(first posted 5/29/2013) Ever since the post on the ’68 Chrysler Newport (here), something has been bugging me. Never quite able to place a finger on it, it suddenly hit me when I found this ’81 Chrysler Newport, a well loved example of the fabled Chrysler R-body.
image source: www.alexlod.com
The life and trajectory of the Newport at times resembles that of Forrest Gump. For those not familiar with Forrest Gump, it was a novel written by author Winston Groom in the mid-1980’s; in turn, it was made into a movie in 1993.
As an aside, the movie Forrest Gump is good but pales in comparison to the novel. As Winston Groom said about the movie, it is the character in the book with all the rough edges filed off. The movie does skip over several fun elements of the book, such as Forrest’s time as a professional wrestler, his affinity for marijuana, and a few of his dalliances.
To compare and contrast, the Chrysler Newport appeared in 1940; Forrest Gump was born in 1944. Both flourished in the 1960’s and had significant life changes throughout the 1970’s. The Newport was a de-contented Chrysler New Yorker; Forrest was a man whose IQ was 75 but whose basic wisdom knew no limits. The Newport name died after 1981; our time with Forrest ended about 1983.
While the history of the Newport series was captured previously, let’s examine the end of the Newport line through the prism of the movie Forrest Gump. After all, lots of things happened between 1968 and 1981, did they not?
“My mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” – Forrest Gump
The 1970’s was a terrible decade for Detroit. From riding high in 1970, things sure didn’t look the same by 1979. Chrysler, a demonstrative leader in the long wheelbase, living room on wheels brigade until 1978, was one of the very last automakers to downsize. The 118.5″ wheelbase R-body was their answer.
While the genesis of the R-body has been covered previously (here and here), let’s just say the mixture of timing and quality control was less than optimum. Sales for the new 1979 Newport were 78,000 as compared to 39,000 in 1978. The bottom dropped out for 1980 and grew even more bleak for 1981. This ’81 Newport is one of only 3,622 made that year.
When building cars, it is the same crap-shoot as is a box of chocolates.
“My Mama always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on.” – Forrest Gump
This example isn’t the best representative of what your author thinks is total R-body goodness. Yet, maybe it does provide an insight into the disappointment of the R-bodies; the overly thick vinyl roof was a throwback to the 1970’s and adds a distinct garish factor – one not generally found on the Newport’s Dodge St. Regis stablemate. Not that any of them sold particularly well, even by Chrysler Corporation standards.
The days of the 440 powered Chrysler’s were over at this point. This Newport has exterior styling that isn’t radically different than any other full-sized offering of the time, such as the Olds Delta 88. However, GM, in a true moment of cogency, put the past behind it with their downsized B-bodies. Chrysler appeared to be yearning for days gone by, especially with the New Yorkers, and much to its detriment at the time.
Oddly, Chrysler would have success throughout the 1980’s with the Aspen / Volare based Chrysler Fifth Avenue, a car whose attempts to live big in a smaller package were wildly successful, with sales in excess of 100,000 in both 1985 and 1986. This outcome makes the flash in the pan of the R-body that much more unusual.
“I am living off the government tit! Sucking it dry!” – Lieutenant Dan Taylor
As we all know, Chrysler latched onto that spigot in 1980. Perhaps it was at this time the Iacocca led Chrysler Corporation decided to truly put the past behind them. There was an unceremonious jettison of the R-body in an effort to focus on smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles (and to put the past behind them). This focus did bring success, as Chrysler sold what seemed like an endless supply of K-cars and their myriad derivatives.
image source: www.copcar.fotki.com
Following Lt. Dan’s philosophy, suckling from the government tit had been what had prompted most R-body production. With its introduction in 1979, Chrysler had an official police package for their Newport; the St. Regis was available as such for each of its three years of life. In Ed Sanow’s book, Dodge, Plymouth & Chrysler Police Cars 1979 to 1994, the R-body Dodge St. Regis (whose only differences from the Newport was a header panel, tail lights, and a name) was voted by police officers as the best Mopar police car of all time. The R-body did have a fan club even at that time.
Aging Hippie: Whoa! Man, you just ran through a big pile of dogshit!
Forrest Gump: It happens.
Aging Hippie: What, shit?
Forrest Gump: Sometimes.
The time period of 1980 and 1981 wasn’t exactly a stellar period for the United States automobile industry. Sales were down and the economy was bad with interest rates that made loan sharks envious. Long range forecasts had fuel prices in the stratosphere. Few people thought big cars would last beyond 1985.
Let’s indulge in some speculative thought based upon a few facts. Sales of the Buick LeSabre were in the 80,000 unit range in 1980 and 1981; by 1985 sales were up to roughly 150% of that amount. Sales of the 114″ wheelbase Mercury (Grand) Marquis were in the 50,000 to 60,000 range for 1980 and 1981; by 1985, they had nearly tripled to around 160,000.
Did Chrysler pull the R-body from the vine before it had ripened? Was the sales gauge used at a time when the gauge wasn’t at its peak calibration? Did Lee Iacocca just want to cut the cord to the R-body?
Likely, it is a yes to all three, as all were so closely intertwined any one could have greatly influenced the other two. Shit happens.
Earlier I stated I truly like the R-body’s. Perhaps due in part as being a child of the ’70’s, the R-body – to me – was one of the best looking Chrysler products of the ’70’s and ’80’s. They have always prompted me to stop and look closer, but with one exception.
I have never found excitement for this generation of New Yorker. It is trying desperately to be something it is not. It just doesn’t work. The fact this thing appears to be sitting way too low in the ass-end isn’t helping matters, either. I know why on the featured car, but a brand new one? Maybe quality control really was that bad.
However, the Newport’s – especially without vinyl roofs – are a true sight to behold. Are they a world class design? Hardly. However, in the context of full-sized American cars in 1981, the aesthetic quality of the Newport beats anything from Ford Motor Company and nearly everything from General Motors (except maybe the Olds Delta 88). One of these with an unblemished roof (ie, no vinyl) is quite refreshing to my eye. Granted, I have always liked the non-brougham full-sized Detroit offerings from every year. The R-body Newport just seems to capture the essence of its era with its crisp lines and general lack of cluttering attachments.
“It’s my time. It’s just my time. Oh, now, don’t you be afraid, sweetheart. Death is just a part of life. Something we’re all destined to do.” – Mrs. Gump, Forrest’s mother
Sadly, the R-body Newport was laid to rest early in the 1981 model year. That is a shame. While the Fifth Avenue wasn’t a horrible car in a mechanical and reliability sense – and would be a cash cow for Chrysler the rest of the decade – it was a car that was originally a compact Aspen / Volare, trying to compete with the true full-sized competition. The R-body Newport, euthanized before its time, was a true contender to the mantle of being a full-sized Chrysler, a car worthy of continuing the Newport name.
While the Newport could have been argued to debase the Chrysler aura in 1968, this Newport would have lifted the name of Chrysler from the wheezing heap of front-drive, four cylinder compacts that would be christened as Chrysler’s in the years ahead. Perhaps it was the destiny of this Newport, much like Forrest’s girl Jenny, to die young and have a good looking corpse. It leaves you contemplating what might have been.
“And that’s all I have to say about that.” – Forrest Gump
I have a hard time believing these voted best anything, let alone police cars. By all accounts I have read, the cops hated these slugs. They could barely break 90 MPH with the 318. I remember the RCMP had a few of these, but they had a few of everything then. They liked to spread business around, it seems ed.
I remember the Gov’t of Saskatchewan had Gran Fury versions of these with slant sixes. Not police cars, just for general CVA (Central Vehicle Agency) use. Still, they must have been fun. Not.
A friend of mine bought one of these used (1981 model in about 1985) while I was away at school and it put him in the poorhouse. I wasn’t there to steer him away from it.
It was a loaded Newport with even a moonroof. Never saw another.
I could not / would not make something like that up – what’s to be gained in doing so? However, there is a difference in application, such as urban vs. rural use. Acceleration should be less critical in urban settings (some cities used I-6 powered cars in the ’60’s and ’70’s) whereas comfort would. “Best” is generally comprised of many factors.
I’m not questioning you, just the book.
Some of the 80/81 models depending on jurisdiction (California) were dogs. Canadian versions and exports without as much smog equipment and better tuning should perform better. Earlier models with 360 or 318 4bbl are not bad. E58 cars can move.
I suppose it depends on your jurisdiction. City beats you aren’t going anywhere too fast highway beats yes.
The CHP’s St. Regis had a hard time breaking 85-90. Hard core speeders learned to just drive away from them. They were lambasted by the CHP cops,and roasted in the press. So they found the solution: Mustang LX 5.0 coupes. The St. Regis was the end of the big sedan monopoly with the CHP.
We had the Mustangs for RCMP use and our garage had the contract to maintain all RCMP vehicles for our area. The Dodges in Canuckisan could be had with the 360/4bbl and were not that bad, other than the fact the cars were so poorly made that stuff fell off them and/or broke with shocking regularity. The Mounties didn’t keep them long and went back to the 9C1.
We didn’t have the ‘Stangs long, either. They would get the bark beat of them real quick and many were crashed, backwards, when the young officers were doing burn-outs in the rain.
That is the case with the Chargers around here. My friend is the head of a city’s maintence dept who chose Chargers after th salesman told him they wold save money vs th Crown Vic thanks to its lower purchase price and better mpg. The number of one car crashes went from a rarity to one month and the fuel budget for the year was spent by Sep. Every officer saw traffic lights as a Christmas tree and left the line at full throttle. They also ran the off the road and into the public quite frequently too. He didn’t buy more than the first batch of them.
And then there was the Gran Fury another variation on the R-body.
This example a restored 80 model with the 360 under the hood. And you’re correct, they didn’t seem to last long in service. This car was written off early in its service before being purchased by a Mountie, restored then sold to a current member of the force. IT is complete with all service equipment including an operating police radio. It’s seen on occasion at parades and car shows.
I don’t know why CARB didn’t exempt cop cars. California buyers got hosed on a lot of cars during this era. Anyone remember the 305 Corvette?
TIME Mag’s “50 Worst Cars of All Time” remembers the 305 California-spec Corvette:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658522,00.html
That [180-hp 305] gave the Corvette — the very totem of hairy-chest, disco machismo — acceleration comparable to a very hot Vespa.
A paradox, Sherlock. Makes you wonder; the Dodge Coronet/Monacos prior to the St. Regis 318 dogs were 440 4-barrel, twin cat/dual exhaust – something not available to the rank and file public as 360 4 pots were the largest engines civilians could get at the time . . . . and yet, somehow (political pressure to “set an example?”) CHP got stuck with 318 St. Regis’ cars for 1979-80.
I do remember the 305 4-bbl Corvette for California only in 1980. The brochure does not list it’s net hp. Alexander lists 180 net hp, that may be true as I believe at least on the ’80 and ’81 Z-28 (and California Trans Am) it was more like 150/155 net hp.
The CARB did exempt emergency vehicles but not until 1982.
Agreed. In my department we went from Plymouth Volares with 360 4-barrels to Plymouth Furys with 440s to Dodge St. Regis with 318s. We had a lot of steep hillside streets and driveways. One officer got his St. Regis stuck at the bottom of a driveway and could not climb out at full stall on the torque converter. I was not as large physically as some officers (the St
Regis was much more spacious insude) and my first choice was always a Volare 360.
I always though the cops didn’t like these either, coming from the 440 equipped “Roscoe” Plodges of the late 70’s to these must have bit of a let down. The styling on these is nothing that interesting, its like a 1977-1979 LeSabre copy, which was kinda Chryslers styling theme through the late 60’s and 70’s, “whatever GM is doing about 2 years later”
This one is chocolate brown too.
Or a turd brown…you decide.
Life is like a box of chocolates, because of the colors…..its hard to spot a turd….
On what planet is the R-body fabled? Right – Planet CC.
I’ve thought it would be fun to make a “sports sedan” out of one of these. There’s plenty of aftermarket B-body chassis parts to make it handle better. Swap in an EFI Magnum, some alloys…and you’ll have spent $15k to build a three thousand dollar car. 🙂 If I was Jay Leno I’d do it though.
I agree with you Jason. There is a something about the clean lines and proportions that make this car aesthetically intriguing to the eye. Something shared with the R-body Gran Fury and St. Regis, but lost with the baroqueness of the New Yorker. I’ve always liked the sloped front end, body lines, and low deck, it’s distinctive in a sea of more slab-sided cars from those years.
Me three. The R bodies are far more attractive than Ford’s downsized and stunted LTD and Marquis of the same era. Though I do find teh New Yorker even more attractive. As the author points out, too bad Chryco didn’t keep these around for the mid-80’s full size sales resurgence.
Calling these “half baked” is putting it mildly. The single body style, the awkward rear door windows (do they even roll down?), the troublesome window regulators, the shallow trunk, the initial lack of a Plymouth version.
It’s as though the development was stopped midway in the project, so that more resources could be devoted to the K-cars. You have to wonder how these would’ve turned out had Chrysler ditched the Imperial project, and used those funds to better develop the R-platform.
Its true this was one of the first “no choice” bodystyle mainstream cars, today its common for everything to be a 4 door, but back then it was odd that this didn’t have a station wagon or a coupe version, like everything else did back in the day, it shows how short on dough Chrysler was at the time. I think these would have made a good looking station wagon and coupe.
The rear window does roll down, but it leaves that awkward quarter glass in place, which is even stranger when the windows are frameless like they are on the R-body. The 1980-85 Sevilles do the same thing.
The rear windows are the absolute worst on the New Yorker. With the vinyl top the pillar is almost in the middle of the back window, making it look like an extra short wheelbase in the rear version. Some elderly neighbors still have a nice yellow one (just like this photo), and it’s convinced me these are about the only full size Brougham sedan I just do not like the lines on.
Its like they were almost trying to make it look like a coupe.
Hmm…that makes me think… maybe one of these as a semi-hard top, with just the B-pillar gone might not look so bad. Sort of a Brougham pre-runner to all the “4-door coupes”, like the CLS and 6 series Gran Coupe.
Agreed. It’s big and bluff and blocky (like a Caddy or a Continental) without being commanding or authoritative or noble (like a Caddy or a Continental).
And yes, a two-door might’ve looked better — but considering they would’ve moved all of about 500 units (taken almost entirely out of Cordoba sales) I can’t really blame Chrysler for taking a Pasadena on doing a coupe.
Niedermeyer’s account of the R-body as the ‘rolling coffin’ is more accurate. It wasn’t a death trap, per se, but it sure looked like a coffin, sort of like a seventies’ version of the Barris’ DRAG-U-LA from the old Munsters’ tv show. Too bad he didn’t have the more basic, poop-brown car from this article, though. It would have fit perfectly.
This “could” have been Chrysler’s “panther platform” but there were too many things conspiring against it.
Government loan promises: We forget that when Chrysler got the money it swore to come out with FWD mainstream family sedans that everyone thought was the answer and the future. When we slam GM for committing to tiny FWD cars we forget that Chrysler was just as convinced that the future was the K-car.
Lack of a 4 speed overdrive automatic: Chrysler customers had to pay gas guzzler penalties on the last few years of M body production because the 318 2brl + Torqueflite (the lightweight version) + astronomically high gearing = still can’t meet fuel economy targets. If M-body customers had to pay gas guzzler taxes, what would the tax have been like on the R-body in say… 1988?
Chrysler’s crapshoot build quality. Being able to rename the Volare and Aspen, Diplomat, Gran Fury, & Fifth Avenue was a godsend because it helped people forget the crappy early years of the platform. Where was there to go on the R-body’s names?
Of the reasons I cited the one that chafes me the most is the lack of a modern transmission. Chrysler was once the engineering powerhouse but couldn’t produce a RWD 4-speed auto until it was the 1990s. They should have just caved in and bought someone elses overdrive unit to bolt to their transmissions starting in about 1982 or so.
I do like the R-bodys and would love to play with one like 73ImpCapn would just because you’d likely have the only one of its kind in the world.
During the loan guarantee process, the L body Omni/Horizon was already in showrooms, and the K car was within months of introduction. I’m not sure they would have gotten the loan guarantees if they had not been able to show that new, fuel-efficient cars were almost ready.
I agree with you on the transmissions. Chrysler was the first out with the lockup torque converter, but was last with the OD. I think that the “wide ratio” Torqueflite was an attempt to bridge that gap, but did not really get the job done.
However, in fairness to Chrysler, I don’t think they planned for a rwd car to be in production so long. With a booming economy and falling gas prices, that just sort of happened.
If there’s a way to describe Chrysler’s descent from the engineering powerhouse it once was, it would have to be the automatic transmission debacle. From its inception in the early sixties, the original Torqueflite 3-speed automatic was the envy of Detroit and quickly garnered a reputation as being anvil-solid and reliable with very little maintenance. The rest of the car might have been junk, but the Torqueflite in a Chrysler product was indestructible. Ford and GM’s automatics just couldn’t compare.
Then came the seventies, and Chrysler’s automatic transmission development went to hell. Just as the Torqueflite had a solid reliability reputation, the craptacular Ultradrive 4-speed automatic had a solid ‘unreliable’ reputation, not the least of which was caused by Chrysler’s own documentation to use the wrong type fluid.
It was so bad that the Neon didn’t get a 4-speed automatic until the second generation arrived in 2000, long after all the competition had years ago switched to 4-speed automatics in their small cars.
It always makes me laugh we people say that Chrysler was en engineering power house. Just because the contantly claimed they were in their advertising didn’t make it true. I guess if you hear myths often enough you’ll start believing them. They did very well considering their budget but GM was the engineering power house.
As far as the other 2 being jealous of the 727 that was true at the begining of the 60’s but that didn’t last. Ford licensened the same Simpson gear set that Chrysler did for their C6 and eliminated a number of weak spots and shortcomings like the case destroying sprag, a converter that doesn’t fill in park and no ability to start in 2nd. They also used the simpler vacuum modulator and kick down linkage to control shifting rather than the throttle valve linkage. The C6 had part throttle kick down from the start something Chrysler didn’t add until the late 60’s.
Chrysler was built as an engineering-centered company. The 1924 Chrysler was probably the most thoroughly-engineered production car built up to that time. Even through the 50s, engineering was the 800 pound gorilla at the company. By contrast, Ford’s engineering consisted of Henry Ford and a bunch of patternmakers who could bang out what came into Henry’s head. After the war, Ford engineering started almost from scratch. In the early 50s, Ford did not even have the capability of engineering an automatic transmission. They tried to buy rights to share the DG unit that Studebaker had largely engineered, but Stude (stupidly) refused, and Ford basically bought a BW unit that became the Ford-O-Matic.
Certainly by the early 60s, Ford had made great strides. Still, I have read that whenever Iacocca wanted an engineer, he would always poach them from Chrysler. To me the end of Chrysler’s engineering reputation came after the botch-job that was the 81 Imperial fuel injection. Lynn Townsend’s penny-pinching ways had been costly. The engineers may have been there, but any ability to turn the engineering into a useful product was by then much diminished.
GM certainly had engineering chops as well, but I would say that relative to the size of the two companies, Chrysler devoted more resources and gave more power to engineering than GM did.
GM was the engineering powerhouse in that it issued more innovations than Ford and Chrysler, particularly in the early 1960s, but the problem was that far too many of them were released in half-baked form.
The aluminum Buick V-8 is a good example. On paper, it looked impressive, and the buff books loved it. In the real world, it was very troublesome. Ford’s 1962 “thinwall” V-8 in the Fairlane offered weight savings in a far sturdier, more reliable package.
jpcavanaugh is right about Lynn Townsend’s effect on Chrysler’s engineering department. In particular, during the 1974-75 recession, Chrysler’s financial situation became dire, so he laid off the entire engineering department for several weeks! This move effectively destroyed the early quality of the critical Volare and Aspen, which, in turn, played a major role in driving the corporation toward bankruptcy in the late 1970s.
Who built the Turbine car, and stuck with the idea through 1981 ? Thank you.
In the annals of Really Bad Decisions by Chrysler Management, for what it ended up costing the company, Townsend’s furlough of Chrysler’s entire engineering staff is within a hairbreath of William Newberg’s last minute downsizing of the 1962 full-size Mopars.
I agree that until Henry left Ford’s engineering a little hamstrung as he considered himself the director of engineering and the staff was tasked with making his sometimes harebrained ideas work. Trying to avoid having a water pump is a great example. His engineers said it won’t work, he insisted it would so they spent many hours trying to make it work and of course in the end it was proven unworkable.
Chrysler did do quite well despite their size and budget but by the 60’s they were outclassed by GM and Ford.
When Chrysler needed engineers they stole them from IH as that is where the bulk of the engineers from the Scout Business Unit went and quite a few before IH closed the unit.
> However, in fairness to Chrysler, I don’t think they planned for a rwd car to be in production so long. With a booming economy and falling gas prices, that just sort of happened.
They still badly needed a 4-speed+lockup automatic for their pickup trucks. The 46RH and 47RH that finally arrived in the 1990’s was basically a 727 with lockup torque converter and an overdrive gear in the tailstock. The A727-based parts were strong, the lockup not so much. Even at that time, it was a stop-gap until they could develop something better.
EDIT: I forgot that the A518/46RH was preceded by the A500, which arrived in 1989. It was even more of a stop-gap, being a light-duty unit based on the A904.
I will go against popular opinion here. I always liked the New Yorkers better than the Newports/Furys, which always struck me as “generic large car” for their time period. Maybe I had been spoiled by the beautiful 76-78 big Chryslers, but the lesser R cars seemed to lack any kind of style of character. The New Yorkers were tarted up a bit, but I thought that they provided a little visual interest. They were much more attractive than the 80 Town Car, I’ll tell you that!
You went a different direction than I thought you were going with “life is like a box of chocolates”. The “you never know what you are gonna get” was always part of the new Mopar buying experience. Like Las Vegas games of chance, the odds could be adjusted, but the element of chance was always there. For those of us who bought older cars, most (but not all) of the bad ones were gone and the odds were in our favor.
Great subject; I’d almost forgotten these ever existed.
I admit I’m weird, but that Texas Highway Patrol car would be awesome to have.
If I had to have one of these, I would love for it to be an unmarked police package model, like a detective/FBI type car. These do have a great “cop car” vibe to them, I remember the Dodge version of these used in the opening credits of Hill Street Blues and that’s sort of burned the image of these as cop cars in my mind.
These were sort of like the 1980-82 Thunderbird/Cougar for Chrysler, they did followed the recipe, but they still ended up burning the cake.
For a long time, Universal Studios in Orlando had one of these R-bodies as their parks “Bluesmobile”….thats just wrong.
The Hill Street Blues opening used the old Royal Monaco, not the R-Body.
Really? Did they ever change the credits? Maybe sometime during the shows run?
I could have sworn I remember seeing those “flip down clear cover” St. Regis’ in the credits for that show.
The Royal Monacos had covered headlights, too, although they weren’t semi-transparent like those on the St. Regis and the Magnum.
“However, GM, in a true moment of cogency, put the past behind it with their downsized B-bodies. Chrysler appeared to be yearning for days gone by, especially with the New Yorkers, and much to its detriment at the time.”
Interesting comparison, since I always thought that this car was to the B-body LeSabre what the USSR space shuttle was to ours. A derivative, on-a-tight-budget copy that didn’t fly.
Did you notice the Buick wire wheel covers?
Not to mention the Dodge Ram front license plate filler.
This particular Newport had all sorts of home-brewed “improvements”, such as the deer whistles under the headlights, the Ram license plate filler and the eye hooks at the ends of both bumpers.
The upside is that it has only 92,000 miles.
I wasn’t expecting such an appreciative write-up. There’s something about these cars that I like. I guess they’re the last gasp of the 1970’s barges. (Smaller than the previous generation, but much closer in spirit than the B-bodies or Panthers were to their antecedents.)
BUT I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION FOR THE “PILLARED HARD TOP.” If it has b-pillars, it’s not a hard top!!! The semi-frameless rear windows have to be the most bizarre structure I’ve ever seen. (This is coming from a guy who used to own a Subaru SVX!)
You figured me out! Thank you!
Yes, these were horrible from a reliability and acceleration standpoint. They were far from revolutionary. They were the cop-car du jour. Ltd hit the nail on the head about why I don’t appreciate the New Yorker’s.
I simply like the look of these, with the St. Regis being better (likely it’s the headlight covers). No preconceived notions of something grand with these, I just like the way they look.
I agree, a car with B-pillars is a sedan, not a “hardtop”, whether the door windows are framed or frameless. Could make a similar complaint about modern 4-door “coupes”. If I ever met someone in marketing, I don’t think the conversation would go well.
The Japanese are big into this as well. In the early 90’s you could get fake “hardtop” versions of most of their sedans that just put in a narrow B-pillar and frameless windows.
I actually own one of the few that made it across the ocean, my 1997 Subaru Outback. While it’s not a true hardtop, you get a lot of the advantages (Visibility mostly, the b-pillar is narrower than the seat belt) and the disadvantages (wind noise).
it looks like Chrysler ripped off Buick styling another time on these…
Where was Virgil Exner when we really needed him?
This Newport looks so generic that, if the badging was removed, I could tell you it was a Mopar product from some angles but probably not identify at all from others…. such as the straight-on shot of the trunk. At least the R-body New Yorker was easier to identify.
A family friend’s mother has an R-body New Yorker as her last car, also in the dark brown. It sat in their driveway for years after she could no longer drive. Last year it was put in the classifieds for parts or resto, but judging from the people that bought it, I’m sure it wound-up in the derby.
This was my first car, bought from grand parents. Brown with cream top, tan interior. Slant six, mint.
Top speed probably 75mph. Slowest car ever made, perfect for a teenager. 2 legs sat on ice in the huge trunk……good times.
2 legs?
What did you do with the rest of the body?
That was my thought as well…has the statute of limitations run out? 😉
After reading it again, I think he meant KEGS….I hope…..
Copying Bill Mitchell’s ‘shear look’ was a smart move on Chrysler’s part, yet we all seem to admonish them for doing so. And sure, they certainly added their own touches, but the hard lines are still very similar. Most of the reliability foibles stem from the Lean Burn, something that can be remedied somewhat as easily as the V8-6-4.
From what I understand, the R-body was largely based on, and a warmed-over version of, the B-bodies, which date to 1962 and include models such as the 1975-79 Cordoba. They can’t be compared to the 1977-up downsized GM B/C-bodies or Ford Panthers. But they’re cool to see and did a pretty good job of aping the GM/Ford entries, considering the roots.
True…
I was never a big fan of big 1970s Chryslers, but at least they had a certain amount of style. These, however, really did nothing for me. In my eyes, they were very generic, and oddly proportioned, with long fronts and backs, and a too-short middle. I thought the downsized big Fords had a similar problem. Not ugly by any means, just nothing special at all. I think GM did a much better job with the downsized B bodies.
When I was a kid and drew cars, I’d often purposely draw something generic like these, and then turn them into Broughams, like the New Yorker Fifth Avenue.
In 1978, my father purchased a new Chrysler Lebaron 4-door, which at that time Chrysler started downsizing their sedans. Nice looking car for its time, it could either be had with the indestructable slant 6 or the LA engines 318/360. He opted for the 318 V8 and 904 3speed transmission package. Unfortunealty Chrysler during that time was consumer experimenting with there answer to the fuel imbargo, a Lean/Burn system that controlled spark timing and fuel mixture. Only problems where the location of the computer unit (attached to the side of air cleaner housing allowing hot underhood temps to conflict with electronics), and the camshaft design profile making the car have litttle midrange power. Low range and high range rpm power is all you really had. So basically if you where approaching an on ramp, you would have needed to floor it at start so that your speed was over 60 to be able to even get into interstate traffic.
It was nice of the owners to get CC (Curbside Classic) plates for it!
I’ve waited forever for another post on the Newport… September ’79, factory fresh, green on green- the smartest car Dad had ever had… That first road trip Atlanta GA – Williamsburg VA the 10 year old me was smitten.
Evidently Dad wasn’t as smitten as me; a run of Audis and latterly Volkswagens swiftly followed and never again did an American-made car grace our driveway…
Rightly or wrongly, that ’79 has remained high on my dream-car list ever since(!)
Theres a ex Florida Police Fury that shape for sale locally 318 motor comes with a 440 should you need it.
My father-in-law had a St. Regis back in the day, slant six, torqueflite. A huge but underpowered car, it was a total POS. His company was a supplier for Mopar and they leased these company cars really inexpensively, but it was such a POS that they took it back.
He got a slant six powered Dodge Mirada instead, which while less crappy was a better runner than the St. Regis…
I think the New Yorker is incredibly broughamy, more so than some other units that were released at the same time. That would be my choice, right after a nice Police unit.
I’d totally forgotten about the late Newport, I thought that marque had been retired back in the late 70’s. Goes to show you learn something new every day!
Find me a 79-80 New Yorker Fifth with 360 and I would take it. I Don’t like the bloated fuselage cars (even GMs) these were a bit trimmer and the NY with the hideaway lights are nice. The trunk could be trimmed up a bit maybe the front they do appear longer than the GM 77 designs. A NY Fifth is nearly as opulent as my Imperial and much like the old NYB. Chryslers were popular among a lot of ethnic groups for this reason.
I bought a copy of Groom’s “Gump” and have never been more disappointed in a book. It got worse by the page and I was glad to be done with it.
I wonder if Newport owners felt the same way.
These cars were always interesting to me growing up as a kid. But it was the details and piss poor quality control standards that always turned me away from ever purchasing one in the later 80’s when you could still find one in the used car lots. I remember the bumper filler plastic on brand new just delivered cars in 1979. One car it seemed to fit okay. The next it was wavy and not even sitting on the bumper in spots. Then there was the frame less door glass. Early examples you could literally put your finger through the gap with the window all the way up. Chrysler compensated by re-designing the door seals.
The fact that these cars used uni-body construction, torsion bar front suspension and leaf rear springs meant a less refined ride, worse handling and a darty rear suspension over rail road tracks etc. The Ford’s and GM’s full frame cars were more refined overall. As mentioned above Chrysler didn’t offer a 4 speed over drive automatic in these which Ford did in 1980 and GM starting in 1981 which greatly improved highway mileage and kept there full size sedans from being gas guzzlers. That was a huge nail in the R-body’s coffin and the very troublesome lean burn electronic emission’s system was also a big let down to many owners. Ford and GM’s systems were hardly perfect but I put a good many miles on numerous GM 1981-1983 C3/C4 examples without much more than a carb rebuild or sensor replacement. The other issue these car’s suffered from was very low power output. Yes Ford and Gm did too but not as bad as certain years of these R-body’s. The poor old Slant six could only muster 100 HP in 1979, 90 in 1980 and 85 in 1981 when it switched over to hydraulic lifters. None of those power figures was enough to move a 3600 LB sedan at anything but a dangerous pace. Then there was the 318 2BBL which made all of 130 HP for 1979 and 1981 and only 120 for 1980. Trying to find a 360 in a 1980 or 81 meant looking for an ex cop car or under cover unit and that engine was downgraded to 130 horses for 1980 civilian mode but made 195 with a 4BBL carb making it the only engine that gave these sedans any pulling power. For comparison’s sake my best friend’s 1980 Caprice Classic sedan with the 305 4BBL and 155 HP could easily blow the neighbor’s 1981 Newport 318 with 130 out of the water despite having a larger mill 5.2 liters vs 5.0.
Any police officer who voted these the best Mopar police car never had the ’69 Polara with a 440.
+1
It’s got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it’s got cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks. It’s a model made before catalytic converters so it’ll run good on regular gas. What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?
Yeah…QC is kinda difficult when there’s no quality to control:
I’m trying, but I cannot think of anything about these cars that deserves speaking well of. Trying…still trying…no, sorry, I’m afraid the best I can do is that they came equipped with starter motors that could readily be swapped onto trouncingly superior earlier Chrysler products.
Bob Mayer’s reviews are great to watch. Virtually every domestic car he tested had significant defects or poor workmanship. This is besides, the fundamentally bad designs/engineering coming out in the late 70s. His reports allow a firsthand time capsule perspective of just how ‘malaise’ it really was.
One takeaway from this review, is the reminder this New Yorker wasn’t as piggish as the ’78.
This is the only one I’ve seen — where might more be found?
There are a number of reviews at YouTube. His 70s/80s car review segment on WTVJ in Miami was called ‘Behind the Wheel’. Just do a YT search: bob mayer behind the wheel.
I believe at one point he said he’d post more on his channel, from old tapes. He just started posting again on his page, in the last day in fact, after a year.
Here’s the ’78 New Yorker review:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGC2zJfYxyQ&w=560&h=315%5D
Wow – Excellent workmanship, and “This is what an automotive paint job should be” – and on a 1970s Chrysler, yet!
I would agree with about all he said here. These were not as smooth or quiet as the competition. The factory HD suspension on my 77 solved the handling issues.
“Next week the Olds 98 diesel.”
Perhaps the only ’79 capable of making the New Yorker look like a performance model.
Be still my heart.
That “Next week: the Oldsmobile 98 diesel!” finisher made me wonder for a moment if I might be looking at a production by The Onion rather than a real period car review.
The 1979 oil crisis was the best thing that could have happened to Chrysler. When Lee took the helm in 1978, the Aspen/Volare were dead in the water, as previously mentioned victims of Lynn Townsend’s quality fiascos and the sales banks. The Cordoba was getting stale in the face of the newer GM downsized cars, and this car, with its generic, vaguely awkward styling and quality issues, wasn’t winning any converts. The Omnirizon was fresh and had very little competition. It was better than a Rabbit, generally less expensive, and significantly larger inside and more comfortable for families than the Japanese largely RWD competition. But without the gas crisis, who would have bought an Omnirizon? They were inexpensive, roomy, and efficient, but Chrysler’s quality woes and the buzzards circling probably would have drawn few new customers.
Thankfully, the 1979 gas crisis gave the Omnirizon and Chrysler enough life to make the K car viable and attractive. This sort of low quality, poorly engineered, but profitable dinosaur had to go.
One thing Chrysler seemed to do better than Ford/GM was interiors. Premium Chrysler interiors always seemed plusher than the comparably premium Ford/GM interior. A base GM interior was REALLY base with a flat, hard, featureless vinyl bench seat, flat, hard plastic door panels, and so forth. Even the base Chrysler interiors seemed to use better materials and pleated seats and so forth.
In a kind of CC effect, my Mrs. and I watched the 1981 movie Absence of Malice last evening, and one of these was featured in some scenes.
Yes, complete disaster of a car. I recall reading that one of Iacocca’s first jobs was to set up a task force to hunt down the source of (and then fix) all of the many, many quality defects that they suffered from in their first year. Chrysler had fouled up many new product launches over the years, but this may have been their worst.
I remember accompanying my mother into Dodge and ChryPly dealers in 1980 when she was trying to buy an L body. After the Dodge dealer screwed her over by failing to deliver the car she had ordered and then trying to up the price, she bought a Horizon. The Fury/Newport/St. Regis were well represented on the lots of both dealers. The sad thing is that these could have been good cars that sold well by 1984-86. Oh well.
By the way, I hated Forrest Gump. That unfortunately deathless line about “Life is like a box of chocolates,” is moronic. Of COURSE you know what you’re going to get, you’re going to get chocolates, and a fairly predictable variety of nut clusters and caramel chews and creams and such. Forrest Gump was exceedingly witless entertainment for the sort of people who find Hallmark cards over their heads.
One last point about these cars, look in that review someone posted above where the divider is in the rear door. SMACK in the line of sight. So many compelling reasons NOT to buy this car. The GM products were available with better 350s and the Olds 403, in more body styles, and offered better styling and GM would be around forever and had more prestige, particularly in the Buiick/Olds versions.
If you were smart enough to avoid the 5.7 diesel and 200 Metric transmission behind a V8 engine the GM B-body cars were vastly superior to these followed closely by the Ford Panthers with there weaknesses being foul Variable Venturi carburetor and the early teething problems of the AOD transmission. Chryslers strength was in the drivetrain portion with the tough slant 6 or 318 and the TorqueFlite transmission but the fuel system generally sucked when equipped with the lean burn system.
If you are old enough to remember these years, then you remember the belief that we’d be out of gasoline by 1984, the interest rates on cars and mortgages will be 25%, and you were lucky to have a job.
Pontiac dropped their big cars.
Chrysler did the same to these cars.
GM had the market, (60%)
Ford fell to fourth place in sales.
After the 1970s, the country didn’t have a lot of hope for the 1980s. It would have been unimaginable in 1981 to believe that we’d do a 180 turn by 1984. The only guy who said it would happen was in the Oval Office while the press laughed at him and said he was a senile old actor. Popular movies and books saw a bleak future.
People weren’t buying big cars, if they were buying at all. They were hunkering down with little front wheel drive boxes and dumping their Brougham beasts. People voluntarily bought Datsun B-210 and Chevette cars at top prices!
Tough days back then.
In addition to the fact that they just weren’t selling, Iacocca was reported to hold the firm belief that Chrysler was simply no longer big enough to be competitive across the full market in the way that GM and even Ford could afford to be. The conventional wisdom that scarce and expensive gasoline was here to stay made it easy to decide which markets they would bail out of.
Seeing posts about the issues with the frameless glass doors, was maybe a major reason cars were dropped. [besides MPG] It was costly to fix the seals, re-align windows, etc. under warranty. To re-design doors to add frames was not in the budget and M bodies with frames were ready to go and ended up selling well.
So, IMHO only if they could re-do the doors, would R bodies have continued on and maybe get Crown Vic or GM RWD conquests.