Spotting these two New Yorkers next to each other on a Sunday morning outside the former Western Hotel & Casino was like Curbside manna descended from heaven. I almost couldn’t believe my eyes. It reminded me a little bit of those rare episodes of The Price Is Right daytime game show where a contestant had ended up winning both showcases for an extremely accurate bid during the final Showcase Showdown. These Chryslers were delivered unto me and my trusty Canon camera while I walked briskly through the East Fremont district early in the morning. This was before most people would normally be up and about, and I was determined to photograph some old, Las Vegas Americana and evidence of the human condition. These older New Yorkers appeared to come from the same state in the Pacific northwest as evidenced by their license plates and were, thus, out-of-towners like me.
Just two months ago, I had written an essay about an ’83 New Yorker Fifth Avenue which, had the M-body not been kept in production alongside its erstwhile, front-drive E-body replacement, would have been the direct forerunner to this pair of white New Yorkers. The older one above, a Turbo model, appears to be an ’84 by the newly-introduced wraparound taillamps and the absence of a high center-mounted brake light. As such, it’s powered by a 142-horsepower, turbocharged version of Chrysler’s 2.2 liter four-cylinder engine. The newer car, the entry level Salon model, is from the ’92 restyle of the enlarged ’88. It might also be a ’93, which was the last year of this generation before the LH cars were introduced. It had a 3.3 liter V6 with 147 horsepower from the factory.
With even just a quick glance at both cars, the differences in their external dimensions are apparent enough:
| 1984 Chrysler New Yorker Turbo | 1992 Chrysler New Yorker Salon | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length (Inches) | 185.7" | 193.6" | 7.9" |
| Height (Inches) | 52.9" | 53.6" | 0.7" |
| Width (Inches) | 68.3" | 68.9" | 0.6" |
| Base Curb Weight (Pounds) | 2,802 lbs. | 3,274 lbs. | 472 lbs. |
| Passenger Volume (Cubic Feet) | 97.2 cu. ft. | 99.4 cu. ft. | 2.2 cu. ft. |
The older car may look a bit stubby from stem to stern, but the ’92 is only fractionally wider and almost eight inches longer, making it look tall and skinny. The slightly rounded corners on the ’92 are in contrast to its otherwise very linear, angular design, but the ’84 seems more all-of-one-piece, whether you like the E-body’s basic, K-sourced styling or not. One thing is certain: the ’92 Salon looks more substantial, which it is, all 472 more pounds of it, with not that great of an increase in passenger volume. While the V6 of the newer car undoubtedly provided smoother power delivery than the turbocharged 2.2 four-cylinder of its forerunner (would you like some torque-steer with that shake?), there’s almost 17% more of the Salon’s weight to be tugged around by its front drive wheels.
The ’83 Fifth Avenue I had written about at the end of this summer seemed to get a lot of love in the comments from readers with positive experiences or memories of them, which made me really happy, as my grandparents had owned one and also liked it. That essay wasn’t so much about my trying to present those rear-drive cars as advanced in any area, but rather as a comfortable, nicely appointed car in the idiom of the traditional, American brougham that had been familiar to so many buyers, albeit in a smaller package than those that had been popular through the end of the ’70s.
That other, fuller-bodied, rear-drive Fifth Avenue could be likened to a crisp, refreshing Coke on ice on a summer afternoon. Never the best thing for you from a dietary perspective, the occasional, cold Coke on a hot day, full of all the sugar and caffeine of the regular formula, can make one feel great, giving just a little extra pep and with that inimitable flavor. (Just have gum ready for when that sugar coats your teeth and makes your mouth taste gross, afterward.) The front-drive New Yorkers might be like Diet Coke: still caffeinated, with fewer calories, and designed to help keep the pounds down (I’m still shocked by the difference in the base curb weight of the two featured cars), but artificially sweetened and, well, still not good for you.
When you want a Coke, though, you want one, and you should be able to enjoy the occasional one or two in moderation. This isn’t about me trying to ruin someone’s enjoyment of their favorite soft drink. There are things that are much worse for people to drink. I just liked the idea, when it came to me, that the front-wheel-drive New Yorkers seemed to represent a way for connoisseurs of that traditional, American style of luxury to keep enjoying it, but in a “brougham-lite” kind of way. As one reader had recently pointed out in the comments following a different essay, Lee Iacocca didn’t style these Chryslers, but they still certainly combined the features he was reportedly fond of and were met with his approval. Las Vegas is know for its excesses, and on this particular Sunday morning, I got two Diet Cokes for the price of one.
East Fremont District, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sunday, October 16, 2022.
These cars look similar on the page, especially from the outside, but vastly different once you step in. Finally gone were the K car dashboard, thin, chintzy door panels, and 4 cylinder engines. in their place were a new body (still too angular, but so were Volvo’s) more expensive-feeling controls for the likes of the HVAC adjustment, radio, and seats, materials, and such. It was a very pleasant place to be, especially the upgraded 1991 models which now had homegrown 3.3L and 3.8L V6s that made no apologies to anyone elses’. These were world-class cars for those who put comfort over sportiness, and better excecutied than GM’s late-80s efforts and even Ford’s Taurus/Sable, proving more reliable than either. The latter pair looked nice, but you couldn’t get four-wheel-discs and ABS on a Taurus until 1890 (some of them) while any NYer or Dynasty could have all disc ABS beginning in 1988, Chrysler was early getting airbags into their cars too,
I remember being in the peak of my Mopar fanboy stage in the early 80s when those 4 cylinder New YorKers came out. I wanted so much to love them, and tried really, really hard. In the end, I have been able to make my peace with them. They are not New Yorkers, but they are really, really nice K cars – in the way a 57-58 Packard is a really, really nice Studebaker.
The later versions were easier to love, though they were never really wide enough for the class they tried to play in. Years ago I wrote up a 90 or 91 owned by a secretary. I got to drive it a time or two and was surprised at what a pleasant place the interior was. For a minute or three I harbored ideas of looking for one for myself.
Narrowness was a problem for those 1950s Studebakers, but for the late ’80s-early ’90s New Yorkers the narrowness was a feature, not a bug. By then, everyone who needed more than four seating positions on a regular basis bought a minivan or SUV of some sort. The NYer and Dynatsty rear center position wasn’t as bad as the width charts make them look – the high, deep seat cushion, small floor hump, and lack of tumblehome on the side door panels allowed the full width to be used. Most of the time, there’s only two passengers per seat, and they enjoy easy entry and exit from being far from the next car in the parking lot, which they usually were due to the car’s narrowness.
The generation in-between these two is the best one. The ’84 is too tacky and K-car; the ’93 is too rounded and plain.
In 1998, I bought a 1989 New Yorker Landau in this combination–black exterior and burgundy leather interior. Looked really sharp. Drove like a dream! If you wanted neo-classic “brougham” without the bulk and a lot of high-quality touches, this is it!
Car got totalled in an accident in 2001; replaced it with a ’90 Imperial in silver, but with the same color burgundy leather (different pattern).
“It might also be a ’93, which was the last year of this generation before the LH cars were introduced…”
Actually, the first LH cars [Intrepid, Concorde, Vision] were new for 1993 model year, so there was overlap with the old and new designs. The LH New Yorker was brought out as a 1994 model, after the stretched K car version, but only until 1996.
I wonder if the owners of those two cars know each other and find it amusing to park their cars side-by-side…just figuring that someday they’d get photographed and written up for CC.
As the saying goes (Planes, Trains, & Automobiles), “Is this a coincidence? Or what?” 🙂
Movie is timeless!
Nice find sir, and as always, you come up with unique analogies.
I owned two New Yorker Fifth Ave’s – a blue 1991 (https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/my-curbside-classic-1991-chrysler-new-yorker-fifth-avenue-almost-doesnt-count/), and a green 1993. The 91 had the 3.3, the 93 had the 3.8. The 3.8 had a bit more torque, but other than that I didn’t feel a big difference. They were great cars in city traffic, and wonderful in parking lots.
But the narrowness meant that long road trips with anyone not beanpole thin were less than comfortable – it’s one of the reasons I sold the car rather quickly (my wife didn’t enjoy riding in it aside from doing donuts in the snow).
But those tufted seats are a helluva drug!
Doing donuts in the snow is actually one of the things I miss most about car ownership in the winter!
Those 1984s looked to me like K cars who had stopped one too many times at the ice cream parlours. They looked about 500 pounds overweight. Just unwanted bulge and brougham elements.
“Please pass the Haagen Däzs…”. My one observation is that the styling of the original E-body New Yorkers that featured the flat, two-dimensional taillamps looked better to me, than with the wraparound units. You can’t make a LeSabre out of a K-car
“Diet Iacocca Cola”
Dennis, you win the Internet today with that! I’ve never seen it, and it is so appropriate!
Speaking of appropriate, the ’92, when launched in 1988, was much more appropriate for its segment, finally getting a V6, and looking passably mid-size. I thought it worked pretty well against an Olds Ninety-Eight or a Buick Park Avenue.
I don’t remember that 1992-1993 grill at all. I’ve seen plenty of the 1988-1991 New Yorkers and Dynastys, but the rounded off, end of the line ones are new to me.
“Iaccoca Cola”: Brilliant!
Given the amount of re-engineering that happened between 1984 and 1992, are there any parts that are actually identical between these two cars?
The “New Yorker” nameplate on the back, perhaps?
The Coke analogy is great! I think that describes the derision I had at the time for cars like the K New Yorker and other FWD replacements for formerly large, glamorous dreamboats. Low or no calorie substitutes for the Real Thing.
Nowadays, seeing a Diet soda sitting in a parking lot excites me, seeing two sitting next to each other can make my day! I know how you feel. These two cars parked next to each other from the same state, they certainly are connected. Two K-car lovers meeting for a Vegas wingding? K-car Konvention? It has to be something.
You might recall I’m a Backdraft fan, the great Chicago firefighting movie. Alderman Swazak, the smarmy politician, is driven around in a 1989ish New Yorker and he and Robert DeNiro have an important scene in the (narrow) back seat.
“Only go for the real thing” was such a great tagline. Jody Watley even borrowed the phrase for use on the second single released from her third studio album.