(first posted 2/15/2017) The mid-priced car market has often perplexed manufacturers. Should mid-priced cars be cheaper versions of high-end models, costlier versions of low-end models, or should they comprise a separate make altogether? Chrysler’s Newport was a long-running example of the first approach: For nearly two decades it served as the “bargain” Chrysler. This example is from 1967 – one of the Newport’s peak years, both in terms of popularity and style. Though in well-worn original condition, this car appears to be generally intact, and one can imagine it being driven from a new-car lot right to the 1960s-era subdivision where it was photographed on the eve of its 50th birthday.
For many years, Chrysler Corporation’s DeSoto brand filled the middle of the company’s model range. However, DeSoto sales plunged in the late 1950s. A 1958 recession drove buyers to cheaper cars, and DeSoto – struggling with a somewhat weak personality and lack of distinction – never recovered. Sales plunged by 78% over three years, and DeSoto was axed in late 1960. Not willing to quit the medium-price market, Chrysler Corporation instead tried a different tack for 1961 – the Chrysler Newport.
The Newport filled the void left by DeSoto, and its market position as a bargain Chrysler was quite intentional. At the time of the DeSoto/Newport shuffle, Chrysler-Imperial General Manager Clare Briggs said “The public wants economy, but it also wants big car comfort.” With Newport, he was able to deliver a car with both attributes to Chrysler’s customers.
Briggs called the Newport “a tempting alternative to buyers exploring the upper strata of the low price field.” Essentially a lower-priced version of the Chrysler Windsor, the 1961 Newport offered full-size comfort and the prestige of a Chrysler nameplate, all for about the same price as a 1960 DeSoto. It was a winning combination – Newport sales singlehandedly rescued what would otherwise have been a dismal year for the Chrysler brand.
If Chrysler managers worried about a cheaper car tarnishing the upmarket Chrysler name, they kept quiet about it. Numbers talked, and Newport’s sales figures justified its existence. From a short-term perspective, Newport provided immediate sales and kept customers out of rival Oldsmobile, Buick and Mercury showrooms. Longer-term, it was hoped that today’s Newport buyers would return to buy tomorrow’s higher-end New Yorkers or 300s.
In its first year, Newport achieved 57,000 sales – more than the entire DeSoto range achieved in any year since 1957. Newports accounted for about 60% of total Chrysler brand sales that year. The next three years saw similar success for the new entry-level Chrysler, averaging over 80,000 units per year and two-thirds of Chrysler sales.
For 1965, the Newport and other Chryslers were redesigned by Elwood Engel onto what became known as the C-body. Featuring a 2-inch longer wheelbase, C-body design exemplified the 1960s clean, crisp and decluttered ideal. The highly stylized chrome-and-gingerbread look of the 1950s was out, and the lower, longer, sleeker look took full root.
On the road, these cars featured very respectable performance for the era – handling was crisp thanks to the torsion bar front suspension, and for 1965 Newports gained Chrysler’s 383-cid engine. Even with the performance and styling improvements, base prices increased only 2%. That was a recipe for success: Sales of the ’65 models increased by nearly 50%.
Even with the redesign, Newport’s marking strategy stayed consistent. Ads and brochures emphasized value. The overarching theme was that for only a few dollars more than an ordinary car, buyers could have an honest-to-goodness full-size Chrysler – just like a New Yorker, only more attainable. This strategy’s success depended on the ongoing cachet of the Chrysler nameplate, and there was good reason to bank on such cachet: A fully-loaded New Yorker listed for nearly twice the price of a stripped-down Newport. But ironically, as the decade moved along, it was the Newport itself that came to define Chrysler.
source: Standard Catalog of Chrysler, 1914-2000
In our featured year of 1967, Newports accounted for an all-time high of 72% of Chrysler brand sales. For the Newport’s first 9 years, it accounted for 2 out of every 3 Chryslers built, and was by far the best selling model group in the Chrysler lineup.
So the Newport was a downscale version of the upscale Chrysler. With 1967 came a twist: A better-equipped Newport variant called the Newport Custom. Yes, an upscale model of the downscale version of the upscale Chrysler. Confused? Buyers weren’t. Chrysler sold 50,000 Customs in 1967 – one-third of all Newport sales.
Our featured car is just such a car. Newport Customs were distinguished on the outside by additional trim, representing a slight reversion to extra brightwork that was noticeably absent in the original 1965 design. This included chrome lower body moldings and chrome horizontal deck lid trim (with integrated vinyl handles) – neither of which was available on standard Newports.
Other differences between standard Newports and Customs were found inside. Upgraded upholstery and better cushioned seats made the Custom an inviting place in which to spend time. Newport’s dashboard was new for 1967, ditching the previous space-age theme for a long, wide setup and bar-style speedometer that stylistically matched the long and wide exterior.
The controls were likewise characteristic of the times: Chromed push buttons and toggle switches abounded on this dashboard, while the AM radio was controlled by four thumb wheels. Our featured car contains the optional “3-in-1” front seat – a 50/50 split bench with two folding armrests.
This view shows one of the 3-in-1 seat’s oddities: Only the passenger side received a headrest. The headrest could be adjusted to one of four positions, and the passenger seatback could recline to a 45° angle.
As one would expect from a car with a 124” wheelbase, rear seat room was generous, and combined with the relatively high level of appointments, the rear of a Newport was a pleasant place to be.
By 1967, “longer, lower, wider” had been a trend for quite some time, and there’s a good argument to be made that the Engel-designed 1965-68 Chryslers epitomized this movement, if not in absolute dimensions then possibly in essence. The car was certainly long (all 18’ of it) and low (5” lower than Chryslers from 12 years earlier), but its styling effects accentuate these attributes.
Horizontal lines formed by the sharp beltline crease and the stretched hood and trunk lids make a long car appear longer, as does the Custom-specific lower body molding.
The proportions seem exaggerated today, largely because the shape is atypical when compared to modern cars. Our featured Newport is 21” longer and 3” lower than the 2016 300C shown above, but pure dimensions tell only part of the story. The length difference comes mostly from overhangs (the Newport’s rear overhang is twice as long), and the height difference is emphasized by not just a lower roof, but also by a lower hood and trunk, and a vastly airier greenhouse. Horizontal lines on the Newport contrast mightily with rotund forms on the 2016 Chrysler.
Speaking of shapes, a unique styling touch supplemented Newport’s design: Concave-shaped side body panels. Running nearly the car’s full length, the scooped-out appearance made by this concave form fashioned a subtle, but effective supplement to the car’s sharp-edged styling details.
Concavities didn’t stop with the side panels. Some sort of concave shape can be seen from just about every angle. These complex shapes may not be apparent at first glance, but collectively they augment the car’s already captivating countenance.
1967 4-door Newports were offered in the sedan body style such as this example, and a pillarless hardtop. Coming with a price premium, the hardtops were rarer than the sedans, though the extent to which this was true differed for the base and Custom models. Just 23% of base Newport 4-door buyers sprang for the hardtop in 1967, compared with 38% of Newport Custom buyers. Still, our featured car was not one of those, instead presenting the standard, but still elegant, sedan package.
Elegance in our featured car still shows through the accumulated tarnish of five decades on the road. The original turquoise paint is dulled, but a lack of serious visible rust or major body damage point to a car that may still have its best years ahead of it.
Perceptive readers may notice the Florida license plate contrasting with a decidedly un-tropical environment. Indeed, the car was photographed 700 miles from the Sunshine State. That distance, plus cans of starting fluid on the seat, suggest an ambitious road trip. Wherever the final destination, let’s hope this Newport continues to carry its driver and passengers in style.
The 1965 C-body redesign lasted until 1968, with annual trim and equipment revisions that made each year’s models distinguishable from each other. For 1967, Newport gained a revised grille and rear deck treatment. The grille, V-shaped, with a chrome bar in the middle containing three “gold crown medallions,” was only used for that year. 1968 Newports received another then-customary annual grille and rear deck freshening, but that would be the final year for the vintage-1965 C-body cars.
The Newport name carried on, first as the fuselage-body 1969 model, and right on through to the 1981 R-bodies. Through all that time, Newport stayed true to its mission crafted in 1961 – offering full-size Chrysler comfort in an “easy-to-own” package.
Newport represented a quiet revolution for Chrysler. For 14 straight years – from its 1961 introduction until 1974 – it was the Chrysler brand’s top-selling model, until that honor was assumed by the Cordoba. During that time, the Newport presided over a vast increase in the brand’s sales figures. Our featured car hails from what could arguably be called the Newport’s peak period – the model’s top three sales years were 1966, ’67 and ’68.
While the downscale model of Chrysler Corporation’s upscale brand may have diluted a bit of the brand’s prestige, it more than pulled its weight in terms of sales. This was perhaps the quintessential upper middle class sedan of the late 1960s… a good value, contemporary design, reputable drive train, and the impression of social respectability. Given those qualities, it is little wonder that the Newport dominated Chrysler’s sales charts. Maybe the mid-priced car market isn’t quite so perplexing after all.
Photographed in Fairfax, Virginia in December 2016.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1968 Chrysler Newport – Da Garage Is In Debasement Jason Shafer
Curbside Classic: 1966 Chrysler Newport – Camelot Comes To Highland Park Perry Shoar
Curbside Classic: 1965 Chrysler Newport – Two Old Grizzled Toughs Paul Niedermeyer
Great find and enjoyable read.
A fine salute to a truly terrific car.
There is simply so much eye-candy on these; the real story is that much of this eye-candy isn’t overly conspicuous, so the styling contains a lot of easter eggs for the visually hungry. For too long I simply overlooked the allures of the Newport (especially this generation), flippantly thinking of them as those old square Chryslers.
I must say you got some good options to see on this example, particularly the 3-in-1 seat. Part of me was hoping to see a three-on-the-tree just for the added panache it would bring. Either way, you got a good one. If they need somebody to run it back to Florida I would be happy to help.
Great post and very nice car.
I remember seeing one of these (a station wagon) in the flesh last time I was in the US over a decade ago, in about the same condition, too. I was spellbound. The shapes are so intricate, yet the car so massive — and somehow, it works beautifully.
The comparo with the 2016 Chrysler is also quite jaw-dropping. It looks like a clown car next to that low, long square ’67. What a difference 50 years make..
I think my uncle had a wagon model from this period. He was definitely in the target demographic. I don’t remember the details well except for two A/C units, helpful in Phoenix. His next car was a Marquis sedan.
The passenger side only headrest seems to be a reversal of Chrysler’s early 60’s design where the driver’s seat had a higher back.
Interesting point. Chrysler’s seating efforts from the late ’50 into the later ’60s could sometimes seem just plain weird. By the later ’60s, Chrysler was offering some standard and optional seats that really were superior to the rather basic stuff GM and Ford was typically offering, and this Newport Custom looks quite comfortable for a mid-price car. But, that single headrest is a very odd duck considering that dual headrests would soon be the law by 1969, and the manufacturers were gearing up for that with various headrest options in ’67 and ’68.
So in addition to the headrest, is the seatback also taller on the passenger side? It certainly looks so. Or am I seeing things?
I can’t quite figure that out either. Other pictures I’ve found of the 3-in-1 seat don’t seem to show a height difference, though it’s tough to find close-up pictures of the seat itself that would answer that question definitively.
I have a feeling the height difference may be perspective, and the reclined driver’s seat, playing tricks with us. The interior shot of the front seat taken from the passenger side shows the armrests at seemingly different heights (or lengths) as well, which I find hard to believe would actually be the case. But to me, the visible height difference in the seat sure seems more than just a case of the driver’s seat being reclined a bit. It’s a mystery to me – could go either way.
I think that the driver’s seat probably has 6 way power, and perhaps the passenger seat too, so they may be at different levels.
The 1967 full line brochure doesn’t claim 6-way manual adjustment as a standard feature, but the 1966 brochure does. Because there’s only one forward-aft lever on non-power seats for these, perhaps seating height and backrest angle could be manually adjusted with a tool kit? By your certified Chrysler-Plymouth dealer, of course ?
And of course, the 3-in-1 seat shown here may have 6-way power adjustment, who knows.
I’m pretty sure they’re the same height – every one of these I’ve ever seen is. Weird they didn’t put a headrest on the driver’s side, especially since Chrysler had a higher bench seat back for the driver in the early 60s!
Always preferred this approach to a split front bench over the driver + middle seat/full armrest approach others used.
Has there ever been a larger swing in style from the concave, square-bodied Mopars to the fuselage style cars? The minor updates to the 68s really don’t show any progression toward the fuselage cars of 69. Though the more modern grille work of the 68 cars doesn’t fit well with the earlier style of the sheet metal.
Either way, I’d be happy with either style though I lean more towards the 65-68 Engel designed cars.
Well done, Eric!
I always liked Engel designed cars. This article was just what I needed to understand the role of the Newport. That’s kind of important because I have seen them occasionally but I had no clue how important they were back then for Chrysler and Chrysler’s customers. I think I would squarely fit the target group, just 50 years too late.
The concave flanks were also a feature of the NSU/VW K 70. Gee, I wonder where that idea came from.
I would say the big difference is that on the Chrysler there is, unusually, a sharp razor crease line at the top AND bottom of the side.
“Gee, I wonder where that idea came from?”
NSU first copied the Corvair faithfully for the Prinz/1000. Then they took it to the next level with the Ro80.
Back when a Mopar was a viable (and often superior) alternative to a GM or FoMoCo model.
A well written, informative & enjoyable article, chock full of technical data, thoughtful comparisons & observations and pleasing pictures.
Rather reminiscent of Paul’s work here.
Please post more often, Eric!
This car cries out for a new paint job, some Chrysler road wheels and a set of whitewall tires! To me, these big luxury cars just don’t look right w/o the whitewalls, as compared to the 300, which would (possibly?) look silly w/ them. Different design parameters for the times! 🙂
Agree about the whitewalls… the problem is they aren’t really available any more in the right size and weight rating for these cars. (Ask me how I know.)
Re: whitewalls – there was an early 60s Cadillac sedan in a neighborhood I was living in back in 2005. It was in “driver” condition and one day I noticed it had truck tires on it. The only tires the owner could afford that could handle the weight.
At one point I was running “sport light truck” tires on the rear of my Marauder because I couldn’t find anything else in 255/50R18. (and that wasn’t even the factory size, but 245/55R18 were unobtainium.) So it may not have been all he could afford, but instead all he could find.
True, but only in 14″. Upgrade to a 15″ rim and you can get WSW tires in the appropriate size. A 15″ rim would suit the car better anyway.
Buy white letter tires, and have them “shaved”. I have done it.
It seems the paint on the deck lid and driver side rear quarter got messed up at some point and was subject to a re-spray that didn’t hold up as well as the rest of the car. The passenger side looks like it would still shine up with some TLC.
Wow this was considered down sized…lol. It still looks like a whale..
Downsized?!? What are you referring to? What did you have for breakfast? 🙂
Perhaps Mr. Hartfield has confused “down market” with “downsized.”
Dave Skinner
Thanks for catching this, I did make this confusion of down market with down sizing,
Chrysler’s ads for the Newport, which appeared just after the first compacts, took pains to make sure buyers didn’t make the same mistake (“Newport is a full-size Chrysler, nobody’s ‘kid brother’, no jr. editions”).
1967 may be Peak Newport for me. The ’68 models featured a rather ugly safety steering wheel and incorporated a grill design meant to predict the ’69 front end to an extent. A good succession plan, but the ’67 front simply works better on the car.
It is frequently pointed out that the Newport took the stage just as the DeSoto exited the Mopar family, but I do believe that Chrysler was taking a stronger look at what GM was doing with Buick and Oldsmobile’s full-size lines as much as anything.
The ’61 Newport started at $2,964, not so coincidently right between the Buick LeSabre at $3,107 and the Olds Dynamic 88 at $2,835. Due to this, I tend to give Chrysler a break on the name debasement issue and credit for straightening out the mess that was Mopar in 1960.
Chrysler’s line worked hard to follow the big Buick – Olds model during the ’60s, but was hamstrung by GM’s ability to provide their big cars two unique body shells from the B pillar back on two different wheelbases. Chrysler may have tried its hardest in 1967 to emulate the stretched GM C bodies with its New Yorker that year. A rather clever squaring of the rear quarters with different extensions gave the senior Chrysler a look that aped the GM C bodies rather well.
The Newport Custom was also another logical step in following the GM model. The Olds 88 was typically available in two or more trims, and Buick’s LeSabre began to go this route as well with the 400 and later Custom and Limited trims.
The manufacturer’s suggested retail price of the Newport was a big feature of its advertising. “Twenty-nine Sixty-four” became Newport’s ad slogan for years. It rang out over the airwaves on AM radio, as Chrysler took key ad spots on national broadcasts such as CBS’s 700am news. I think that price held until at least 1964: “Just Twenty-nine, Sixty-four parks a crisp new Chrysler Newport at your door!”
Sing along if you want!
The 68 steering wheel wasn’t horrible, you still got a metal half horn ring (though with an argent finish instead of chrome.) Not as bad as the one that came on Fords that year. But I agree that it wasn’t as good as the beautiful 1967 version.
Ugly may have been too strong a word for the ’68 steering wheel, but it is a bit disappointing when paired with one of the coolest dashboards of the ‘60s.
I agree with Jason Schafer that these cars are a candy-store of details. If I could play in the ’67-’68 Chrysler parts bin, I’d build a ’67 Three-Hundred with the ’68 front end and the cool one year only ’68 side-marker lights. The ’67 Three-Hundred rear detailing is exceptionally nice.
J P Cav
Re: The 1968 steering wheel.
I owned a 68 Chry 300 with a 440 eng years ago and my brother owned a 68 Newport 383 eng…the problem we both had was the steering wheels always had a oily feel especially in hot weather. We both ended up putting laced leather wraps on to solve the annoying oily film.
I heard later it was a common problem with the plastic that was used by
Cry. Corp..
I suspect that all of those creases, and concave areas help provide stiffness for those enormous pieces of sheet metal.
Although ’67 is my least favorite of those 4 years, it is still a solid design, and hopefully this one will get the TLC it deserves.
’67 was a great year for full-size Mopars. I used to have a ’67 Monaco, and I now pilot a ’67 Imperial. I think the New Yorker had the best style, though. The Monaco was “half concave.” The Imperial is very elegant in its own right, but it’s a little puffy. The Chryslers’ concave sides are perfect.
Imperial:
You, sir, have excellent taste in old Mopars!
Beautiful. And just as much unique sheet metal as a Cadillac Sedan DeVille or a Lincoln Continental, with a not-quite-a-Sixty Special-but-almost-there roof treatment for the LeBaron. Last year for real wood on the interior, too.
Always was fascinated those Dodge tail lights. Never saw many around San Diego though. Yes, 1967 was a very good year style wise for the C body. Love both cars.
Chrysler had lots of great taillight designs, and those on the Polara/Monaco I remember well, and love! Those on the feature car are nice too, very sleek with the chrome lines across them.
Now I know where the ’69 Belvedere/Satellite taillight design came from. And the radio controls.
Mopars from this period were decent.
We had a 67 Polara 2-door. Jacked up stance (in the 60’s sense) because there were Sears load-leveler shocks on the back. We were gathering bricks from a distillery being torn down, the shocks made it a great brick hauler with that enormous trunk. Those old square-cross-section bricks made a nice sandbox apron, patio, and walkways after a lot of work.
Smoooth driving car. Competent feeling. Fingertip steering but positive handling. I can practically feel what the featured Newport felt like, had a 73 Newp later on. Mopar’s from this era were special the way they drove. After passing my driving test –on an ice-covered trooper parking lot– we went to a school parking lot and practiced doughnuts and corrections in the snow until dad was satisfied. That afternoon has served me well many times.
Ours had a Mean Mary Jean’s Machine bumper sticker on the rear which mom did not appreciate the humor of while dad could not stop smiling when he looked at it. No nuclear weapons were fired during that cold war, but only because they were not readily available. :^) Detente arrived with the next car, the sticker stuck.
Spent my formative years in a ’65 Newport Town & Country 9-passenger wagon. Miss that car!
That is a beautiful car. Even in it’s current state. From the days when how many cigarette lighters were more important than cupholders. And ashtrays too. In my family, they were usually filled with gum wrappers. And the greenhouse was still tall enough for a man to wear his hat. I love it! Keep em coming.
Tall enough for a man to wear his hat, and in a car that low. With plenty of stretch-out room. Luxury!
I do just absolutely love the details of this 65-68 generation of Chryslers.
I’d have a hard time viewing the downmarket Newport as a bad decision, based solely on my own family’s history. A ’69 Newport Custom was the first Chrysler branded Mopar my grandfather purchased after several Dodges and Plymouths, and was the first in a long line of Chryslers that he bought right up until he ordered the ’99 300M I’m driving today. Chrysler was an aspirational brand back then, and when the Newport brought the price of entry within reach it kicked off a long term habit of continuing on in that tradition. After all, nobody wants to make a retrograde purchase by going back to a Dodge after finally breaking through the Mopar glass ceiling. Ultimately he’d end up always having a larger, higher-spec Chrysler on one side of the garage and a lower-end Plymouth on the other side for around town errands.
My 68 Chrysler was a Newport Custom sedan, and I came to find out just how nice a Custom was compared to a regular Newport. The easiest “tell” on the sedans is the bright trim around the upper door window frames. Also, the seats were substantially nicer with a center armrest.
That dashboard is not as flashy as the 65-66, but must have cost a fortune to make, as it is just loaded with chrome plated diecastings.
These were really, really nice driving big cars. The base 2 bbl 383 and Torqueflite was a fine pairing and was good for most driving. And these things were really tight cars in a structural sense with no twist or shake in the unibody. I fell in love with mine all over again every time I got in it.
This is the exact interior that was in my car. It was a little odd looking when paired to a car with beige paint.
That interior brings back memories of a older lady I did lawn work for as a teenager. Gretchen Jones was the only daughter of rather well-off parents. She lived alone in one of the larger houses in town, widowed after a short-term marriage to a much older gentlemen. Initially, she had driven a all-white ’60 Desoto two door hardtop, replaced by a ’64 Dodge Polara four door hardtop in light turquoise.
Next came a ’68 Chrysler Newport Custom two door hardtop coupe in medium-dark ivy green with a painted off-white-tan top and the dark green vinyl and light gold-green nylon cloth inserts in the style of your car. Even for a next-to-the-lowest Chrysler, it seemed quite luxurious.
I wonder how many buyers looked at that interior and questioned the wisdom of going further up the model range?
It certainly killed Plymouth’s attempts to compete with the Ford LTD and Chevy Caprice.
Beautiful, original example. The 1965-1968 C-bodies are some of my favorite classics of all time.
Lovely story, thank you. I appreciate articles at CC that are informative and positive, like this one.
The marketing assessment jives with my own experiences. As a kid I knew a couple of Newport owners who loved their cars, and considered them to be excellent value. The full size and mid-level interiors made them seem more expensive than they actually were. Frankly I don’t think the Newport eroded Chrysler’s image much, but it probably stole some Dodge sales.
Lovely car, too. The styling and details are well done. Some of the details, like the chrome trim, inside and out, armrests, crank-out vent panes etc are quite upscale for the time.
Fantastic write-up! I learned some new details on these cars, like the little scooped handles in the deck lid trim and the cigarette lighters embedded in the seat backs (wonderful 1960s flourish–who cares about a fire hazard, and perfect for all those back seat smokers!). The 3-in-1 seat with dual fold-down armrests is also a neat touch–too bad Chrysler didn’t market the feature as aggressively as FoMoCo with the “Twin Comfort Lounge Seats.”
I also love seeing this survivor. Your photography captured a lot of nice subtle detailing I had never noticed before, like the stampings on the hood and the “ridges” in the body side molding. I personally like the “concave” sides, and you do have to admire Elwood Engel’s mastery of little details. To me, Engel is the polar opposite of Virgil Exner, who mastered overall form but increasingly botched the details with strange, overwrought flourishes. In contrast, Engel flubbed the shapes (he missed long hood/short deck when that took off) and the Fuselages were oddly proportioned as well–as another commenter noted, I cannot think of a bigger change from year-to-year when Chrysler went from crisp/chiseled in ’68 to bloated/rounded in ’69.
I’ve always liked the name “Newport”. It evokes sunshine, optimism, class, youth AND maturity, yachting, resorts–whatever positive images you project onto it. I’ve always been fascinated by how many car names refer to geographic places: California beach communities (Malibu, Laguna, Monterrey); swank neighborhoods (Bel-Air); cities and streets (New Yorker, Fifth Avenue, Park Avenue); and coastal yachting locales [Biscayne; Newport (evoking Newport Beach, CA and Newport RI)] . Today’s cars refer to a plethora of mountain ranges, and Western imagery. That being said, Newport is one of the best car names ever, for my money. And I’d put my money down for a Chrysler Newport, if I had been 30 years old, rather than 10, in 1967
A perfect CC; both the car and the write-up!
I really appreciate the extra time and research you put into your articles; it pays off in a really excellent read.
I’ve always loved these C Bodies. My father’s cousin, who also emigrated from Austria, was a traveling salesman of Austrian optics. He replaced his ’62 Cadillac with a ’65 Newport, and it was a fine machine. I loved riding in it.
I do prefer the cleaner look of the ’65-’66s over the fussier ’67s and ’68s, but still very much appreciate them. But they really were increasingly anachronistic. The new clean and flowing ’65 GM design language must have been a bit of a shocker for Engel, as it went a totally different direction. And by ’67-’68, these were looking decidedly old-school. Yet in a good way.
They appealed to buyers who appreciated its mechanical/engineering aspects over the
latest design fads, like my dad’s cousin. His next car was a Mercedes 280SE.
Thanks Paul, and others, for the positive feedback. This was an enormously gratifying article to write, particularly since I’ve long admired the C-bodies, but also because the car has such an interesting story to tell.
On the sales of the Newport, I was interested to see how large a share of Chrysler’s total volume came from that series. However, I imagine these “lower price” percentages were similar to Buick and Olds, for example. The bulk of full-sized sales at those divisions would have come from the LeSabre and 88 lines, and combined with sales of Special/Skylark and F-85/Cutlass, the majority of volume would have been “less expensive” models with a “premium” brand name, no different than Chrysler. The biggest issue for Chrysler was arguably that the brand was so fixated on “big” cars at the time that they missed the volume in upscale intermediates, not remedied until the Cordoba, when it was almost too late.
I was curious to see if my hunch was right about how the “low price” sales percentages compared between Chrysler, Buick and Olds–and Mercury for good measure. A quick check of the sales percentages by lines for 1967 breaks out as follows:
Buick: 545,269 total sales, 61% from “lower price” lines
Special/Skylark/Sport Wagon: 35%
LeSabre: 26%
Wildcat: 13%
Electra: 18%
Riviera: 8%
Mercury: 370,149 total sales, 88% from “lower price” lines
Cougar: 41%
Comet: 22%
Monterey: 20%
Montclair: 5%
Park Lane/Marquis/Brougham: 12%
Oldsmobile: 516,672 total sales, 80% from “lower price” lines
F-85/Cutlass/Vista Cruiser: 44%
Delmont 88: 19%
Delta 88: 17%
Ninety-Eight: 15%
Toronado: 4%
Just looking at “lower priced” Medium Standard full-sized models, Chrysler’s Product Planning was actually spot on, with the Newport basically matching the LeSabre in sales while trailing the Olds 88 by 46,483 units, but beating Mercury Monterey/Montclair by 50,231 units.
That’s very interesting — even with the knowledge that the brands and their models aren’t all directly comparable, there’s definitely a pattern there, and it seems that this approach was the key to success in the 1960s.
When I started writing this article, I briefly thought about comparing the Newport to other makes… and I had intended to use some brochure excerpts from Buick & Mercury, since there was very similar language used in describing the virtues of those cars. However, that wound up being just too much material. Maybe I’ll save that for the next Newport I see parked by the road…
The problem with the Chrysler brand offering an upscale intermediate in the 1960s was that it would have most likely stolen sales from the Plymouth Belvedere/Satellite and perhaps even the Plymouth Fury. That was one disadvantage to having Plymouth and Chrysler paired at the dealer level.
Note that when the Cordoba did appear, there was no direct Plymouth counterpart (and the Cordoba was originally planned as the Plymouth Premiere).
I never considered the Newport downscale, as it was very competitive with Olds 88 and Buick Le Sabre. All big cars with big V8’s, but modestly trimmed. Newport Custom was a natural (and quite nice) upgrade to compete with Delta Custom and Le Sabre Custom. New Yorker at the top was also a good competitor with Olds 98 and Buick Electra. For this stretch at least Chrysler matched up very nicely with the completion, something that fell apart later on in the ’70’s. Dodge also did pretty well during this period, matching up with Pontiac quite nicely, especially with Charger starting in 1968.
I never warmed to these cars. The concave side styling just never appealed to me, though I do like the upright lines and airy greenhouse.
Interesting comparison with the modern 300. The 300 is too stubby looking, with a tail end that’s just too short and a beltline that’s just too high. Never really warmed to that design, either.
Guess I’m hard to please!
I miss cars like the Newport. Big, comfortable, powerful and stylish, without being over the top fancy. I would dare to describe them as Manly, which I wouldn’t say about most modern cars. They were just right in so many ways.
I just may have seen the rarest of all Newports at a local dealer back in the early ’60s. Don’t remember for certain which year it was, but I’m thinking it was a ’63 or 64. Sitting on the showroom floor was a Newport with a manual transmission, and get this– it was a floor shift 3 speed. Anyone else ever see one or know how many were produced?
For a time in the early 60s, Chrysler’s steering column and/or dash did not accommodate a shift lever. The automatics were pushbutton controlled, so it probably made little sense to engineer a lever given the miniscule sales expected.
I want to say that it was the 1960-64 models that were affected, though I am not sure I have ever seen a 57-59 Chrysler with a column shifter either. Anyhow, the rarity is not a Chrysler with a floor shifter so much as a Chrysler with a manual transmission. Get one and you got the other.
I have no idea how many cars were equipped that way, but I had a 1962 Newport 2-door hardtop with the floor-shift 3-speed transmission. I dreamed of swapping a 4-speed gearbox into it but it got sold before that happened.
I also owned a 3-speed 1957 Plymouth Fury which had originally been equipped with a column shifter but had been converted to floor shift. I saw several 1957 and 1958 Dodges and DeSotos back in the day that had column-shifted 3-speeds, so I believe that Chryslers would have been equipped that way. I believe that the changeover to floor shift would have been in 1962 but can’t say for sure.
Probably right–the one I saw likely was a ’62. I hung around MoPar dealerships a lot in those days, just so I could drool.
So you had a Fury with the 290 horsepower dual four barrel? Ever try it out against a 57 Chevy fuelie? I’ve often wondered how that matcup would turn out.
Years ago I saw a ’64 Newport in Charleston, South Carolina, that had a floor-shift.
A while back on craigslist or some related website I found a ’63 or ’64 Newport with a three-speed. They exist, but are quite rare.
I did not realize the three speed was a floor shift but I took a look at the 1966 Chrysler brochure and learned that the base Newport was really base, standard equipment was similar to Ford and Chevy. Automatic, air, PS, PB, radio, WW tires, nice hubcaps, etc. were all optional. I wonder how many left the factory with zero options. The number must have miniscule.
What a beautiful car. Whether in vehicles, architecture, or furniture, mid-century design will always look fresh and elegant in its simplicity. Next to this Newport, that 300C looks like a New Beetle.
I have a hard time figuring out if the Newport was good or bad. I guess it depends on where the sales came from. If they were cannibalized from other Chrysler products, then not so great. But even then, if there was better profit from the Newport, it still would have been all good for Chrysler, right?
I never paid attention to the Chrysler (Corporation) cars back then, so there was oodles here for me to learn today—nicely written up and illustrated, too.
A couple questions for the Collective Wisdom:
*Concave Sides: When the 1996 Taurus redesign went to those, it felt like something I hadn’t seen/noticed in a while. Can anyone suggest cars between ’66 and ’96 that had them?
*Front seats: I see today’s car has those assist/blanket straps on the back (whatever they’re called—please correct me); I didn’t realize that got carried into the 1960s. How recently were they seen on a production car?
*Torsion bar suspension: I never really drove a car with these, so have no reference. If I had a brand new mid-60s Ford/GM “big car,” and then drove it in a comparo with a same-year Chrysler/torsion car, how would the steering/ride feel differently—can anyone put it into words?
Regarding the grab handles: My 1991 Cadillac Brougham has them.
Torsion bars: I have experience with three C-bodies (’67 Monaco, ’67 Imperial, and ’78 New Yorker), but none with the GM or Ford equivalents. But I’ll throw in my two cents anyway! I think it’s more a question of suspension tuning than the inherent characteristics of torsion bars. You could certainly make a traditional suspension more or less sharp than a torsion bar system. Even among my three torsion-bar cars, there’s a huge difference in how they handle… the New Yorker is almost a modern car in its precision and control-ability, while the two older cars are much more floaty and wiggly.
It’s also worth noting that Chrysler was notorious for dead-feel steering. This is absolutely true of my two ’67 cars. But the New Yorker is actually pretty decent. It has a big effect on whether the car inspires confidence in the curves. Even if I theoretically know what the Imperial’s tires are doing, I would be willing to drive faster if I could actually feel it. The New Yorker, by contrast, is almost fun on twisty roads.
Allpar has a nice article on torsion bars.
http://www.allpar.com/cars/suspensions.html
You can probably tell that I’m really impressed by the handling of the New Yorker. It looks just as boat-y as any Detroit yacht, but it’s a totally different beast underneath.
I have driven all 3 from the 60s, and here are my impressions. The Chryslers tended to be a little more firm. The Fords were the softest riding cars, and GM in the middle. GM was starting to make improvements to their suspension designs in the mid-late 60s and were better than older ones, but the Chryslers tended to be the handlers among the big ones, at least through the 60s..
The torsion bars tended to give less brake dive as I recall. The Mopars were not as isolated from the road as the others, with more road noise and feel transmitted into the car. Ford provided the most isolation, at least the 1965+ cars.
Steering feel was really minimal. GM’s system put the most road feel into your fingers as their power steering system did not provide boost until you gave it some steering input. Chrysler’s system was “full time” power steering and that pump was providing full boost at dead straight ahead. You drove those Mopars with a finger or two, or maybe the heel of your hand on the bottom of the wheel rim. Parking was feather-light and spinning that wheel was a breeze with just an index finger. As for road feel, the Ford power steering system wasn’t much better than Chrysler’s.
I do agree with all of JPC’s observations and driving impressions expressed above.
*Concave Sides:
While wholesale use of concave sides tends to be uncommon, any number of cars in the ’60s had concave details – think side faux air vents on the side of a 1969 Mercury Marauder, or the rear bumper on the 1968 Buick Skylark for example. I’m not quite sure if the sides of the original Mustang count, the center of the side center vent character lines seem either flat or possibly ever so slightly convex.
Before I read the restriction on model years, the first vehicle that jumped to mind with major concave metal was the original NA market Hyundai Santa Fe. It was the vehicle that put Hyundai on the map as much as any, and was fairy popular. I do understand that some find it controversial, but it sold well, and I think all the subsequent versions have been utterly bland.
My only favorite Hyundai…………
Lincoln Mark VIII had them as well, in 1993. A lot of that design made it’s way into the 96 Taurus and especially Sable
Was going to note that myself. It’s subtle, but definitely there if you’re looking for it. More noticeable in the lighter colors.
My first-ever fender-bender was in a 1967 Chrysler. I was borrowing my buddy’s ’67 New Yorker when I sideswiped a Volkswagen squareback, doing about $250.00 worth of damage in 1978 money. No damage to the behemoth at all. This is actually a happy memory, since all of the adults involved were impressed that I didn’t try to do a hit-and-run, and I went out of my way to track down the owner of the VW. Such a good kid! My friend’s car was a bronze 4-door hardtop with vinyl on the c-pillars. It rattled pretty bad, and had lived a hard life. Given the choice, I would take a Newport like the featured car over a New Yorker. One of those instances where the lower trim level just looks better. Great write-up!
Great feature on the Chrysler success story of the 1960’s! This Newport/Newport Custom approach had an antecedent in the Royal/Windsor model program begun in 1939. In the old Chrysler six cylinder series days, the Royal was the Newport of the times, the Windsor equivalent of the Newport Custom.
Desoto was almost superfluous from the day it was born with the purchase of Dodge concurrent to the Desoto introduction. Byron Foy, Walter P. Chrysler’s son-in-law was General Manager……gave the boy something to do, though not too important a job.
For 1961, the $2,964 Newport paired with the $2,966 Dodge Polara finally rectified the Desoto problem, replacing it with an upmarket Dodge for those loyalist, and an easy step for those who perceived Chrysler as a more prestigious brand. Poor Desoto never had a chance!
I recall reading that at first, Dodge was slotted above DeSoto. But then around 1930-31 Dodge and DeSoto swapped places. I understand that the evidence is very mixed on whether DeSoto was planned because it looked like the Dodge deal was not going to go through or as a bargaining chip to push the price down on Dodge by making it look like Chrysler didn’t need the company. In either case, it never really flourished, did it.
The position swap started when Dodge dropped their eight cylinder line after 1933 and Desoto became exclusively Airflow for 1934. When that turned out to a bad idea, along came the ’35 Airstream which again put Dodge and Desoto largely in the same price spread. It took generally until the end of the decade for the position swap to complete, to pinch Desoto between Dodge and Chrysler sixes. By then, Desoto round out the franchise for many Plymouth dealers, if the territory warranted.
My understanding was that Chrysler was planning to introduce both Plymouth and DeSoto because he knew the value of the Sloanian Ladder from his GM experience, and well after the wheels were in motion, the Dodge opportunity intervened.
That seems like the most logical explanation. In those days deals closed pretty quickly, so it’s hard to think of them getting a car fully engineered and ready for production as a ploy or a bargaining chip .
You are right on about the initial positioning, driven by the fact that Dodge had an 8 in development, IIRC. DeSoto never really had a chance, especially after the the Airflow fiasco. And despite a couple of postwar peaks, it was constantly pressured, mainly from above.
“If you can afford a Ford you can afford a Chrysler.” -late 60s national radio spot.
#thingsIrememberfromchildhood
“The mid-priced car market has often perplexed manufacturers”
Nowadays there are really no ‘mid priced’ brands. The type of buyer that would have bought Buick/Olds/Mercury big cars in past new will get either ‘entry’ Lux or high end main brands.
And more likely SUV’s. Either a Lexus RX or Chevy Tahoe LTZ. Or Explorer Titanium or BMW X3.
“Hop in my Chrysler; it’s as big as a whale, and it’s about to set sail! I got me a Chrysler, it seats about twenty, so hurry up, and bring your jukebox money!”
Grand car, great writeup. Shame they don’t just repair the choke rather than wasting money (and engine life) on starting fluid. You’re being unduly diplomatic in your comparative description of the 300C, which is swollen, obese, cartoonish, and ridiculous; a child’s caricature of a car—even more so when you put the Newport next to it.
Very nice old Chrysler. As I’ve written before, I preferred the 1965-68 C bodies to the fuselage models. They were roomier, and I remember them as being better built. That butter yellow ’65 Newport coupe in the brochure is just lovely.
A nice write-up on a car that doesn’t turn up too often at local car shows. There were still a few of these in daily use when I was a boy in the early 1970s, including a white four-door sedan in very good condition driven by the parents of an elementary school classmate.
Engel pushed for those concave rear quarter panels of the objections of the manufacturing people. Supposedly it was difficult to stamp those long panels without waves or other imperfections in the sheet metal – particularly around the wheel opening – which was really accentuated when the car was painted black or dark blue.
The $100 ’68 New Yorker 4 door hardtop in puke green in and out, missing wheel covers and fender skirts and a bashed up drivers side fender I bought around ’83 comes to mind with this article.
I didn’t have it long, but it’s 440 engine still ran strong, and the torqueflite shifted well, although needing a output seal replacement. The interior was still perfect and It was still fun and relaxing to drive. Best (maybe only) $100 car I ever owned, however briefly.
Striking car. My late father was a lawyer and I remember one of his clients drove a white-over-red ’66 Newport two door hardtop. Loved just looking at that car. Simple, understated elegance without stodginess.
I can recall Chrysler Newports of the 1960’s and early 1970’s being ALL over the (just barely) middle class New Orleans suburban neighborhood that I grew up in. The station wagon version, often equipped with front & rear air conditioning, was favored by families with 4 or 5 children. Those wagons were HUGE inside!
If my foggy memory is accurate, these Chrysler Newports were the second most popular driveway squatters; only topped by a Ford Country Squire/Country Sedan station wagon.
My mind is temporarily full of memories of the Mopar “Highland Park Hummingbird” starter cranking (“NANG NANG NANG NANGGGGGG”) while some suburban housewife frantically pumped the gas pedal, then the unique, Mopar muted macho rumble as the 383 engine hustled the car down the suburban streets.
Every three years the appreciative members of my parent’s Baptist church would present the pastor with a new car. He easily put 30K a year on these cars, what with church business and his family’s road trips. (By 90K most cars of this time period were on the verge of becoming troublesome and unreliable.)
He was offered his choice of several “mid-range cars” as the congregation included a couple of local car dealers. I recall a Mercury, Buick and Oldsmobile & Mopar “tie in” available.
He chose “entry level” Chrysler Newports for over 20 years, with only one deviation. He loved the Mopar’s “road-ability”, strong engines and precision transmissions.
The popular pastor only strayed away from the Chrysler car once; opting for a ’66 Buick LeSabre. I recall him using some quite “un-Christian” words privately describing this car to my automotive minded Dad.
As I have mentioned in other postings; this was during the time period when a Mopar was a viable, if not superior alternative to a GM or FoMoCo product.
There’s a Town & Country wagon of this vintage that I see in our Toronto neighbourhood during the summer – gold, with a nice rumble coming from the dual exhausts. Great old cars. They were pretty common on the streets when I was a kid, and I always enjoyed the few rides I had in them. Bright and airy, with plenty of room and lots of nice chrome touches that, even as a kid, I knew were tasteful without being excessive. I hope the featured Newport gets the cleanup and paint job it richly deserves.
2 years ago I bought all original 1980 R body Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue cream ext with cream leather interior. all original 15K car with window sticker & owners manual. 360 2B tilt steering power front seats power windows factory AM/FM radio factory AC. asking price was 14K I got it for 13K.
The ’67 is my favorite. Color can make all the difference with those concave sides. I spotted this beauty several years ago back in MN:
You can really see the side sculpting in this one:
As the B-52’s said, it was “as big as a whale”
(but the vid uses a ’65)
https://youtu.be/9SOryJvTAGs
Great article! Thanks for that. Wonderful car too. What a classy design!
Just like to add one thought: when I saw it alongside the 300C I kept asking what went wrong with car design lately. Among other things, unbelievably small glass area and unnecessarily large wheels/tires, at least IMHO.
Thanks for this article. “Another piece of my childhood that’ll never be forgotten.” My parents came home with a new ’66 New Yorker, and to quote a current phrase “I didn’t see that one coming.” White with blue cloth buckets, 4 dr. Hardtop, with just about every option known to western civilization at the time. Mom always drove nice cars, but dad tended to be on the conservative side when it came to the options. It was year end, so I’m guessing they cut a deal on it. Three things stick in my mind about that car. 1. It was HUGE, even compared to the ’61 T-Bird it replaced. 2. The sound of the starter when it turned over- all you Mopar fans know what I’m talking about. 3. The sound of the twin exhaust when that 440 fired up. You could barely hear them inside the car, but outside they echoed in the garage. A lovely rumble unique to Chryslers of the time.
The other surprise was how quick this car was. Endless power, it seemed, handled well for the day, and got (I’m told) pretty decent gas mileage. Later, even with a 250SE in the garage, the folks always took the Chrysler when they headed north over the Siskiyou’s to visit relatives in Oregon. Or when we drove into LA during the busy time in the summer heat- it didn’t overheat with the A/C on like the… ahem… other car. To hear my dad tell it, it squeaked and rattled from day one, but was dead reliable. In retrospect, I think it’s interesting that mom gravitated to two Engel designs in a row (without knowing, of course). Whatever his design language was resonated with her. I wonder who was responsible for the design of the ’69-70 Marquis? (her next car).
As an addendum to an excellent article, I would note that according to Dick Langworth, Chrysler-Plymouth dealers were actually very keen on the bottom-end model models (Windsor and later Newport), balking loudly at proposals from corporate management to eliminate those models in order to bolster Chrysler’s upscale image. The reasoning isn’t terribly hard to figure: The bottom-line Chryslers were cheap enough to sell in volume and yet presumably had better margins than a top-end Plymouth Fury or later VIP. From a salesperson’s standpoint, that’s a pretty attractive combination, whatever it did for the brand.
I suspect the Newport Custom was also driven by the sales force. There were brand-loyal customers who probably came back for their second or third Newport after a couple of years, but who either couldn’t afford or wouldn’t consider stepping up to a New Yorker or a 300. The Newport Custom gave salespeople a chance to upsell those folks a bit.
That observation is spot on and exactly what Grandpa did. Being the engineer that he was, he had a certain aura about him, but would never consider a New Yorker. Too ostentacious.
Agree! My above mentioned church Pastor considered a New Yorker too “show-off-ey” (his phrase used when discussing his cars with my Father) and vulgar for a man in his public position. A Newport was just right for him and his family’s use.
Harry Truman was a Newport man right up to the end. Here’s his last car, a ’72 Newport – base, not custom – 4 door sedan. Dark green vinyl over Sherwood Green metallic, if my eyes are right. And more than an echo of our featured car – especially in the surround-within-surround grilles and the subtle progression of the vertical grille pieces as they move to the center.
The photos of the interior make it clear that Chrysler was the Audi of its era. Compare that to a ’67 GM. There’s no comparison.
My Dad had the identical 1967 Newport Custom in the same shade of turquoise. I learned to drive in that car and took my driving test in it. Dad bought it new and kept it his whole life until his death 25 years ago. Best car he ever owned he used to say. No rust on that one either. Of course it lived in B.C. from 1974 onwards.
Right before we moved from Towson to Greensboro NC in Aug ’68 Dad brought home one night a used ’67 T&C wagon 383 in this exact dark Turquoise color with very low miles, I think it was from Dulaney Chrysler-Plymouth (right behind Hutzler’s) and it was unusual in that it had no wood paneling. We’d always had Ford wagons, we still had our ’63 Country Sedan then. But he liked his ’67 Fury III a lot so he had an open mind. When we carefully looked it over in the driveway that evening it was obvious that it had been hit on the R side, the repaint was visible. It did drive great and was really loaded compared to the Ford. But he didn’t like they hadn’t told them about the prang and took it back. The following year he got a ’68 Squire, our last wagon. Those Chrysler wagons were the top, I wish he’d gotten it.
1967/68 was peak Chrysler. Our family had a number of these, also Dart’s from that same era. Bulletproof, handled well for a big car, roomy, spacious, airy, pretty to look at. The wagons were top-notch, as mentioned.
It went so wrong so quickly, at least on the car side.
Chrysler products were perenially a distant also-ran in the full-size segment (i.e., the most profitable) with one exception: the Chrysler division (excluding Imperial, of course).
Newport, New Yorker, 300 non-letter series. They were all reliably aspirational cars in the sixtiesr, at least for the Chrysler faithful. It’s a pity they couldn’t get more conquest sales from Mercury or Buick.
For me peak slab side C body for the Newport is 66-67 based on the rear end treatment and taillights The 66 may have the edge because of the cooler dash. Don’t care for the plain looking 68. Now this is one of four possible cars that I have been looking for to add to my collection. Doesn’t matter which of the three body styles as I’d be fine. Would also be fine with the New Yorker simply depending on condition.
There was a thread on Allpar about the M-body from what I read, there was once a plan to revive the Newport name for the 1984 model year as a M-body model but they pulled the plug at the last minute.
https://www.allpar.com/threads/1977-chrysler-lebaron-1st-year-of-the-m-body.243026/page-2#post-1085333997
There’s still some of these 1984 manual owners book still available on Ebay. https://www.ebay.com/itm/152900084947
Thanks for the article, and the repost. My Father-in-law has a 1966 300 convertible sitting in his garage that’s been dormant for 40+ years. I took the time last year to prepare it to start again—Marvel Mystery Oil in the cylinders, new plugs, wires, points, and coil—and got it to turn over with him behind the wheel. He’s in the early stages of dementia but to see the smile on his face when that 440 rumbled to life was worth all the work. My goal is to get it running from a boat tank and out of the garage for some more intensive mechanical work this spring.
It’s an incredible car. Even though it’s been sitting forever the upholstery cleaned up to a beautiful shine. The brightwork all looks good. The doors close with a solid click. It needs a lot of love, but I’m looking forward to getting it out on the road again.
2023 reply to Duane Hughes:
As a soon to be 1963 graduate at a very small town high school in the Arkansas River valley, our school superintendent drove me and two other seniors in his 1963 Chrysler Newport to show us around the campus in Fayetteville. Our route took us through the Ozark mountains. I rode shotgun as he rowed the gears on the three on the floor manual transmission.