67, the Newport was sold as base Newport and Newport Custom. I don’t think there was a “Newport Custom” in ’65. I’d have to dig through a reference book to confirm that.
There was only the one Newport line in 1965, and they were the only 1965 Chryslers to lack the glass headlight covers.
The dignified stance of this car in today’s world is dramatic. It would be interesting though to see a 65 Fury I in fleet trim next to it. Does the extra trim look tacked on to the New Yorker or stripped off the Fury. I think Chrysler has gotten close a few times since. I think the New Yorker of 78 was successful in a similar way, but perhaps the factory was too neglected/chaotic to match the quality. Next I think the mid eighties 5th Avenue got close, but suffered from technological neglect, carbs and 3sp Torqueflights, holding it back.. Todays 300, I think they are close, but time will provide better perspective.
Simply magnificent. If I were looking to own another ’60s era car, one of these Chrysler’s would be it.
This car being black is simply icing on the cake.
Elegance. What a beautiful car. The ’65-’68s to me are the most beautiful cars of the 1960s. And I’m also a huge fan of the interiors which seemed to be just right in the combo of wood, plastic, and chrome (I know the NHTSA will disagree). This combines the elegance of a Continental with the formality of an Electra or 98 to make a beautiful thing.
*I remain an unabashed ’63-’64 Caddy fan but view them as the ultimate and best revisions on the late 50s model, not necessarily as a “60s” car.
Take a clue Lincoln and Cadillac, THIS is what a proper luxury car SHOULD look like!
I’m very weary of the fastback styling and lack of solid, sharp edges and the loss of the formal roof lines on cars that are supposed to be large people-carrying sedans. The run-of-the-mill average cars can look like they do currently, but a halo-car or nameplate needs to return to the roots of a classy appearance, and this Chrysler checks all the boxes.
Regardless of the quality of the actual car, it plays the part rather well!
Paul, that cute yellow house looks like it could be a Lustron home built after WW2. Now an article about those Lustron homes would be an interesting twist, wouldn’t it?
I know that’s ‘way off-topic, but there are lots of them in the Cincinnati area, especially north of here in Middletown, and a cute yellow one near me in Mason, Ohio, which is now an office.
It’s sad when you look at this Chrysler and compare it to Chryslers like the Aspen I wrote about yesterday. Chrysler’s used to be prestigious and high-quality (at least in materials) automobiles. Even with this prestige sliding dramatically in the past few decades, Chrysler still tried to push a brand-wide premium impression. With the new 200 as the company’s sole mid-size offering, and thus needing to have lower trim levels (even though its predecessors all did, they didn’t need spartan models), I don’t think Chrysler as a brand will return to being a premium brand along the likes of Buick.
> I don’t think Chrysler as a brand will return to being a premium brand along the likes of Buick.
Unfortunately, Marchionne’s stated intention is take Chrysler downmarket into Dodge territory, and Dodge is to become a more focused performance brand, like what Pontiac was supposed to be I suppose. Sounds like a mistake to me, but I don’t run a car company.
Marchionne isn’t stupid. He knows (likely through Chrysler’s own market research) that the Chrysler brand no longer has the caché it did in 1965, not even close. The luxury end of the auto industry is extremely profitable, but only if the market thinks the nameplate is worth the premium. Unfortunately, Chrysler vehicles just can’t command the prices like they used to. So, although we old boys who remember Chrysler’s glory days of the sixties might abhor his actions, Marchionne is going to do what he has to do.
Sadly, I don’t think that is a Lustron.
Cincinnati is also absolutely LOADED with Sears Kit Homes, just FYI.
Nobody has to sell me on the charms of a mid 60s Chrysler C body. As one who spent about 6 years using a 66 Fury III and a 68 Newport Custom as daily drivers, these are among my favorite cars ever.
I also agree that these had it all over later models in terms of materials quality. The dashboards of these Chryslers were simply beautiful in a way that has never been duplicated since.
I remember reading an interview with a retired Chrysler designer, and he said that Lynn Townsend really pushed to upgrade the interiors of the 1965 C-bodies. In particular, he determined that Chrysler Division wasn’t spending enough on interiors compared to Oldsmobile, which made the Chryslers seem too spartan for their price class.
It’s also interesting to read the old “Owners Report” series in Popular Mechanics. In 1965, the magazine surveyed owners of the 1965 Plymouth Fury, and 1965 Dodge Coronet and Polara. The Chrysler Corporation cars actually registered a relatively low number of owner complaints regarding shoddy workmanship compared to their GM and Ford competition – particularly the full-size Chevrolet of that year. But then the corporation appeared to slack off on quality control for 1966, at least if owners of the 1966 Dodge Coronet are to be believed.
One of my neighbors has a Chrysler of this body style, a ’67 I think, probably a Newport, parked tantalizingly in his driveway. I live in the kind of neighborhood, unfortunately, where neighbors leave each other the hell alone, or I’d just go ring his bell and ask him about his car. One day I’ll find it parked out front, photograph the crap out of it, and write it up right. Here’s a shot I took with a zoom lens.
ps. The featured car is stunning. I can’t get over the pristine interior.
Definitely a ’67. From the grill, I’d say 300
If I were to buy a 1965 Chrysler, I’d prefer the Newport, with the same body, but more attractive (IMHO) grille.
Paul, you know the 65-68 C-bodies are some of my favorite AmeriCars… I think this one might be the prettiest to grace CC’s pages thus far. Where did you find this exquisite collection of Elwood’s angles? It’s truly gorgeous.
Elwood’s angles, lol!
I know 🙂 On a walk in Belmont, next door to San Mateo.
I’d be curious to see what dealership license plate fram was on the car.
Perhaps Len Ely? Mancini?
Or even Normandin’s, which still exists today, in San Jose (probably one of the oldest Mopar dealers in continuous service).
One of my favorite childhood cars. We had a pea green ’65 New Yorker. It started having running problems, and it turned out to have a dual wall exhaust system. Apparently the inner pipe had collapsed yet looked fine from the outside! Well, it made a great backyard clubhouse for us kids.
The last great Chrysler? It’s been a long, long time since they produced anything that I would lay my hard-earned money down for. That being said, I think the “last great Chryslers” were the mid-70’s full sizers. A family friend had a ’76 New Yorker when I was a kid. Blue on blue with a 440 under the hood. I fell in love.
I still have childhood memories of a deep metallic green with green (basic) cloth interior ’65 New Yorker. Belonged to my Aunt Mary’s employer, Monsignor Francis Dubosh, pastor of St. Cyril & Methodius Roman Catholic Church in Lakewood, Ohio. He’d just retired, and the car was a gift from the parishioners for the decades of service he’d given to the parish.
Wish that car was still around. I thought it was gorgeous when it was new, liked it better than dad’s silver blue Impala SS hardtop.
And back then, if you were a Roman Catholic priest, a Chrysler or Buick was the ultimate ride. One’s station in life kinda precluded a Cadillac, Lincoln or Imperial as too showy.
Looked like this I’d imagine.
I seem to remember his was the six-window pillared sedan, but otherwise you’re dead on. I gift like this was probably one hell of an expense for the parish to fund raise, I’m amazed they didn’t try to cheap out with a Newport. In retrospect, he probably got a bare bones New Yorker. Base cloth interior for sure, the base four door sedan, and I don’t remember power windows (which would have really stuck in my mind back then).
Then again, I knew about this coming ahead of time because my Aunt Mary was part of the planning committee (after all, who’s going to know the Monsignor better than the housekeeper who’s worked for him for the past 25 years, plus?). Which meant she was talking to my father, the Chevrolet dealer. And once it was established that it had to be a Chrysler New Yorker, I wouldn’t be surprised if dad had something to do with the purchase, if only to advise the committee of all that stuff that the average customer had no knowledge of in those pre-Internet days.
What a beauty! I have always liked the style of the ’65 and ’66 “C” bodies more than the later models, in part because I learned to drive in my Dad’s ’65 Newport four door. It was his first “new” car, having acquired it late in 1965. It was a leftover demonstrator with less than 1000 miles on it. It proved to be an incredibly durable and reliable car, needing no major repairs up to the time my father traded it in four years later with 100,000 miles on it for a 1969 Dodge Monaco.
It was also our first family car equipped with air conditioning. That big Airtemp two cylinder V-twin reciprocating A/C compressor would freeze you out of the car on even the hottest days. What a treat! Even with the 383/2V, it would step right along and once I learned to parallel park THAT thing, I could park anything.
Using the 4 door roof on the 2 door New Yorker was a clever way to give it a more formal look than the other wise identical 300 & Newport coupe bodies. From the exterior, only the ’68 comes close, but I prefer the ’65-66 dash to the later version.
I’m curious about the options on this one. If I remember correctly, that little chrome square by the lock button indicates that it has power locks, which were pretty uncommon. On the other hand it seems to have manual windows and no A/C.
I have a pair of those exact front seats in my 300 Convertible (the originals are in horrible shape) and while not exactly designed for autocrossing 😉 they have a nice balance between firmness and cushioning. Very comfortable.
I believe you on the seats. When I owned my 66 Fury, I test drove a 66 New Yorker – wow, were those seats like night and day. The Plymouth didn’t have much support, but those NY seats were leagues better.
The New Yorker was the best of the new C-Body Mopars for 1965. A couple of styling details that would have made them better was a subtle hood plateau reflecting the central grille and a canopy roof and “silvercrest” brushed stainless rather than the extended drip-molding parallelogram.
Sadly lacking was a New Yorker convertible to oppose Buick Electra 225 and a continuation of the four door hardtop station wagons. Of those sedan-type wagons, they took on an unfortunate hearse-like appearance especially done in black.
Overall, the design could have been reserved for the next Imperial, it was that elegant. Somehow though, subsequent tweaking of styling details little by little detracted from the original and the Fuselage styling was almost a relief when it arrived.
My aunt bought two new Chrysler New Yorkers every few years, from long before I was born, a convertible and a sedan. As a kid I remember her black “49 Town and Country convert with the real wood, and the New Yorker sedan. She liked convertibles, but her women’s club friends did’t. Their hair could be mussed. So the convert were for her enjoyment and the sedans for dealing with other people. In 1956 1957 our entire family (all Mopar) en mass started getting the new models. My dad bough a ’56 De Soto Fireflite, fully decked. My aunt waited until 1957 and did her usual, bought New Yorker 4 door hardtop and a convertible. I was only ten, but she saved the ’49 Town & Country for me to drive at age 16. Both ’57 were Midnight blue with white sweep and tops (and the convert had 2x4bbls on it) As it turned out she fell in love with the ’65’s and went to the dealer and ordered a 4 door hardtop and convertible. Told there was no longer a New Yorker convertible, she looked at the different lines and specs. She told the dealer. “Build one” She chose a 300L convert (which already was close to the New Yorker, and had him change the grille, and put all New Yorker trim on. Money was no object and she didn’t care the 300 was an exclusive car, The 4 door was white, the convert, black, It was stunning. I ended up with the ’49 T&C AND the ’57 convert. She kept the ’65’s until 1975 when she bought a Le Baron 4 door in gold, and commissioned a 75 Imperial convertible in black. God, it was beautiful. Unfortunately by the time she got the ’75’s her grandkids were 16 and she gave the hardtop to the grandson and the convert to the grand daughter Within 2 WEEKS both were totaled . My aunt died before buying any more cars and her daughter sold the ’75 convert and kept the hardtop for herself. I’ve owned at least one of every year Chrysler between 1955 and 1978, usually New Yorkers, and most year Imperials. The ’74-’75 Imperials, and ’76-’78 New Yorkers reminded me of the driving feel of the ’65, ’68 Chryslers, and surprisingly some of the later cars were as fast and in one case more so. One ’77 had everything on it plus had been ordered by a police commander and had the Interceptor engine and HD suspension. I put 300,000 miles on that one. It was triple white without rear skirts (had trim that matched the front) and on the original window stickers had an “Imperial package” for $19.72 cents that replaced all New Yorker emblems with Imperial, including park and tail lights and hood ornament. I had several ’65’s and loved them. The dash reminded me of the ’60-’62 “Astrodome ” dash without the plastic bubble.
I would choose a loaded one of these over the antiquated Imperial any day of the week.
Back again. My aunt was 4’8″ tall and really drove her cars, she got a ticket for driving 100 miles per hour OVER the speed limit. Imperials are excellent, at present I have 1964 Crown Coupe and convertible, and ’65 and ’66 Crown 4 doors. The feel is similar to a good ’65 just larger.
Preach it! That NYer 4-door hardtop is beautiful. I would love to have it in my garage.
Even though the NYer 2-door hardtop shares its roofline with the 4-door hardtop, it loses nothing in the looks department. You can’t really blame it on cost-cutting. The bodies of the Newport, 300 and New Yorker were basically the same, but they designed completely separate 2-door hardtop roofs for each of those models. And in the 4-doors, there was the hardtop roof plus two different pillared sedan roofs, the regular sedan and the 6-window Town Sedan. Then there were the wagons. The end result is a huge number of unique glass, sheet metal and trim parts for each variation. I could go on about the byzantine different variations in the interior too. It’s amazing they made any money on these cars with so little parts sharing between the models.
> Its influence is still seen in the current Chrysler 300.
The current Chrysler 300 is just asking for chrome outline moldings running along the fender peaks, front and rear, just like this ’65. If I owned a new 300, I would figure out how to add them to it. IMO, Chrysler should take the most upscale 300 (the 300C Platinum), add fender peak outline moldings, design a unique grille and taillights, and rebrand it as a New Yorker.
I forgot, and it’s too late to edit my comment: In 1965 the Newport and 300 2-door hardtop (coupe) bodies shared the same roofline. It was for 1966 that the 300 coupe got a unique roof.
Good article and I agree with you on the quality thing. However, with respect to the Continental’s styling influence on the current 300, I beg to differ: that is clearly influenced by the Chrysler/Ghia dream cars of the 50… Unfortunately the Lincoln Continental’s style does not have any parallels today (unless you consider the latest Russian ZIL). Shame really, because Ford did a prototype inspired by it in the 2000s but (stupidly, in my opinion) did not have the foresight to produce it.
Ford did several Lincoln concept cars in the 2000’s that were takes on the ’61 Lincoln look, but obviously never decided to go that way. I think they got a new design director. The odd thing is that they did put interiors very clearly based on the ’61 in MKZ’s and MKX’s. But really, who would ever know except me?
The 61 Lincoln interior the MKZ was based on.
A great car, and yet, could it be a Deadly Sin for that very reason? This seems like another candidate for Chrysler’s typical habit of smaller profit cars cannibalizing their own, higher profit models. The New Yorker had become so good (particularly in this year), that it’s quite conceivable that it ate into the meager Imperial’s volume (which would, ultimately, result in that grand marque’s demise a scant ten year’s later).
The Imperial was already having a tough time getting conquest sales from Lincoln and Cadillac, and here Chrysler comes out with a great New Yorker that almost assuredly scarfed up some buyers who had been looking at the Imperial and figured out the New Yorker looked better and was nearly as good for a lot less coin.
I have no doubt that the ’65 New Yorker paved the way for the ’69 Imperial which, by then, had become nothing more than a really gussied-up Chrysler. Ironically, 1975 would be the Imperial’s last year when it was replaced with the virtually identical 1976 New Yorker Brougham (which actually sold better).
I think people in the market for a luxury car would not buy a Chrysler New Yorker over the Imperial, but might buy a Lincoln or Cadillac. The Imperial was a top of the line Chrysler before and just after World War Two. As such it would not have been given much credit as a true luxury brand by Lincoln or Cadillac owners. By the mid 60’s it should have gained some recognition but Lincoln is gaining sales during the 60’s as well a Cadillac. Imperial sales do improve to some extent, before crashing.
From my point of view none of the big threes luxury car are real luxury cars after WWII. Cadillac’s are all series 60 models (except for the limos, which have really declined into a long wheelbase series 60)(by series 60 I include the entire range from 60 to 64). When Cadillac renamed the series numbering scheme in the mid 30’s the 60 series was a low end Cadillac. What I am basically getting at here is that the big three luxury cars are more of near luxury cars. The Continental from the 50’s was probably a good mid range luxury car, and perhaps the Eldorado Brougham fits here too. Top of the line luxury is really the Mercedes 600 in the 60’s, as well as the Rolls Royce. From an engineering point of view the Rolls is not much of a car, but the build quality of both the exterior and interior are second to none.
I had Cadillacs from the late 40’s through mid 70’s, Lincoln’s from the same times and Imperials from 1955 through ’75 and the New Yorkers that replaced them. I also had Mercedes including a 300 S cabriolet, Bentleys and a Silver Cloud III. On the european cars, materials, and fit SOMETIMES were better, but for year after year traveling and being pampered by an automobile, plus having the handling and power to haul ass when needed I still have my 4 1964-66 Imperials. The Continental from 1956-57 was near perfect for quality and drove well but I preferred my Premier convertibles, the Eldorado Brougham was put together well but I had problems with the air suspension. The M-B 600 was beautifully done but only countries could afford maintenance.
What do you mean by “passenger tank?” Armored personnel carrier? But the first of these built in volume, the M75 used in the Korean War, was built by International. The later M113 was built by FMC.
WW2 half-tracks were built by Autocar, Diamond T, White, & International.
Chrysler’s Lima tank plant was eventually sold off to General Dynamics. The M1 has been kept in production despite the Army wanting to shut the plant down. The Leopard seems more popular with foreign tank buyers not in the Russian sphere.
Large, imposing cars are sometimes referred to as “tanks”. I’m sure that “passenger tank” was a reference to Chrysler’s post-war cars. 🙂
True, but I thought it sounded strange in context.
Many journalists (not Paul) confuse self-propelled artillery with tanks. I even saw an M109 photo mislabeled this way in an encyclopedia.
Absolutely beautiful cars, these–they are the definition of elegance, yet still have a certain mid 60’s modernity about them. Wonderful job and one of the best styling efforts of the 60’s, for Chrysler or overall.
I too like this Chrysler very much.
However, when I recall 1965 US luxury cars I think Cadillac and Lincoln were, in their own stylistic ways, the equal of the Chrysler. The mid 1960s were a high water mark in US luxury car design.
Absolutely perfect, right down to the color. Gosh, I wish we could have cars like this again.
One of the best looking cars – elegant, clean, and flowing lines. Just a bad line on the whole car and looks great from any angle. That is why I own one alone with two 1961 Lincoln Continentals. Mine is white with red interior.
Very nice!
Beautiful.
Good day, my late father owned a 65 Chrysler newyorker for 19years. That car never gave trouble etc its was like family. Please share some more pics of your Chrysler my email is attached.
1978 Daddy. Trenton NJ
Dash
Rear
Rear
Rear Nameplate
1978
Dad owned it from 1968 to 1987 A Dr originally owned it and it only had 87miles when my dad bought it from Chrysler in Trenton NJ.
Hi Bill Prince
I have noticed your car in a couple sites and love the look and color combination. My uncle worked for chrysler and bought a 65 New Yorker 4 dr ht just like yours but it was grey with the red interior also had the buckets and console. I have since been looking for a 65 with the red interior to own and bring the memory back of my favorite uncle. I drove the car everywhere when I was at his place and since been a chrysler (mopar) guy. Did that red stripe come with the car, what mileage do you have on your car now? The pictures of your car, were they taken a while ago and do you have any resent pics. I live in Canada and haven’t seen a new yorker with a red interior with buckets since back than. I wish I was closer to Texas so I could see you car in person. I still have the factory brochure that he got with his car.
Phil, I am seeing your post RATHER late! Like over 6 yrs late!
If you are still interested in seeing more pictures of it, let me know.
I have been doing a lot of work on it recently. See my YouTube channel for
some recent videos of the work I am doing on it.
Bill Prince
(in my picture, I am wearing a black hat)
gormanwpjr@gmail.com
Gorgeous find! I love the Engel era Mopars. If even a 4 door can look good, thats really saying something. Ultimately, theres just something I really dig about a 2-door h/t with a bit of a formal roofline….especially on a big long sled like this.
I would disagree on this being the ‘last’ great Chrysler. The current 300 and its other LX bretheren rocked the automotive world back in 2005 and theyve stood the test of time. The Deadly Sin is losing sight of what makes a brand what it is. Chrysler is down to 3 models but IMHO the 300 is the only ‘real’ one. The 200 and the minivans are just along for the ride.
Beautiful car.
But as to quality: anyone notice all the misaligned trim bits on this car ? Yes, it’s 50 years old but it doesn’t look abused.
Believe me: not a diss on the car as this is the way automobiles [from all makes] came right from the factory during the 60s. Obviously not a restoration and original. Makes it even more of a time capsule.
I’d see these from afar and many times mistaken them for the 65-66 full size Mercuries of the period.
MT’s styling summary of the 65s questioned the “awkward” bumpers and the way they had to contort them to meet up with the body lines. These cars weren’t as appreciated in the 60s the way they are today.
you want to be really shocked by iffy build quality then take a closer look at most 66′ Mustangs! Panel gaps large enough to fit your ring finger on one end but barely fit your pinky on the other lol
That’s why I always laugh when people say stuff like “junk cars made today” Even the lowliest Kia has light years better build quality than any car built in the 60’s
cloth covered electrical wires
nylon covered timing gear teeth….etc
Cars have come a very long way
A lot of those Mustangs are the victims of bad or cheap restorations. The quality of the parts used in those restorations also varies.
A few all-original first-generation Mustangs have appeared at various Carlisle and Hershey events. Their panel fit and attention to detail is pretty good for an inexpensive Detroit compact of that era.
As you state, misaligned trim was commonplace back then. Chrysler devoted their attention to more important things like the development of some of the best engines and transmissions in the history of the industry up to that point and quality interior materials. No sagging headliners on these like the ones we would all become accustomed to in the Malaise Years!
It hurts that I’ve never driven or even ridden in a ’65 or ’66.
I’ve bookmarked this 300 and check back occasionally, just to make sure “my next car” is still waiting patiently.
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/chrysler/300/1250485.html
Syracuse, NY is about halfway between us. Syracuse Nationals road trip? (Probably not this year though.)
I think that ’66 has been listed for a long time because I remember seeing it before, possibly back when I was shopping for a convertible. Very nice colour, but they got the name wrong. That car is Spanish Red, like my dad’s Windsor sedan. Scorch Red is a non-metallic bright fire-engine red.
My “next car” is a like-new Scorch Red ’66 New Yorker 2-door hardtop with buckets and console, currently hidden away in an old guy’s garage. Hopefully not that many people know about it. One day I’m hoping to spot it parked out in his driveway with a for sale sign on it.
That would be great, BOC. “Next year in Syracuse!” has a ring to it. 🙂
I thought Scorch Red didn’t sound right. I obsess over this one partly for the color, partly because the ’66-only 300 grille design has a nice depth to it, and also because the bucket/console setup in a four-door looks really inviting.
Nice one. I think that color makes the car.
I agree.
I agree. That was my grandfather’s car and I got it in high school.
Same color – dark green – with black buckets. The dash was great w/ slide out “picnic tray”.
I remember that was the last year you could push start the torqueflite – they removed the rear pump for 1966.
We put radials on it and it handled very well and didn’t need snows in winter. A true 4 door hardtop, it looked great w/ all the windows down even though the Airtemp was super cold.
When waxed it shined like no other. Great car. Chrysler quality did reach a post WWII peak w/ that car.
I really miss that Chrysler starter sound. My college car was pretty much the opposite, a 1970 Valiant – a virtual stripper, with just auto and am radio and a rubber floor. Both cars were Chrysler hallmarks.
You are so right about the Airtemp. My great aunt and uncle bought a new 65 Newport 4-door hardtop when they retired and moved from the midwest to SoCal. It was a metallic turquoise and their first car with air conditioning. My uncle was meticulous about his cars and when I moved here in 72 the Newport, approaching 100K, still looked and rode like new and the AirTemp ran icy cold on 100 degree days – not uncommon in the summer in Ojai where they lived. I loved the dash and as I recall even the Newport had a cloth and vinyl upholstery combination that looked and felt expensive. You didn’t have to buy a New Yorker to get a nice Chrysler in 65.
I don’t recall build quality problems with this 65 but when my aunt later traded it for a new 74 Chrysler it was a complete POS – water leaked through the gaps between the windows, all kinds of trim pieces were mis-aligned or broke, drivability issues, etc. In the hit-or-miss quality years, she traded it for a new 76 Cordoba that was a very good car whereas my cousin got a bad Cordoba a year later.
1965 was a great year for American cars and sales hit an all-time record, IIRC.
What a stately automobile! Oozes class! Too bad so many were destroyed as derby cars.
Years ago, somebody I knew at work had one. It was a bronze-gold NYER 4door with black vinyl panels on the sides of the rear roof.It had air, roll up windows and real bucket seats with a console and the automatic shift in the console. He said it was a rare model because most NYERs had the semi-bucket seats with the folding armrest as the featured car has. Car was a real cruiser and powerful too.He loved that car and treated it better than his wife-or at least she used to say so! We lost touch over the years, but I`m certain that he still has it.
I just noticed one of the most strikingly handsome parts of the ’65 New Yorker, and that’s the roof, specifically, the clean ‘C’ pillar. Maybe it’s the smooth vinyl cladding instead of the more typical ‘alligator’ grain. It’s so graceful and pure with no affected character lines, blending in perfectly with the rest of the car, unlike other roofs and C-pillars where they try too hard, especially when a nameplate is slapped onto it.
The roofline really does its part to ‘make’ this car. Its not too swoopy, not too formal…just right for what the car is. And as PN said, the current 300 owes a lot to this design, the C pillar reeks of this DNA. That’s a good thing, IMHO.
I’m definitely a 1965 Chrysler fan – my 300L hardtop was one of the best cars I’ve owned. One of the interesting things about these 1965 Chryslers was the way they covered the price range from the Newport all the way to the New Yorker with the same basic car. They achieved this differentiation by having different grilles, side trim, and rear panel trim for each series, to the point that the trim was even quite different between the plain 300 and 300L cars.
There was a great deal of variation possible in the options too. Sedans, 4-door hardtops, and station wagons as well as 2-door hardtops could be had with bucket seats, for instance. Iirc the console that was standard on 300L cars could be specified in other models as well.
A great write-up of a very nice car. These hit just the right balance – their overall look is purposeful and no-nonsense, not stodgy. They have an aggressive, brawny character.
What’s interesting to me is how sales were distributed across the corporation’s C-body cars during this generation. In those years, Dodge and Chrysler-Plymouth each had its own dealer network. These Chryslers thus shared showroom space with the Plymouth Fury, which was based on the same body. The Dodge Polara/Custom 880/Monaco, meanwhile, was the only full-size car sold by Dodge dealers.
The Chryslers were very popular during this generation, leading the division to sales records. But the Plymouth Fury was also a success, and was regularly the best-selling Plymouth during these years. It played a key role in boosting Plymouth to the number-four spot in sales by 1965.
The full-size Dodge, however, did not sell very well, even though it had no competition from another full-size line in the same showroom. The full-size Dodges were generally the poorest selling Dodges of those years.
If I recall correctly, the Dodges were the least popular, or second-least popular (just before the full-size Mercury), non-luxury, full-size car during that era. (The AMC/Rambler Ambassador was really more of a stretched intermediate than a true full-size car.)
Yeah, this is the epitome of what used to be ‘the business man’s express’, the kind of car hustlers, movers and shakers climbing the corporate ladder drove. As someone else pointed out, the next step up from a New Yorker might not have been a Caddy or a Lincoln, it was more likely a big Benz.
My dad had a 1965 Chrysler 300 (no letter) 4-door hardtop. Dark turquoise/blk interior. Absolutely gorgeous car, but frankly, not as well built as his prior Caddys. Interestingly it had a reclining front passenger seat with headrest (only on that side). Sad to say, the trunk floor was victim to the rust worm after 4 or 5 years of upstate NY winters.
Elwood Engel’s finest,I prefer it to his Lincoln.When did the good one/bad one build quality begin at Mopar?
I always liked EE`s design of the Chrysler Turbine car. When we were kids and not too familar with car designers,we always said that the front of it looked like the back of a `61-63 T Bird`.
Did you ever see a Turbine on the road?I remember reading of them and some were loaned to potential customers but I never saw one in the metal despite holidaying in America.
Most seem to feel that ‘good one/bad one’ at Chrysler began with the 1955 redesign, reached its nadir with the popular 1957 Forward Look cars, and have never really fully recovered.
Things improved somewhat in the sixties (it seems like it would be tough to find anyone with a ‘bad’ sixties A-body) then took another dramatic nosedive (nearly back to the Forward Look years) from 1976 until after Iacocca arrived and tightened things up the best he could.
Thanks I’m a fan of the 55/56 Mopars.The 57s made the Fords and GM cars(which were still great lookers) look rather staid.
1969
Black, real and honost materials, gracious, cool, not too flashy, a big engine that murmurs in the background, well-built, a very big car that doesn’t look like a very big car, a comfortable and effortless ride. Now THAT’s true luxury. Fake plastic materials and “Royale” emblems all over the car isn’t luxury.
For the exact same reason that Syke mentions above -being not too showy- Chryslers were popular here among the men who made it. But not among Roman Catholics, quite the opposite: businessmen and industrialists with a (very) strict Protestant background. With writings on the factory-wall like “Aan ons den arbeid, van God den zegen”. Translated something like “To us the labour, from God the blessing”.
As far as I know a car like this doesn’t have a modern equivalent. Real materials and big engines, well certainly. But they are also rather vulgar and over the top.
As much a ‘100 Million Dollar Look’, or a ‘Totally New Fashion in Tailored Steel’, as in 1955.
I always have loved the details of the 1965 Chrysler New Yorkers. The early cars had the beautiful Clear Tail Lights. The headlight covers are also very nice looking, as is the chrome plated die-cast grill, which has the grille bars slightly beveled up so that they catch the and reflect the light. I also like the concave sides that look a lot like the Chrysler Turbine Car. And the vinyl on the roof sides is also elegant. The bumpers have nice sculpting as well. Just so many details are so nice. The stainless trim on the lower body sides is another nice touch. The instrument panel is beautifully designed, and is fact the largest die casting ever made for a car – as far as I know. The only thing missing is Electroluminescent lighted instruments.
The drive train is great too. I have the 413 wedge and it is fast! The A727 transmission is considered one of the best transmissions. And then there are the brakes, which are very good but very sensitive. The power steering is able to be operated by “one finger”. The Dodge version of these cars were considered one of the best cruisers of all time. And then there is the torsion bar suspension, which is light years ahead of the other cars of the time. My car can be driven fast and around corners at height speeds than other cars of the time. Even the hood and trunk has torsion bars and they work great. The doors have a positive tight sounding engagement. Everything about the 1965-66 Chrysler’s are designed and engineered so much better than they were before or after.
I really wanted the 6 window sedan. I think they look almost like a limo. I had one many years ago but sold it. However, when I saw my 4 door hardtop, I decided to buy it. It I did not already have 13 cars, I would like to have the station wagon version, which has a very nicely shaped roof and D pillar/rear window treatment. Since they are not a Chevy and do not have Muscle Car written all over them – they are somewhat cheap wheels. Not easy to find a nice one however.
Here are the beautiful clear tail lights. The tail light bulbs actually have real red glass domes over each one. BTW, my car has the original paint and interior.
>>The only thing missing is Electroluminescent lighted instruments.<<
They were. But not as flashy as the Astrodome.
A favorite feature was the inside door handles on the New Yorker.
1965 Chryslers do not have EL lighting, just regular incandescent lightbulbs.
The mighty 413 Wedge
Interior – instrument panel with translucent red steering wheel
Molded rear package tray
Formed metal rear covers for front seat backs
generous truck spare – all original
Ready to go pick up my Prom date when I was in High School – I wish!
Clear lights now red!
Your car is gorgeous ,when choosing one of these cars it would be hard deciding on which color , but white with the red interior would be hard to beat.
Another nice detail is the way the door handles line up with the side trim, resulting in a very clean look.
Some one mentioned the starters in these,
one of my favourite automotive sounds ever is the Chrysler reduction gear starter, just a brief tweet sound and away you go, just so space age in the mid 60s.
Would this have been the first car to use clear tail light lenses ?
I failed to mention the reduction gear starter. I love that sound also. I also like the green sun tint in the windshield. Other than AMC and Mercedes, it was the only other car around in the 1960s that had it. And then there is the sound of the engine when you rev it up in park. MOPAR power sound! I would like to have duel exhaust installed on mine. It would go from 350 hp to about 360 hp. It is sort of a muscle car in Sunday clothes. I don’t know what the gas mileage is, but it is good. You can just tell by the very small amount of gas pedal needed and ease at which it accelerates under normal driving. It seems to breath easily and never lugs like some of the Ford Y blocks did. Similar to a 1965 Pontiac Catalina with a 389 2 barrel that I once had which got 21 mpg. But as I recall, the Chrysler moves out even easier. Hard to put into words. However, the interior noise is greater than the 1966 Mercury Parklane I have by a lot. The literature that year says on the cover: “The Most Beautiful Chrysler Ever Built”. Incredible how much they deteriorated in engineering design, materials, and quality in 1969.
And yes, when a car has really good styling – it looks good in just about any color, although I always find that white shows of the clean lines best, in particular at night.
Chrysler hadn’t really learned how to insulate a unit body from road noise and imperfections too well yet. The 1965 re-engineering of Fords and Mercurys used a stiffer body and a frame only mounted to it at a few places for more isolation plus coil rear springs and more sound insulation. The difference between them is immediately obvious. I’m not sure there is any clear division between that 1965 Ford design and where the Town Car ended up in its final days.
Correct! Deep under a ’79 Town car resides a ’65 Galaxie.
I bought a 68 pea green New Yorker 4 door hardtop for $100.00 around 1982. I didn’t need it but my neighbor asked me if I wanted it, I figured I couldn’t lose at that price The interior was still almost perfect and the 440 engine and 727 trans worked perfectly. It needed paint and a fender and front bumper. The power windows and seat still worked, only the AC was not working. Tons of torque and still sailed smoothly down the highway. Even in it’s worn condition it was still a great driving car. Relative needed a car and “borrowed” it for a while. After a few months a freeze plug blew and they drove it until the engine seized. I told them to junk it.
If I could buy one of these, I would personally choose this 65 300L, solely because I like the glass headlight covers, and letter car prestige and heritage. Also, it is cheaper than 65 NY’ers I am finding for sale. If anyone wants to buy it for me, here it is:
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/chrysler/300l/1731643.html
Good call. A nice color scheme, and an imperfect interior which means you don’t have to freak out if you spill some coffee.
It’s kind of crazy that Belvederes and even Dusters sell for more than C-bodies in comparable condition. I guess it’s the lingering muscle car obsession, plus a fear of owning something “too big”?
Thanks! Now I just need to buy it with the nonexistent money I wish I had!
BTW
Another thing these cars were the first to have (I do believe), that almost no one will remember, is the concave air/water pressure loading horizontal spoons attached to the windshield wiper arms!
And there are the little turn indicator lights on the fenders, that light up almost jewel like – a little nicer than later Chrsyler products and Thunderbirds for example. And they are designed into the fender crown molding.
The designers even included chrome trim on the fenders, around the bumper ends front and rear!
I am a little surprised, however, that they did not have cornering lights, although they might have detracted from the clean front fenders.
I have thought about buying a 300 grille to install in my car. they are nice looking, and I could easily change back to the New Yorker grille – which is also great looking of course.
Beautiful car.
I’ve mentioned it before, but one of the first cars I have strong memories of was my grandfather’s ’65 New Yorker 4 door h/t, in turquoise and sans the vinyl covered C-pillars. Had a matching cloth interior. I loved that car – it was definitely a step up from his barely-remembered ’59 New Yorker and a step up, too, from the ’73 Monaco Brougham that replaced it, despite the many more power features in that car.
Didn’t see it mentioned in the writeup, but in addition to the relatively rare leather seats, this car sports the clear tail light lenses that only lasted for a few months of the model year – I can’t remember why, but someone objected to the clear lens/red bulb setup. Ditto the glass covered headlights.
One other cool fact I’ve learned about these cars, courtesy of an old Ward’s Automotive Quarterly, is that the dash was single casting of manganese steel, and was the largest such casting used in a car up to that point.
The clear taillights were dropped because they collected water.
Those seats were high grade vinyl I believe.
According to Collectible Automobile author and Mopar guru Jeffrey Godshall,
it was the because the CHP put up a snit. Apparently, in those days they staged unannounced check stops for “headlight aim”. I guess the troops didn’t like turning a few extra screws to get the cover off.
RE: The clear tail light lenses From the same CA story, it was something with the manufacturing quality of the white lenses, which had a wide variance. . Marginally turned-out ones emitted pinkish light, not red, and cast strange concentric circles.
As I typed this, I thought of the early M-Body LeBarons that had clear tail lights as well, and which was also dropped after a short time. My dad got a new LeBaron in my last year of High School, and I was so looking forward to those. By the time he got his, they had gone back to all-red:(
I believe the federal government simply banned any type of headlight cover when it phased in the first vehicle safety standards for the 1967 model year. Both the VW Beetle and Jaguar XK-E lost their headlight covers for the 1967 model year.
I always wondered, and maybe someone can shed light on it here: why did Chrysler give up on the torsion beam suspension? I hear nothing but good things about it and it has to be cheaper than springs, struts, coilovers, or any of the more complicated air suspensions.
Because it did.
(This was supposed to go with the comment about the front of the turbine car looking like the back of the ’61 Thunderbird, of course designed under the same guy, and I think he brought a friend or two to Chrysler with him.)
You mean torsion bar, not beam. Struts are cheap and compact because they consolidate some functions into fewer parts. The real reasons the original ’57 Chrysler torsion bar front suspension was better was higher spring rates, and the suspension itself was a new design that didn’t use upper and lower A-arms like everyone else. The basic design other than the torsion bars spread to everyone else soon after like the 1960 Falcon and probably others. They don’t use fewer parts than other suspensions.
Torsion bars were used on original VW Beetles and later on Renault 5’s and 16’s. On the Renaults, they were used in both front and rear suspensions and went across the car instead of longitudinally like in the Chryslers. I assume they cost more than springs since pretty much everyone has dropped them. I have seen mentions of torsion bars being used a time or two in certain models of some vehicle or another since, but not generally. There is also the structural problem of having the other end of the bar needing a strong mounting several feet away from the front wheels instead of right there.
Some Porsches used torsion bars as did the orig CRX.
I can assure you that torsion-bar equipped Mopar products do indeed, have upper and lower A-arms in the front.
Notice the headliner ribs and most likely hard headliner panels – like the 1959 Ford Skyliner and at least 1957-1959 Chrysler products – in this 1965 Chrysler literature photo. The car shown must be a pre-production or early production. My car and all of those that I have seen do not have the ribs and hard panels. Mine has the standard type of sewn headliner. Also, some of the photos show the wiper blades without the concave slats.
It was my understanding that there were some States that prohibited the clear tail light lenses, and so they were dropped.
I had read that the clear lenses had a high breakage rate even before installation, so the corporation switched to the red lenses.
That’s what I recall reading as well. The defect rate on the clear lenses used on New Yorkers was too high, so they switched to regular red lenses mid-year. Roger628’s description of the defects above sounds plausible.
Pennsylvania was always a spoil-sport state for light laws, AFAIR.
Early Mustang GTs with grill-fog-lamps had to have them disconnected there, as an example. The state also had a big hate on for this, arguably the greatest automotive lighting innovation in American history.
Forgot to attach.
Coming from a long term Mopar family, I do admire this car.
But not enough to pass on an equally nice ’65 Cadillac.
It reminds me of my great- great uncle’s 1966 Newport that my Grandfather used to drive my great-great Aunt around in after my great-great uncle died. My great-great Uncle died in 1968 and the Newport sat in my Aunt Helen’s garage until my Grandfather’s death in 1995. The car was a grayish silver with maroon interior and had 46k miles on it when we sold it in 1995 when my Grandfather died. It was in pretty decent condition for having lived in Connecticut its entire life and when my Grandfather’s house was cleaned out, I found the original window sticker from when it was bought in 1966 from Fitzpatrick’s Chrysler in Ansonia, CT. In addition, the original paperwork was also found, my great-great uncle traded in a 1961 New Yorker or Newport on the Newport. After my grandfather died, the car was trucked to Texas where I currently live and it was sold. It’s basically 20 years to the day that my Grandfather passed away and seeing this post reminds me of great memories of him and that car.
I hate to pound this flat – but…
There are so many little finely designed details included in the design of the 1965 Chrysler that I just have to mention then, in case they are not noticed by all.
This one deals with the similarity of design between the chrome Grill frame corners and the Instrument panel chrome frame insert corners.
Grill
Instrument Panel
I really don’t think the New Yorker 2-door and 4-door hardtops sharing roof stampings was conceived as a cost cutting measure so much as it was to differentiate the top Chrysler 2 door hardtop from those of the Newport, 300, Custom 880, Polara, Monaco, and Fury. Those models all share one of the most attractive hardtop roof designs ever penned. It was a sort of inverted obtuse trapezoid. The fact that the Chrysler 65 full line catalog shows 7 different roofs available indicates that they were willing to have more stampings than less. My Grandfather had a 65 Dodge Polara that was in mint condition until it was T-boned by a careless driver. Despite the lack of shoulder seat belts, my grandparents, aunt, and three cousins walked away from the accident more angry than physically injured. The car was typically just driven on Sundays, but on that one weekday they needed to have a 6 passenger vehicle. Grandpa removed the Fratzog hood ornament and mounted it on a piece of oak along with the two keys as a desk accessory for me. I still have it in my office.
Personally, my favorite Engle car is the 66 Dodge Polara 500. I believe the Dodge dashboard design was more dramatic with the double cowl large gauge pods that was very much like the 1960 Imperial dash. I always thought they should have swapped those dashboards so that the Chrysler’s would have more of a family resemblance to those stylish Imperials. This car is a 66 Polara that, to my eye, was a highly successful refinement of the 65 original.
I’m in the minority but I like the ’68 Chrysler 300 the most from that bodystyle. The hideaway headlights make it look like a ’68 charger for a gentleman.
When you make a statement like it was the last good Chrysler you are bound to get a lot of responses :).
My pick would be a lot newer. I would pick the 2010 300c as the last great one. The last year for the bodystyle that saved Chrysler, or at least made it worth saving. They were my favorite all around cars of that decade.
I’ve always loved these cars and still do. I know I should know this, but was the New Yorker Salon a 1963-only model, or did the Salon trim carry over to these as well?
My sources show that the NY’er Salons were built only in ’63 and ’64. Years ago, a friend had a ’63 and it was POSH!
I had ’63 and ’64 Salons and part of the package on mine were Imperial leather seats and some interior trim as well as every accessory known to Chrysler. Excellent high speed cars.
My choice for peak Chrysler would not be the 1965 New Yorker, but the 1966 model for a couple of reasons: better taillights and the first year for the brand new 440 engine.
One thing that I’ve wondered about the New Yorker is how the Imperial might have affected its sales. While the Imperial was almost always a distant third to Lincoln and Cadillac, it might actually have helped sell the New Yorker since it made the New Yorker seem like a relative bargain.
As evidence, look at how the big Imperial sedan sold poorly in its final year in 1975, but when simply renamed New Yorker Brougham with many of the Imperial’s standard equipment made optional for 1976, sales were markedly improved.
the engine wasn’t really brand new, it was really the same engine w/ a larger bore
Same stroke, different bore; the 413 is 4.1875″ while the 440 is 4.320″.
All parts but the pistons will interchange.
I happen to regard the current Pacifica as a great Chrysler – very different than this car, but does a fantastic job at what it’s designed to do. And looks amazingly good doing it, though again very different than this car. The 65-66 New Yorker though is peak Chrysler big sedan. Excellent driveline, great styling inside and out, and the best quality control Chrysler would have for a long, long time.
I’m curious how these compare to the still-BOF 64-66 Imperial that was sold alongside these, which were 1957-vintage bodies finessed by Engel. For those that have driven both, was there a noticeable difference in ride, handling, or noise/vibration/harshness between the two? I’ve got to imagine the New Yorker and Imperial were cross-shopped.
Even the 1965 Chrysler brochure was lovely, a work of art. The deluxe color prestige brochure was large, and printed on heavy paper:
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/chrysler/65chr2/65chr2.html
Ah, the days when the brochure was full of different ways you could personalize your car with options and 7 different roofline choices – and 589 different paint and interior color combinations!
In my opinion, the interior of the 65 Chrysler is more elegant and luxurious than any new car on the market today. Yeah the sound systems today are better and so are lots of other things but there is an elegance in this car that is just not available today at any price.
Agree. Elegance is a thing of the past when it comes to cars. It is all big, bold, pumped up.
But now we have one complete front end complete with angry-looking lights and grille and then another complete front end with angry or neutral-mood lights and grille stacked on top of the first one. Elegant.
Plus extra slots for fog lights which may or may not have the lights in them, but look like angry eyes anyway. Plus Christmas-light LEDs strung across the lenses of the top or middle or bottom sets of lights. More elegance.
Along with teensy baby windows, upwardly shaped rear quarter windows keeping the style of the Gremlin alive, and endless creases and foldy-shapes attached to a standard blob-shape, and flat-screen TV’s glued on top of the dashboards, and apps -so.many apps- and joysticks to operate all of those apps and similar knobs to shift the transmission…
More elegance shoveled on.
We’ve got a s**tload of elegance nowadays!
I wonder if it had the electro-flourescent display the Imperial initiated in 61 Imperial (I believe.) I’ve only seen one in my life in a Charger. it was ethereal. Beat Lexus to it by decades. Sadly they didn’t continue after the 60s, guess it cost too much…
I wonder if it had the electro-flourescent display like the Imperial initiated in 61 Imperial (I believe.) I’ve only seen one in my life in a Charger. it was ethereal. Beat Lexus to it by decades. Sadly they didn’t continue after the 60s, guess it cost too much…
I still have my white with red interior 1965 New Yorker 4 door hardtop. I think I have now owned it for about 15 yrs. The last time I detailed cleaned it was in 2017, I hate to say – so it is about time that I once again shine it up and take it for a spin. Every time I clean it, I once again realize why I bought it. The styling is simply stunning. If prices were gauged on styling vs muscle engines, the 1965 New Yorker would be worth $100K!
Detailing it in 2017. Not perfect, but not bad for original paint and interior.
I loved the interior door handles, the way they looke and the way your arm and hand rested
look
Does anybody know if there was a vinyl delete option on the C-pillar for these? Because I don’t remember one on My grandfather’s I mentioned above. Being Chrysler-Plymouth dealers in the rust belt, there was a strong aversion to vinyl tops of any kind in my family, having seen too many examples of the underlying rot which inevitably occurred. Maybe a dealer special?
I really loved this car. It was contemporary, solid, and elegant. with one of my favorite all-time wheel covers.
Niedermeyer,
You would be a perfect match for this Newport.
Soon to be back on the road with a fresh original 383.
Though I’m a Ford guy, these are beautiful cars.
Here’s a (presumably) factory promo film of the 1965 Chryslers; I haven’t checked closely, but this might be Lake Shore Road in greater Detroit’s Grosse Point Shores: https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/228300/