(first posted 11/27/2013) Having been born in the mid-eighties, one might be forgiven for an unfavorable impression of American cars. I’m sure some CC readers in their late twenties and and early thirties may have had a different experience; yet, only when I was well into adulthood did I begin to appreciate good ol’ fashioned Detroit iron. Somewhat uncommonly, Chrysler has taken first place as my favored purveyor of low, long and wide variety classics. I always have to be different.
Along with technical originality and rarity, it’s the styling of the Elwood Engel cars which particularly inspired my appreciation for Mopars. These unibody beauties sold in lesser numbers than their full-framed competition when new, and were absent throughout my youth in New York’s North Country twenty years later, having rusted away before my first formations of solid memory. These machines’ tastefulness and quality makes them genuinely novel for someone my age: like most kids born under Reagan, my experience with Chrysler products amounted to carpooling in minivans, witnessing the destruction of police cars in action flicks and being given minor cuts by interior trim in Neons.
After 14 years living in the nouveau riche suburbs of central Ohio, I recently relocated to Bloomington, IN, and finally have the chance to see curbside classics on a regular basis. As further reward for my patience, one of the first to catch my eye was this hardtop sedan (my favorite body style). I initially assumed it to be a’67 or ‘68 Chrysler of some variety, but a little research revealed it to be a 1966 Newport. The car is driven daily from its home a quarter mile from downtown Bloomington, where I see it parked most nights, to the square outside the Monroe County courthouse, where I photographed it this past August.
For those readers who are unaware, Chrysler wooed Elwood Engel (of 1961 Continental fame) away from Ford to replace Virgil Exner who, under duress, headed the redesign of the hastily downsized (and unsuccessful) 1962 Dodge and Plymouth, but is more fondly remembered for his landmark restyling of the 1957 cars (these “Forward Look” sedans are most famously represented by a 1958 Plymouth Fury in Stephen King’s Christine.) It is said that Exner’s reassignment and replacement was the result of Chrysler president William Newberg, who was soon gone himself, wanting a scapegoat.
In writing this piece, I found that parsing the events in Highland Park between 1960 and 1964 was more difficult than I first expected, but CC regulars have covered this period to great effect here, here and here. Regardless of what readers know or believe about change in personnel, the shift in philosophy from curviness and excess to leanness and (relative) simplicity was readily apparent and affected Chrysler and Imperial, as well as Dodge and Plymouth.
The first cars designed purely under Engel’s tenure were the 1965 C-bodies: the Plymouth Fury, Dodge Polara/Monaco and Chrysler Newport/300/New Yorker. I won’t lie: I vastly prefer this style to that of the Exner cars. All the lines relate to one another and the shapes match: there’s none of the Forward Look’s Googie influence and none of the dissonance that characterized the Lean Breed Dodge and Plymouth cars. It’s like comparing Jackie Kennedy with Divine. Perhaps controversially, I even like the Fuselage cars which succeeded the 1965-1968 models, but that’s a story for another day (a day during which I happen across one of those notoriously brittle 1969-1973 cars).
The cars benefited from several years spent working the bugs out of the torsion bars, the Torqueflite and the unit body. Chrysler even deleted their famed push-button gear selector by this time. Whether this was to save money during manufacture or avoid a potential source of malfunction is unknown, but the decision was in keeping with the company’s new-found aversion to gimmickry.
Available engines in the 1966 Newport were the well-regarded B and RB block V8s. The B block 383 was available for all four years of the production run, in low compression two barrel carbureted form for the Newport and medium compression, four barrel form for the 300. The 1965-only 300L coupe had a four barrel, 413 RB block V8, also standard on the New Yorker. The 440 replaced the 413 starting in 1966 and was optionally available in high compression “TNT” form for all three model lines. I’m inclined to believe this car has a 383 under its hood, given its lower trim level. I spy non-original dual exhausts, however, and would be surprised if the engine were all stock. Whatever is under the hood no-doubt easily overwhelms those 14-inch wheels, torsion bars or otherwise. Hopefully, I’ll have a chance to ask the owner one of these days.
Some argue that these cars represent a loss of creativity in the face of conservatively styled competition from GM and Ford, but that sells these cars short. With the 1961 Continental’s original shape hidden under ever more decoration, Engel’s Chryslers carried that car’s chic design language into the second half of the decade, making them unique in their good taste and easily the best looking of their full-size contemporaries.
Looking at the car featured here, there are just two strong character lines running uninterrupted along the car’s long sides, tall windows with slim pillars and just enough discretely integrated jewelry to classify it as elegant rather than merely handsome (if you wanted “handsome,” you got a Rambler).
The low rear deck accentuates both the length and ample glazing of the design with the six-window, non-hardtop Town Sedan varieties providing the most emphatic expression of this shape,
looking a little like a stretched Mercedes Pagoda.
This high-modernism coincided with a return to quality and, for Dodge and Plymouth, parity in size with the competition. The C-body was given typical yearly refinements and a facelift for 1967 which included a new, rectilinear dashboard more in keeping with the design’s overall theme.
Less welcome changes were a slight softening of body contours beneath the beltline, especially in the rear, and a much thicker C-pillar with a reverse slant quarter window on the hardtop coupes. The six-window town sedan was sadly discontinued.
Ironically enough, this sleek embodiment of success for Chrysler coincided with GM and Ford’s return to curves, greater ornamentation, and eventually, neo-classicism. While an emboldened Chrysler charged ahead with an even purer, simple aesthetic for 1969, the market again shifted in the opposite direction and Chrysler found itself with a dud on its hands.
None of this should obscure our appreciation of the car pictured here. Apparently, others agree, as C-bodies seem to be gaining attention on the classic car market, mimicking the long-standing popularity of the 67-75 Valiant and Dart among enthusiasts. That these cars remain relevant to today’s sensibilities is a testament to Chrysler’s mid-sixties, rational approach to design and engineering, demonstrating an enduring appreciation for unique, thorough engineering matched with a stylistic balance of restraint and jauntiness. It’s what made Chrysler successful in the second half of the sixties, what gave Honda a leg up in the late ‘80s and ‘90s, and what gives Ford a competitive advantage in today’s market.
Welcome Perry; great writeup. Wow, three contributors now in Indiana: you, me, and JPC.
A fine Newport you’ve found there. These are just beautifully styled cars, especially the four-door versions.
I have photos of a black ’77 Ford Bronco that I found in an IU lot in B’ton that I keep meaning to write up.
My parents bought a ’66 Newport two-door hardtop (green with black interior) when the ’69 Newport gave up the ghost–again. It was a good decision. They paid just 300 bucks for the car, which was in very good shape. It was the first car I drove after getting my license, and I used it during my last year in college. The transmission leaked; the engine occasionally overheated and the power windows didn’t work (not a good thing in the Las Vegas desert). But the sucker ran and ran with more than occasional fluid fillups. In 1981, the Newport was taken away by a wrecking yard (I got $75 out of the deal), and used the money toward a 1974 Dodge Monaco, which I loved once a valve job was completed. Sadly, it was my last Chrysler product.
Drool. That coupe C-pillar makes the sedan the standout for this model year (except for, of course, the wagon). Even in white this looks so dynamic.
This era Newport is one of my favorite Chrysler products; it’s like you said, such simplicity and elegance combined with outstanding mechanicals. What’s not to like?
Welcome aboard! This is a great article.
Me too — this is one of those cars where all body styles are incredibly attractive — choosing between which style is my favorite would be tough. The tall greenhouse and low beltline could never have been executed better.
That green car has “me” written all over it.
Ditto on that green car, what a beauty. Though, as nice as the full-sized Chryslers were Perry, it’s a bit of a stretch to say they looked like an elongated Pagoda 🙂
Neat write up on some of Chrysler’s most durable (and handsome) line of cars. The Fuselages that came next were truly awful.
+1 on the fuselage cars,they looked bloated.They were a big step back styling wise in my book.
You’re correct, it IS a bit of a stretch to compare them with a Pagoda. They look very different, but in terms of glassyness and proportion, it was the first thing I came up with. The greenhouse on the Town Sedan is very exaggerated in a very appealing way.
Also, even though they aren’t on the same level in terms of finish and sophistication, I think the Fuselage bodies are very cool.
I did too at the time.
+2 @ Gem
The 1969 fuselage bodies are like the eerie music in a movie just before something dreadful happens (i.e. the 70’s) :).
I have a soft spot for mid-60’s Chryslers as well. My father traded a 65 Galaxie for a 67 Newport 4-door hardtop, so the 60’s were to me all about slab-sided styling. I remember being impressed by the 1965 Impalas, but still preferred the crisper look of Ford and Chrysler. It probably was the 1961 Lincoln that made an indelible impression on me.
Nice article Perry!
Well-done piece on a lovable car. A few nits: the 413 was the big engine in ’65, replaced by the 440 for ’66. They weren’t available at the same time. Also, I believe that federal pressure towards standardization was a factor in the demise of the push-button gear selector.
Anyway, make mine a two-door 300 in red-orange or turquoise metallic, to show off the sculpting of the sides.
Thanks! Will update/edit when I have a chance in a few hours.
Yay ,another C-body fan! You’re preaching to the choir with this beautiful ’66 Newport. Between myself, my brother and my dad we have four 1966 Chryslers in the family.
> Available engines in the Newport were the well-regarded 383 and 440. The New Yorker and the 300 used the 413 as the base engine and were also available with the 440 (the 1965-only 300L coupe came only with the 413).
Just to add to what 73ImpCapn pointed out, in 1966:
Base engine on the Newport was a 383 2-bbl with 9.2:1 compression
Base engine on the 300 was a 383 4-bbl with 9.8:1 compression
Base engine on the New Yorker was a 440 4-bbl with 10:1 compression
The 440 “TNT” engine, rated 365hp, was an optional upgrade on all three models.
Hello, I just recently got what I thought was a 67 Newport but with seeing the pic of the white car pictured in Bloomington, it’s the closet in looks to my blue one so am thinking it’s a 66. I’d like more info on the car and would love to know what would be involved in fixing her up. Depending, I may be interested in selling but not sure of what it would go for. I know with some work it could be a head turner.
I read somewhere that the reason Chrysler discontinued the push button transmission controls was because a large police force (LAPD?) had a requirement that their cars had a column shifter. I have no idea if it’s true or not, but it does sound plausible. If it’s true, then it begs the question of why they didn’t just make the pushbutton controls standard while offering the column shift (or floor shift in sporty cars) as a no-cost option.
Memory is a little foggy, but I’m pretty sure the feds were behind the auto control standardization.
Which seems now to have gone away with all the weird transmission controls around today!
Arrrrggghh – another writer poaching on my CC territory! First there was Grey who got the western portion, and now Bloomington is gone. Kidding. 🙂 I have one graduating from IU this year and another headed there in the fall, so I’ll be on the lookout for a young guy snapping pictures of old cars. (A tip – I saw a mint green 54 Hudson Hornet sedan on the road there last spring. Maybe you will see it somewhere.) Nice job on a great car.
My son had sent me a cell phone pic of this car last spring, and I think I have caught a glimpse of it somewhere when I did not have time to stop.
I absolutely love these. In the 90s, I had a 68 Newport Custom sedan as a daily driver. I still consider these 1965-68 C body Mopars as my automotive home, and the Chryslers are my favorites. Of all of the 4 door styles, I like these hardtops the best. There are so many costly, quality pieces inside of these, too.
On the pushbuttons, I recall digging into this issue a few years ago. One or Ralph Nader’s automotive crusades was the danger of so many different automatic shit patterns. It was easy to put a car in a wrong gear in an unfamiliar car if you were used to something else. There was a push to standardize shift quadrants. It is my recall that there were some new GSA specs issued about 1964 that defined what kind of cars were eligible for purchase by the Federal Government starting in 1965. The specs dictated lever shifting and a PRNDL quadrant.
The result was the elimination of the Chrysler pushbuttons (the early lever cars used the same cable shift mechanism as the buttons) as well as the death of the PNDLR pattern still found on some GM Hydra-Matic cars as well as the Stude/BW Flight O Matic in 1964. They were not outlawed, but by offering them, you were cutting yourself off from a lot of fleet business.
I always thought the push buttons were a great idea and was disappointed when Chrysler discontinued them. For one thing, if one is a young driver and inclined to hoon around, it is much simpler to manually shift an automatic by pushing buttons rather than moving a lever and hoping that it stops where you want. On more than one occasion I got Neutral rather than Drive when trying to manually shift an automatic. I never broke anything doing this but it can’t be good for an engine to be suddenly unloaded and rev up past the red line. I understand why Chrysler did away with the push buttons but doing so cost them some of what differentiated them from other manufacturers.
The push buttons were very direct and intuitive to use. Slam-shifting my ’60 Plymouth was fun and the 318/TorqueFlite never complained, nor broke.
When setting up our new ’64 Dodge taxis in San Juan, PR, we removed the 1 and 2 buttons and replaced them with an aluminum block off plate, standard procedure for NYC cabs. Kept the cabbies from hooning the things, but mechanically, probably didn’t make much difference.
I recall reading that one of Lynn Townsend’s first acts when he took charge of Chrysler was to conduct a survey of new-car buyers. The survey showed that while buyers of Chrysler products liked the pushbutton controls, buyers of Ford and GM cars did NOT like them. Ford and GM owners considered them to be a deal-breaker that automatically eliminated Chrysler Corporation cars from their shopping list. (These were retail buyers, not fleet customers.)
Given that Chrysler’s market share was at rock-bottom – it was about 10 percent in 1962, down from 19 percent in 1957 – Chrysler absolutely had to steal sales from GM and Ford if it wanted to climb out of its hole. Hence, the pushbuttons were gone for 1965. Look at the brochures for all Chrysler Corporation’s 1965 models. When talking about the transmission choices, it specifically mentions that the automatic transmission gear selector is mounted on the steering column, unless the floor-mounted shifter is specified.
At any rate, the hot ticket by 1962 was a floor-mounted shifter and console, even for cars equipped with an automatic transmission. The pushbutton controls had a 1950s air about them, and seemed dated by 1962.
Eh, I dunno about that, my understanding was that it was the standardized quadrant rule that stated that you had to go through a NEUTRAL position before you went to drive or reverse that sort of killed the pushbutton drive, around the same time GM also standardized their quadrant and eliminated the REVERSE on the bottom that was a staple in many GM automatics.
GM’s change in their pattern was really driven by the same GSA policy decision, which resulted from a controversy in the SAE a few years earlier about safety. It wasn’t actually a regulation — it was a policy saying, “We won’t buy fleet cars that don’t have this shift pattern.”
I think Chrysler’s rationale was probably a combination of the GSA policy and what Geeber was saying about their market surveys. If a feature seems like it’s going to cost you both fleet business and conquest sales, it’s pretty logical to decide it has to go.
I’m always fascinated with the rise and fall of pushbutton transmissions. But I can’t help pointing out a hilarious typo in your comment, Jim. In fact I think you’ve inadvertently nailed all of Nader’s automotive crusades. A Freudian slip perhaps? 😉
I AIN’T POACHIN’ ON NUTHIN’. Kidding! I remember your CC about the Integra last year also being in Indiana, so I definitely thought of your presence in Indiana.
This car is all over the place downtown. Even though it’s the hardtop, it’s definitely a Town Sedan (or maybe, a sedan about town). Actually, it’s always parked outside, across from and south of, the police station and salt from other cars WILL get splashed on it if it’s not moved somewhere.
I was walking by the car yesterday and noted that the rear parcel shelf had perforations for two speakers (and they looked very stock), so that would suggest a four speaker system which would have been very swanky for 1966. I almost didn’t believe it; should’ve taken a picture. There was also a factory decal for the Chrysler AirTemp system.
It’s surprising how many more classic cars, or just plain old cars, I see in Indiana. They’re nowhere in Ohio. It’s not necessarily an economic thing; greater Columbus has plenty of people without enough money for a new car, but the culture must be different. I see rust-free Pontiac Phoenixes and mid ’80s Escorts around town.
There’s a late sixties Buick Electra I’m dying to catch with my camera one of these days. It’s not nearly as pristine as this Newport, however.
Regarding the radio: Standard with any factory radio was as single speaker in the dashboard. Optionally one could order a rear speaker with fader control knob that was mounted down low on the dashboard. Only one rear speaker.
The second “speaker grille” was the air intake for the optional rear window defogger. Unlike the electrical grid lines in today’s rear window defoggers, this was a blower motor located under the parcel shelf in the trunk, which took in air from the cabin and blew it onto the rear window to evaporate the condensation.
It is a handy place to mount a second speaker when installing an aftermarket audio system however.
I see; so they’d be mounted symmetrically, equidistant from the pillars so that one side got sound and the other side got air?
Is it possible that someone made cutouts for a stereo system later in the car’s life and simply did a very good job? Now I have to get a picture.
Yes, they all got the “perforated” holes in the package tray, whether or not the rear speaker or rear defogger was ordered… aside from the convertibles of course, which don’t have a rear package shelf. 🙂
Also, an AM/FM radio was a factory option, but it was not FM stereo, only mono, and still only came with a single front speaker unless the rear speaker was ordered.
Chrysler’s had more than just a blower. It was a remote mounted heater unit with long hoses from the cooling system at the front to the rear passenger compartment.
A rear heater as you describe was also an option, and I believe also used the same air inlet as the defogger option. One of my 66’s has the defogger option which I described. I parted out a 73 New Yorker with rear heat, but I know this was also available in 66.
To the best of my recollection (and I may be wrong), the GSA requirement didn’t specifically require a lever, just the PRNDL pattern. My impression was that Chrysler might have been okay, but didn’t want to take the chance of hurting fleet sales on a technicality.
Also, it’s important to be clear for the record that a GSA requirement isn’t a law; it’s a federal policy decision. If it had been a law, Chrysler could have challenged it in court and might well have won.
As with a bunch of stuff in Unsafe at Any Speed, the controversy over shift patterns was not really instigated by Nader; he was basically just recounting a debate that had taken place a couple of years earlier. One of the principal figures was actually the inventor Oscar Banker, who had insisted loudly that the Hydra-Matic (PNDLR) pattern) was unsafe. Ironically, according to Banker’s memoir, he didn’t like Nader’s book at all and was infuriated at being conflated with Nader.
@JPC…
Automatic WHAT patterns??
Excuse me while I go find something to wipe off my screen. 😉
Excellent photos and enjoyable article Perry.
I really like the setting for these pics, with the diagonal parking and town center backdrop.
It really adds to the late 60s period feel.
+1
Good eye — I never really paid attention to the quality & backdrop of these shots but now that you brought it up, they are very very nice.
Nice choice of vehicle & write-up Perry 🙂
Hi Perry, welcome to CC!
My first thought from the headline picture was the 1963 Rover 2000 – the roofline looks very similar
I wanted to mention this!! I wanted to keep it simple for my first article but yes, I feel these cars have a very international flair. I feel like Roy Axe was influenced by these cars (and Benzes) when penning Rootes Arrow range, the less of which is said the better.
Hi,
the Arrow link is there too – Axe had a great CV to his name.
The Arrow looked good but was up against the Cortina, a fight it could never win. But that doesn’t mean the Cortina was a particularly good car; however, it was very well targeted in the market.
The Rover’s roofline was pinched from the Citroen DS, though.
The Arrow cars stayed the same for their long production run,Ford and Vauxhall restyled their cars every few years.By the late 70s a new Chrysler Hunter looked very old fashioned compared to the opposition.
Perry. You and I have very similar taste and “origination”. I too grew up in Ohio (although I still live here) and despite being born in the mid-80’s (Ok, ’87 if that’s “mid”) and my car seat being in a Turbo Supra, a Tercel, and after my brother was born, an Acura Legend, in my early teens I started to love American Iron contrary to everything bad my father had ever said. You drifted toward Mopar; I gravitated like a magnet toward the red-headed stepchild adopted by Chrysler, AMC. I have a fondness for large Fords as well, particularly damn near anything Lincoln ever built. I have had two AMC Eagles, a host of fox’s and panther’s (oddly enough, never a Mustang…Marks and Birds), and a few HUGE 70’s Lincolns. While I have downsized a bit (an ’88 Town Car and ’85 Eagle are my two drivers now), every time I see a pre-80 Lincoln I stop and stare. Considering it was the same designer who influenced Lincoln styling for the next three decades who designed the Chrysler you’ve shown, we must have similar taste. Welcome to CC, and I look forward to your future writings!
I didn’t recognize it until the grille shot but my grandmother had one of these back in the late Sixties and early Seventies and that’s about the view I had. Sort of a quasi-CC effect here, she also lived in Bloomington, but on the east side on 446 close to Moores Pike. There are condos there now and not even the lay of the land is the same.
Anyway, hers was that medium blue that it seems almost every Chrysler came in with a blue interior. I remember that Mopar starter which was quite distinct compared to the rest of the family’s GM’s and smattering of Fords. I thought the cloth seat upholstery was oddly soft and not appropriate to a car at all, an expectation again set by GM and Ford. One other thing that struck me as odd was that it had a “COLD” light on the dash when the engine was first started and for a few minutes after. HVAC sliders hung down from the bottom of the dash pad. Ignition switch was backlighted in green so you could find it in the dark. Map lights on the bottom of the dash pad too.
Oh and btw, I don’t know what that blue interior shot is but it’s not from one of these. These cars had straight dash pads, a horizontal speedometer and the well-known Mopar thumbwheel radio
I think you’re thinking of the ’67-’68 interior, as seen in black on a convertible above.
The blue interior shot is of a 1965 Chrysler, which has the same dashboard as a 1966. I can tell it’s a ’65 because the console, floor shifter and interior door panels changed between 1965 and 66.
Am fairly sure that is a 1965 model with the blue interior. Just ahead of the console mounted shifter is what looks to be a vacuum gauge. In 1974, I purchased a low-mileage 1964 300-K from a Westerville, Ohio dealer. The body on it was fairly good, and the interior was almost immaculate. Anyway, that car had a console mounted shifter and a vacuum gauge in about that same spot. I see the 300 emblem on the door, so that blue interior car is likely a 300-L. So I am in agreement with BigOldChryslers.
Great write up and great car! A white Newport of this era was a car I looked at for possible purchase in the mid ’80s. In great condition, but I believe it was not a hardtop and lacked AC, so I passed. It may have been the six window! I recall the trunk was truly a 6 body hauler. It looked like you had to crawl in to retrieve the spare tire.
One of my Cub Scout moms drove a ’67-’68 Newport coupe in the same colors as the white over blue New Yorker you show. Even in Newport trim it looked quite swank, and the neatly integrated factory AC dash vents were part of a super looking dash that fit these cars very well.
These must have been decent cars, it seemed like I would see ’65 – ’68 Mopars as daily drivers right through the ’80s. That’s a pretty good feat in snow and ice country.
Very nice piece! I’ve always been a fan of these Chrysler too. They were designed and manufactured in a time when accountants didn’t dictate where every penny went. Just compare the interior of one with a fuselage – the difference in material quality is astonishing!
Very nice article. A high-school friend’s family was loyal to Mopar. While we were in senior high school (1977-80), they owned a 1966 Chrysler New Yorker hardtop sedan and a 1978 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham hardtop sedan. Her family owned a large farm outside of town.
That 1966 New Yorker was dark blue, with a light blue interior and white vinyl insert on the C-pillar. It was a strong, roomy and tough car. They had bought it brand-new, and loaded – every power accessory was ordered, along with air conditioning. You could easily seat four people in the back seat! Not the most stylish car in its class, but one with a look that said it was all business.
I spoke with her recently, and her family still has that 1966. It is no longer running, but it is stored at the family farm, which is now owned and operated by her brothers.
In 1981, they bought a brand-new 1981 Plymouth Reliant sedan loaded with every option. It wasn’t the same!
Where is this? (I shouldn’t even ask. No space/time/money for another one anyhow.)
BigOldChryslers, the farm is located in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.
Wow, cool story about the 1966 New Yorker, Geeber. That’s really something when a family can’t bear to part with a beloved old car. Perhaps one of the male children has thoughts of restoring it in a few years.
I would imagine that the car wouldn’t be hard to get running again. It had the 440 V-8, which is good, tough engine, and isn’t hard to repair, from what I’ve read.
Welcome, Perry!
There’s plenty of work to be done, and plenty of room for new voices. Have fun!
I’m still amazed at the number of Curbside Classics out there- Just last week, I took a set of photos of this car’s twin (see attached).
Where is this sunny locale?
A new author with a well-written piece on a 66 Newport…Perry, you hit the spot with me.
The first Chrysler product under Engel’s regime was actually the 1964 Imperial, a fine update of the original 1957 archietecture.
“The cars benefited from several years spent working the bugs out of the torsion bars, the Torqueflite and the unit body.” — I’ve never read anything about bugs around the torsion bars, the Torqueflite or the unibody. Torqueflite was hailed as the best and most durable automatic on the market as soon as it was introduced on the 56 Imperial and went wide with the 57 lineup. And all the car magazines agreed that the Chrysler products with the torsion bar suspension were the best handling big cars on the market. The quality problems that almost killed Chrysler were attributable to the body structure and materials used on the 57s, and the rushed production schedules to get cars out to the public. One of the reasons for adopting the unibody for the 1960 cars (except the Imperial) was to overcome the sloppy structures of the 57-59 cars, and they were very successful with that.
All that said, I enjoyed your article very much and look forward to more of your contributions. I have always loved this era of Chrysler, which was one of their most successful runs — they sold more than 250,000 Chryslers every year between 1965 and 1968, a testament to their return to the mainstream!
I have read that there were some problems with torsion bars snapping on some early 57 models, but the cars were otherwise well sorted at launch from a mechanical point of view.
On the very early T-bar cars, the bars would snap, usually in below-freezing temperatures. Possibly an issue with metallurgy as well, but I read that the problem was that the bar ends were held in their sockets dry, and once the sockets rusted the bars couldn’t slide in them. The bar will change length very slightly as it twists. The answer was to grease the socket that the bar end fits in.
I was unsure about that statement myself, but I do remember reading about bugs in the torsion bars in the beginning. I guess my point was that they used proven technology, but I welcome your correction because it’s added knowledge for all of us.
Also, the Imperial still had the pillar and windshield constraints of the prior model, so I stand my statement that the first cars conceived ENTIRELY (key word) under Engel were the ’65 C-bodies.
Part of my family Mopar folklore is the time that both torsion bars snapped on the almost-new ’57 Dodge. Sounded like gunshots, apparently.
My first comment didn’t post for some reason, but I’m trying again because I wanted to say NICE GOING PERRY, GREAT ARTICLE.
This reminds me of a ’67 New Yorker that a friend had in high school. The car would have been about 10 years old at the time, and was a bit beat up, but it sure was fun to rip around in. I got to drive it a few times, and it wasn’t bad at all, especially for such a big car, but I always had trouble with the brakes. I usually drove either my Mom’s ’76 Vega, or my brother’s ’74 Nova, both of which did not have power brakes. Compared to the brakes on those two cars, the brake pedal on that old New Yorker felt like an on/off switch, and a hair-trigger on/off switch at that.
Thanks for bringing back a fun memory.
It seems to me that we should have an annual awards ceremony here at CC. The awards would of course be called The Niedermeyers, and the statuette would look like an old hood ornament. (My personal preference would be a Packard pelican.) I nominate Mr. Shoar for Best CC by a new Author (Domestic Vehicle).
Quite true. We already have an award, but it’s called a Curbie. But there’s no statuette yet; better go hunting in the junkyard for one!
Curbie? HMMMM… Doesn’t that sound a bit too much like “Kirby?” That would be the award given to the guy who sold the most vacuum cleaners door-to-door. It would either look like an upright vacuum cleaner, or TV personality Durward Kirby.
Come to think of it, instead of a hood ornament, the award should look like an old Ford pickup, painted yellow, of course.
Wow, I’m very flattered.
Thank the existing contributors for keeping standards so high!
Oh, you’re welcome. The shot of the 6-windowed Town Sedan brings back ANOTHER cool memory for me. A friend of mine, when he graduated from college in the early 80’s, bought a very similar ’66 Town Sedan, painted a sort of salmon-pink. I’m not sure what Chrysler actually called that color, but it was pretty sharp. This was a car that had been pampered and might as well have been just a couple of years old.
His younger brother and I went with him to pick up the car. We were floating along in that big boat when the proud new owner turned on the radio. It was Engelbert Humperdinck singing some sappy love song or another. When Kid Brother changed the station, Proud New Owner changed it right back to Engelbert, mostly as a silly joke, but also simply because that song just plain suited that car!
For additional ideas on appropriate hood ornament designs for the Curbie statuette, I can recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Brightwork-Classic-American-Car-Ornamentation/dp/0811826635/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1385591610&sr=8-3&keywords=hood+ornaments
I had a copy of it years ago, until I resold it on Amazon in one of my periodic purges of my bookshelves.
This book is filled with astoundingly beautiful hood ornaments, badges, and other automobile trim pieces that the author stated he had collected back when they were unwanted and cheap. Perhaps we can get him to contribute one. 🙂
I might have to buy myself that book for Christmas.
I second or third or whatever Perry’s nomination for said award.
I also suggest the ’46 – ’48 DeSoto Flying Lady as a trophy. (Though the yellow Ford pickup ain’t a bad idea either.)
This is a great write up by a younger car fan. Did the homework and got facts right, not just guessing. Look forward to more.
Good to see appreciation of old cars, instead of the dissmissive “How could people drive big cars then?” posted by other uninformed bloggers.
In Canada, Chrysler continued to use for 1965 and 1966 the old Saratoga and Windsor monickers. Here a 1966 Canadian Windsor http://www.flickr.com/photos/carphotosbyrichard/3902947341/in/set-72157624200333285/
One guy even imagined a “what if?” about what if DeSoto was still around when Engel showed the Chrysler C-bodies with a “phantom” 1965 DeSoto Conquest. http://www.lewisdesoto.net/DESOTODESIGNHOME/THE_CARS/Pages/DeSoto_Conquest.html
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/gallery/photo/lewis-desoto-makes-art-you-can-drive-69979
They didn’t actually use the Saratoga name in 1966. Canadian-built 1966 300’s were going to be called “Saratoga 300” but they wound-up being labelled “300” and those imported from the US were called “300 Sport”.
Wonderful work, Perry, I’m delighted you’ve joined the CC authors. Your insight into design and your eye are very enlightening. I never would have compared this Chrysler to a Mercedes!
There’s that sleek skirted rear wheel again! Just like Monday’s ’91 Olds 98 (CC here! So many commenters didn’t like it on the Olds. But it’s a key part of this Newport’s great design.
I liked it on the Olds! In fact, I like the final H-body Ninety-Eight overall.
Thank you, Perry. I’ve liked these since first sighting one. A high point in all respects. The buckets plus console must be relatively rare in a Newport, good find. Follow this car and remember you can never pay too much, perhaps just buy too early!
Actually, that picture is of the interior of a 1965 300-L coupe. The car in question has a long, flat bench in some woven vinyl-y upholstery, or maybe a knit cloth. Now I wanna look again (but am not in Bloomington).
And it cannot be a four-door either – I don’t think Chrysler ever offered four-dours with buckets and a floor shift in the 60s. You can find that setup on some rare Ford Galaxie 500XLs, however.
Yes, buckets and console were available in Chrysler four door hardtops, but not the four door sedans. Not only do I have all the dealer literature that shows this, a friend of mine has a ’66 300 4-door hardtop with factory buckets and console.
Which must be an absolutely gorgeous machine! I’ll take one of those, please.
Could buckets and a console be theoretically installed in a 4 door pillared sedan? Back in those days, you could special order cars pretty much any way you wanted to.
Perry, welcome! Great job. Can’t blame you for your feelings toward Detroit iron…the 70’s and 80’s were not a great time for American cars with few exceptions. Domestics have gotten MUCH better over the past ten years.
I agree with you, these are very nice cars. I live in ellettsville / bloomington too and in ellettsville there was a 68 newport forsale over the summer I fell in love with. Owned my aa senior citizen, total creampuff of a car. If we didn’t use so much salt on our roads I would have sold the daily driver and driven its big block having self to work everyday.
Why does it matter if you get 10mpg on a good day when you don’t have a 300 dollar a month car payment?
My grandfather had a teal ’65 New Yorker 4dr hardtop until ’73, when he traded it in for a Monaco Brougham. Manual windows and seats. Plain C-Pillars – you could get those odd vinyl C-Pillars from ’65-68, replacing the vinyl front-roof on the ’63-’64s – but the coupes in ’67 and ’68 Imperial Crown Coupes had the odd landau vinyl that looked back to Exner’s ’57- ’62 Imperial coupes. Took them awhile to just cover everything…
Reading the old Popular Mechanics Owner Reports online, these late 60’s Mopar
products still had the same old quality problems that plagued Chrysler earlier in the decade.
It seems to be generally accepted that high points of Chrysler build quality were the mid 50’s but before the Forward Looks cars debuted for 1957, the last of the cars based on the Forward Look platforms in the early 60’s which had all the bugs worked out of them, and those in the mid 60’s such as this one. Quality started to waver as the 60’s wore on from here, especially after the fuselage cars debuted in ’69.
I always get a chuckle when I read that, since my dad seems to have hit the sweet spots with all of his car purchases, before eventually straying from the Mopar fold. He has owned two ’56 Dodges, a ’62 Chrysler, a ’66 Chrysler and a ’67 Fury and generally speaks fondly of all of them. He bought all of his cars used, so I presume he knew which years to get and which to avoid before shelling out his money.
Welcome Perry! And a very fine début it was indeed – informative and interesting!
Perry, as a MoPar guy, I commend you for an outstanding write-up on the 1966 Newport. Looking forward to more great articles from you.
Will share that my first car was a 1963 300 Sport (sometimes spoken of as a Three Hundred in order to separate it from the rare and super powerful Letter Series) 2-door, black with a light blue vinyl interior. It had a 305hp, 383 2-barrel with the dash mounted, pushbutton TorqueFlite . Got it in the summer of 1972, just prior to beginning my senior year of high school. When I found a 300 Letter Car for sale at a dealer about a year and a half later, I traded in the black 1963 Chrysler on a 1964 300-K. The color, IIRC, was called Garnet Red, sort of a burgundy shade of red, with a white leather interior. It was powered by the 390hp, 413 4-barrel. It was a clean and well-cared for car, and while not quite muscle car fast, as this was a big heavy car, it was plenty of power for a young guy. While I took care of the car (and have never been reckless and crazy with any of my cars) it met an unfortunate end. One time, after a rain storm with high winds, a large tree branch fell onto the roof and partially crushed the car. After that, I found a good deal on a 1969 Charger R/T. This was a couple years prior to the Dukes of Hazard TV show. Only sold that after a little over a year because the big 440 used a lot of gas at a time gas prices were going up. I was both working and going to college. Then bought a 318 powered 1971 Challenger with an R/T hood. My brother borrowed it once and had a rather minor wreck with it that involved some frame damage, so he bought it from me and got it fixed. Then in late 1976, bought a red, 1973 Charger Rallye 340/automatic with a factory sunroof, cloth and vinyl interior, and only 36K miles. Kept that great car for over 5 years, until I got a smaller car.
Any classic MoPars in your possession now?
You must’ve been so sad (or just mad) when your babies kept getting smashed and crashed.
Nope. No classic Mopars in the garage. In my 2 1/2 car garage, I’ve managed to fit (2) running condition, complete Cimbria SS kit cars from the 1980’s, in addition to one only partially completed Cimbria SS and my daily driver Dodge Stratus. As a result of my work schedule, working weekends with days off during the week, I got to not even one car show this year. Fortunately, CC manages to more than adequately take the place of getting to car shows. In regard to my Cimbrias, I have the period sales literature as well as a few magazine articles on them. So, before anybody asks, there is a chance that at some point I may be able to do an article on the Cimbia kit car from Amore Cars, Ltd., of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from the mid-late ’70s and to the late 80’s. No promises though, as I work 60 hours per week, not counting drive time.
Oh, and I can share that I do own a 1986 Chrysler Laser XT turbo, 5-speed, with Mark Cross leather and T-tops. Metallic gold with a tan interior. Purchased in spring of 1999 with 60K plus miles and current at 89K. Sitting in my mother’s garage and hasn’t been run in over 10 years. Owned a base model 5-speed 1986 Laser from 1990 to 2000, and it was a great daily driver. Nimble, adequate power, economical and extremely dependable. Once again, if nobody else does one before I get around to it, I may be able to do a CC on the cousin (or near-twin) of the fwd Dodge Daytona, the 1984-86 Chrysler Laser. What is somewhat shocking is that I have no pictures of either car, nor even my daily driver which I’ve owned 13 1/2 years!
In regards to the loss of two nice cars I owned, I wasn’t upset either time. While I was a bit saddened, I rationalized that they were just cars, nobody got hurt either time, and there was certainly other cars that I like that I could now get. So what I got out of that was that when I can release the (negative) experience rather than be stuck and unable to move on, that there exists the possibility for new and even better experiences. And, which proved true.
Sometime in the years that followed, I had a relative (about my age) who was a new car salesman at a Chevy store. He had a new Z-28 Camaro demo and on one occasion when he was travelling at an excessively high speed, he was involved in a fatal wreck. He was a super great guy, and the last time I saw his parents they still hadn’t fully gotten over their loss. So cars are one thing, but that was a real loss for many people.
Thanks Mr. Shoar for your excellent article.
I always considered these 65-68 Chryslers to be very handsome indeed, but look how small those rims and tires look on them viewed from our pespective on stylistic balance today.
The blue dashboard photo shows a gorgeous design. Note the design theme similarities to the 1950 New Yorker dash shown here.
I hope that someday automobile designers will return to some sense of style when designing car interiors.
Hey car buffs of the 67 Newport C… I have one and am wondering it’s value although it needs work. It’s a 3 Star with the large C crest with 3 lines in it. I believe #24 off the line. Would love more info on them. Been garaged for at least 20+ yrs. No holes but some surface rust pits. I haven’t attempted to start it. I’m interested in restoring but want someone who knows the work. Possible selling if the price is right.
Nice work, kid — an auspicious debut indeed! Looking forward to seeing more of your byline.
Well, after reading this story on the 1966 Chrysler Newport, along with the ’67 Newport Custom and the 1965 Road Test comparison of the Chrysler versus the competition, I might be tempted (if I had the money today) to look for a ’66 Newport (or good condition 65, or 67-68) rather than an early-to-mid ’70s Chevy Monte Carlo (my top choice among GM products). Chrysler engineering makes the difference in ride, handling and performance thanks to torsion-bar suspension up front and multi-leafs in rear, well designed V8 engines (both wedge and Hemi) and TorqueFlite automatic transmission, plus the use of a “real” temperature gauge that warns you the engine is getting hot instead of an “idiot light” that doesn’t flash until trouble arrives. Chryslers also had bigger brake drums than comparable Ford and GM products with police brakes offered as a low-cost optional and, starting in 1966, a front disc brake option – for which an upgrade to 15-inch wheels was included. Also the famous Chrysler “hummingbird” sound of its starter. The 65-66 Chrysler dash was much better than that of Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Mercury as it did without the “low mounted” gauges of the Buick, the “blinding” brushed aluminum dashboard facings of Olds and Mercury, and the “tiny” glovebox of the Pontiac. Plus a steering wheel with a horn ring, which was much better than the spoke-mounted horn controls of competitors. Tom McCahill road tested a 1966 Newport hardtop sedan in the June ’66 issue of Mechanix Illustrated with TorqueFlite, power steering and brakes, radio and air conditioning, but was a bit more loaded than he wanted as it had the 383 4-barrel engine, Auto Pilot, tilt wheel, power windows and seats, headrests, custom wheel covers and other tinsel that jacked up the price into New Yorker territory. Uncle Tom praised the Chrysler’s ride and handling but did complain about reflections from the bright paint on the upper instrument panel between the front padding and the windshield base for which he responded “tone it down, Chrysler.” McCahill also had road-tested more basic Newports in M/I with the standard engine, TorqueFlite, power steering and brakes, radio, and air conditioning in both 1961 and 1969.
Oops! Just read over Tom McCahill’s report on the ’61 Newport in the June, 1961 issue of Mechanix Illustrated. That car didn’t have A/C. The ’69 Newport Custom tested by McCahill appeared in the April 1969 issue of M/I and did have air conditioning. For the record, the ’61 and ’66 models were 4-door hardtops while the ’69 was a coupe. Other mid-priced full-sized cars tested by McCahill in 1961 included the Pontiac Bonneville and Buick Invicta, in 1966 the Buick Wildcat GS, and in 1969 were the Olds Delta 88 Royale with the W-33 455 and Police Apprehender Option and Mercury Marquis Brougham. Uncle Tom liked the combination of front torsion bars and rear multi-leaf springs much better than the other automakers’ preferences for either front coils and rear leafs or front and rear coils.
Well this is mighty late commentary on this article. ’65 and ’66 Chryslers became very popular in my family. One aunt on my father’s side bought a gold ’65 Newport convertible with a black top and 2-tone black and gold interior. That car was memorable to me because it was the first convertible I saw with AC. An aunt and uncle on my mother’s side had a ’65 Newport 4 door hardtop. Gold again with the same 2-tone interior and a full black vinyl top. They drove that car what seemed like forever and finally traded it with about 150k for a ’75 Valiant Custom (not long after the 1st gas crisis). If you think about it, the general style of the valiant was similar to the Newport. Anyway, my parents had a ’66 Newport 4 door hardtop; dark green with a full black vinyl top. Our car was indestructible, and God knows my mother and siblings tried. By the time my father traded it on a ’72 LTD it had three new doors and a front clip. All three of these Newports had woven vinyl seats with a fold-down armrest in the front seat. These were possibly the most well padded comfortable seats ever put in a car. My mother, who had (and at 94 still has) a bad back always wanted to put the seats in our living room (haha). My relatives always wanted low running costs, so they all has the 2-barrel 383. It always seemed like it had plenty of power to me. By the way, those cars were all purchased new. I liked that ’66 Newport so much that the first antique car I bought (about 1992) was a ’66 New Yorker. It was black with white vinyl sail panels (the roof side panels), not the full roof like my family’s Newports. My New Yorker had some neat equipment; red factory bucket seat interior with a center cushion and fold down armrest; rear seat with a low center backrest (like a convertible or 300 seats)(this was all from the factory, as the plastic drop-down area between the seats had a New Yorker nameplate); AM/FM radio with a rear speaker and reverberator (more about this later), rear defroster (blower), power windows (but not the vent windows); and positraction. That car (well all of them really) was tough, comfortable, and fast. I only owned the car for about two years, but have lots of great stories about it. The reverberator was factory installed but not well documented in the owner’s manual. The under-dash knob acted as both a fader when it was twisted, and turned on the reverb when it was pulled out. I didn’t even know the reverb was there (I thought it was just a fader) until I was trying to figure out what the mass of wires was in the trunk that made the unit work. Chrysler offered both a simple 2-speed rear defroster blower, with no heat, and also a rear heater (which included the defroster). These cars were so incredibly tough that I heard repeatedly through the 70s and 80s that they weren’t eligible in demolition derbies because they absolutely decimated the competition! The large windows and upright seating were wonderful – you could see all four corners without strain and had a great view out (BMW Bavaria anyone?). I love all the body styles; The wagons must be the most beautiful ever (along with the Plymouths); and did you ever notice the sharp crisp roofline and very large rear window on the convertibles when the top is up?
Just saved a 66 newport from rotting away beyond repair and Im trying to learn a little about it. One thing that Ive noticed mine has that I dont see any many others (which I do notice on the white one in this article) are the 3 crowns on the back of the hardtop. Does that mean anything as far as the car goes or was it just a decorative option? Im having a hard time finding much info on the car so any info is greatly appreciated!
I believe that was found on all Newports. There is a forum called C Body Drydock that will plug you into a community that has much experience with these.
It’s cool that the parking spots there are still wide enough to accommodate this beauty
Friend in college in the early 80’s had a ’67 New Yorker, green on green. Wonderful driving car, plenty of power, very comfy. An excellent highway cruiser.
Sadly totaled by a drunk.
Fender skirts.
The fender skirts carry the lower character line causing the entire car to look lower and sleek. The roof is strong, high and airy. The high front fenders gives the impression that the grille is low. The unadorned hood and trunk deck makes the car look even lower.
It is a both a sled, and an aircraft carrier. It is a very masculine design of heft and broadness.
When you compare what came before, with the exception of the 1961 Lincoln, these cars were as modern as a Mies van der Rohe, or a Frank Lloyd Wright.
To my eyes, the 65- 66 C-bodies are the most beautiful Chryslers ever built. Make mine a New Yorker six – window sedan with the glass headlamp covers.
My first car was a ’66 Newport sedan, white with red vinyl interior. Bought it in 1975 at the start of my senior year in high school, with 60,000+ miles on it, kept it for ten years and put 100,000 trouble free miles on it, including drives from San Diego to Berkeley when I was going to law school. Of course, like all Chryslers of that era, the water pump, power steering pump, and alternator all got replaced, but those were not difficult jobs to do. When I let go of it, my uncle bought it and kept it another 20 years. Comfortable and quiet car that ate up miles without complaint. Enough to make me think I should buy another.