(first posted 4/17/2015) Why exactly does this car create such a powerful response (in me, anyway)? It projects such solidity, dignity, and self-assurance. It flew in the face of GM’s 1965 coke-bottle styling, and showed that hard-edged angularity still had some serious life in it. Most of all though, this Chrysler New Yorker represents a pinnacle: never again would the New Yorker attain this degree of success, prestige and quality.
The Virgil Exner years at Chrysler were a styling roller-coaster ride. He resurrected Chrysler from the stodgy, boxy K.T. Keller years and set it on the path toward styling leadership with the handsome ’55 models and the more radical ’57s. But those were a seemingly impossible act to follow, and the combination of a heart attack and resultant politics resulted in some very uneven results, some of it bizarrely so. His planned 1962 models showed promise, but the forced downsizing at the last minute and some of their details created another disaster. Exner had to take the hit for the 1962s, and had to resign.
Elwood Engel was recruited from Ford, where he was credited with the milestone 1961 Lincoln. Its angularity and compact was a bold contrast to the over-wrought finned Caddys. Although the Continental was not a big sales success, it saved the brand from an imminent death, and showed a new design direction that had very long tails. Its influence is still seen in the current Chrysler 300.
Engel brought a radical change in styling direction to Chrysler, and in its first few years, like so many new starts, it worked like a charm. The first sign of the new direction was manifest in the very T-Birdish Turbine Car of 1963.
Its distinctive front end, which coincidentally also appeared on the Exner-styled 1963 Dodge Dart, was first seen on Engel’s 1958 La Galaxie concept car. How that coincidence happened is one of mysteries that I’ve not yet cracked.
But there was a lot of cross-fertilization in Detroit at the time. Since it appeared on the La Galaxie back in ’58, the safe assumption is that Exner was inspired by it for his ’63 Dart. And that Engel decided to use that front end theme again because the Dart was already styled when he got there, for some corporate consistency.
It took a few more years for Engel’s angularity to come to full fruition at Chrysler, and it arrived in 1965 just as GM was heading the opposite direction. And Ford was chasing the Pontiac look. Eventually, it boxed Chrysler into a stylistic dead end, and the radically different fuselage Chryslers of 1969 were seen to be the way out. It wasn’t, despite their strangely appealing qualities. By 1974, Chrysler was back to a boxier, edgier look, hoping to recapture the success of the ’65-’66 models, without avail.
Chrysler was still clawing its way out of the 1962 disaster when these were designed, and as a consequence, the coupe shares its roof with the hardtop sedan. Yet the result is equally appealing, if not more so.
This stately New Yorker that I found on a walk in Millbrae, CA called to me; I could practically feel its presence over a block away, standing out among the curvaceous little cars around it, like the Chrysler Building in a trailer park.
These big Chryslers were some of the best built cars carrying that name since its WWII tanks and the passenger tanks it built just after the war. The unibody was tight, the torsion-bar suspension was less floaty than some of its competitors, and interior and trim quality would never again be this solid. But that doesn’t mean it was all that heavy: 4,295 lbs listed shipping weight. The 340 horses (gross) on tap from its 413 CI V8 hustled it down the road effortlessly. Brakes were better than average for the times, and the Torqueflite was arguably the best in class. Chrysler’s numb power steering was the only fly in the ointment, but for its intended purpose, who cared?
Chryslers appealed to buyers who still felt that a finer engineered car was the one to buy. There were several relatives and University acquaintances for whom these vintage Chryslers were the last American cars they ever bought; they all drove Mercedes by the mid seventies. Now that I think of it, that’s the reason why I hold these Chryslers in such high esteem: they really were the end of the road in more ways than one for Chrysler.
Ready to go pick up my Prom date when I was in High School – I wish!
Clear lights now red!
Your car is gorgeous ,when choosing one of these cars it would be hard deciding on which color , but white with the red interior would be hard to beat.
Another nice detail is the way the door handles line up with the side trim, resulting in a very clean look.
Some one mentioned the starters in these,
one of my favourite automotive sounds ever is the Chrysler reduction gear starter, just a brief tweet sound and away you go, just so space age in the mid 60s.
Would this have been the first car to use clear tail light lenses ?
I failed to mention the reduction gear starter. I love that sound also. I also like the green sun tint in the windshield. Other than AMC and Mercedes, it was the only other car around in the 1960s that had it. And then there is the sound of the engine when you rev it up in park. MOPAR power sound! I would like to have duel exhaust installed on mine. It would go from 350 hp to about 360 hp. It is sort of a muscle car in Sunday clothes. I don’t know what the gas mileage is, but it is good. You can just tell by the very small amount of gas pedal needed and ease at which it accelerates under normal driving. It seems to breath easily and never lugs like some of the Ford Y blocks did. Similar to a 1965 Pontiac Catalina with a 389 2 barrel that I once had which got 21 mpg. But as I recall, the Chrysler moves out even easier. Hard to put into words. However, the interior noise is greater than the 1966 Mercury Parklane I have by a lot. The literature that year says on the cover: “The Most Beautiful Chrysler Ever Built”. Incredible how much they deteriorated in engineering design, materials, and quality in 1969.
And yes, when a car has really good styling – it looks good in just about any color, although I always find that white shows of the clean lines best, in particular at night.
Chrysler hadn’t really learned how to insulate a unit body from road noise and imperfections too well yet. The 1965 re-engineering of Fords and Mercurys used a stiffer body and a frame only mounted to it at a few places for more isolation plus coil rear springs and more sound insulation. The difference between them is immediately obvious. I’m not sure there is any clear division between that 1965 Ford design and where the Town Car ended up in its final days.
Correct! Deep under a ’79 Town car resides a ’65 Galaxie.
I bought a 68 pea green New Yorker 4 door hardtop for $100.00 around 1982. I didn’t need it but my neighbor asked me if I wanted it, I figured I couldn’t lose at that price The interior was still almost perfect and the 440 engine and 727 trans worked perfectly. It needed paint and a fender and front bumper. The power windows and seat still worked, only the AC was not working. Tons of torque and still sailed smoothly down the highway. Even in it’s worn condition it was still a great driving car. Relative needed a car and “borrowed” it for a while. After a few months a freeze plug blew and they drove it until the engine seized. I told them to junk it.
If I could buy one of these, I would personally choose this 65 300L, solely because I like the glass headlight covers, and letter car prestige and heritage. Also, it is cheaper than 65 NY’ers I am finding for sale. If anyone wants to buy it for me, here it is:
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/chrysler/300l/1731643.html
Good call. A nice color scheme, and an imperfect interior which means you don’t have to freak out if you spill some coffee.
It’s kind of crazy that Belvederes and even Dusters sell for more than C-bodies in comparable condition. I guess it’s the lingering muscle car obsession, plus a fear of owning something “too big”?
Thanks! Now I just need to buy it with the nonexistent money I wish I had!
BTW
Another thing these cars were the first to have (I do believe), that almost no one will remember, is the concave air/water pressure loading horizontal spoons attached to the windshield wiper arms!
And there are the little turn indicator lights on the fenders, that light up almost jewel like – a little nicer than later Chrsyler products and Thunderbirds for example. And they are designed into the fender crown molding.
The designers even included chrome trim on the fenders, around the bumper ends front and rear!
I am a little surprised, however, that they did not have cornering lights, although they might have detracted from the clean front fenders.
I have thought about buying a 300 grille to install in my car. they are nice looking, and I could easily change back to the New Yorker grille – which is also great looking of course.
Beautiful car.
I’ve mentioned it before, but one of the first cars I have strong memories of was my grandfather’s ’65 New Yorker 4 door h/t, in turquoise and sans the vinyl covered C-pillars. Had a matching cloth interior. I loved that car – it was definitely a step up from his barely-remembered ’59 New Yorker and a step up, too, from the ’73 Monaco Brougham that replaced it, despite the many more power features in that car.
Didn’t see it mentioned in the writeup, but in addition to the relatively rare leather seats, this car sports the clear tail light lenses that only lasted for a few months of the model year – I can’t remember why, but someone objected to the clear lens/red bulb setup. Ditto the glass covered headlights.
One other cool fact I’ve learned about these cars, courtesy of an old Ward’s Automotive Quarterly, is that the dash was single casting of manganese steel, and was the largest such casting used in a car up to that point.
The clear taillights were dropped because they collected water.
Those seats were high grade vinyl I believe.
According to Collectible Automobile author and Mopar guru Jeffrey Godshall,
it was the because the CHP put up a snit. Apparently, in those days they staged unannounced check stops for “headlight aim”. I guess the troops didn’t like turning a few extra screws to get the cover off.
RE: The clear tail light lenses From the same CA story, it was something with the manufacturing quality of the white lenses, which had a wide variance. . Marginally turned-out ones emitted pinkish light, not red, and cast strange concentric circles.
As I typed this, I thought of the early M-Body LeBarons that had clear tail lights as well, and which was also dropped after a short time. My dad got a new LeBaron in my last year of High School, and I was so looking forward to those. By the time he got his, they had gone back to all-red:(
I believe the federal government simply banned any type of headlight cover when it phased in the first vehicle safety standards for the 1967 model year. Both the VW Beetle and Jaguar XK-E lost their headlight covers for the 1967 model year.
I always wondered, and maybe someone can shed light on it here: why did Chrysler give up on the torsion beam suspension? I hear nothing but good things about it and it has to be cheaper than springs, struts, coilovers, or any of the more complicated air suspensions.
Because it did.
(This was supposed to go with the comment about the front of the turbine car looking like the back of the ’61 Thunderbird, of course designed under the same guy, and I think he brought a friend or two to Chrysler with him.)
You mean torsion bar, not beam. Struts are cheap and compact because they consolidate some functions into fewer parts. The real reasons the original ’57 Chrysler torsion bar front suspension was better was higher spring rates, and the suspension itself was a new design that didn’t use upper and lower A-arms like everyone else. The basic design other than the torsion bars spread to everyone else soon after like the 1960 Falcon and probably others. They don’t use fewer parts than other suspensions.
Torsion bars were used on original VW Beetles and later on Renault 5’s and 16’s. On the Renaults, they were used in both front and rear suspensions and went across the car instead of longitudinally like in the Chryslers. I assume they cost more than springs since pretty much everyone has dropped them. I have seen mentions of torsion bars being used a time or two in certain models of some vehicle or another since, but not generally. There is also the structural problem of having the other end of the bar needing a strong mounting several feet away from the front wheels instead of right there.
Some Porsches used torsion bars as did the orig CRX.
I can assure you that torsion-bar equipped Mopar products do indeed, have upper and lower A-arms in the front.
Notice the headliner ribs and most likely hard headliner panels – like the 1959 Ford Skyliner and at least 1957-1959 Chrysler products – in this 1965 Chrysler literature photo. The car shown must be a pre-production or early production. My car and all of those that I have seen do not have the ribs and hard panels. Mine has the standard type of sewn headliner. Also, some of the photos show the wiper blades without the concave slats.
It was my understanding that there were some States that prohibited the clear tail light lenses, and so they were dropped.
I had read that the clear lenses had a high breakage rate even before installation, so the corporation switched to the red lenses.
That’s what I recall reading as well. The defect rate on the clear lenses used on New Yorkers was too high, so they switched to regular red lenses mid-year. Roger628’s description of the defects above sounds plausible.
Pennsylvania was always a spoil-sport state for light laws, AFAIR.
Early Mustang GTs with grill-fog-lamps had to have them disconnected there, as an example. The state also had a big hate on for this, arguably the greatest automotive lighting innovation in American history.
Forgot to attach.
Coming from a long term Mopar family, I do admire this car.
But not enough to pass on an equally nice ’65 Cadillac.
It reminds me of my great- great uncle’s 1966 Newport that my Grandfather used to drive my great-great Aunt around in after my great-great uncle died. My great-great Uncle died in 1968 and the Newport sat in my Aunt Helen’s garage until my Grandfather’s death in 1995. The car was a grayish silver with maroon interior and had 46k miles on it when we sold it in 1995 when my Grandfather died. It was in pretty decent condition for having lived in Connecticut its entire life and when my Grandfather’s house was cleaned out, I found the original window sticker from when it was bought in 1966 from Fitzpatrick’s Chrysler in Ansonia, CT. In addition, the original paperwork was also found, my great-great uncle traded in a 1961 New Yorker or Newport on the Newport. After my grandfather died, the car was trucked to Texas where I currently live and it was sold. It’s basically 20 years to the day that my Grandfather passed away and seeing this post reminds me of great memories of him and that car.
I hate to pound this flat – but…
There are so many little finely designed details included in the design of the 1965 Chrysler that I just have to mention then, in case they are not noticed by all.
This one deals with the similarity of design between the chrome Grill frame corners and the Instrument panel chrome frame insert corners.
Grill
Instrument Panel
I really don’t think the New Yorker 2-door and 4-door hardtops sharing roof stampings was conceived as a cost cutting measure so much as it was to differentiate the top Chrysler 2 door hardtop from those of the Newport, 300, Custom 880, Polara, Monaco, and Fury. Those models all share one of the most attractive hardtop roof designs ever penned. It was a sort of inverted obtuse trapezoid. The fact that the Chrysler 65 full line catalog shows 7 different roofs available indicates that they were willing to have more stampings than less. My Grandfather had a 65 Dodge Polara that was in mint condition until it was T-boned by a careless driver. Despite the lack of shoulder seat belts, my grandparents, aunt, and three cousins walked away from the accident more angry than physically injured. The car was typically just driven on Sundays, but on that one weekday they needed to have a 6 passenger vehicle. Grandpa removed the Fratzog hood ornament and mounted it on a piece of oak along with the two keys as a desk accessory for me. I still have it in my office.
Personally, my favorite Engle car is the 66 Dodge Polara 500. I believe the Dodge dashboard design was more dramatic with the double cowl large gauge pods that was very much like the 1960 Imperial dash. I always thought they should have swapped those dashboards so that the Chrysler’s would have more of a family resemblance to those stylish Imperials. This car is a 66 Polara that, to my eye, was a highly successful refinement of the 65 original.
I’m in the minority but I like the ’68 Chrysler 300 the most from that bodystyle. The hideaway headlights make it look like a ’68 charger for a gentleman.
When you make a statement like it was the last good Chrysler you are bound to get a lot of responses :).
My pick would be a lot newer. I would pick the 2010 300c as the last great one. The last year for the bodystyle that saved Chrysler, or at least made it worth saving. They were my favorite all around cars of that decade.
I’ve always loved these cars and still do. I know I should know this, but was the New Yorker Salon a 1963-only model, or did the Salon trim carry over to these as well?
My sources show that the NY’er Salons were built only in ’63 and ’64. Years ago, a friend had a ’63 and it was POSH!
I had ’63 and ’64 Salons and part of the package on mine were Imperial leather seats and some interior trim as well as every accessory known to Chrysler. Excellent high speed cars.
My choice for peak Chrysler would not be the 1965 New Yorker, but the 1966 model for a couple of reasons: better taillights and the first year for the brand new 440 engine.
One thing that I’ve wondered about the New Yorker is how the Imperial might have affected its sales. While the Imperial was almost always a distant third to Lincoln and Cadillac, it might actually have helped sell the New Yorker since it made the New Yorker seem like a relative bargain.
As evidence, look at how the big Imperial sedan sold poorly in its final year in 1975, but when simply renamed New Yorker Brougham with many of the Imperial’s standard equipment made optional for 1976, sales were markedly improved.
the engine wasn’t really brand new, it was really the same engine w/ a larger bore
Same stroke, different bore; the 413 is 4.1875″ while the 440 is 4.320″.
All parts but the pistons will interchange.
I happen to regard the current Pacifica as a great Chrysler – very different than this car, but does a fantastic job at what it’s designed to do. And looks amazingly good doing it, though again very different than this car. The 65-66 New Yorker though is peak Chrysler big sedan. Excellent driveline, great styling inside and out, and the best quality control Chrysler would have for a long, long time.
I’m curious how these compare to the still-BOF 64-66 Imperial that was sold alongside these, which were 1957-vintage bodies finessed by Engel. For those that have driven both, was there a noticeable difference in ride, handling, or noise/vibration/harshness between the two? I’ve got to imagine the New Yorker and Imperial were cross-shopped.
Even the 1965 Chrysler brochure was lovely, a work of art. The deluxe color prestige brochure was large, and printed on heavy paper:
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/chrysler/65chr2/65chr2.html
Ah, the days when the brochure was full of different ways you could personalize your car with options and 7 different roofline choices – and 589 different paint and interior color combinations!
In my opinion, the interior of the 65 Chrysler is more elegant and luxurious than any new car on the market today. Yeah the sound systems today are better and so are lots of other things but there is an elegance in this car that is just not available today at any price.
Agree. Elegance is a thing of the past when it comes to cars. It is all big, bold, pumped up.
But now we have one complete front end complete with angry-looking lights and grille and then another complete front end with angry or neutral-mood lights and grille stacked on top of the first one. Elegant.
Plus extra slots for fog lights which may or may not have the lights in them, but look like angry eyes anyway. Plus Christmas-light LEDs strung across the lenses of the top or middle or bottom sets of lights. More elegance.
Along with teensy baby windows, upwardly shaped rear quarter windows keeping the style of the Gremlin alive, and endless creases and foldy-shapes attached to a standard blob-shape, and flat-screen TV’s glued on top of the dashboards, and apps -so.many apps- and joysticks to operate all of those apps and similar knobs to shift the transmission…
More elegance shoveled on.
We’ve got a s**tload of elegance nowadays!
I wonder if it had the electro-flourescent display the Imperial initiated in 61 Imperial (I believe.) I’ve only seen one in my life in a Charger. it was ethereal. Beat Lexus to it by decades. Sadly they didn’t continue after the 60s, guess it cost too much…
I wonder if it had the electro-flourescent display like the Imperial initiated in 61 Imperial (I believe.) I’ve only seen one in my life in a Charger. it was ethereal. Beat Lexus to it by decades. Sadly they didn’t continue after the 60s, guess it cost too much…
I still have my white with red interior 1965 New Yorker 4 door hardtop. I think I have now owned it for about 15 yrs. The last time I detailed cleaned it was in 2017, I hate to say – so it is about time that I once again shine it up and take it for a spin. Every time I clean it, I once again realize why I bought it. The styling is simply stunning. If prices were gauged on styling vs muscle engines, the 1965 New Yorker would be worth $100K!
Detailing it in 2017. Not perfect, but not bad for original paint and interior.
I loved the interior door handles, the way they looke and the way your arm and hand rested
look
Does anybody know if there was a vinyl delete option on the C-pillar for these? Because I don’t remember one on My grandfather’s I mentioned above. Being Chrysler-Plymouth dealers in the rust belt, there was a strong aversion to vinyl tops of any kind in my family, having seen too many examples of the underlying rot which inevitably occurred. Maybe a dealer special?
I really loved this car. It was contemporary, solid, and elegant. with one of my favorite all-time wheel covers.
Niedermeyer,
You would be a perfect match for this Newport.
Soon to be back on the road with a fresh original 383.
Though I’m a Ford guy, these are beautiful cars.
Here’s a (presumably) factory promo film of the 1965 Chryslers; I haven’t checked closely, but this might be Lake Shore Road in greater Detroit’s Grosse Point Shores: https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/228300/