(first posted 1/11/2017) Chicago’s upscale Near North neighborhood would be the last place I’d expect to find any Chrysler product of this era, especially in condition this excellent. This area is full of expensive real estate, and street parking here is usually neither plentiful nor cheap. The streets of this city are notoriously salty during the cold weather months, and though I had spotted this Newport at the beginning of April a few years ago, it was by no means impossible for it to snow again at least once or twice in the following weeks.
Chrysler Corporation’s fortunes were in the toilet by ’77, with its issues with inconsistent quality control having been well documented here at CC and elsewhere. For this reason, I had been under the assumption that Newport sales had experienced a serious drop from the introduction of the new-for-’74 models through the end of this design’s run for ’78.
As it turns out, however, and also factoring out the wagons for which production figures never broke five figures in any individual year of this generation, combined Newport and Newport Custom figures had remained fairly consistent for the first four years of this design’s production: 77,400 for ’74, 68,800 for ’75, 56,300 for ’76, 76,400 for ’77, and then about 39,000 for ’78. For 1977, a 190-horse 400-V8 was standard to motivate the pillared Newport sedan’s 4,500 pounds. The most popular Newport bodystyle that year was that of our featured car, with about 39,500 units sold.
Though total Newport sales in any year of this generation were a fraction of that of any mid-priced, full-size model from GM or Ford (for example, against 213,600 Olds Deltas or 135,700 of the Mercury Marquis for ’77 – again, factoring out wagons), the Newport clearly must have maintained some appeal to a loyal demographic. I also found it interesting that the base price of the ’77 Newport hardtop coupe was basically the same (just six dollars more, at $5,374 / $21,100 in 2016) as the handsome, personal luxury Cordoba, which outsold the 2-door Newport by a ratio of 11:1. The Cordoba’s great looks and more manageable size in a booming market segment contributed to a timely, much-needed sales bump for the make.
As for our featured car, several immediate thoughts and questions crossed my mind when I spotted it. This clearly must have been one of the “good ones” in the Chrysler Quality Lottery. Did it sit in an outside lot for long under the ill-conceived Sales Bank program? How many owners has it had? Should I stick around for the current owner, and would they indulge me by letting me get some pictures of the interior and under the hood? Would he or she start it up for me and let me hear that distinctive “Highland Park hummingbird” starter sound that I remember from my family’s ’77 Plymouth Volaré when I was a young kid? I didn’t linger, as I had places to go and there always seems to be so few hours in the weekend before Sunday night rolls around.
Then, there is this Newport’s color – brown, which seems to have been the most unloved color for a car for as long as I can remember. I recall how one of my dad’s former college students who later became an attorney was really excited to show our family his new Porsche 944… which was finished in factory Mocha Brown. In trying for a modern-day metaphor, a Porsche in brown seemed then like Armani suit in polyester would seem today. I actually love the color brown. Many of my favorite sweet treats and baked goods are brown. I’m a sucker for chocolate, pretzels, root beer and gingerbread. I’ll choose bourbon whiskey over vodka on most days when I choose to drink.
Why is it, then, that I immediately pity a car simply for being in a pretty universally unpopular color for a vehicle? Then, when looking again at this Newport, I begin to remember it was “born” in what must have been the most earth-toned of all decades within the last century – the 1970’s. Brown was seriously in vogue when this car was new, if the wood paneling in the basements of many American homes (including the one of my first memories) and the abundance of brown corduroy in period Sears catalogs (whoosh, whoosh, whoosh down the center aisle for Holy communion was part of the soundtrack of my childhood) was any indication. This Newport was likely brown on purpose, and its white vinyl roof treatment seems, almost literally, like the icing on this nearly-luxurious cake.
I’m actually not 100% positive this car is a ’77. It could also be a ’76 or a ’78, as all three model years sported the same full-width taillamps, which I felt were an attractive upgrade from the outboard, vertical units on the ’74 and ’75 models. I chose the year “1977” only for emphasis, as today would mark close to exactly four decades since our featured car was new. As old as the current Chrysler 300 (the Newport’s direct descendant) seems now, having been on the market in its current form since 2011, I’ll bet our featured car seemed positively ancient by comparison by the time its design was six years old – when the seminal, front-drive K-Cars were on the eve of being introduced.
Given this big, old Newport’s apparent comfort level in this tony area located not far from that famed stretch of the Michigan Avenue shopping district commonly known as the “Magnificent Mile”, I’d like to think that if personified, it would remember that its family name, Chrysler, once carried sufficient cachet to transcend even what is likely to be the most ridiculed of all automotive paint colors. As for me, I say this car wears its very-1970’s hue very well in its own solid, resolute way – like one of the expensive brownstones on this street.
Near North District, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, April 5, 2014.
Related reading from:
- Brendan Saur: Curbside Classic: 1975 Chrysler Newport Custom – A New Yorker In Summer Clothes;
- J.P. Cavanaugh: Car Show Classic: 1974 Chrysler Newport – Sorry, Please Play Again; and
- Tom Klockau: Curbside Classic: 1977 Chrysler Newport St. Regis – Old Soldier.
Mmmmm… brownies
I’d rather have a post 73 Mopar than a post 73-pre 77 GM or post 72 Ford. I know the whole thing had already become anachronistic years earlier; but of the battle between the fullsized barges and the 5mph bumpers, Ma bowed out with the finest grace.
Great street find. Wagon for me
That wagon is purty. I can’t help but think of the Brady Bunch when I see a Mopar wagon of the 70’s, with or without the Di-Noc.
At a glance, what with the fender skirts and the rear tyre in the shadow, it looks like Chrysler were trying to outdo Morgan with a six-seater three wheeler! 🙂
For whatever reason, Chrysler had a way with making fender skirts on its full-size C-bodies look reasonably attractive and complementary to the design of the vehicle – now that’s the only time I can ever say that about fender skirts!
Agreed on the skirts. They looked even better on the 4 door hardtops, which had a much “faster” and sleeker roofline than these sedans. These could also be had without the skirts, but I never thought they looked as good without.
Definitely way better than on the Pontiac Luxury LeMans the other day!
Joe, you are correct, this Chrysler transcends the brown. I would even opine the brown gives it an old money vibe of sorts.
Your last picture also shows this Chrysler to have a ’74 GM B-body vibe to it in profile. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising given Chrysler perfected the ’72 LeSabre for the ’74 Fury/Monaco.
hehehe
*Boom.* https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1976-dodge-royal-monaco-gone-and-forgotten/
Well stated, Shafer. 🙂
Interesting that the front end resembles the 1975-1978 Ford LTD.
They were there in 75 too
And 74
And people say that only today’s cars “all look alike” 🙂
Right, Brendan! These cars should be cited the next time someone brings up that argument.
Pretty Ugly, with no imagination IMO.
All the parts bumpers, grills, white carriage top, color, side turn signals etc. It all looks like a bad mismatch of various parts randomly put together with lazy effort (see second Pic from the top-looks sloppy).
The cars execution does not merge or blend together harmoniously. The 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme of the same era, is a good example of execution for a solid 70’s design.
I don’t know, I’ve never been a fan of the “over the top” grill on those (and I mean that quite literally), however this example below (farmed from a Google Search) looks quite nice… those rally wheels are a nice touch…
Retro-Stang Rick
I see your point. The point I was trying to make was look how the light fixtures, grill (love or hate it), front turn signals, bumpers look more in tact and blend together much better on the Cutlass Supreme much more collectively than the Chrysler New Port.
The shape of the Cutlass appears less cluttered, more modern, with a cleaner solid design. The Chrysler looks like the chrome is too gaudy and cheap looking, too tacky.
Chrysler cars often have this problem, even today. Look at how when the Chrysler 300 first came out, or the PT Cruiser they were a big hit and everyone loved them. Then after say 3 or 4 years. They started to look ugly, tacky, bloated, and cheap.
Not sure why this happen so much with Chrysler’s products. Same thing with the “Sebring” convertible, Chrysler Concorde (1993-1997 model). etc IMO.
But the basic shape is quite pleasing, it’s all the gorped-up details that ruin it.
Perfect timing Joe. I started reliving 1977 last evening when I started playing an album I was listening to that year (Kenton 76) and we continue with this car today. My best friend’s father bought a new 77 Newport 4 door hardtop in this very color, but with a slick roof and the optional wheelcovers.
That car was well put together and we all felt that Chrysler was turning a quality corner and putting out some good stuff again. Oops.
I was really sick of brown cars by then, but that one was the deepest, richest sparkliest brown I had ever seen, and the car (with its parchment interior) was beautiful. Chrysler Newports (like Stan Kenton) didn’t appeal to everyone, but their fans were loyal.
Also, if I am right about this car being the same Coffee Sunfire that my buddy’s dad had (and I think I am), that would confirm this car as a 77 because that color was not offered in 76 or 78..
JP, I just like the name “Coffee Sunfire” – sounds like the name of a beautiful painting of the dawn.
And (tangent alert!) Stan Kenton is another jazz artist I need to explore in more depth. I have some of his stuff on compilations, but I’ve liked it and should do more research. Thanks for the recommendation.
Coffee Sunfire? That sounds like an overpriced Starbucks concoction, but I do like the color, and the car.
I am ordinarily not a brown car fan, but the Coffee Sunfire was a beautiful shade. My Great Aunt had a ’77 New Yorker Brougham in that color, with the beige vinyl top and the tufted brown leather interior. I have to admit, back in 1977 we thought it was gorgeous and very fashionable. So to me, this color seems just right on a big Chrysler of this vintage. Aunt Berta’s Chrysler was also one of the “good ones” and seemed very well made.
Joe, what an awesome find! If this car is a “Chicago native” then I imagine it spending its life tucked away in a garage somewhere and used sparingly.
GN, the brochure page with the color listing reminds me that one of these Chryslers was the first time I ever saw a metallic black, which according to paintref.com was also a 1977-only color.
Those New Yorkers were beautiful cars, and I never saw one I liked better than my own in another 1977-only color, Russet Sunfire.
I can just see you behind the wheel of that in my mind’s eye! 🙂
Substitute the Chrysler with a ’78 Grand Marquis and that could be my grandparents vacation.
I was not fully awake when I first read this – it is absolutely not a 76. In 76, the base Newport still looked like the 75 Newport, while the Newport Custom looked like the 75 New Yorker without the gaudy lower side moldings. In 77 the old base Newport style (with the vertical rectangular taillights and the plain eggcrate grille) got retired and all Newports looked like the 76 Newport Custom.
So, if it has the 75 New Yorker front and rear and does not say “Custom”, then it is not a 76.
It’s always interesting to find a car such as this seemingly so far out of its element. I’m always surprised when I see an older car (particularly of weathered condition) in a very upscale, high-rent area, whether it be residential or commercial. These are the best kinds of finds, especially as the scenery usually makes for some spectacular photos.
As for this Newport, count me in as a fan, though I do agree that its outdatedness was quite prevalent by ’77 and only evidence that Chrysler was in serious trouble. These C-bodies were still better-looking, more elegant designa than their pre-downsized GM and Ford competitors in my opinion.
I can’t help but think of Ricky’s S#!tmobile in Trailer Park Boys. True, his was a slightly older New Yorker, but they look almost identical.
I’ve had two 74 Mavericks that were painted “Ginger Glow” which was a dark brownish color. And my beloved and greatly missed 76 Pinto wagon was “Metallic Brown”. I’ve always found it an attractive color. My 79 Lincoln is also Brown. This picture below is a spitting image of my 74 2dr Maverick I had in 85-86.
A buddy of mine had that car’s fraternal twin sister, the Mercury Comet in the same color and vintage. After high school, he traded it in on a Mercury Monarch in light blue with a dark blue landau top, and dark blue interior. He ordered it with all the options (remember when you could actually order a car? Wow, what a concept!) on the latter car, and it always felt like we were riding around in a poor man’s Lincoln Varsailles!
You essentially were. Loaded Monarch’s/Granada Ghia’s were Versailles’s in everything but name. I really enjoyed my 74 Maverick. Ice cold AC. No mechanical issues, except the C4 died on me. $208 at Midas and it was good as new. What took it away from me was my own stupidity. Got impatient and got t-boned by a fella in a 72 Pontiac with a boat behind it. However, I was completely unharmed (those steel door guard beams work), drove it home, put another door I had on lt ( red door!) and drove it another 6 months. Sold it for $300 to a friend of a friend. Six months later I see it in a driveway with the rear end smashed in to the rear window and shortly after it disappeared. Never seen it since. Although I had been heavily into photography since the 70’s, I have no photos of it. About the only car I’ve ever owned ( and I have owned 54) without any pics. Here’s the Marti on it.
Another fan of browns – here’s my old faithful Cortina in Copper Bronze. Guy’s Maverick looks like the colour Ford Australia called Brown Satin.
After a string of green colored wagons as our primary family car, my Dad bought a Country Sedan in what I think was this color…it was definitely brown, a metallic brown, which was very nice. My Dad was the type of person who’d wake up in the morning, decide that he wanted to buy a car, and have it done by the time he went to bed. In ’73, I went with him to several dealerships…we spent hours at one that had a yellow colored one which I hated, but they pretended not to notice that his ’69 Country Squire trade-in didn’t have air conditioning (we’d bought it while living in Vermont, but he’d been transferred since to Virginia, where we were shopping for cars). I’m sure they noticed it quickly, even I knew they could look both inside the engine compartment and on the dash to find out when they first took it in to look at it during the protracted negotiation…and my Dad did too, he stormed out and we actually returned to our home town dealership rather than the out of town one that kept us so long.
My Dad got chided when we took the car in to put on a trailer hitch…he’d bought a pop-top camper earlier in the year, and they’d just finished putting a hitch on the Country Squire maybe a month before, and the guy recognized my Dad with another wagon so soon after having the first one done…he sometimes did things in backwards order, though he usually knew what he wanted, was sometimes too busy (at work or something else going on) to think through the details.
We kept the Ranch Wagon until ’78, his final wagon that replaced it wasn’t green either, a burgundy ’78 Caprice Classic wagon. He never was to own another green car after the ’69, though he bought several cars after, probably because green colored cars seemed to retreat after maybe the early 80’s.
Not sure why we never considered a Chrysler or Dodge wagon, maybe resale value since back then he traded cars pretty often….though these were gone by ’78, and though his first car was a Plymouth, and he owned a couple Dodges, none of them were ever wagons. At least they had a “normal” rear door, he avoided GM while the full sized ones had the clamshell tailgate, going to GM after they went to “normal” door for his ’78.
Count me as a fan of the ’74-’78 Chrysler. For me, the ’76-’78 New Yorker four door hardtop is the version that really nails the details that make this style really shine. The sedans never look quite right to me where the rear door window frame and the bottom edge of the vinyl top converge – the junction just looks a little crude. The wagon rear side doors, with their little kick up, look so much better, and this might have been a better approach with the sedans.
Fantastic example of this car for its 40th anniversary!
My last Mini was metallic brown with black top. I thought it looked pretty good. 🙁
These ultimately may have been junk compared to GM & Ford, but if they were, they sure were stately junk, and that’s a fine example. A pretty car!
You can’t go wrong with a bold color, especially metallic browns of many hues.
“stately junk” – LOL!!
Metallic brown with a white top really sets this car off. I like brown anyhow. But man, that is one big car! It looks like a size match for the 1958 Lincoln.
Brown tones and avocado green were the big colours of the 1970s. My parents had two brown ’70s cars, a ’75 Ford Torino and a ’78 LTD.
Not really a huge fan of the Newport though I do like the woody wagon with the skirts. IMO the New Yorker was prettier.
Chiming in a bit late here (as usual, on the West coast), but let me add to the chorus about what a fine find this is, as well as the write up. I found a NY coupe of the same vintage recently, but I think I’ll wait a few weeks, although these are inevitably popular here.
Thanks, Paul. CC Effect in reverse? I wonder how often this happens to us contributors!
What an amazing survivor. I’ve seen a few Newports and New Yorkers of this vintage in southern Ontario (but never the Gran Fury or Monaco/Royal Monaco variants) as well, which shows that some were well built given the relatively low volumes of production.
I recall reading that the C-bodies were built in different plants with the pillared sedans and presumably wagons in one factory, and the hardtops in another, and that the hard tops were actually sturdier designs. Is that true?
I recall being told in 1977 that the hardtops came from a different plant than where the sedans were built, but have never confirmed it.
I can categorically state that the structure of the hardtops is way stiffer than that of the sedans. I count at least 3 hardtops I have driven, and owned one of them. When I test drove a nice low mile 75 Newport sedan a few years later, I was appalled by the way the body quivered. I never experienced that difference between hardtops and sedans in earlier generations of C bodies.
Based on a data base of just one sedan with probably 20+ year old bushings driven one or 2 times? Given identical body structures but with sedans having floor-to-roof B pillars and full frame doors that makes no sense, different assembly plants would not trump such a difference in basic construction.
Having had the experience of driving 2 sedans – ’76 and ’77, and a ’77 hardtop, each over 100k miles and frequently pulling heavy horse trailers, my ’77 Gran Fury 360 sedan was the best car I’ve ever owned, and one of the tightest, the Mopar unibody far surpasses the GM & Ford body/frame design. The ’76 GF had the unfortunate 400 Lean Burn, thus was eventually replaced by the 77 without LB, but it was otherwise just as solid. The ’77 Newport hardtop, not so much; as one would expect you really noticed body shake when traversing large potholes while pulling the 3000 lb. trailer.
You must be right about the loyal demographic. It’s interesting how in the years when these cars were built, demand was essentially steady — particularly everything else that could have gnawed away at sales, like the oil crisis, Chrysler’s corporate & quality woes, newer domestic competition, etc. The real plunge in Chrysler sales happened in 1980, but it’s surprising that it waited that long to happen.
That said, I like this car. And I like brown, too. In fact, it seems to be that a few years ago brown made a brief comeback for a few years. I remember a neighbor of mine had a brown Buick LaCrosse, and that’s about the time I started noticing other brown cars around too. But it was a brief blip that seems to have faded by now.
Everyone, I think I should clarify that I’m not dissing brown as a car color. It’s true that it’s not my favorite, but I was just making an observation that brown isn’t the most popular. That a “Brown Car Appreciation Society” is even in existence seems to be to be a tacit acknowledgement of what I’m trying to say. 🙂
With that said, I think brown works really well on certain types of cars, and on certain specific models. My grandparents had an ’85 (IIRC) Ford Crown Victoria in factory “Dark Sable” with a matching brown interior that looked like a million bucks when detailed and vacuumed. That brown, velour interior just looked so rich in that shade – it oozed elegance. That stately shade of dark brown seemed to perfectly compliment that car’s formal lines.
I suppose that the attractiveness of a car’s paint color is more closely tied to its image and shape than to anything inherent to that color. Agree? Disagree? Again, no disrespect intended to lovers of brown cars.
Definitely agree, Joseph. Colour and shape go together. Fluorescent yellow might suit a musclecar, but you wouldn’t paint an Imperial that colour. If you insisted on a yellow for a prestige car, you’d go for a more pastel shade – which would probably look weak on a musclecar, depending on shape and, yes, image. That’s using two extremes. Between those extremes lie so many sizes and shapes of cars, which a given colour may or may not suit.
Exactly, Pete. This was just what I was trying to say. Thank you.
My 79 works with Brown also.
Mr. Hartfield’s comment about Chrysler’s products looking good when they first come out (PT Cruiser, 300, Sebring, Concorde, et al) and then looking dated, and almost cringe-worthy a mere few years later, is EXACTLY how I feel. Conversely, the exact opposite is true for me of the ’57-early 80s models, with the exception of the ’02 Dodge Stratus I currently drive, and whose looks are growing on me by the day (not to mention the ride). I have a tendency to fall in love with every car I drive though, and then to hate them when they bite the dust. (I have a ’92 Buick LeSabre dead in the driveway I’m starting to loathe by the day.) BTW, that Newport falls into the latter category I delineated above (the cars I didn’t like back in the day but like now).
I worked at a Dodge Chrysler dealership 1986-1988 and one day a 78 C-Body, can’t remember what model but I think a Neuport, came in A/C not working properly. It had the automatic A/C and the problem was in the “brain”, a plastic box under the dash with many vacuum hoses attached to it. I was in parts and was asked to price it up and whoa!!, It was close to $600.00 (around $1300.00 now), we all figured this car would be scrapped and the owners would drive out with a fancy K-car New Yorker but they bit the bullet and paid to have the car repaired. I’m sure it exceeded the value of the car but thats how old cars end up as CCs.
Survivor mid 70’s Newport in Chicago not looking like a derelict Liberian freighter? Cool! It reminds me of my ex father-in-law’s 1974 Plymouth Gran Fury Brougham (Sherwood Green, 440-powered, that I nicknamed the “Walt-Mobile”). I’ve learned to appreciate the 1974-78 C-Bodies–they were definitely distinctive.
Dave, I’m a first-generation Liberian-American. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/almost-coal-1979-ford-bronco-disaster-averted/
But yes, many Liberian-registered (not piloted) ships fit your metaphor, including the one that plowed into the St. Petersburg Sunshine Skyway on May 9, 1980: http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/the-skyway-tragedy-30-years-later-as-recalled-by-a-harbor-pilot-on-the/1093384
Despite them having been rare in my younger days and nearly extinct now, I do like these last of the Really Big Chryslers. Elegant in ways that the big Ford and GM cars of the same time weren’t. And the brown color suits it really well, especially with that white top to set it off!
My one recent C-body experience dates from perhaps two years ago. I had just left my building and was walking towards my car when what should appear just down the street, but a car led by a waterfall grille and hidden headlamps–either a 74-75 Imperial or 76-78 New Yorker Brougham. It was a triple white 4-door hardtop with the windows down on a sunny day and a crew of 4 on board; whooshed past me much too quickly to get a photo, but that car had Presence with a capital P. Turned a few blocks down, never to be seen again, but what a thing to see on a relatively quiet side street…
My wife and her former husband bought a ’78 Dodge St. Regis brand new. They got a good deal on it because he worked for General Dynamics when it was part of Chrysler.
He kept that car for a long, long time. It was, overall, utterly reliable.
I’ve always liked that face, the headlight surrounds, the grille, it all just works, and looks pleasant to boot. The Newport felt crisp and agile compared to the New Yorker and seemed to do just fine with its 360.
Had 2 s—t brown 70’s car experiences ! One was a 73 Camaro with a butterscotch vinyl interior and a 350 bought for my middle aged mother- way too much power for her. She sold it after 14 years and 30 k miles after the frame went. Fast forward when I repeated the same colour combo on a 78 Monte Carlo Landau no less . sold it in 82 to my father in law who ignored the temp light and seized the engine- off to the scrapyard! Needless to say been there done that, no more brown cars.
Chrysler had by 1977 been aggressively upselling “low-priced three” intenders to the Newport for around fifteen years, ever since the “too-small” 1962 Plymouth/Dodge. It didn’t make much of a dent on Ford or Chevy, but it sure did relegate the full-size Plymouth to being a fleet car by the first gas crunch.
Oh the stories I could tell about a twin to this Newport. Late 80s, Skokie, Rodgers Park…I would say more but this is a family site.
You’d’ve been jarred and disappointed; the big V8s got a different (and different-sounding) starter beginning in ’74. It was the same basic design, but with a larger 1.8-horsepower motor (rather than 1.5) and 2:1 gearing (rather than 3.5:1). Very different cranking sound and rhythm; sooner or later I’ll be writing a piece on the subject here at CC.
Daniel, thanks for pointing that out. I look forward to your piece.
I remember the day I heard the first one. I was at my father’s lake cottage and there was a new Chrysler Cordoba parked nearby, probably 1975 or so. I saw the owner get in and was waiting for that familar “Na-Rayre neer neer neer” but was shocked to hear a completely different starter. This seemed like double the cranking speed, and was more of a “Na-ricka dicka dicka dicka”.
I was really disappointed when I got one of these when I bought a rebuilt unit at NAPA for my 68 Newport. It just seemed so wrong. But then because it had to crank so long on hot starts, It sort of wore itself down to sound more like the old one. 🙂
“Chrysler Corporation’s fortunes were in the toilet by ’77, with its issues with inconsistent quality control having been well documented here at CC and elsewhere.”
That’s a good one. “Documentation” on CC consists mostly of the same persons repeating their opinion over and over.
BTW, the color is called “Dark Chestnut Metallic”
Dark Chestnut was a 1974-76 color, and completely different than the Coffee Sunfire which was 1977 only.
I have seen hundreds of people here relating personal experiences with the good bad and ugly of 70s Mopars. What else do you need to consider this as documentation?
Somehow I knew you would reply….
Gubra –
This book, from the editors of Consumer Guide, is a really good starting point for research and reference. This link is another good one: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1970s-classic-chrysler-cars-channel.htm
Also, a quick-n-easy Google search on the internet, using just “Chrysler” “quality” and “1970s” gives you more hits than you probably have time for before work this morning.
Just to reiterate, I’m not disparaging or belittling lovers of these cars, or of Chryslers of the 70’s – I love this car, myself. It’s a shame about what was going wrong in that organization at that time. I just want to point out, though, that there’s no conspiracy theory here at CC about the spotty quality of Chrysler products of the 70’s. My family’s own ’77 Volare – though a pretty car – was evidence of this. I’m sure my dad would rather have been grading papers than sitting at Chinonis Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge while our Volare was in for its umpteenth recall repair.
This a better brown than the ugly dirt brown Chrysler used. This is more of a bronze or something. I had a Dart in this color with a black top. A much richer color and this car looks like a great car to have some fun with.
Nice post and pics as usual Joseph
I love seeing well maintained survivors. However this car looks like something that low level Mob Capos would have driven on “jobs” back in the 1970’s
Today’s “brown” is a shade of silver-gray.
As soon as this new car generation was launched, the entire motoring world in the States permanently changed. When I see these Chryslers, I wonder, “what if?” – because it never had a real chance in the market as originally planned. It was instantly obsolete within a year of launch.
When this car was being created, was Chrysler still in a position to believe that it could shape the future of motoring? This was before the Fuel Crisis, but after the Fuselage generation. Was Chrysler trying to fix the Fuselage, and update it to the brougham era, or was this car a statement from Chrysler on how they saw the future in 1974?
We know now that GM reshaped the future of full sized cars in 1977. Ford followed two years later with the Panther. Chrysler was in no position by then to do the same. Sadly, all they could do is barf-out an upscaled over-broughified Fifth Avenue – (which was a great success for them) – but not a statement on the level of either GM or Ford.
So, what was the hopes and dreams of this era of Chrysler full size? “Just not flop?”
Very nice photos and a great writeup. I like this car, but I recognize its lineage from the early 70s, and possibly earlier. It had to have been seen as very dated at the time.
I didn’t pay these much notice back in the day, I was certainly not in the target market as a 21 year old. Looking back however, it would have been nice to have gotten my hands on one of these in a few more years then.
Gas mileage? If you have to ask, don’t bother.