(first posted 5/24/2012) The Chrysler New Yorker was a very long lived model for Chrysler. Between the late 1930s and the early 1980s, it was the biggest, fanciest model Chrysler offered, unless you count the years the Imperial was available. But starting in the Eighties, things began to change.
The New Yorker had been moved to a new “downsized” full size platform based on the mid-size B-bodies in 1979. Unlike the previous 1976-78 New Yorker Broughams, these new models were not very popular. It didn’t help that Chrysler was on the verge of disappearing that year thanks to near insolvency. Only last minute government-guaranteed private loans saved them. Naturally, there wasn’t much money for new models, so the NY limped along in much the same fashion through 1981.
In 1982 and for only that year, it moved to the M-body Diplomat/Gran Fury platform. In 1983, the car itself continued, but was no longer a New Yorker.
In 1983, this was the New Yorker. Quite a comedown from the large and in charge New Yorker Broughams of the late ’70s, eh? Like nearly everything else being made by Mopar at that time, it was based on the K-car, specifically the LeBaron, with a slightly longer wheelbase, extra luxury car gingerbread, and button-tufted velour or leather interiors. And did I mention that these were powered by a 2.2L four cylinder? No V6 and no V8 were in the offing.
In 1988, a redesigned New Yorker debuted, although the 1983-87 model continued for one more year as the New Yorker Turbo. While still riding the K platform, it was extensively updated and newly powered by a Mitsubishi-built 3.0L V6 with 136 horsepower.
The top of the line New Yorker in 1988 and 1989 was the Landau, which, appropriately, had a padded landau roof. Chrysler was also offering some interesting colors at this time. I always liked Dusty Rose Pearl Coat, though it was not frequently seen. It is shown above on a ’90 Landau.
As related in the 1991 New Yorker CC, the K chassis had its limits, however, and although the NY had all the requisite luxury car cues, it was rather narrow and short for a top of the line model.
That changed in 1990. The Fifth Avenue, still riding the M-body platform, was discontinued after 1989 and Chrysler took the opportunity to bring the model back into the New Yorker lineup. Now you could get your New Yorker in a choice of two wheelbase lengths.
If you compare this side shot of a ’92 Fifth Avenue and the ’91 standard wheelbase New Yorker in the photo above it, you can see that the wheelbase stretch had its intended effect. The longer car looks much more stately, and rear passengers got a lot more legroom. These cars look nicer in dark colors, too.
By 1992, New Yorkers came with a standard 147 horsepower 3.3L V6 with sequential multipoint fuel injection. An optional 3.8L V6, also with SMPI, added only three more hp, to 150 total. A driver’s side airbag was standard, and while the regular wheelbase New Yorker Salon made do with standard gauges, Fifth Avenues got digital instrumentation.
While the Fifth Avenue was a new model in 1990, the New Yorker line was little changed between 1988 and 1991. In 1992, however, more “aero” front and rear fascias were added, which smoothed out the lines a bit. It was a very traditional looking car though, with its wire wheel covers, landau top with opera windows, and multi-buttoned Mark Cross leather interior. And don’t forget the whitewalls!
Now, if you wanted a landau top but couldn’t afford the tonier Fifth Avenue, you could get your New Yorker Salon fitted out with a landau roof. The related Dodge Dynasty also featured this roof treatment, but added Brougham badging instead of the NY’s Salon emblems.
Lee Iacocca’s presence can be felt throughout these cars. The leather, acres of simulated woodgrain, bench seating, and vinyl roofs were all favored-and demanded by-Mr. Iacocca. So if the pristine black leather on our featured CC reminds you of a late ’70s FoMoCo luxocruiser, that’s why.
Lee loved all those chrome doodads and fake Rolls Royce grilles. It had started with the 1968 Continental Mark III, which Iacocca spearheaded, and all the way through to the 1993 New Yorkers, that neoclassical look remained. The 1992 freshening ironed out some of those razor-sharp creases, and if you look at the trunklid and tail lamps of this Fifth Avenue, you can see just a hint of the all-new, cab forward New Yorker and LHS that would finally end Mopar’s Brougham binge.
I have to admit I liked these cars. When I was in grade school, one of the other moms had an ’88-’91 New Yorker, sans vinyl roof. It looked rather classy, especially in dark red, and I remember Mom expressing her admiration for it. When the facelifted ’92s came out, I liked them even better, and preferred them over the Imperial.
I was drawn to this Beryl Green ’92 or ’93 Fifth as a high school friend’s mom had an identical version, right down to the color and lacy spoke alloys. She traded it in in 1998 for a brand new black Monte Carlo, which was nice, but I thought it was a step down from that spiffy green Chrysler, Ma Mopar’s last vestige of the Great Brougham Epoch.
Great story, Tom.
In 1993, I attended the St. Louis Auto Show. I was sitting in one of these and talking to a salesman. We were discussing the living room feel of the Chrysler interior and how it somehow felt so right. He told me to enjoy it, as it was going away in favor of “those” as he pointed to the new LH cars. The end of an epoch, indeed.
I knew a guy who traded a fwd Buick Park Avenue on one of these, and was very happy with it. Same color as this car, even. The dimensions always seemed a little off to me on these, sort of like the old Studebaker Land Cruisers – long but narrow.
Unfortunately, these have developed a reputation for maintenance headaches in their old age. The 3.3 and 3.8 V6s are among the most durable engines of their era, but most everything else on the cars (particularly the transmissions) are a mite brittle. Really nice ones can be bought for very little money these days.
One correction: in the great Chrysler meltdown of 1979-80 (as opposed to the various others), Chrysler did not get government loans. Rather, the government guaranteed private loans. Chrysler stayed in business and repaid the loans. No government money was used in the turnaround.
Finally, these cars represent Lee Iacocca’s one great miscalculation. In 1979-80, he knew that Chrysler would be unable to blanket the market, and would have to pick and choose where to field products. He bet the farm on expensive gas and axed all of the big stuff. Unfortunately, right after the rwd stuff was killed, fuel prices came down and big rwd cars became hugely profitable for Ford and GM. Chrysler was left in a spot like that of Studebaker in the late 1950s, having to make do with a platform too small for the markets in which it was trying to compete.
Imagine being able to pick up an ’87 New Yorker with the torsion bars going the right direction, just as they had since ’57. 🙂
I think about it almost every day 🙂 I am actually one of the 14 people who would like an R body New Yorker 5th Ave., and remain convinced that it would have been a bonanza for Chrysler after the bugs were worked out, particularly after GM canned the rwd 98s and Electras. With its longer wheelbase, it could have given the Panther some competition. Oh well, back to the actual 2012 (as opposed to the alternate 2012 that often occupies my mind).
jpcavanaugh – I’m with ya man. The R-body’s are so rare today I’ve only seen two in my whole life in the flesh. Oddly they were both Fifth Avenues.
I saw a police St. Regis a while back. That had to be painful to drive…130hp smogger 318, 4000+lbs of lard, and 2.26 gears. 0-60? Maybe.
The actual 2012 has the 300, Challenger and Charger clones. We can at least be thankful for that. I’d buy the 300/Challenger immediately if I was in the US.
Here’s a challenge for someone – a 2012 300-based New Yorker or Imperial!
Your comparison to the long and narrow Studebakers is very apt. I’m afraid that I failed to ever muster any broughamance for these cars, but I suspect that was a regional affliction that we Left Coasters somehow missed out on. I feel somewhat deprived 🙁
On the other hand, betting the farm on the K-car did pay off in the long(er) run because it lead to the K- car based mini-van. The K-car also kept Chrysler around long enough to get AMC, which gave them one of the first successful modern unibody SUVs, the Cherokee.
I always liked Chryslers. (Owned 3, pre 1977) But I could never understand how management could think those luxury K cars would sell. Obviously, they did sell due to equally pathetic offerings by other automakers. The 85-86 Devilles were in the same mode, but they had V-8s.
I never drove a New Yorker or Imperial of the late 80’s early 90’s vintage. A retired dentist I golfed with had a 92 (?) Imperial. It had the gold package and a Continental kit. Beside my 93 Deville Spring Edition sedan, his car looked like a toy.
A couple of months ago, I couldn’t live without buying a 85 Lebaron convertible. A sweet car, little old lady owned with 31K on the clock. A real fun car, but luxury, heck no. The car probably drives as good as the day it was driven out of the showroom, however, the car rides like a truck, not a luxury convertible. Acceleration is slow with the 94 HP engine, but cruises nicely at 55 (speed limit in those years.)
I wonder how the new Chrysler 200 convertibles match up to the old. I stopped at the local Chrysler dealer and they told me that they only special order them. (The salesman gave me a strange look when I asked about one.) Of course, I did not drive the Lebaron to the dealership. The bum’s rush would surely have followed.
I have the same year for sale where I work
however in near beater shape..
I had a dusty rose 91 fifth avenue with the plush velour interior. It was probably the nicest riding car I have owned and had it been available with a real transmission I would have been sorely tempted to maintain it until the day it dropped.Three trannys under warranty and one out of my own pocket really ushered me into Japanese cars and my 99 Toyota Camry XLE outperformed the Chryco 7 ways from Sunday. Just did not do so with the class of the 5th Ave. I have yet to return to North American cars. I would surmise with the dumbing down of the imports and the improvement of the NA vehicles it is now chicken or duck when it comes to rides. Were I to buy today the Chev Malibu now looks inviting.
Good find – that is one clean 20-year-old car!
My extended family was the target market for all this pseudo-luxury in the 80s. Spent a lot of time in each variation except the R-body “rolling coffin,” which I’m not sure I’ve ever seen in the flesh.
Aunt Pat’s ’82 New Yorker replaced a ’74 Imperial 2-d hardtop. A step down, sure, but looked big and fancy to 9-year-old me. By the time my Dad bought an ’88 Sable, all the broughamishness had started to seem a little silly, on both the rwd car and my grandparents’ ’83 K-YorKer.
I ended up with Gramma’s ’91 Dynasty when she quit driving, on the same platform as the feature car. Perfectly pleasant ride, no vinyl roof or pillow-tufts, but probably the last navy-blue interior I’ll ever own.
We once hit a deer head-on at highway speed in the ’82. Front end was messed up, but the windshield was intact, and we all opened our doors and walked away. Try that in a Sable, or a cab-forward Concorde, for that matter. Score one for upright fake grilles and squared-up fenders!
Always liked the overall look of these. They were made in the same vein as the elongated DeVilles, 98s, Rivs, etc from the late 80s, and the Luxo trim bits helped. The marketing pics above look amazing. And those seats! All day comfort, there.
Despite all that, I was always aware of these cars underpinnings and was unconvinced as to whether they were as good as they looked. The ultimate in faux luxury, so to speak.
Great write up on this, Tom. It’s not easy to follow this one, but you did an excellent job chronicalling (is that a word?) it.
Another car that I know was kind of silly, and that I “shouldn’t” like, being a so-called enthusiast, but I admit it – there was something about these, especially the top line models like this one, that just looked good to me. I espectially liked the clean front end styling. The FWD proportions threw off the profile a bit, but it has just the right amount of sharp, clean lines, even with all the broughamy trim.
If there was ever a Deadly Sin from Chrysler, this is it. Everyone who bought one of these needs to be taken to a mental hospital and given electroshock therapy. That includes my stepdad. There’s no more horrid car from the last 25 years.
Spoken like another true West Coaster! Now I don’t have to say it 🙂
Let’s just say I was amused to see something this stylistically obsolete of a car in the eighties, never mind the nineties!
Not as deadly as the Aspen and Volare, but yeah, this one is definitely up there.
The Imperial version is an even deadlier sin!
But I do like it for some reason. My parents had a loaded ’93 with the 3.8. It was in immaculate shape, but my dad traded it in for an ’02 Mitsu Lancer.
The Aspen and Volare were better looking!
Happy Motoring, Mark
I agree with the “horrid” appearance – ugly as a hat full of @##holes. In ’91 I rented one from Dollar (or was it Alamo) car rentals and drove it from Dallas-Houston-Dallas, with a nice drive on the beach at Galveston. It was brand new, and was …… adequate. Nothing stood out about it apart from the appearance. It was a typical car of its time. People scoff at it now, but back then it was an ok but not spectacular car …….for a rental.
I worked for a livery company that bought 3 Dynastys (same platform)…one 3.3, the other two with 2.5s. (Gee, I wonder why they were on the lot for 2 years!) The 3.3 car was wrecked with about 100,000 miles. The other two went longer. One was scrapped when the transaxle finally went at 355K, the other was scrapped because it failed inspection, because it was about to rot in half. The never-opened 2.5/auto powertrain had 407,000 miles.
This may be close to the end of Broughamance but to me all real broughams were RWD and V8 powered. Therefore the last M-bodys are the last true broughams from Chrysler. The current LXs are more European in flavor.
Gathered leather with folds so deep you could loose a small dog in there. Is it me, or does gathered wrinkly leather still seem so inviting.
It’s you 🙂 And I guess you’re hardly the only one. Maybe there’s a genetic marker for Broughamitis.
You sould slap some of those seats in a Tata Nano and I’d be interested
Long live the Bro-ham!
Or “Bro-no,” as the case may be.
I recently saw one of these advertised locally, a 1992 with the 3.3 V-6, 147,000 km for all of a thousand bucks. The interior was perfect and in fact, the leather in these cars was really high quality. The rest of the interior was, too. Were I to need a set of wheels cheap, I would have bought it in a flash. If you get a year out of it, you are driving cheaply!
I bought my 1992 chrysler fifth avenue with the 3.8 v-6, 60,000 miles in 2006 for $4100 in perfect condition, including interior, paint, perfect engine, etc. It’s Nov 2012 and I have 147,000 miles on it. I have the complete set of paperwork for it, it was bought on christmas eve 1991, so it must have been bought, off the showroom floor. I replaced the transmission once $1500. I had all the under seals replaced so it still never leaks a drop of oil. I had something changed on the front end $350, stablelizer bar I think. The motor mounts needed replacement and the transmission mounts, too. Lot of little nickle and dime stuff. Put new calipers, a pulley in the motor, just a bunch of stuff here and there. I have every reciept including tunups but point is as someone pointed out in the comments. The motor is still pretty much 100%, doesn’t burn much oil, smooth riding, too smooth actually. Very smooth and comfortable. I added up my reciepts last year or so and I have averaged about $250 a year in repairs since I bought it, give or take besides the $1500 transmission replacement 6 months ago. Oh, I forgot the blower switch and something with the dashboard, water pump, radiater, starter , lol. Little nickle and dime stuff. I always take it to chrysler (depending) or my local mechanic. I live in the city so not allowed to work on cars or I would fix it myself (depending). That would make a lot of difference for labor cost. All in all, I have invested, since 2006, to date, $4100 original purchase + 6 years repairs, $1500 + $1500 transmission, so about $7100 total investment in 6 years. The transmission threw the average up alot, otherwise, it would be at $5600 total investment in 6 years. I will say one thing, very reliable overall and the motor is the best motor I’ve owned if that gave out it would never be worth fixing. Oh, The dashboard problem would have been $900 but some smart guy at chrysler traced the wire to a very small problem, so that was only $120. It’s an old car that is still holding it’s own but if one more major repair is required, (scratch my head) might be time to get rid of it. Certain parts are hard to find if they really give out, etc. It’s been a very reliable car. I sure hope it keeps going. I’m definitly not looking to get rid of it. Had people stop me on the road and ask me if I want to sell it, but than I’d have to go out and spend $5000 minimum up to $10,000 to get a new reliable car. This has been paid for since day one, so never had payments on it. Vehicles are a pain to think about sometimes. I love it when they just keep going with no complaints. I’m not complaining about this car at all.
One word: “Ultradrive”
Poor New Yorker, how far you have fallen. One of the most long-lived named in automotive history, formerly adorning some of the biggest, brashest, truly fullsize land yachts born under the sign of the Pentastar save for the Imperial, reduced to window dressing on a K-car. One of my coworkers used to drive one of these, and I’d shake my head every time I saw it in the parking lot. I can never decide which was worse, this or the 1990-93 K-based Imperial.
I think the last Imperials were the worst. Chrysler kept tarting these things up to the point where it felt like you were driving/riding inside a casket at the end. Sad.
The 1982-88 vintage Lebaron sedans/wagons were a nice, pleasant luxury upgrade of the lowly K-car platform, but everything after that was just woefully overdone. Shame on Lido.
The K based “Imperial”. A total joke on wheels, and an embarrassment to its namesake. Just goes to show how far Chrysler milked the K car deriviates.
These cars are the ultimate expression of Iacoccaism – squared off, with a thick vinyl roof and tons of chrome outside, cushy tufted leather or velour seats and acres of plastiwood inside. I didn’t care for the look then, and I still don’t. That catalog shot in the fifth picture down shows one of the most hideously overwrought interiors ever to grace a car. I understand Lee and the boys were doing what they could with what they had, but tarting up a K-car into an ersatz New Yorker is a fundamentally dishonest exercise.
That said, I enjoy seeing posts about these sorts of cars, even if I never liked the cars in the first place, especially if the cars have been cared for through their lives, as this one evidently has been. Here in the Detroit area, you might see one of these limping around, but it will have a sagging rear end, the rust worm will have taken its toll, it will be spewing large amounts of smoke on acceleration, one or both of the bumpers may have been replaced by a 2×6 or 2×8 plank, and one or more of the window openings probably will be covered with a sheet of visqueen. The owner bought it because it’s the only car available in his price range, and he’s just trying to get one more trip to work out of it before it gets hauled to the scrapper.
@ Laurence Jones : Given your appointed task of being spokesperson for taste and style perhaps you would care to give your idea of a classy looking vehicle of the 80’s and 90’s
There’s two schools of thought I could go with:
1) Who did traditionalism best?
2) Which designs forecast where design were going?
In the 1) Column
I’d say the B-Body Caprice sans any super brougham touches like a half vinyl roof is equally as elegant as any classic Chevy from the 1950s and 1960s. Much as I can’t stand them based on their fanboy appeal, they are particularly handsome cars, and didn’t suffer as much Broughamification as Panther or M -Bodies. A solid vote goes to the 1992 Seville for the last proliferation of the GM “Sheer” look.
In the 2) Column
I’d have to say the Audi 100/200 cars of 1983, as that design language is pretty much with us today. Another tip of the hat goes to the 1983 Thunderbird because it proved that design wasn’t dead, and still looks fresh in form (and not particularly derivative) today.
I’ll accept this challenge, only I’ll call it for late 70’s-80’s – the low point of Detroit design. My criterion is cars that I can look at now and say “that’s pretty sweet”. In no particular order:
W123 and W201 Mercedes. Nobody did a classic upright grill better than the ones how never stopped doing it
I’ll agree on the ’83 Audi 100/200 and the ’83 Bird.
I’ll add the ’86 Taurus. Yeah it’s derivative of the Audi, but it did it for a mass market. Proof of what Ford can do when their backs are against the wall and they realize they can’t keep doing the same old.
The ’79 Mustang. It expressed Mustangism without a retro line on it, and, in the hatchback version, was actually kind of practical. One time a buddy of mine from work was buying a bureau from an elderly woman. First we drove there in his ’78 Marquis, and we just couldn’t get the thing in the trunk without leaving it hanging out in a manner that would have risked it falling out on the way home. We took his car back, brought back my ’79 Mustang, and the bureau slid right in, we bungeed, the hatch, mission accomplished.
I took one of these in on trade for a new Century Limited back in 97-98 when I was selling Buicks, it belonged to a retired National pilot, it was a light metallic blue non-Landau 1988-89 New Yorker, even though the miles were in the mid 70K range, she was a smoker….which fit the owner, he was a smoker too, a real cool old guy though. old school airline pilot from when that was still a hero job.
Chrysler used the Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 in 1988 & 1989 and they were smokers–almost every one was puffing before 100,000 miles but they also had the 3 speed transmission which didn’t cause nearly the headaches that the 4 speed Ultradrive did. So you could either buy one of these cars with a bad engine and good transmission (88 & 89) or a good engine and bad transmission (90-93). If you could have gotten the 3.3 liter V6 with the 3 speed automatic there might be more left on the road. There also might have been a few more Chrysler buyers over the past 20 years.
Despite the well-known valve seal problems, the Mitsu 3.0 was a good engine. They will happily wind up 200,000+ miles with bad valve seals…or do the seal job when you get sick of the smoke. I saw several over 350,000 miles in livery minivans. (Note that most ran fine, but the bodies rotted out by then.)
Ye gods a stretched Mitsushitbox with a squared off roof the V3000 that is underneath all that ‘luxury’ was crap as proved in many markets smothering it in leather and sound deadener must have shortened its already limited lifespan. Typical Lido take something useless and poorly made tack on fake luxury touches and peddle it to gullible loyalists then in 5 years wonder where all the customers went.
The car was actually a Chrysler design, based on the K platform. Only the base V6 engine was supplied by Mitsubishi.
Chrysler and Mitsu were the same company and the Kcars share all the Mitsu [latform faults and specs added to the fact Chrysler was near bankrupt during the Ks development Id bet they adapted the Mitsu platform for US use then developed their own engines when the Jap one turned out rubbish
The platforms were U.S. specific and home grown by Chrysler. But Chrysler had only the 2.2 4 banger for power. Chrysler bought larger engines from Mitsubishi. They started with the 2.6 Silent Shaft 4 as an upgrade from the 2.2. When it became clear that a V6 was needed, the Mitsu 3.0 V6 was the choice. This was the engine that was almost always followed by a blue cloud from a fairly young age.
Chrysler designed its own 3.3 V6 to have something more powerful than the Mitsu engine, which may have remained available for a year or two. The 3.3 came out in 1990 and the 3.8 that was derived from it came out the next year. An earlier comment hit it on the head: if you could get a minivan with the 3.3 and the 3 speed auto (as I believe you could on some of the base level short-length minivans up into the mid 90s) you had a vehicle that would run as long as the body and electronics would hold together.
Tom….any pictures and explanation of the NY’r Salon that was a Dynasty with a Chrysler grill? Saw quite a few of those around this area back in the day and always thought they were a little odd….kind of a “why bother” situation.
The Salon was sort of an try at reviving the old Newport series from the big RWD Chrysler era, it was like the LeSabre to the New Yorkers Electra. I imagine that it came from Chrysler-Plymouth dealers complaining that they didnt have something to sort of replace the Grand Fury.
I’ve always loved these cars. Their straight lines were outre when they were new, but today when you put one of these next to a first gen Ford Taurus, these look far more timeless. Add in the Mark Cross and pillowy velour interiors, an adequate engine, and flashy though traditional interiors, and you have a great candidate for a future classic – or current cheap wheels!
Timeless? Really? I’d put the Taurus in that category, but every K-car was very of-its-time, if not outdated at introduction. This and the Dodge Dynasty were especially offensive. They oozed obsolescence right from the moment they debuted. Miles away from timeless.
Here’s the Australian equivalent from 1988-1993, the Ford LTD, together with the cheaper model Fairlane. Standard 3.9/4.0 6-cyl and auto trans (early cars had a 3sp as development of the 4sp ran late), and from 1991 there was the 5.0 V8 standard on the LTD with the 6cyl as an option. 115″ WB, 215.5″ long, 73.1″ wide, 55.9″ high and 3430-3550lb kerb weight.
Looking at the width specs of these cars 1750mm is very surprising – no wonder everybody has mentioned them being narrow! A 4-seater only.
I forgot to add the important bit – 42.3″ rear legroom!
Now see, that may have had some traditional styling touches (upright grille shell and aero wraparound back window are a bit jarring on the same car) but they’re sized like a proper big car. Compared to the US-market Crown Victoria, that LTD is actually longer (215.5″ versus 212″), has an identical wheelbase, though narrower (73.1″ wide versus 77.8″ for the CV). A little narrow but dimensionally spot-on otherwise. And even if the I6 was standard, the V8 became available. A world away from the Fifth Avenue with FWD, V6-only power, and considerably smaller (199″ long, an extremely narrow 69″ wide, with a 110″ wheelbase at its longest stretch).
Had the experience of riding in one of these once. It was very comfortable and ran very well. About 88-89. Asked the owner how he liked it and he said fine but that he was going to dump it soon because of the Mitsubishi engine.
He had read what you are generally saying. The engine was junk when it got a few miles. Personally don’t know anything about them. That’s my whole $.02 worth.
So is that really a meat related business or just some Billy-Bob bar. I can’t really tell.
Yep, it’s a meat market. One of the neighbors had a grilling party with sausage, ribs, you name it a couple years ago and he got everything there. Good stuff!
there’s a cheap 1990 imperial near my house
we need a 1990-93 imperial review
My twin sister and I are to ‘share’ a new [to us] car as a high school graduation gift. $5000 is what we have to work with, and we lot-hop around our rural hometown, semi-disappointed. Before we can make a Saturday of doing the same in a city big enough to support a multiplex and a Gateway store, twin sister feasts her eyes on a white ’92 New Yorker at a local BHPH lot that Thursday/Friday. Thinks it’s ‘Cadillac cool’, and refuses to leave without it–I cave, giving up on trying to get her to try a gold ’93 Galant instead. Maybe it is kinda cream-puff ‘gangsta’, as she may have put it. Can’t remember if the NYer was a Brougham or a Salon, but it definitely had most of the features talked about (only with waterfall-patterned vinyl benches, front and back). And the interior was ‘Dr Pepper red’. Opening the doors, the white exterior/red interior often reminded me of mama’s Christmas red velvet cake. I ended up leaning on that happy thought a lot.
I had no qualms with how the car looked at all–but wow, did I grow to hate that car. Thing drove like a boat–sometimes the dome light or other plastic pieces would fall off in a hard turn. The tape player ate my Puff Daddy cassette. And within months of ownership, the transmission gave up the ghost–running worse after it was ‘fixed’. (Worse–my dad found a royal blue 1989 NYer that wasn’t nearly as problematic.) Crazily, my silent misery only ended after we got into a marginally serious accident (get out of the way, tree) that could have been worse. I gave Chrysler the ‘not sure if serious’ look for years after that, even after the beautiful LH cars came out.
Despite stupidly returning to the same BHPH lot when the insurance check came–we found a 1993 Nissan Altima that was way more enjoyable to fight over.
Sorry to rain on the Fifth Avenue/New Yorker parade.
Great article!
I’m from Australia and I love these cars too!! I wish they sold them over here!
My Grandmother’s last car was a white ’93 New Yorker Salon. That 3.3 always felt like a lot of motor given the marshmallow suspension. She always loved a Chrysler…
I like these cars. Very comfortable and decent looks. However the issues with the ultradrive and rear suspension would scare me from owning one. I would take one over a fwd Cadillac but non a town car or marquis. I also love the looks of lbs New Yorker but at one scares me mechanically. If I get a Chrysler luxury car an m body or r body or 70 s New Yorker or imperial is what I would get.
Wow, lots of hate for these cars on CC. I never owned one, but knew some folks that did and they really liked them. I can’t say whether or not they were reliable, but there were tons of them on the road back in the day, and they seemed to last quite a long time as they were around well into the 2000’s. Mitsubishi engines were strange – if properly maintained they could run forever. If not, they would practically self-destruct. Working for Mitsubishi for many years I personally saw this. Even the slightest bit of neglect totally made Mitsubishi engines an absolute nightmare.
I think the allure of these cars for many, especially the elderly, was that they weren’t huge boats. They were easy to maneuver and comfortable. Not being wide wasn’t that big of a deal to most – unless you wanted to carry six passengers – and it made things a little tight. But overall they were efficient, luxurious and had some presence to them. To me they even had some prestige, similar to a 98 Regency of the time.
These days cars with deliberately long hoods are dangerous. I don’t know if they changed street designs, but drivers seem to have a problem seeing out of driveways onto the street. Whenever I pass them they always seem to inching their way out, sometimes with their front end partly out into the road. I’m glad the days deliberately making hoods longer ( Lincoln Mark etc) are gone.
I am very happy with my 88 New Yorker Landau. It is very comfy.
Greetings from Europe!
It pains me to say so, but I wouldn’t be unhappy to own one of these today. There were three of them in my family. 2 were ’89 Landau models with all the fixins, then my father traded one of them for a ’92 Fifth Avenue. They had her issues, but really were nice riding and driving cars. The ultradrive has been demonized here many times, and it was certainly not durable, to say the least, but overall the power trains in these cars moved them well and shifted just right…when they were working properly. The last of the remaining 89’s, which had been my grandparent’s car, was purchased by my ex mother-in-law, who loved it and kept it until it had well over 150k miles on it. The interior and body held up very well, and it was still a nice driving car right up to the end. I kinda miss these. They were a nice blend of traditional gaudy luxury and modern engineering, albeit in rather fragile packaging.
Too bad old Uncle Tom McCahill isn’t around. He’d say it: A dwarf in a tuxedo.
I do like it when they take a very boxy car and melt it just a little like was done here for 1992 or the Volvo 960 for 1995. If more cars had followed this path, we would have been spared so many look alike 90s jellybeans. The true originator of the aero look, Audi, could have kept their distinctiveness.
Excellent article! I loved these New Yorkers. I am 48 yrs. old, and, my head always turned towards cars with classic styling touches…. or “broughishness”. Vinyl roofs (or carriage roofs), opera windows, stand-up hood ornaments, wire wheels, white wall tires, chrome, chrome and more chrome trim, two-tone paint schemes, “designer editions” interior pull-straps, wide bench seats with loose pillow tuffted velour or leather, ……. I always liked cars designed for the older driver. I wonder if some of these styling touches will ever return to popularity??? As they say, everything old, becomes new again….
I could list the many serious sins of these cars…but I won’t because they’ve always been a rather guilty pleasure. Exactly the kind of thing that I shouldn’t like but somehow do. I don’t think I’d care to own one (even as a cheap beater I’d be scared of the Ultradrive eating itself) but I enjoy seeing them on the road.
That teal one pictured looks to be in great shape, but that owner seriously needs to get a whitewall tire on that rear wheel, stat. These cars just don’t look right without them.
My Great Aunt Mary had one of these. She was a discerning driver – the sort of woman who thought nothing of driving across country – and always a Buick gal. But she loved the gimcrackery-gimmickyness of her New Yorker K-car.
Her last car, sad to say.
I had ONE front-drive… and I do not want another: period.
I love my 1993 New Yorker 5th Avenue – it’s not a Cadillac, but it is a solid car for cruising and the stereo is great for playing Sinatra. The paint could use a second coat, but other than that I think it looks great.
Long live the Broughams!
Green tufted leather interior! Magnificent.
Tumble down the big family`s refrigerator, add it up four wheels for every corner , you`ve got it : that was the principle of Chrysler`s design of that lost era .
That`s the way to save a lot of money in Pininfarina`s consultance departament
I liked this Mopar adaptation of the K-car but my experience was mostly with the non-Brougham Dodge Dynasty, as rental cars from Chrysler-owned Thrifty. The four-cylinders were a bit weak but most were V6s. I think it was RLPlaut who said he rented one and found it to be a really nice car.
Dodge Dynasty was probably as far as the K car should have been stretched, but I admire Chrysler’s efficient use of this platform. GM might have been better off with using two front wheel drive platforms instead of spending billions on J/N, X/A, E/K, C/H, and W.
Really, how hard would it have been for Chrysler to splice, say four inches extra width into these? Same suspension attached to wider crossmembers, two inches of flat added either side of the floorpan, longer driveshafts….. Too hard?
It’s pretty rare to add substantial width to an existing platform, isn’t it? The 67 Mustang comes to mind. That was such a high volume vehicle, it was surely a safe bet to invest the money. Low volume luxury versions of the Kcar, not such a good business case I would think.
Guess I was thinking of the Aussie Mitsubishi Magna, with 3″ added to the JDM Galant. Made quite a difference. If Mitsubishi’s Australian offshoot could afford to widen the Galant for ’84, I’m wondering how close to the bone Chrysler’s finances were that they couldn’t afford it. They must have realized the narrowness would cost them sales.
I wonder if the limit might have been the factory…wider not clearing something on the line.
That would probably be incorporated into the design of the JDM car, since the Japanese government has severe width restrictions and most other markets do not. It’s quite common for JDM versions of many cars to be narrower/slightly smaller dimensions to comply with regulations.
Re-engineering a factory to produce a wider car for the miniscule number of sales (compared to the rest of the lineup) would have also required a substantial investment, especially when the replacement cars, based on a new platform, were probably well under development by then. These were a stop-gap until a proper large car could be introduced (that happened in 1993).
The 67 Mustang comes to mind.
The ’67 Mustang’s floor pan and body were essentially unchanged from the ’65-’66, except that the spring towers and track were a few inches wider in the front, to make room for the wider FE V8.
As a matter of fact, all Mustangs ’65 through 1973 use the same floor pan and certain key inner body structural elements. They’re wider by the virtue of extra width added to the outer door skins and such.So they’re really all on the same “platform”. If you sit in a ’73, you’ll realize that it’s not really any wider inside than a ’65.
As I understand it, adding width between the wheels is where money has to be spent. As soon as you’re altering the distances between the center of the car to the wheels, you’re altering the suspension geometry.
These cars are what put me into a 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis LS. My final Chrysler was a ’85 Fifth Avenue which was nothing more than a Plymouth Volare with over stuffed seats. Its Lean Burn Ignition System was changed out over one weekend to the Conventional Mechanical Ignition System, otherwise known as “points.”
But I still own two Mopars … a 1965 Chrysler Newport and a 1970 Plymouth Sport Fury GT. In my opinion, Chrysler went downhill after 1977.
I like these because they offer everything one liked about brougham cars, but in an efficient package. It is the bloat and wastefulness that causes me to part from brougham 1970 rides. The style is not the greatest, but at least it isn’t completely ridiculous.
If I have to own a brougham ride, it would be either a Fox Continental or Cougar, or one of these.
So it was Iacocca to blame for ruining Ford, Lincoln and Mercurys from the late 60s to the late 70s for yours truly? Figures. I always equated these to the “Lincoln Type Design” (LTD) disasters.
Had I been alive, I’d have been at Pontiac and Oldsmobile dealers during that period. Thankfully, by the time the subject cars were in production, Ford was on a whole different level. The designers didn’t even want fake woodgrain in the 1986 Taurus, but the marketing department insisted on it at the last minute. Thankfully, they dumped it later.
Say whatever you may about Chrysler and the quality or style of this car, I promise the leather was far finer quality than is used today in anything short of the top shelf. Today’s leather is never as soft or aromatic as it was in the late 80s and early 90s. The interior pic of this car backs that up, too. At the time of the pics, it was 20 years old with who knows how many miles, and the driver’s seat looks great. Lido might’ve had aged tastes, but that material looks top notch.