I had not looked through the Cohort in awhile, but am I glad I did. There to greet me was this gorgeous 1964 Chrysler New Yorker.
I am on record as being a fan of the 1963-64 Chrysler. The ’63 Chrysler (along with the Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart that were also new that year) marked the final stage of Virgil Exner’s vision for how a car should look. The 64 is not quite as pure as the 63 – who doubts that Elwood Engel saw a need to square-up the smooth Italian-inspired behind with some little fins.
What grabbed me though is not just a 64 Chrysler, but the 64 Chrysler in its very best body style – a four door hardtop.
Let’s compare. The Chrysler buyers who survived the customer-cull undertaken (if inadvertently) by the company in 1957-61 tended to be conservative folks who preferred the four door sedan by a wide margin. In my eye, though, the thick, clunky window-surrounds were as bad as those on Studebakers. Oh wait – Studebaker got rid of those after 1962. Virrrr-gellllllll!?!?!?!
And unlike most other cars of the era, the two door versions of these Chryslers looked like four door models with longer front doors fitted. Which they were, as they shared a roof. Gone were the sleek two door hardtops that had been a bright spot through a challenging era of Chrysler styling.
My first relationship with a Chrysler of this generation came via some high school friends who drove the family ’63 Newport four door hardtop. That hardtop roof cured every problem I had ever noticed on these cars, making the design light and airy instead of something for Lutheran dairy farmers like my mother’s Aunt Clara who chose a Newport sedan. But either way you got the fabulous dashboard I fell in love with.
The styling of this car both inside and out demanded the kind of lightness that the hardtop provided. Just look how happy this driver of one was? Or was that smile just put on by an artist. (“What’s the matter Jane? You look drawn.”)
I noticed one other little detail – that bit of chrome going over the back of the roof. Which means that this is a New Yorker Salon, the model at the very top of the Chrysler-brand hierarchy. Or could maybe kind of possibly be but probably isn’t (thanks to the sharp eyes of our readership) and is just a regular New Yorker with the trim for the two tone paint or vinyl roof. This one seems to have lost its partial vinyl roof (or was ordered without that feature to begin with). This design may have been the only really successful way to add a vinyl roof to a car without a natural break between the C pillar and the lower body.
Anyway, thanks Mike Hayes for lobbing this softball my way so that I can look with satisfaction on one of the most uniquely attractive cars of its era. It reminds me of the sign-off of a radio DJ who hosted a Saturday morning big band jazz program on a local public radio station. “This music isn’t for everybody” he would say, before adding “it’s too good.” A four door hardtop ’63-’64 New Yorker is in the same category.
I do like this generation of Chryslers and yes, the hardtops convey the look much better than the sedans. Are you aware the design began as an Imperial. It would have had the taillighs atop the rear fenders as a continuation of the Imperial design trope of what were known as “sparrow Strainers” and “Flashlights” Howeverm It was given to Chrysler at the last minute as a new look was desperately needed for the bread and bitter models. And why the round taillights on the 63s looked like afterthoughts, because they essentially were. Imperial soldiered none more years, Fins shoen in an attempt to look more “60s” and Lincoln like. And waited until 64 when Engels “Fill the Box” look took over, and looked even more like Engel’s own 61 Lincoln
Oddly, Canadian New Yorkers all got this roof treatment, whereas in the US it was Salon only. Also, we got a New Yorker 2-door hardtop, which was not offered in the US.
This car could be the very first of the fully-equipped as-is school of marketing. It must have been none-too successful
or they would have done it again in ’65. I guess that price point
was too hard to swallow for most prospects, even New Yorker ones.
AFAIK this wasn’t done again until a more than a decade later with the Seville and Versailles, which also had short option lists because none were needed.
This little snippet of factory doc shows something odd. All that stuff standard, and they had to go and make the tilt wheel an extra.
I have always thought the same thing. Adjustable steering wheels were still not the popular option during these years as they would become later on…
Wasn’t that tilt steering column a GM/Harrison unit?
I think it was. I know the Tilt-a-Scope unit in my ‘66 New Yorker is a GM sourced unit
The Oldsmobile wheel covers almost look like they belong on this car.
Normally, I prefer 2 door cars. These big old Chryslers are the exception to my personal rule. A 4 door hardtop, be it a ‘67 Polara, or one of these older New Yorkers, the 4 door hardtops always seemed to be proportioned and styled just right.
There was a TV commercial for either the ’63s or ’64s that featured a professorial-yet-hip-looking architect, seated at a drawing board, looking through the large picture window of a custom-designed mid-century modern ranch house. He then went on to point out all the finely designed style features of the new Chrysler that was visible in the driveway outside.
After viewing this, one got the impression, “Of course, it IS beautiful and thoughtfully designed! This must be a car for highly intelligent, tasteful people [like me].”
Even so, the ’57-’61 Chryslers will always be my favorites!
Yes, I have a nice 64 Chrysler Newport hardtop wagon that I am dying to swap the rust-free 58 Plymouth quarter panels, door skins, and front cap onto to have a 1 off 58 Fury hardtop wagon. I am also considering a 4 door hardtop 60 wagon, as only quarter panels would have to be changed, as doors and front cap would be a direct bolt on.
Love that Embassy Gold Salon, as well as the illustration of Betty Draper.
More like George Washington with makeup on…
I see Auto Pilot is standard equipment, just like in a Tesla. Where were the critics in 1964 to point out that the term Auto Pilot is misleading and downright dangerous?
They weren’t born yet.
Wasn’t Auto Pilot Chrysler’s term for cruise control in that era?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-history-capsule-chryslers-1958-auto-pilot-56-years-before-teslas-autopilot/
Definitely a treat to see some of my photos used here on CC. I spotted that car in the parking lot of the local Fred Meyer Shopping Center. Over the years, I’ve seen quite a few noteworthy vehicles there. They really seem to appeal to the “I drive a quirky car” demographic. One small quibble: Please buy a vowel, as the surname is “Hayes.” Not a big deal, but I thought I’d mention it, Mr. “Kavanaugh.” ;0
Fixed and thanks for taking the pictures!
Sorry Mike!! Thanks for the photos of this great car.
Chrysler got the exterior right in ’63, but didn’t return to a real Chrysler dashboard until ’65. This dashboard is nice, but it lacks the respendent Chrysler arch.
Amen to that. I want a 1960 dash in my 64. I am so in love with the 60 – 62 dash. 65 is nice too.
I like the 60-62/65-66 dashes, those are fabulously space age. But the 63-64 was evocative of the classic expensive road cars from an earlier era. While the Plymouth and Dodge dashes tried for googie but were failed by cheap plastichrome that aged poorly, these were stylish, expensive and fully functional all in one. I have always found something deeply satisfying in the design.
The ’63-’64 Chrysler dashboard has a lot in common with the ’62-’63 Plymouth one, but in one full width sweep instead of the dashboard with instrument pod style.
This is the ’63, which like the exterior of the Chryslers was a slightly butched up version of the original ’62.
In 1964, my father had a 1963 Cadillac. The janitor in our building had a 1964 Chrysler New Yorker Salon. It was even in the exclusive Embassy Gold high metallic color. The Chrysler was better equipped than the Cadillac. Some standard items on the Chrysler were not even available on the Cadillac; nothing really significant, but clever and useful like the storage compartment in the folding center armrest.
And I am not posting comments too quickly (I’ve found that adding that to the failed comment usually gets it through…don’t know why but I’m not going to argue).
Apparently, income disparity wasn’t then what it is now. I don’t want to get too political, but what was wrong with the way it was back then?
Only about 1,700 New Yorker Salon 4-door hardtops were produced in 1964 (only 593 in 1963!) The survival rate on these is going to be extremely low–probably less than 1%. So maybe about 20 left (both years)?
Not a Salon, but a ’64 Chrysler sedan I found in a junkyard:
Amen to that. I want a 1960 Chrysler dash installed in my 64. I Love the 1960 – 1962 dash. The 65 is nice too.
The blue hardtop pictured isn’t a SALON. It is lacking the New Yorker/SALON identification placed about mid ways up the front fenders (refer to script placement in the advertisement with the gold SALON) and the interior appears to be standard New Yorker issue. It appears we have a regular New Yorker hardtop (notice New Yorker script placed low on the front fenders) which is still a fine car in its own right.
Agreed; the featured car appears not to be a Salon. That chrome band on the roof was also used on regular New Yorkers when a two tone paint or vinyl roof was specified. Here’s a picture of an all-original sedan with a two tone paint job and that chrome band:
Speaking of the vinyl roof, on a recent Plymouth Duster CC and its ‘canopy’ vinyl roof, I was wondering which car was the first to offer that type of of partial vinyl roof. Could the 1963 Chrysler have been the first?
Good eyes, guys. I have amended the text.
Here is an Embassy Gold one
Picture won’t load, but you can find it here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/requiem-for-a-junkyard-g-i-auto-salvage/
“But either way you got the fabulous dashboard I fell in love with.”
I have often wondered if Chrysler reached back to the 1955-56 DeSoto dashboard design and resurrected the same layout for these Chryslers. My grandmother had a ’56 DeSoto that I loved, and I, too, have always remembered that fabulous dash.
Agreed, that 55-56 DeSoto design was one of the best ever.
Despite having owned both a 55 Fireflite and a 64 New Yorker (when both were cheap beaters), I never picked up on the dash similarity before. Now that you mention it, the resemblance is obvious except for the DeS having a real oil pressure gauge where the Chrysler used an idiot light. Of course, the DeS clock always looked like an afterthought in it’s own little housing atop the radio.
CC Effect: If you can settle for a Newport–Only $3000. “Runs good.”
https://newjersey.craigslist.org/cto/d/harrington-park-chrysler-newport/6981476531.html
I have a very solid ’64 Salon for sale in Detroit Michigan if anyone is interested. 1 owner garage find. Have not listed for sale yet, but would like to move before the snow falls. Contact 1paulflis@gmail.com
My other favorite 4dr hardtop is the ’64 Ford.
When a Chrysler was a viable, if not superior, alternative to an Oldsmobile or Mercury.
In 1965, the Chrysler was superior to both
and Buick too
The ’64 Chrysler is my favorite Mopar design of the 60’s. Very classy, and I’d even settle for the sedan although he hardtop is sportier looking. I love the little “mini-fins” on the trunk. The ’62 and ’67 Valiant comes in a distant 2nd design-wise.
The 1963-’64 New Yorker Salon is an anomaly from a marketing viewpoint: a top-of-the-line model of the upper-medium priced make, fully-equipped and priced higher than the entry series of the luxury make sold by the same dealers.
1963
New Yorker Salon, $5344
Imperial Custom, $5243
1964
New Yorker Salon, $5860
Imperial Crown, $5581
Presenting such a model was pretty much guaranteed to divert sales from Imperial. As for the Salon itself, from the few ever encountered, they were wonderfully luxurious in trim and finishing, almost an Imperial LeBaron version of the New Yorker. Two still recalled were both 1964 models: one a medium turquoise metallic with white leather interior and top canopy. The other medium-dark silver gray, red leather interior and black top canopy, a favorite combination.
Very pretty! And the four-door design DOES look better than the two-door hardtop.
Question: AMC bragged that THEY offered the first car with a/c as standard equipment (in the Ambassador). I’m guessing not so, since the Chrysler folks are bragging about it here?
What’s amazing is that the late model Toyota Corolla parked next to the old New Yorker in the first photo is a whole lot faster, stops, steers and handles way better, gets 4 times better gas mileage, doesn’t pollute the atmosphere, is way safer in a crash, weighs 4000 pounds less than the old Chrysler, has more interior and trunk space, has a quieter ride, has superior build quality and an engine that is made to last 400,000 miles. Boy have we come a loooooong way in automotive technology. We are living in the golden age of automotive technology for sure! Toyota Rocks!!
Ed, a modern Corolla doesn’t have more interior room than an old New Yorker. Not by a long shot. And a Corolla has a wee, tiny trunk compared to an old New Yorker. You’re also wrong about the weight difference between the two cars; a Corolla like the one in the photo weighs roughly 3,000 pounds and the New Yorker weighs in at around 4,600 pounds. That’s only a 1,600 pound difference, not a 4000 difference that you claim. Certainly the Toyota is a much safer car than an old Chrysler New Yorker, and arguably more comfortable to drive, and no doubt has superior build quality compared to any Chrysler new or old.
Agree with KV and would like to add that the Toyota is a soul-crushing, artless automotive APPLIANCE. This blog is for the love of cars when they were art. Toyota has not, does not, never will qualify in that regard.
I always liked these Chrysler also. And always thought the same about the hardtops vs. sedans.
Probably a lot of customers didn’t notice that these were based on the 1960 unit body, as shown by the same windshield (with non-parallel wipers) and front quarter windows. The station wagons make this a whole lot more obvious.
An uncle bought a new New Yorker every few years but switched to a Buick Electra in ’63, saying that the Chrysler was hard to see out of. He was probably talking about the smallish rear window (expanded in the ’64’s) plus sloping rear deck, and lower front fenders than hood.
Sorry, I just cannot warm up to these “cleaned up” Exner designs. Compare the heavy look of the roof on this Chrysler to the light and airy look of the ’64 Pontiac four door hardtop below.
By 1964 this generation of the full size Chrysler was getting a bit long in the tooth, but they still had “presence”. This New Yorker was easily the equal of an Olds 98 or Buick Electra in size, comfort and performance, but was saddled with a significant anti-Chrysler Corp. bias among the public that crept in during the early ‘60’s. This, no doubt, due to the quality disasters of the late fifties cars and the weirdly designed early sixties models. The big Chrysler escaped most of these issues and was a well built car, but customers were leery and it greatly trailed its GM rivals.
As a kid our next door neighbor had a ‘66 Town and Country with the 440 TNT. Solid as a bank vault with top quality build materials everywhere. High grade leather and not a bit of plastic anywhere. Made our family’s ‘63 Olds look and feel cheap.
Lovely looking car, and definitely the pick of the bunch!
I have 2 questions, though, JPC
Auto pilot – presumably cruise control?
And what has “Jane” got in her left hand?
My mom had a ’60 New Yorker, and when it started having it’s unending electrical issues, I knew, even as a 7 year old, it would be gone soon. And it was, replaced by the last Chrysler product she ever drove, a hideous ’63 New Yorker, in an awful kind of corroded copper green/blue. It was totally problem free, but was gone in about a year, solely due to it’s ugliness. My mother denied it even existed for years, until I found the pic I had of it and she said, “Oh, that thing! We didn’t keep it long at all!”. It was replaced by a ’64 Cadillac Sedan De Ville, in another (IMO) awful color, a sort of baby blue. It hung around until ’68, when it was traded for the first of a bunch of Old’s Cutlasses. We saw our old ’60, all black and another identical looking one for years and my mother would always say how much she liked the looks of it.
I have a beautiful Canadian 1964 New Yorker 4 door HT. Was very pleased with the appraisal I got last week. Car seems way before it’s time.
I have a beautiful 1964 New Yorker 4 door HT.
Canadian car. Very pleased with the appraisal I got for it, last week.
This is my 64 New Yorker Salon
J P Cavanaugh is spot on regarding the 1983 and 1964 Chryslers. Despite being a GM family / extended family, I have always been partial to great design. I knew everyone on my block from their car, whether I ever talked to them or would recognize them is another matter. A neighbor several doors down had a 1963 or 1964 New Yorker in white, and it was a head turner in the malaise era 1970s. So elegant and sophisticated-looking, including the gold “New Yorker” script that seared into my mind. Many cars have used gold script, and these generally look pretentious and / or gaudy. Somehow this Chrysler was able to brandish this smart script boldly and convincingly. It was written like a celebrity autograph. Mr. Cavanaugh does zero in on the hardtop / sedan contrast. Although I do not always have a preference for a hardtop and take it on an individual case basis, this Chrysler hardtop is drop-dead gorgeous, especially with the front section black vinyl top of the Salon. Virgil Exner really created some wonderful work at Chrysler, though some of it controversial and / or polarizing. I love the original Valiant’s looks for instance. But this is the basic Exner extravagance very carefully toned down by the more inimalist Elwood Engle. Instead of a discordant clashing of design principles, it melds extremely well. Although Chrysler was aimed at the mid-range “Olds-Buick” market, it looks much better than the gothic ’63 Imperial sporting the odd stand alone headlights, and the rather somber ’64 Imperial that is Engle’s poor relation interpreation of his brilliant Lincoln Continental. To my eyes, this is one of the best Chrysler products ever. Chrysler was “zigging” when GM and Ford would zag. Love the square steering wheels, the push button transmissions, etc. Bring them on, MOPAR!!!!
In the progression of styling, the 1964 Chryslers looked more like late fifties or early sixties designs. The 1965 brought the styling almost up to date with its cleaner lines. However they didn’t get it all the way right until 1966, which was a vast improvement over both preceding years.