(1981 New Yorker photos from CC Cohort by William Rubano)
(first posted 8/4/2016) As it’s been well-documented at Curbside Classic several times over the years, Chrysler’s R-bodies were by and large a colossal failure, doomed by Chrysler’s own doings and misfortunes as much as they were by external forces. Yet despite their many shortcomings and short-lived years, I have always found a soft spot for these final traditionally-sized full-size Chryslers.
Nearly a foot shorter in length, 600-800 pounds lighter, and riding on a 5.5-inch shorter wheelbase than the C-bodies they replaced, the R-bodies were the automaker’s answer to GM’s 1977 B-/C-body and Ford’s 1978 Panther-body “downsized” full-size cars. Despite their downsizing, Chrysler’s full-size R-bodies were still nearly a foot longer and rode on 2 to 5 inch longer wheelbases than the Bs/Panthers, something Chrysler heavily played-up in advertisements, regardless of the fact that most interior dimensions were quite similar.
In some ways this was detrimental, as GM and Ford’s externally smaller vehicles conveyed a greater sense of fuel efficiency, regardless of whether or not they actually were. In the case of the costlier New Yorker, however, its wealthier clientele were probably less concerned with fuel efficiency and appreciative of the “big car” look. Furthermore, the New Yorker’s competition over at GM rode on the C-body, which was actually the same size in every dimension, give or take an inch.
Naysayers will be quick to call out the R-body as little more than a Chrysler B-body (which dated back 17 years to 1962) with a new name, which indeed is very true. Apart from a few new components, such as weight-saving plastic brake cylinder pistons (which had the tendency to swell up and fail prematurely), the R-body used tried and true technology, such as a parallel torsion bar front suspension dating back to 1957, Torqueflite 3-speed automatic transmissions dating to 1962 and 1964, and Slant 6 I6 and LA V8 engines also dating back to the early ’60s.
Of course in the mid-to-late 1970s, Chrysler’s financial situation was more troubling than ever before. With Chrysler’s 7.5 billion dollar federal loan request denied, the automaker had little choice but to adapt existing mechanics for its new downsized full-sizers needed to meet CAFE standards. That said, it’s not like GM’s 1977 B-body and Ford’s 1978 Panther-platforms were 100-percent new, also taking advantage of their existing parts bins.
Where Chrysler spent the bulk of its wallet was in the areas frequently seen and touched: the exterior and interior. The bodies of the R-platform vehicles were entirely new, sharing nothing with their predecessors, nor other Mopars. Apart from front and rear clips, and a few minor trim variations, sheetmetal was identical between the eventual four R-body variants (New Yorker, Newport, St. Regis, Gran Fury), all of which were limited to four-doors, as Chrysler could not afford to develop additional body styles.
Amidst safety concerns, automakers began dropping their 4-door hardtops in the mid-to-late 1970s, with Chrysler offering the industry’s last true full-size hardtops in its 1978 C-body New Yorker and Newport. Unlike Ford and GM who used framed-glass for their full-size sedans, likely as much of a weight-saving measure as it was a cost-saving measure, Chrysler chose to stick with frameless glass with a thin B-pillar, somewhat (but not really) emulating the hardtop look.
Chrysler officially marketed the R-bodies as “pillared hardtops”, though this was confused even more on the New Yorkers. Featuring a standard quarter-landau roof, its rear-quarter opera windows opened with the rear doors, making for an unusual look when the door was opened, especially if the window was rolled down. In any event, frameless windows gave the R-bodies airier interiors and a less top-heavy appearance than their competitors.
Exterior styling was nothing groundbreaking, following the squared-off genericism that was sweeping the industry following the introduction of cars such as the 1975 Cadillac Seville. Now that being said, the R-bodies’ styling represented a clean break from previous big Chryslers, and unlike their predecessors, body lines were straight, angles were sharp, and all wheel wells were open, reducing the cars’ visual bulk. Additionally, the R-bodies’ slanted front ends, trim details, and longer length gave them a distinctive enough look and somewhat more graceful look when compared to GM and Ford competitors.
Plymouth Gran Furys and Chrysler Newports were naturally the plainest looking, with exposed quad sealed-beam headlights above non-wraparound turn signals. The Dodge St. Regis was the most unusual, with its headlights hidden behind retractable translucent covers and wraparound turn signals.
The Chrysler New Yorker was rightfully the most stately in appearance, with a more upright front end, formal waterfall grille, and more traditional quad round headlights hidden behind retractable metal covers.
Around back, New Yorkers gained a unique decklid mimicking the power dome hood, as well as non-wraparound art deco-esque full-width taillights for a more formal look and greater distinction over its siblings. As previously mentioned, all New Yorkers featured a standard padded quarter landau roof with integrated opera windows. New Yorker Fifth Avenue Edition models also gained front fender louvers for an added touch of dignification.
Inside, interiors were all-new, sharing little in terms of design with other Chryslers (the 1980 J-body personal luxury coupes would feature similar dashboards). Dashboards featured a clean, angular appearance mimicking the exterior, and were constructed of injection-molded plastic, permitting for full instrumentation (something competitors ceased offering as standard) while keeping weight down.
As the premier R-body, New Yorkers featured the highest level of standard equipment and the most elegantly appointed interiors. A generous amount of simulated woodtone appliqué accentuated the dash and door panels, in the form of the New Yorker’s simulated burl walnut or the New Yorker Fifth Avenue’s simulated driftwood (1979-1980) or featherwood grain (1981).
Standard upholstery was a plush “Richton” cloth-and-vinyl combination (left), featuring in your author’s opinion, a refreshingly attractive seat design and upholstery pattern. After that, things got a little more confusing. Leather with vinyl trim was optional on New Yorkers, though for 1979-1980, non-Fifth Avenue models featured a button-tufted floating cushion seat design (center).
Fifth Avenues meanwhile, featured standard champagne leather for 1979-1980, and used the same seat design as base New Yorker’s cloth seats (above right). In a more logical move, for 1981, the New Yorker and New Yorker Fifth Avenue switched leather seat designs, though Fifth Avenues now featured a new “LaCorde” cloth upholstery and seat design as standard, with leather now optional.
R-body New Yorker offered buyers a whole spectrum of interior color choices, including in no particular order: midnight blue, teal green, gray, cashmere, red, heather, mahogany, champagne, and even white leather with midnight blue, teal green, or red accents. Regardless of upholstery, front seats were a 60/40-split bench with center armrest and reclining passenger’s seat back. The appearance of these front seats were more bucket-like than competitors and predecessors, and actually looked like they belonged in a car and not granny’s living room, or worse, a brothel.
Even with the button-tufted floating cushion leather, 20-ounce cut-pile shag carpeting, deforestation of fake wood, and gold-etched opera windows, Chrysler’s interiors came across as more efficiently designed and less stuffy than similar vehicles from brands such as Oldsmobile, Buick, Mercury, as well as Cadillac and Lincoln.
Fit-and-finish was nothing spectacular in any American car of this time period, but given Chrysler’s dire financial situation, nickel-and-diming was even more prevalent. More corners were cut, and Chrysler actually anticipated 1,077 defects for every 100 R-bodies produced, or an average of 11 defects per vehicle. This 1979 review clearly supports this claim.
But the R-body’s biggest deterrent to buyers lay in the fact that its parent company was publicly reeking the stench of death. Denied of federal assistance and slow to release downsized models (and new vehicles altogether) in response to the energy crisis, its aging lineup of uncompetitive offerings greatly suffered as the competition was enjoying rising success.
Whether its potential buyers were weary of the automaker’s future, unimpressed with Chrysler’s attempt at a downsized car, or sick of waiting for Chrysler to play catch-up, the R-body did not find a loyal audience. Sales of the New Yorker and its cheaper Newport sibling started off strong (at 54,640 and 78,296, respectively), but with another fuel crisis in 1979, plummeted to levels far worse than competitors and never rebounded.
Armed with and fully invested in its new front-wheel drive K-cars, in an abrupt move, Chrysler pulled the plug on the R-bodies after a brief 1981 model year, leaving the midsize M-body to take over as its “full-size” rear-wheel drive car. The former M-body LeBaron briefly became the New Yorker for 1982, with the LeBaron name moving to a new compact K-car. A front-wheel drive four-cylinder New Yorker arrived for 1983 on an extended K-platform, making it the smallest New Yorker ever.
One has to ask the question of how the R-body would’ve fared had Chrysler kept it on a few more years and let nature take its course, with or without any potential updates. After all, sales of all full-size cars suffered immediately following the 1979 fuel crisis, only to rebound between 1983-1985 as gas prices subsided again. But that’s a question we’ll never have a for-sure answer to, and the fact of the matter is, this featured “Baron red” example was one of only 6,548 New Yorkers produced for the 1981 model year.
In any event, the R-body was a short-lived platform, and one that is universally regarded as a failure. Not only did it fail in the marketplace, but it didn’t lend its engineering to any future Chrysler, essentially making it a dead-end vehicle. All impediments aside, the Chrysler R-body and particularly the New Yorker, was not a bad looking vehicle. In fact, exuding the once seductive characteristics of “long, low, and wide”, I personally find the R-bodies the best looking full-size American cars of their time, but that’s just me.
“Wary”.
Didn’t these have edge lit rear quarter windows to illuminate the etched script on them?
Yep, from my 1981 NY 5th
That window lighting is SO COOL!!! Only in America, do we think of such interesting design details, that being, unique decoration, just for the sake of it!
+1!
I agree these were way cool. Chrysler Corp. had a history of interesting lighting applications such as the “Astra-dome” in its early ’60’s Chryslers, the luminescent gauges in the ’66 Charger and the “Superlite” on seventies Dodges.
And the ill-fated Panelescent lighting of the late ’50s. Apparently it was lovely, but proved unreliable.
Sweet! I had read that somewhere but couldn’t find any solid evidence, which is why I didn’t include it in the article. Thanks for sharing this!
Very welcome, a Fifth Avenue edition only feature. New Yorkers had an exterior opera lamp in 1979, and the 1980-81 Fifth Avenue Limited/Special Edition with carriage roof had an electroluminescent exterior opera lamp, just like the 80s M-body 5th.
Thanks, that’s so cool!
Dangerous electrical faults and no A/c in Miami. Bad paint run and I’ll fitting rear door all for only $120000 … Could it have got any worse?. The following week they tested the Olds 98 Diesel… Did they calm his nervous by getting him to test a Corolla?.
Well, that video provided a whole bunch of reasons the Japanese were having Detroit’s lunch in those days. The gas mileage was lousy enough to wonder why they downsized the cars at all and the defects were unconscionable.
Of course, the Olds 98 diesel he tested the following week probably wasn’t much better.
It’s why these cars will never be collectible. They’ll be a curiosity for their rarity, but have few other redeeming qualities.
Quality more than engineering made the Japanese makes successful. Hondas were cutting-edge, but Toyotas and Nissans/Datsuns at the time were simply better built and more reliable. They did not perform any better.
I don’t think the Japanese were gaining against the New Yorker as they were simply not offering anything any where close to the size.There is zero evidence that if they had the EPA numbers would be any better. Furthermore I will put it to you that the 318 V8 and 918 Torqueflight was a durability match for any Japanese drivetrain of 1981.
I am sure the quality control at a close to failure Japanese factory would have looked at lot like Chrysler 79-81. Their is no ethnic superiority at work.
Yep, The Japanese had no analog to this type of car in 80, This car’s competition would only be at Buick,Mercury, (and perhaps Cadillac/Lincoln). The Buick and Caddy “ate it’s lunch” in sales. (probably mostly Buick)
I would submit that the senior Japanese models of the time — Toyota Crown, Nissan Cedric/Gloria, Mitsubishi Debonair — were a lot like this in character, albeit about 20% smaller and with sixes instead of V-8s.
Perhaps, But Except for a couple of Toyota Crowns, I never saw them here (US). IDK, but I also bet few “R” bodies made it to Japan, So in their markets, there is no analog (they didn’t compete head-on) like, say, Chevette/Tercel..
Oh, I wasn’t implying they were — just that contrary to popular belief, the Japanese approach to cars of this type was very similar. That’s actually part of the reason Toyota and Nissan either decided not to or discontinued selling their bigger cars in the U.S.: They figured they’d get hammered because they didn’t have a USP in that class and would be handicapped by domestic width limits.
Agree. Toyota tried to make a case for the Crown into the early 70s, but it was a marginal seller. Corona was their first big hit.
Japanese had an un-planned strategic advantage with a ready fleet of small, fuel-efficient cars when the Oil Crises hit. (That they were well-built with good handling and fit and finish didn’t hurt, either).
The 318 is one of the best engines ever, but breathing through a Lean Burn carb didn’t do it’s reputation any good. The absolute junk build quality of the car itself combined with the Lean Burn sputtering, hard starting and no starting opened the eyes of many consumers. What good was such a sub quality luxury car? It was in the coming years that Datsun Maximas and Toyota Cressidas started winning over consumers. They discovered that owning a nice car that ran was better than owning one that didn’t.
You’re missing the key point: folks didn’t buy big American luxury sedans for their size alone. Notmany buyers in this class were hauling a bunch of kids. Luxury buyers were looking for prestige as well as the feeling of having bough a well-built and well-designed car. A rapidly increasing number of these buyers were switching to smaller import cars from a wide variety of makers,European and Japanese.
In the Midwest and other areas maybe not so much so,but on the coasts, in 1981 a Saab, Volvo, Cressida, 240D, or 5 Series evoked prestige and having made an intelligent decision much more than a New Yorker did.
I couldn’t agree more. The tipping point in New Orleans was the early 1980s. People who had previously bought a premium brand domestic car switched to Audi, Volvo, Mercedes and even Maxima and Cressida. The change was pretty sudden and dramatic actually, and it was driven by the prestige of engineering efficiency and high quality materials and workmanship. Bigger was not better to these buyers.
It’s also important to note that many of these folks were NOT Baby Boomers, but were often middle-aged people, 45+(oldest Boomers were just 36 or 37 at the time), who were at the heart of the premium car market. So the shift wasn’t simply due to younger buyers rejecting their parent’s tastes in cars–it was that the parent’s tastes changed and they never looked back. The Japanese clearly picked up on this trend, with Acura, Lexus and Infiniti being developed to capture both Boomers and their parents as they redefined luxury.
I’d argue Boomers did reject their parents’ tastes but the game changers here were the “Silent Generation”, people born between 1930 or so and 1945 (if you know Mad Men, the younger people at the office, like Pete Campbell or Harry Crane, qualify, Draper and Sterling don’t). The generation who was too young to fight in WWII, graduated college before hippies but too late for the Vietnam draft, mostly, and pretty much managed to peak out in earnings potential and wealth during good times (graduating college in the 50s, retiring in the late 90s). The WWII generation and before still preferred the big cars, but their younger brothers or in some cases kids did not. A lot of these people were too young to be the parents of Boomers, unless they were very late Boomers. In other words, its not the typical generation gap.
I agree that the different generations made different choices. Where I think the condescension comes in is the idea that one set of choices is enlightened and intelligent while another generation is tacky or simple.
Now days a Maxima or a 5 series will have ambient lighting that sets a mood in a way much akin to this New Yorker. At the same time a 300 Chrysler can have a powerful Pentastar V6 whose tuning is more like a old school BMW 6 than a slant 6.
Orrin, well said! You effectively make the point I was trying to get at, which is Detroit’s decline, especially among premium brands, was driven by more than just Baby Boomers not wanting their parent’s old-school cars.
My parents and most of their friends were/are part of that “Silent Generation,” (my Pop was born in ’27 and served at the tail-end of WWII, my mother was born in ’34, my siblings are later Baby Boomers, I’m an early Gen Xer). Based on my observations, even in the heartland of the South, this group was turning away from the really big traditional cars during the 1980s. It seems that older folks (60+) were the primary buyers for the huge, dated, BOF RWD full-sizers.
Given that the core of the premium market is buyers in their 40s to 60s, this was an enormous miss for Detroit. I even remember my parents struggling to pick their cars in the 1980s (they still naturally tended to prefer American makes), as nothing seemed quite right to them–too big and old-fashioned, or too boxy/small, and often riddled with inferior engineering and poor build quality. They held out longer than many of their friends: the last domestic they bought was in 1989.
So you are right: Silent Generation was very much part of the mass exodus from Detroit, while Baby Boomers took it to an even bigger level.
Perhaps I was weird, but I was in Highschool when these (and the B/C GMs and FoMoCo Panthers) were new. So I’m either a late “Boomer” or early “Xer” (depending on who’s definition you “buy”) So obviously I should have been entirely in tune with the “prestige imports”, But to me then and now, out of the cars you listed the only one that struck me as “prestigious” was the MB. Ok Volvo and Saab were nice (and to my teenage head, European Oldsmobiles), But the Cressida was (to me) more of a “high end” bread and butter car. (Japanese Caprice….) I couldn’t then or now envision “Toyota” as a prestigious marque (VS Mercedes,Jaguar…) Cadillac,Buick,Mercury,Chrysler still meant “presence” Toyota recognized this too, making “Lexus”, realizing that in this market “names” matter. On the size part, Hauling kids wasn’t the point, I had several 1977-1989 GM B/Cs…Never married,no kids! but all had 4doors! (and lots of “presence”!) LOL!
Because of the “voluntary import quotas”, Japanese cars were generally sold fully-loaded and often with dealer markup, so there was a sort of prestige to them. A Cressida or Maxima may well have been more expensive than a full-sized Oldsmobuick.
And given that, (In 1980 I was working at a gas station and obviously not in the market for any of these new!) I would have definitely went with Oldsmobile or Buick! I’ll be damned if I am going to pay Buick level dough and buy a Toyota! To me then,still seen as an economy car. If I wanted an economy car, I’da just got a $3K ‘vette! (Chevette!) But that’s me… YMMV!
I am probably almost ten years older than you, but my thoughts are exactly the same as yours. Some friends of my parents bought a new Cressida at that time, and they said it was either that or a Mercedes Benz. Like you, I could never put a Cressida into the same or category as a MB and had no idea how educated people could make such a comparison. The Cressida then and the Avalon now were just Toyota’s equivalent of the Caprice or LTD/Crown Victoria. And I never could figure out why young people in upwardly mobile corporate positions at the time thought so highly of a Maxima. To me it was just another version of an economy car, and a pretty nondescript and mundane one at that, particularly compared to the European offerings.
Yes, Volvo, Saab, and even Audi and BMW were at the time European Oldsmobiles or Buicks. (BMW didn’t start making the 7 series until the late 1970s.)
Thank you, Paul. My point was if Detroit quality had been at least decent rather than abysmal, they might have been able to hold off the imports a little longer. The Europeans had displaced Caddy and Lincoln mostly with style and performance, but Ford and Chevy were losing primarily on quality. Even the luxury makes might have done better with a little more QC.
The smaller domestic models were not that far off technically from what Toyota and Nissan were putting out, but still looked like they were indifferently slapped together and ran like it compared to perfectly precise Japanese fit and finish.
The one area Detroit had Japan beat was in materials, particularly in rust-resistant metal. Which is why you see so many domestic beaters from that era still on the road while Japan’s best turned into piles of red powder. Once debugged, they proved pretty durable.
Honda was on another level, its Accord setting standards even in its own home market. But again, the domestic answer (X and K cars, Escort and Tempo) were close to the Accord in technical sophistication but not in quality. Until five years down the road when the tinworm started munching on the Accords.
It took some time, but Detroit eventually got the message (the Taurus nailed it), and while some believe a quality gap still exists, it’s much smaller than the canyon that existed in the early 1980’s.
Wong. I worked in a big Japanese company for several years, and they do have an obsession with quality. It’s part of the culture. Go walk around in a market and you see it immediately. You see it in the way people dress, or in how they keep their cars, or running the trains EXACTLY on time.
There is a HUGE difference. A Japanese worker will ALWAYS give their company 110%, no matter how badly they are treated.
…and in 1979-80 Toyotas rusted to the ground before any other parts failed. That’s why it’s easier to find a 1980 Pontiac,Dodge,Volvo, in use today than a 1980 Toyota……. Just Sayin’
I see comments like this fairly often, and I don’t disagree, but rust resistance is really a product of long-term durability, and not initial quality, which is what the video addressed, and what tends to sell new cars.
Chrysler’s products weren’t only outdated; the competition looked better as the potential buyer was sitting in the new vehicle at the dealership. It was difficult to ignore the R-bodies’ misaligned and poorly attached trim, and during the test drive, the air and water leaks coming from the frameless doors. I’m not even sure that rust resistance was on the radar of a majority of these buyers, who tended to trade every three to four years.
For whatever reason, GM managed to do just about everything right with the initial launch of the downsized B- and C-bodies, and they sold well. The same was true for the Japanese in the smaller size segments. But given Chysler’s product lineup and its shaky financial situation at the time, I’m not sure that even perfect quality would’ve helped the sales of these beasts.
I get that, but to me long term durability is more important, Getting rid of a payment to acquire a new payment (like getting a new car every 3-5 years) is bad finance! (unless you’re selling new cars.) So I have (at least in my adult years) based buying decisions based on longer term reliability,rather than chasing the next big thing. In fact, I usually bought a well regarded model in it’s final years,….cough, “95 Century..” cough….
Again, I don’t disagree with you, but the point being made here is why the R-bodies didn’t sell, while imports were quickly gaining market share and the downsized GM and FoMoCo products were selling.
Your vehicle buying habits (which I share with you) may not be “bad finance,” but you’re talking about 2016, not 1979. Those shopping for new full-sized cars at that time didn’t think that way; the cars were usually expensive to keep running reliably after a few years, and owning an older car in white collar suburbia made you look like you were unsuccessful. And to many of that generation – for reasons we may find difficult to understand – that was unthinkable.
I had a 1977 Honda Civic CVCC in the early 1980s, and lived in south central Pennsylvania, where it does snow in the winter and salt is used on the roads.
The rust issue wasn’t that bad> It certainly wasn’t bad enough to remove the car from the road prematurely. It helped to simply wash the car regularly.
And some of the downsized Detroit cars – particularly the GM A-bodies – had some nagging rust issues of their own.
Early A-Body cars probably got the ideas of thinner panels from the Japanese cars but they quickly figured it wasn’t wise. And later models had much better rust resistance.
It wasn’t just the body panels. The bumpers, and the points where the bumpers attached to the body, rusted. I believe that they also had problems with rusting frames.
Heck finding a 1990’s Toyota is very difficult. We always are on the lookout for these types of cars but always seem to find far more GM’s, Ford’s and even Chryslers from this time period with very few Asian makes in the Upstate, NY areas.
I will certainly attest to msquare’s comment re the Olds Diesel program! My brother totaled Mom’s ’79 Town Car by a head on collision with a tri-axle. It was only by virtue of that 6.5 ft hood (which was GONE!! afterward) that he walked away physically unscathed. After the shouting with the insurance folks was over, she was faced with replacing her car. She had looked at the new ‘downsized’ full sizes from FoMoCo and was somewhat unimpressed. I was lobbying HARD for the New Yorker (this was in ’80) or 5th Ave because I thought they still looked like a “real car”, or a proper full size. Chrysler was offering HUGE rebates on these at the time and I thought I had her sold, But the Chrysler we test drove had several “driveability issues” right out of the gate on the test drive and mom wanted to ‘think about it’.
We went cross town to the Olds dealer to see what they had on hand (I owned a ’78 Toro XS at the time) and she set her sights on a fully loaded Ninety Eight with the Diesel. It was a leftover ’79 and they were willing to offer ‘quite a deal’. She was impressed with the fuel economy of course and I was OK with the idea of another Olds in the driveway. If ONLY we had a handy crystal ball; That car LIVED in the shop and only survived about 10 months past its warranty. Two trannys and a re-manned “Badwrench” gas 350 later, she dumped it for a Honda Accord! THIS is a really good example of why the American auto industry struggled so during this era. I held out as an “American car only guy” for about another 25 years before falling into the Saab trap. She ‘found’ Saab in the early ’90s and never looked back. I’ve only recently gone back to my American gun boats, as a Cadillac owner.
The “R” bodies (and their fans..) should Not hold their heads down. The “R” did not start a line on their own because they were the end of an awesome wild ride that started in 1962. MoPar named this generation “R” as a response to the ’77 GM “B”/”C” and ’79 Ford “Panther” platform, In reality these were just a reskin of the MoPar “B”, Chrysler was unfortunately 15 years early in developing a “downsized” big car and payed the price from 1962-64, but let’s face it, They had the “formula” GM figured it out in 1977, FoMoCo would take awhile longer,but the concept ran into the 21st Century! Make mine a full brougham 1979 New Yorker Fifth Ave Edition, But witb a Pre 1973 power team,. Full blown Red Blooded American Luxo-Bomb! –
I quite like them, theres a Fury locally that I had a good look around and it seemed a reasonably well put together car.
That video is a great snapshot into the time period. Even for a “poor quality” car it’s unreal to image so many serious defects in brand new vehicle from today’s perspective. Hell, a six year old car with 80,000 miles would be considered a total POS lemon if it had that many problems today! Water leaks, failed AC, doors sticking shut, and numerous electrical glitches from day one??
What gets me is how nonchalant the narrator is about it – his matter of fact tone almost sounds as if he expects every new car to have a certain amount of problems and this one just has a couple more than usual. I shudder to think what would be wrong with it after 5 or 10 years if that heap was that shoddy off the assembly line. And to think someone payed $12,000 in 1980 money for that!
But did they get worse over the years? Sometimes cars like that are sold by the first owner because they’re sick of the faults – just at the point all the faults are fixed.
I used to work for Avis and when Fiats arrived we always expected some of them to go straight off the transporter into workshop but they usually “stayed fixed” after that.
LOL,True! “First faults” (and often “wrong” buying decisions.) on the part of an O.O. caused me plenty of gain!
Well given that there is nothing wrong with the mechanical bits from the design PoV, once one sorted the problems out, these (and other US-made cars of that ilk) were capable of serving their owners for hundreds of thousand of miles. A survivor would make an interesting everyday CC for someone (not me, or at least not without some modification).
This is why my next “ride” is likely to be a “Panther”, and I’m not the biggest FoMoCo guy here,but 33 years development and available “goodies” can’t readily be dismissed….. I’m thinking a straight up grand ma Mercury…… triple blue/cloth interior….To hell with high tech!
I just bought a 1991 Mercury Grand Marquis LS with leather last month. It has some issues being 25 years old, but I’ve taken car of the important safety stuff like brakes and tires, but for $895.00, it was a deal. The other few things can wait as I get money to address them. It was owned by a retired teacher and is just about to turn over 63,000 miles, No rust, either.
Well I’m in the EU so this is theoretical (and there’s nothing equivalent here – the big Germans and/or the Chrysler 300C / Lancia Thema are way too complicated if something goes wrong) but if you’re in North America it makes perfect sense.
You mention that he sounds “as if he expects every new car to have a certain amount of problems…” I think this may have been exactly the case in the 70’s and early 80’s. Quality had declined to the point where no one expected even a new car to be trouble-free anymore; that’s what the warranty was for. You just hoped all the problems were fixed before the warranty expired!
It’s interesting to imagine how sales performance would have been by 1983 had Chrysler kept this around.
I’m with you, Brendan. I genuinely find these to be one of the best-looking American cars of the time period. Even with the goofy opera window/door treatment, I would say the ’79 New Yorker was more attractive than every other full-sizer bar the Caprice, Bonneville, Electra and DeVille. For 1980, I would say it was better looking than everything bar the Bonneville and Ninety-Eight. Even its interior, from an aesthetic perspective, is in the upper tier for me. Shame the build quality was so subpar.
GM themselves obviously liked these too, The 1980 -84 Buick Electra “stole” the rear end, and that “opera window” on the rear doors ONLY took untill 1988 for Cadillac to catch up!
I actually don’t think the R-bodies would have helped Chrysler much at all if they had hung around. While big car sales did increase after 1983, their share of the total market did not–all car sales were rising. Sure, there were die-hards who still wanted a jumbo car (and all these downsized big cars were still huge), but most folks were content with something more reasonably sized. I think the M-body was a good choice for Chrysler–it looked “big” though it was a somewhat more manageable size, and it sold at a competitive price. Plus Ford and GM didn’t have anything quite like it for the mid- to late-1980s–their RWD big cars were bigger (the M-body-sized GM G-body sedans and Ford Fox LTD/Marquis were done around ’85/’86), while the FWD cars were smaller (outside), so Chrysler could occupy the niche by itself.
And yet, the Fifth Avenue was no more fuel efficient. In 1989, for example, the EPA rated the Chrysler at 16/22 mpg. The Crown Vic and Caprice? 17/24 mpg. I’ve always just seen the Fifth as an imposter in the full-size class… It even cost the same (sometimes even more!) than a Grand Marquis. If I was going to sacrifice handling and fuel economy and buy a “traditional” full-sizer in the 1980s, I would want my floaty boat to at least have some visual presence.
Indeed the Fifth Avenue was the only domestic that had to pay the gas guzzler tax at the time. Chrysler never got around to an overdrive auto or FI. The R bodies were reasonably light so I doubt the EPA numbers would have been any worse.
Yes and no. Chrysler did have an automatic overdrive and fuel injection for pickups around 1988. From accounts I’ve read, putting these on cars would not have been a herculean feat, but it was simply six to eight years too late.
Chrysler’s first 4-speed RWD automatic was the A500, based on the smaller A904 family and first put out in 1989 trucks and vans. The larger A727-based A518 came in 1990. They were both considerably less durable and more problematic than the 3-speed units, and even if they’d come along in time to put them in passenger cars, that would’ve meant new floorpans (and less passenger space) and new crossmembers and such.
As for fuel injection: welll…sorta almost a little but not really. Leaving aside the disastrous experiment on the ’81-’83 318 Imperials (more info here), Chrysler put a primitive, crude TBI system on 3.9 V6s and 5.2 and 5.9 V8s in Dodge trucks and vans from 1988-1991. The hardware was poorly made by Holley, and the firmware was a halfassed shrug by Chrysler. Although idle air controllers were old news, readily available off the shelf in numerous configurations, idle speed on this system was controlled by a bulky external kick motor bolted to the throttle body. Its plunger extended or retracted to move the throttle lever itself. This movement was audible and it was sluggish; if the dimwitted computer thought it detected a condition calling for an elevated idle speed (such as the driver attempting a 3-point turn or other maneuver requiring Drive/Reverse shifting), the driver’s options were to wait (and wait) for the idle speed to slowwwwwllly simmer back down to normal, or go ahead and shift the gears anyhow and brace for the BANG! of engagement. The miniature fuel injectors were very clog-prone. The fuel pressure regulators had an interesting design combining a tendency to leak with, um, a widely inclusive definition of “regulate”. The intake manifold was designed with complete disregard for the knowledge accumulated since the late 1950s. Driveability and fuel economy were not good.
Of course, the carburetors of the late 1980s were an equal but different nightmare, but the choice was not either/or; by the time this clunker of a system gasped its way onto the roads in 1988 there had been very much better fuel injection systems in mass production for almost two decades.
The cynically cheap and nasty manner in which Chrysler (and the other American automakers) complied with tightening emissions regulations wound up costing them an enormous amount of money in warranty service, recalls, and customers lost to the rotten driveability. I have often wondered how things might’ve been different if instead of keeping carburetors way past the technology’s expiry date and faffing around with pathetic pretend-fuel-injection systems, they had put on something like Bosch’s K-Jetronic.
Agree with Daniel Stern totally. The German FI was well sorted out by then.
The rear seat leg room definitely was not on par with the Ford/GM competition, and it was acknowledged that the 2.2L powered K-Cars had the same acceleration as the 5.2L M-Bodies.
Having owned multiples of each, I can attest to this. Seeing as the car was based on the compact class (for 1976) F- Body Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare, this isn’t a shock with the size. The front seat head/leg/hip room is fine for a 6+ footer and, from the driver’s seat, it is a fine view over the hood, not too short.
Externally, though, I would agree, the Fifth Avenue wasn’t as imposing. The Diplomat/Gran Fury, without the landau top of the Chrysler, doesn’t make it look as obviously smaller, at least in my opinion.
I still think that the M-body’s size limited its appeal, even as sales of the Fifth Avenue rebounded mid-decade. And as others have commented after this, the R-body wasn’t substantially less fuel efficient than the M-body.
Again, I’m not sure if the R-body would’ve enjoyed the same resurgence in popularity as the big Fords and GMs, but I don’t think that having it around for longer would’ve hurt Chrysler, so long as they worked out all the bugs. Even if they discontinued the Newport/St. Regis/Gran Fury and just kept the New Yorker. Tooling would’ve been paid for and the New Yorker’s higher profit margin would’ve been attractive.
As much as I would’ve like the R-bodies to have had a longer life and a chance to redeem themselves, in all reality though Chrysler was probably just happy to rid themselves of them and focus on the K-cars.
Interesting you mentioned Newport. It’s a user manual from a Fifth Avenue but the Newport name is still on the cover.
Rumor has it that the 1984 Dodge Diplomat SE (which unusually featured the Fifth Avenue’s front clip) was to have been the 1984 Chrysler Newport. This might just be the best evidence to support this claim yet.
That is very interesting. I can assure you the automotive press in that era did mention the possibility of a Newport, thanks to the relative success of the Fifth Avenue in the consumer market. Somebody approving that cover for print confirms that they came pretty close to going with it.
I’d agree Brendan that the Diplomat SE ended up getting a 99.9% parts bin package that was probably intended for the Newport.
A couple of theories on why the Newport didn’t happen………..
You could buy a Gran Fury M body with an SE trim, and option it to “Newport” standards in any Chrysler / Plymouth dealership. Outside of a unique grill, the Newport would have been a rather redundant product to other M body trims.
This was about the only “development” on the M body after most issues were settled with the models and trims for 1983. Chrysler was happy to sell M bodies as long as they were easy profits, but I think they were always a bit uneasy with the old tech, old looks, and dismal gas mileage of these cars messing up their image as a purveyor of modern and fuel efficient cars. Adding another model name to the M line-up probably felt wrong to too many product planners. Somebody said no to the Newport at the last moment, the Diplomat inherited whatever trim and features packaging that were developed, and some manuals that were probably approved for printing early in 1983 got loose with the cover Orangechallenger posted.
Very cool proof of the stillborn 1984 Newport!
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/17/business/new-chrysler-newport.html
DETROIT, Aug. 16— The Newport, dropped from the Chrysler Corporation’s car model line after 1981, will return in the 1984 model year, the company says. Chrysler plans to produce the larger-sized auto at a Fenton, Mo., plant. Sales will begin in early 1984, according to a company spokesman, Thomas Houston.
8/17/83
🙂
I can’t argue with any of these points: there were a lot of reasons to pick a Panther or a GM B-body over a Mopar M-body. But I still don’t think the R-body would have done any better against the entrenched Ford and GM competitors, nor do I think that Chrysler would have made the necessary investments in the powertrain (fuel injection and overdrive) that were desperately needed.
Therefore, the M-Body was an interesting strategic choice: redefine the meaning of a full-size nameplate, and I mean that based solely on exterior dimensions. Keep in mind the time frame: full size cars were definitely seen as being “out of fashion” in 1980-81. What had previously been considered mid-size or even compact cars just a few years before were suddenly seen as being large. Previously downsized big cars seemed gargantuan.
So how do you appeal to traditionalists who wanted smaller exterior dimensions? Turn a LeBaron into a New Yorker! It really wasn’t a bad idea–sales actually went up! Keep in mind that Pontiac also tried the same thing (not particularly successfully) of turning a LeMans into a Bonneville. Granada/Cougar became the LTD/Marquis–and sales went up (the LTD even outsold the Crown Victoria for a few years). So while these cars weren’t “genuine” full size cars, they did fill a niche for conservative buyers wanting something big enough but not too big in a RWD package.
Chrysler then became the “last man standing” in a small segment of more manageable/easier-to-park traditional “almost full size” cars. Niche market, sure, but Chrysler could be a big fish in a little pond, whereas unseating the Caprice or Crown Victoria would have been a monumental (and expensive) challenge.
And to put the size in perspective, here is an interesting tidbit: the 1982 M-Body New Yorker has essentially the same external dimensions as a 2016 BMW 750Li, which is unquestionably a very large sedan. The Chrysler was 206.7 inches long and 74.2 inches wide, while today’s historically big BMW is 206.6 inches long and 74.9 inches wide. Obviously the packaging and efficiency are vastly different, but the point is from the standpoint of external dimensions, the M-body was actually quite close to what would become the lasting standard for a full size car.
So I think Lido made a smart choice with the M-body. It certainly had its issues and was uncompetitive in many ways, but was probably a better use of Chrysler’s very limited resources at a time when no one saw a future at all for the traditional domestic full size class.
I don’t believe there was much strategy to the M body other than the tooling was paid for and it was a decent seller in the fleet market. The consumer market success of the Fifth Avenue was a happy fluke as much as anything, and Chrysler was willing to build them as long as they sold. Chrysler deemed various front drivers to be their “flagship” model from 1983 on, ignored development on the M, provided almost zero consumer market marketing for the Dodge and Plymouth versions, and generally isolated the Fifth Avenue from consumer market promotion of its other cars.
If Chrysler kept the R-bodies around a few more years they would just have continues as is with the old 130 Hp 318 and the 3 speed automatic and sales would have kept sliding as this was and always will be an inferior cost cutting attempt at being a competitor to the superior GM and Ford products of the time which kept improving with Fuel injection, overdrive transmissions and better overall designs.
TorqueFlite dates back to 1956! It got a makeover in the early ’60s to switch the case from iron to aluminum and add a parking pawl. (The iron-case model arguably didn’t need one since ’50s Chryslers had the parking brake on the prop shaft anyway.) Then it got a lockup torque converter in I think 1978.
Yes but the exact versions the R-body used (A727 and A904) dated back to 1962 and 1964.
That is certainly true, but if you want to talk about venerability …
Actually the A904 and A727 as used in the R-body date back to 1966, the first year for the single-pump, rod-shifted, aluminum-case Torqueflites. If you want to zoom out a little, then 1962 is the correct year; that was when the aluminum-case A727 and A904 Torqueflites first came out, though they were cable-shifted and had two pumps. 1964 does not figure into this question.
The halfway hardtopped door is just WEIRD. Chrysler had a long-standing habit of adding fancy Oh-Wow features that couldn’t be seen. GM understood that the purpose of every feature is to make your neighbor envious, and always made distinctions and features visible.
I’ve never seen the inside angle of New Yorker’s rear door before — that’s a really interesting picture.
Aside from the oddness of the opera window enclosure, that door has got to win a prize for the most handles of any door in the automotive world. There’s at least 3 (door opening handle, pull bar, hanging strap), with a possible 4th if the arm rest has an indentation as well.
Not to mention 2 courtesy lights.
Back in the good old days it was expected that new cars needed to be de-bugged; the only questions were how many bugs one would encounter, and whether the dealer would properly fix them.
It could be argued that it was better to buy a one year old gently used but fully debugged model than gamble on a new unit.
The good old days were not that good.
The debugging necessity has just transferred over into other consumer products, I haven’t owned a phone or a computer/laptop, or a tablet, or a printer, or a cable box, or a router that works right out of the box. The good news is the solutions can be done via software updates but other times it’s complicated enough to require a frustrating call to technical support or visit to the store you got it from.
Cars at least are (were more so in the day) mechanical, when I get fed up with non solutions from the manufacturer I can whip out my trusty screwdriver, hammer and duct tape and make it work near perfectly. Doesn’t work that way when my DVR stops working out of the blue and I get transferred and transferred and transferred again around the entire call center with nothing I can do but continue to bend over and say thank you sir may I have another until the ultimate answer is “you’re going to need to replace the device, our closest store is only 20 miles from your location”
In many ways the modern days aren’t that great either. Judging by all the things both my friend’s dealership, my uncles repair garage and many owners are facing with these newer designed cars I for see a time in the none too distant future when used car owners simply won’t be able to keep these new cars on the road much past the warranty because of the sheer cost of replacing things that go bad and the total complexity of said vehicles. There are folks bringing in late model foreign cars with illuminated CEL lights that fail inspection and are being told they need several thousand dollars worth of new exhaust manifolds or catalytic converters such as a good friend with his 2008 Subaru Forester. It’s now sitting in his driveway until he can figure out what to do. He could buy the parts for around 600-800 bucks but nobody wants to install them!
A Newport or Grand Fury would be fine by me. Never liked the opera window treatment.
Is it true that the front disc brakes on R-bodies would fit 60s era Chargers and Challengers??
I have to come to the defense of GM here: I think the B- and C-bodies were superior in looks, dynamics and quality by a significant margin. The Panthers, introduced at the same time as the Chrysler R-bodies for the 1979 model year, were arguably less attractive but were surely better built.
I will give Chrysler credit that they made the most of what they had. But there was a reason they were dead last: Chrysler’s reputation was in tatters at this point, both for quality and also the health of the parent company. Most buyers in the segment, unless they were die-hard Chrysler loyalists, weren’t willing to take the chance.
My Great Aunt was one of those people. She got a New Yorker every two years like clockwork, a habit ingrained in her by her late husband, who had been a big Chrysler fan and felt they offered the “best engineering.”
She traded in her 1977 New Yorker Brougham for a ’79 New Yorker Fifth Avenue, the cream-colored cream puff (those interior shots bring back memories!). She was lucky, as her car didn’t have any major quality issues (unlike her ’75 which had been a total lemon from new), but the pall of the terrible brand image hung over the car. People would tell her she was “brave” to get a Chrysler product. That social stigma is what did in the Chrysler brand for her–she did not get another New Yorker in 1981, switching–very happily–to a Buick Electra Park Avenue.
I do remember her car though, especially the interior with the driftwood trim, and the bizarre rear-doors with the “in-your-face” opera window. In many ways it was a nice take on a Seventies-style big car, but there was just too much stacked against it.
You are right about the stigma that attached to Chrysler products and the people who bought them. Everyone was certain that they would soon be out of business, and the cars’ voracious appetite for new parts would become a huge problem.
Visited some friends in California this past christmas. The lady of the house had this as a daily driver. It belonged to her husband’s mother, so it’s a genuine ‘two little old lady driver’ special. The roof lining was sagging, lots of the electrics were duff and the interior reminded me of a padded cell for the insane.
We were out one evening in Pasadena and found ourselves in the pre-‘Rose Bowl parade’ classic car parade on the main drag of the town. Can’t say I saw many admiring looks, but it was fun cruising through the 50s and 60s classics in such a classic piece of shit. Made our day!
Delboy,
Are your friends planning on selling that Fifth Avenue? I’m just curious because I’m always on the lookout for potential project cars that suit my fancy.
How much do you think they would take for it, and how’s the overall condition?
My thoughts/questions exactly. That is clean, and they are easy to work on.
Hello PJ. Our friends would be delighted to have someone interested in their car, but I’ve no idea if they are getting around to selling it yet. If you could drop me a line at del3131@gmail.com, I will forward your message and see what they think.
The bodywork condition looked mint and apart from the headlining and some electric gremlins. I saw no dents whatsoever on the body and can only guess that it gets an outing to the supermarkets about once a week.
Woops. Messed up my email address. It’s delb3131@gmail.com
Here’s the view from the back. Lovely colour I must say.
It has the great cast aluminum wheels as well, much preferable to the fake wire hubcaps.
Just about any example of these that we come by suffers the sagging interior syndrome with headliners falling down and the side and back pillars with sagging cloth. Makes the interior look very sloppy
To be pedantic again, because that’s what happens at this hour of the morning, I should note that the article’s comments about the last hardtops only applies to the U.S. industry. There were (and still are) a handful of two-door hardtops, some actually imported here, and an assortment of JDM four-door hardtops that weren’t. The last pillarless four-door hardtops offered in the Japanese market were around 1993!
Interesting anecdote about the final Chrysler four door hardtops……….
The Newport, a car that in base versions could be pretty basic, was offered as a four door sedan through almost its entire history. But, by 1978, it was offered as a two or four door hardtop only – allowing the body styles to be rationalized with the New Yorker, which generally sold best as a four door hardtop, and was offered as a hardtop only during its final years – possibly as long as the ’76-’78 model years.
Ok, I’ll bite – was there a real H.E. Weiss?
Plastic brake cylinder pistons? To save weight? How much could that possibly save?
These cars just looked dated compared to the GM models. My parents bought a new 81 Olds 98 Regency w/o vinyl roof that looked cleaner and more modern but I can appreciate some of the styling touches like hidden headlamps. Also the Newport/St. Regis looked good as police cars.
Sure switching to Phenolic pistons did only save a couple of ounces but that is how you get the big weight savings, shaving a little bit here and there.
However I highly doubt that the main reason that they got the Phenolic piston was a conscious weight savings choice on Chrysler’s part since they didn’t make their own brakes. They bought from KH at the time and it was probably the KH engineers behind that switch, with weight savings being below cost savings and reduced brake fade in the reasons for the switch. Fact is that the previously used stainless pistons transfer more heat to the brake fluid than Phenolics reducing the potential for fluid boiling induced brake fade.
Yup (except the previous material was most often hard-chromed steel, not stainless). And there are—and have been—many, many vehicles with phenolic brake pistons that worked, and work, just fine for a long, long time. There’s nothing the matter with the concept. If the implementation’s lousy for whatever reason—faulty material, improper manufacture or assembly—stuff’ll go wrong, and then people tend to badmouth the concept because it’s new and obvs inferior to the way things were done back in the Good Ol’ Days™.
Something that was good — by omission — about ‘the good old days’ of motor vehicles. There’s no ‘idiot buzzers’. They’re nowhere to be found on my ’64 Falcon. It may be a primitive car, but it’s not an annoying car. I recall sometime in the 1970s we started hearing warning buzzers in motor cars for various things. Leaving the door ajar, not having your seat belt on, keys in the ignition, something else I probably forgot = BUZZERS! Just like in the video above about the road test for the ’79 New Yorker.
Let me say I do ‘buckle up’ when I’m a passenger in the cars of others, but if I don’t do it fast enough then here comes the buzzer or ‘warning music’ (like that’s in my mother BMW). If it goes over 10 mph and your belt is not fastened you get this warning music. And it won’t stop ’til you’re buckled up. (I figure the ‘idiot-proofing’ of modern automobiles won’t stop until new cars are the equivalent of vehicular prisons).
I find seatbelt reminders annoying, too. I’ve always, always, always used my belt, and do not need or want to be nagged about it. On my previous car I unplugged the 2-wire connector at the base of the latch—an easy 5-second job—and the reminder chime and light were taken harmlessly offline. I hesitate to do the same on my present car, because it has seatbelt pre-tensioners and I don’t want to risk disabling them; it seems likely enough that the ECM looks at the belt-status switch in the latch for more than just chime/light that I grudgingly leave the switches connected.
It’s fine to moan about “idiot-proofing”, but the fact is today’s cars are enormously safer than yesterday’s, and that’s what the market wants.
Well you can always find the buzzer and silence it, though of course that will likely silence your lights on and other warnings too.
My daily beater is a retired police car and they somehow silenced its dinger. If you listen carefully and don’t have the radio or fan on you can barely hear its ding-ding-ding. I haven’t dug around to see exactly what they did to make it so quiet. It is nice to not hear it when I’m just playing musical cars and I’m not worried about wearing my seat belt to move it 20′ at 2 mph.
On the other hand, pre-’68 cars generally don’t have four-way flashers, which is a big deficiency in cars more likely to end up on the side of the road.
The worst is the JDM speed limit warning, @ 100kmh a really annoying chime kicks in though thanx to the mushy comfort suspension tune on that car any faster wasnt really on the cards.
I’ve never been able to pinpoint why I actually like these cars, but you’ve hit the nail on the head here — “less stuffy.” The design is clean in a broughamy sort of way, and if you like broughams, but not the flamboyance that often goes along with them, then this is a great car.
For a boxy, traditional car, I think the design is well-executed overall, and many of the points you made here (like the sculptured trunklid, etc.) contribute to that sentiment.
That said, I completely understand why people usually loathe the R-bodies, for build quality, design and engineering. And of course, I’ve never driven one, so my admiration for this car carries a big caveat.
Thanks for the very well-done article, touching on the positives and negatives of these cars.
You’re right. There’s no daft vinyl-covered roof cap/extension like a Fifth Avenue or Versailles, no covered rear wheels or sagging character line like the previous New Yorker, no mismatched roof/body like various early 1970s designs that had been updated for more Brougham-hungry times, no silly padded vinyl trunk hump or headlight covers. Instead, there’s a simple, well-integrated yet stately grille; matching hood and trunk designs; clean, crisp lines.
I also believe that these were the best looking full sizers in 1979-81. They were not on my radar at the time because of fuel economy needs. But now, I’m on the lookout for one, preferably a St. Regis.
I *loved* these when they came out. I thought these were the best executed of the downsized big cars of 1977-79 – at least in concept. They were the most “American” in flavor, if that makes sense.
In practice, they were a disaster. These were the products of Chrysler at its dysfunctional peak. It is difficult to overstate the severity of the quality problems. The cars were underbaked by a company that could foul up a two-car funeral procession. People would buy Mopars in 1978-80 if the cars offered a reason to buy them. The Omni/Horizon sold very well. But these cost a lot more and had ready competition in GM and Ford showrooms.
I remain convinced that with the addition of an overdrive transmission, these would have sold far better than the Fifth Avenue did in the 84-88 era. But Iacocca was unwilling to spend development money on what everyone saw as a dead-end segment in the early 80s.
I think your last point is really critical: when the decision was made to drop the R-bodies, it would have been a “no brainer” based on the circumstances of the times. In 1980-81, everyone in Detroit assumed that the big cars would soon be gone. The second oil shock, tightening CAFE requirements, the huge success of the GM X-cars, collapsing big car sales, surge in sales for smaller cars and imports… there was no reason to think it was a good idea to keep investing in traditional big cars. No question Iacocca made a smart bet with Chrysler’s limited resources. GM and Ford left their biggies alone as well for years, simply reaping some unexpected easy money on a product category they had left for dead.
During the 1975 recession, Lynn Townsend laid off almost the entire engineering department of the corporation for several weeks. It seriously hurt the initial quality of the Aspen and Volare (launched in the fall of 1975), and I wouldn’t be surprised if the lingering effects didn’t affect the R-bodies as well.
At that time, I remember reading that Chrysler had planned a big ceremony to launch a new line of cars, and local dignitaries had been invited to the event, including Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. The press, of course, had been invited. When the first car rolled off the line, Mayor Young got in the driver’s seat to start it.
And it failed to start. Which was a major embarrassment.
I’m pretty sure that this car was the first 1979 R-body.
Also, these cars were developed during the open warfare between John Riccardo and Gene Cafiero, who were “co-chairs” of the company. Systems and processes had broken down during the second half of Townsend’s reign, and neither Riccardo nor Cafiero seemed to have the ability to recognize it (or to remedy it if they did).
Iacocca sat for an interview in the 80s when he said that if he had known what bad shape the company really was in then, he would never have taken the job. He said he assumed that there would be something to work with there, but instead he had to start practically from scratch. This is borne out by how little of the old company was still there by 1985.
did American Sunroof Corp. do the Landau roof and rear door quarter window treatment? looks an awful lot like what they did for Chevrolet in the late 80’s on the Caprice Brougham LS
ASC did the sunroofs and stainless steel roofs of the 1980-81 Special Editions. The landau roof was in house, though probably ASC helped design and implement it initially until it was brought in house. ASC did create and build the roof for the 1980 Lebaron Fifth Avenue which would become the M-Body 5th.
The bustle-back Seville had the same kind of weird semi-frameless rear door.
I think they were great looking cars, the St. Regis being my favorite followed by the New Yorker. They were well-designed cars, just not well-built cars and Ive heard some horror stories about them regarding their build quality, especially from cops that drove them when they were new; everything from having a Fury emblem on one side and a Newport emblem on the other to wheels flying off at speed from improperly installed ball joints.
My childhood neighbor was a WW2-era gentleman who traded in an early Cordoba for a beautiful charcoal grey with burgundy interior 1980 New Yorker; he retired to Florida shortly thereafter and took the car with him so I don’t know how long it lasted but it was a pretty car.
If I recall correctly, the 1980 and 1981 R-bodies were much improved in the quality department, but by that point, the damage had been done. A combination of poor initial quality, high gas prices and the brutal 1980-82 recession meant that these cars never really had a chance.
GM set the standard for downsized full sized cars. Simply the most elegant of all of them. Especially the Caprice. The Chryslers were overwrought with baroque detailing.
The Caprice was a clean design, but GM could be very guilty of overwrought baroque styling. And this Pontiac doesn’t even have rear fender skirts.
Hey now,
Let’s not forget the early Ford Panther cars. I think the first LTDs (’79-’80) were the epitome of simple elegance.
The first Lincoln Town Cars (’80-’82) were even better.
I can’t say I agree with you on this. The early Panther cars suffered from a too-short wheelbase and some really awkward proportions and details. The greenhouse area was really cluttered and messy. Only after some of those details were cleaned up later in the 80s did these become decent looking.
The GM C body of 1977-79 was a lot better done than the Panther, but suffered from looking too much like the B body, as had been the case in 1961-62.
Yup, absolutely. The ’77-’79 GM B-bodies, especially the Caprice, got it so completely, exactly right that all the others from Ford and Chrysler looked like half-to-three-quarter-assed imitations.
Awesome article! I enjoy my 81 on a weekly basis. It floats, has good power, no one ever knows what it is, and puts a smile on my face watching the Pentastar at the end of the hood guiding me like a boss.
Beautiful car. And for some reason, when I think of early-80s New Yorkers, I usually picture them in that cream/tan color. I don’t know if that was one of the more popular colors for these cars, or whether I’ve just noticed them more… but in any event I think the cream color really accentuates the positive aspects of the car’s design.
Hope you keep enjoying it!
I saw one this color near where I live before I was really into cars. I had one of those, “Ooh! Nice Cadi, wait Lincoln? No…Buick? Oh, Chrysler! Hmm…nice…!” moments.
Whatever their faults, I think the R Body New Yorkers were really nice looking cars.
Not a bad shape, severely marred by the rear door treatment however.
Love broughams and it took a unique person to buy an expensive Mopar back then. I think the New Yorkers stood out compared to the B-Bodies and were a sleeker design than the Mark VI. I love mine, but wouldn’t say no to any of the competition.
Back shot
That’s a nice example you have there.
I like the bumper sticker, a nice period touch.
Thanks, they are great at hiding flaws!
Ah! A Mark VI Sedan! There’s another marvel of Ford name debasement. The New Yorker looks so much better.
Beautiful car Corey. Do you have the button tuft seats or the standard ones? How would you compare the ride quality and seat comfort of your car with the Cadillac Brougham?
I have the one year only Lacorde. Leather was a no cost option on the Fifth Avenue edition in 1981.
Here is leather on a 1981 Carriage Roof car that’s been sitting since the 1980s.
The car drives amazing and is as comfortable as a Lincoln or Cadillac, but it definitely isn’t as solid as those BOFs. Having the frameless doors lets some wind noise in (improved on the 1980-81 after the rough start 1979s), and being uni-body means flex and rumble are present, but for handling it is superior and the ride is just as smooth.
I think this was the wagon version:
I think that the Wagon Queen Family Truckster was based on the Ford Panther Platform (Think LTD Country Squire Wagon circa 1984-ish)….
Close… just looked it up. I had the year wrong…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lampoon%27s_Vacation#Wagon_Queen_Family_Truckster
I saw one of these in a handicapped spot at the Walmart store last weekend. In cream as above, in perfect condition cosmetically, and clean as a whistle. I was stunned by it’s beauty!
I still have much desire for a 360 powered R-body.
I have seen one or two in the wild and the maroon beauty from the cohort has the best looking chrome bumpers I have seen on an R-body that was more than 10 years old. One obvious places for the nickle and dime was the quality of that chrome, most examples I’ve seen are flaking and peeling in large pieces like a bad sunburn.
Of the joys of chrome plated aluminum! Another great experiment by Chrysler. Why I love bumper stickers to cover up the flake!
These cars actually sold fairly well for 1979 – by Chrysler standards. Living in a part of the country that was generally Chrysler friendly, these were easy to spot regularly on the street.
Every one of them seemed to have peeling and flaking bumpers within a year or so of going into service. The bumpers were one of the first details I looked at on the subject car. They are in absolutely remarkable condition. While the subject car has obviously seen little service, my guess is that by ’81, they may have corrected the bumper problem. The subsequent M bodies never had bumper peel like the early R bodies did.
I always thought these Chryslers looked HUGE, but had no idea they were so much longer than their competition. As a single guy, by 1979 I felt my Nova was a big car.
If you bought a new car by looks alone, or looks and “specs on paper”, these Chrysler sedans would have been sales leaders. But to me, these Chrysler sedans look big, clunky, and clumsy…..even for a large car. If full-sized sedans were Naval ships, these Chrysler sedans would be WW II era aircraft carriers, while their GM and Ford competitors would be newly launched destroyers.
With torsion bar front suspension and cop car roots, mine loves the twisties!
Hugs the curves!
Those cars should handle on the road much better than smaller M-Body cars, because of the longitude torsion bars. The traverse torsion bars made the car feel extra large.
…and extra-lemony when they got extra-broken extra-often. Seriously shitty design, those transverse torsion bars, which isn’t surprising given how they came about; have you read?
Daniel, can you reveal more of the history behind Chrysler’s ‘Transverse torsion bar’ front-end ? From viewing pictures of this strange design, and reading about its in-service problems, including inability to maintain alignment, and unsuitablility for police use (hardly a surprise)….. it sounds likely to be an interesting story.
I don’t recall where I read about this; I think it was one or another of Lee Iacocca’s books. The aptly-designated F-body (Aspen/Volaré) chassis was originally to use coil springs, then one or another self-impressed little manager stormed into the suspension engineering center and threw a tantrum to the effect of Stop talking about coil springs, you can’t f*cking have them! Chrysler cars are known for torsion bars and you’re going to put them on this car! The very good longitudinal torsion bar setup for which Chrysler cars were actually known wouldn’t fit—if I understand correctly, the floorpans hard points were already locked in—so, jammed up by a napoleonic, know-nothing manager, severe cost constraints, and a short deadline, they came up with the transverse torsion bars.
These also served as strut rods which meant additional cost savings. It also meant control arm location was a sometimes-sorta-near-the-ballpark thing, and the geometry of the steering and suspension systems was sloppily variable under ordinary driving conditions. The bars and their mounts were underspecified in the extreme, which caused lots of part failures and subframe cracks especially in heavy-duty service; there were field fixes to slap and patch the cars back together. It was a crummy, slipshod, slapdash, cheap and nasty system from start to finish. But the cars had torsion bars (kindasorta), and by gum, that’s what mattered.
It is one of numerous pathetic examples of how Chrysler seemed to deliberately piss away their former reputation for superior engineering.
My 77 New Yorker Brougham came from the factory with HD suspension and 70 series radials. It was the best handling big car I ever owned. I can only imagine how much better one of these would be when properly set up, if only due to the weight loss.
Looks great coming at you with headlamp doors open & lights on, fantastic road presence.
In defense of those rear doors…
(Ok maybe not quite the same effect)
These were good-looking cars but had issues:
Windows were sucked outward at speed. If you forgot to roll yours up after a toll booth, you had to slow way down to get it up…but a lot of cars designed with ventipanes and integral window tracks that later had them deleted for “styling” (and cost savings) also did that.
Chrome plated over aluminum bumpers peeled quickly.
The retracting headlight covers on the New Yorker and Dodge St. Regis would open and close with a resounding THUMP easily heard by the driver. Maybe as audible “feedback”…or more likely from cost-cutting? They DID look good, on both.
The nice, smooth polycarbonate steering wheel on the illustrated examples was standard on New Yorker, optional on the others. Good for New Yorker buyers but who would spend money on an optional steering wheel on a Newport or St. Regis? Why, anybody who knew the standard one, which was made of STUFF that was waxy when cool and sticky when warm, and which would pick up dirt and skin oils from your hands as you drove, which made it stickier and required constant cleaning. That wheel appeared in 1976 on the base F-body and B-body Chryslers, and it probably inspired owners to purchase tens of thousands of aftermarlet leather steering wheel covers…don’t ask how I know. The last thing you would want on a test drive of a Newport or St. Regis is an annoying, sticky steering wheel.
Like many Chryslers before and since, the R-body cars cut a corner quite tidily but unlike those others, they felt like they were more ponderous than they really were. Maybe that was because with their straight lines they looked big to the driver, whereas most of GM’s Downsizers were made to look smaller from the driver’s seat, with lines that looked droopy toward front and rear to an outside onlooker….that droopiness handled with varying degrees of skill by the various GM divisions, except Cadillac which apparently did not feel the desirabilty of making its car feel smaller.
Still, I prefer the look of the R-body Chryslers.
I don’t know if if I’ve ever seen one of these in person. Most big cars around here when I was growing up were GMs- Mopars were very rare.
Classic opera windows are found on the early Thunderbird (round) and Lincoln used oval windows on a number of cars in the C-pillar, which are clearly not quarter windows. On this Chrysler the quarter windows in the rear doors are too big to really be called “opera windows”. It is debatable as to when a window in the C-pillar should be called a quarter window or an opera window, but size and placement are both important considerations.
Ah… the days when carmakers offered actual choices in interior trim hues.
I liked these R-body Chryslers. I have always had a soft spot for the “Charlie Brown” of cars (i.e. Edsels, Gremlins, Versailes, AMC Pacer, Cimarron, to name a few). What year did this generation of New Yorker have an opera lamp/coach lamp? I found an image of a 1979 New Yorker 5th. Avenue (“Special Edition”?), with a coach lamp just before pillar that surrounds the opera window. (I just don’t have an image to add here yet…..).
Me again. Here is a photo of these New Yorker’s with a coach/opera lamp. There is also a nice one in this article. I am just curious about the availability of this; was it an option only on the 5th. Avenue up-level trim model? Here’s a nice pic….
Hey, I should have put the answer to this further down. For 1979, an exterior opera light was on regular New Yorkers, and I believe it was standard but would have to double check the brochure. The Fifth Avenue edition, came with an edge lit opera window, pictures further up in the comments. For 1980-81, there was no opera light for the regular New Yorker. 1979-81 Fifth Avenues had the edge lit opera window, and the 1980-81 Fifth Avenue Limited Edition/Special Edition, also known as carriage roof package, had an electroluminescent opera light intergrated in the window trim, like on the later M-body Fifth Avenues.
I can just smell and taste cheap Chrysler through the wifi after viewing those pictures.
My Dad, a Chrysler employee, had a Newport as a lease car for a while in about 1980. As I recall, it had the Slant Six, which was down to about 90 hp by then. The car was about the slowest thing this side of a 240D. Very comfortable though. I think Chrysler was making its employees lease the cars they couldn’t sell.
A slant six Newport sounds like a taxi, a rental, or some other fleet car.
Quick note: while the B platform debuted in 1962, it got a MAJOR update for 1973.
I have never liked these. Sure, the B-body chassis was still a very good one, but those underpinnings couldn’t save the overpinnings: the engines were neutered by Chrysler’s version of the cynically cheap and nasty emission control strategies that pervaded the American industry of that time, and the build and materials quality were lousy. They have always, as ably described in this writeup, reeked of desperation and futility. And I believe in this car we have a winner to the question posed the other day about worst vinyl tops!
I have always liked the shape of the NY and 5AV of this era! I would drive one today if you could find one!
I wanted to like these more than I actually did. Being a fan of most full-size Chryslers prior to this one, I did my best to look at it positively. The front clip has a strong look, if marred by a rather goofy bumper integration. The frameless door glass was refreshing in a world racing toward framed grass almost exclusively, and the interior does seem well executed.
But, the New Yorker was competing with the Buick Electra and Olds Ninety-Eight. Two cars with a lot of reasonably exclusive sheet metal and interior trim bits, not to mention some semi exclusive engines. The fancy Chrysler shared its body shell with police cars and taxi-cabs. The trim bits were mostly parts bin.
And, wow, I recall hearing that these cars suffered a lot of quality problems, including no-starts off the assembly line. But, that video really drives the problem home. My family had access to new Ford and GM full-size cars in ’72, ’74, ’76, ’77, ’78, and ’79. None had anywhere near the appalling conditions of the test car in that video.
By ’81, these cars were probably squared away to some extent. It’s too bad that they didn’t hang around for the big car revival in ’83. A modest refresh might have made these real money makers for Mopar.
But, Chrysler did become quite dedicated to looking like a modern company with fuel efficient products. After throwing in the towel on the R and J bodies, the M was left to hang around mostly for the fleet market. The Plymouth and Dodge Ms had no marketing budget, and were hidden at the back of any brochure. The success of the M Fifth Avenue was a bit of a fluke that Chrysler milked, but still did not acknowledge it as their flagship, and generally avoided marketing it along with their other cars.
To that end, Chrysler generally had a more comprehensible product line during the ’80s than did GM, with its endless stream of new cars while being afraid to cancel old lines. We all know how well that mash-up of products worked out for GM!
“…And, wow, I recall hearing that these cars suffered a lot of quality problems, including no-starts off the assembly line. But, that video really drives the problem home….”
At least those were sample defects, mostly correctible by an automotive electrical technician with some smarts. What I want to see is the UNcorrectible issues on “next week’s test car, the Oldsmobile 98 Diesel.”
My hunch is that the Olds Diesel probably performed very well as the next test car in the series. Olds was on a hot streak in the late ’70s with quality product that sold very well. The Olds 98 C body was among the best regarded American cars of the times. The fact that the diesel probably behaved well in test drive situations helped sell a moderate number of them. Quality problems, along with owners that did not know how to maintain and manage their diesels conspired over the long term to sour people on GM diesels.
There are plenty of dead-end cars somehow designed very well, made well but with the changing market, they don’t have direct successors. I would say Lincoln Mark VIII, Buick Riviera, Cadillac Fleetwood are the Grand Finale types of car, Ford Thunderbird may count if the model is properly optioned ( but I can’t really forgive the engineering part ) Foreign car wise, it can be Citroën SM.
Mark IV supra too.
There was a Consumer Reports review on these and other full sized cars in 1979. The MOPAR tested (St Regis) had such poor quality that they had to purchase a second one just to be able to have enough drive time to report on the car. Note: the RWD GM A/B/C cars in the 1970s and early 1980s were consistently ranked by consumer reports as better than their Ford/Mopar/AMC counterparts, in that order.
Sad to say the 2015/2016 Chrysler 200 is the R-body of the “Twenty-Teens”. Same story-a fairly decent design done in by Chrysler shooting themselves in the foot once again.
Well at least the R body was not farmed out at great expense like the 200 and therefore recognizably Chrysler. The older 200 and Avenger were not going to mark you as cool or intelligent but a least were solid value transportation. The Patriot cuv platform mate wisely stuck around through the Fiat invasion to see record sales recently as may have happened if the rapidly quality improving R body had been given a stay of execution.
These cars had to share their showrooms with Mitsubishi-made Challengers, Sapporos, Colts, and Arrows. The superiority of Japanese assembled cars was never more plain. As for rust protection, Detroit shipped plenty of cars that were so poorly painted that they rusted in weeks or months. The survival rate people keep trotting out barely reflects just how much Detroit once outsold Japan by. Today GM’s market share is about 16.5%. They still sell far more vehicles than Toyota, let alone Nissan or Honda. Thirty five years ago, GM had 41.4% of the market to themselves, about twice what every imported car from every foreign country combined for. The reason you see older Detroit cars is because that’s what people bought, combined with them not being reliable transportation long enough to completely wear out.
These R bodies were not among the rusters that you cite. These used a lot of galvanized steel in their lower bodies and proved to be much more rust resistant than most cars of their class, particularly the early Panthers.
IIRC, these also had aluminum bumpers and stamped aluminum wheels. I didn’t mean to imply that these were profligate rusters, but that the story of Japanese cars having a monopoly on rust in the ’70s is false.
My wife and her former husband owned a ’78 Dodge St. Regis, dark blue. Eventually, the plastic headlamp covers stopped working, but I’ve always kind of thought they looked cool.
We owned an ’87 stretched K-car New Yorker that could have been the one used for the picture up above (burgundy, wire wheel covers, and all).
Even if Chrysler had kept the R-body around through the ’80s, they would have been in trouble by the early ’90s, and here’s why: The BOF construction of the Ford and GM bigs allowed their makers to come up with swoopy new bodies at that time while retaining the same basic chassis designs underneath. By contrast, Chrysler would have run into the very same issue that Hudson did with its “Step-Down” platform circa 1952, i.e. you can’t really do much to alter the basic silhouette of a unibody platform without having to essentially start over from scratch.
Assuming this alternate timeline Chrysler had also purchased AMC and began developing the the Eagle/Renault Medallion into the LH cars the same way the Chrysler in the timeline we inhabit did, it probably would have done all it could with the R’s noses, tails, door skins and interiors, put them out to pasture at the end of the ’91 model year (which wouldn’t have been the worst thing in the world, since Cadillac kept the square-body Brougham going through ’92), and replaced them (more or less) with the LHs the following year, either as 1992½ or ’93 models.
In any case, I’d love to find a clean Newport, Gran Fury or St. Regis and do a “pro brougham” build on it, i.e. Gen 3 Hemi, overdrive trans, some cool wheels and tires, and any modern aftermarket B-body handling parts that would fit with little or no modification.
Weren’t Chrysler’s B-bodies unibodies from the start? That didn’t stop them from producing everything from 1962 Dodge Darts through 1968 Chargers to 1979 Chrysler 300s, using five different wheelbases in the process. As noted in this article, the R-bodies were updated B-bodies, so what would have stopped them from changing the styling once again, perhaps while addressing some of the engineering mistakes made in 1979?
The R-Body is a stretched B-Body. In fact, the front suspension is the same as a 73 Charger. The part numbers for the front shocks are even the same. The Lean Burn is a conversion away on these and use the old 2bbl Carter from an earlier Chrysler product.
To me, Chrysler and Lincoln had the best luxury cars of that era. Cadillac still had some good ones, but there’s something that seemed to strive just a little bit higher with Chrysler’s offerings of that time.
Only a few years ago, I had the opportunity to buy one like this, in dark blue with dark blue leather (& sunroof), low miles, very nice all over, and for rather reasonable money. I sort of kick myself now for passing on it.
An auto mechanics instructor friend who had one for a long time told me that he had much trouble with his. I’m afraid that his words scared me away from it.
I still think these cars are stunning. That front grille is so beautifully done. Chrysler quality back then was so poor that it would have made me afraid of purchasing one if I were in the market, so I probably would have gone for a 98 or Electra.
I do think they’re lovely cars, but I do understand why Lido had to pull the plug on these considering the situation Chrysler was in at the time (plus don’t forget GM and Ford were planning on killing their big cars around this time too.
Although the aborted M-body Newport probably would have been redundant, I’ve always wondered how an M-body Imperial would have turned out. Give it a stretched wheelbase, a front clip similar to the R-body Fifth Avenue, and a 360 V-8 standard. If your going to have to pay the gas guzzler tax anyway why not have the most powerful engine available
This car sure looks snazzy, especially with the dark purple. This one looks to be in mint condition.
It’s too bad that R-bodies are practically nonexistent on the road. F-bodies (Aspen/Volare) seem more common (and those cars were known for rusting to bits!). The Fury and St. Regis were used up in police/action movies in droves. The production run was for only three years, and of course, the cars are almost 40 years old. Any 40-year-old car is going to be pretty uncommon as it is.
Maybe I should pay closer attention to any car that I would assume as a 1980’s era Ford Panther as the side profile of an R-body looks similar to a Ford if you are taking a quick, unassuming glance. It really could be an R-body rather than a Crown Vic LTD or Grand Marquis.
Never was a big fan of these and my music teacher back in 1980, as a 10 year old, had one and it almost never was reliable for her. It had a bad stalling problem, stuttered was hard to start, leaked water, the interior fell apart after several years, the bumpers peeled along with the poor quality paint and I distinctly remember seeing her pull up into the side school parking lot with one headlight cover up and the other down.
This car is for sure a Deadly Sin candidate. It was a poor showing as a competitor to what GM and Ford were doing with there full size cars of the time, often reflected in reviews by both CR and CG. The best and only real good part of these cars was the basic bones. The old 318 was a solid engine, the torqueflite 3 speed was a good transmission and some of the ancient mechanical were time tested.
But that was sort of where it ended. The Lean Burn fuel system was very temperamental and buggy. The Slant Six, 318 and 360 were also very down on power by 1980 with 90, 120 and 130 HP ratings respectively. Even a Chevy 305 was making 155 horses this year and an Olds 307 made up to 150.
The interiors were okay to look at but suffered from abysmal quality control where one could put a finger through the gaps between the frameless door glass and the misaligned seals. That silly formal rear window blank out reduced visibility and was often poorly fitted. Things faded, warped and stretched in quick fashion when exposed to the sun.
The exterior fit and trim was lousy on many examples. The worst offenders were the soft plastic that covered the ends of the bumpers. Even when new they were misaligned, warped and poorly fitted. Then the chrome started peeling off!
The ancient suspensions were often called flaccid, wallowy and uncontrolled over railroad tracks by CG but there were upgrades that cured some of this. The unibody underpinnings were also sited as being noisier than the full frame GM and Ford offerings(confirmed by many test drives in Dodge and Chrysler examples over the years.
The lighter colored exterior paint on these cars was real bad. I remember seeing many with peeled hoods and trunklids as little as 3 years old at the time. Naturally these also shared the sagging headliner issues with certain Gm and Fords of the time but also added sagging interior trim covering on the New Yorkers.
If I were to choose one of these it would be the simpler, cleaner Dodge version sans the Lean Burn with a 4 BBL manifold atop that 318 with upgraded suspension and rubber. And it would be a 1981 example when they cleaned up some of the quality control issues.
That’s probably the only R-body in existence, not in a collector’s garage, that has its headlamp covers closed and bumpers with their chrome plating intact.
These were electrically driven from IIRC a central motor that was known to fail in under2-3 years use.
Here is a 1979 New Yorker built of 2/79 and I bought it for 200 bucks. It cost me about 468.00 to get it back in running condition after sitting for 12 years. Runs excellent. Everything works. Ice cold AC,clock keeps time. Gas gauge is a little iffy but other than that-not bad. Color is Teal Green Sunfire with white tufted leather. Take note: This car is 38 years old and looks great for it’s age. Needs very little TLC. This is a 360 car BTW.
One heck of a find for $700 plus some labor! Fantastic color too and it’s hard to beat white leather.
It’s gorgeous, Jason! I especially like the white interior. What a steal. Great for you – keep that baby looking right!
Depending upon the region of the province, each of the Big Three was well-represented by the Ontario Provincial Police. With the R-body Gran Fury arguably being the best looking squad cars of their era.
I always liked those cars. In 1983, six of us jumped into one of those, drove about 375 miles south to see David Bowie at the CNE, with special guest Mick Ronson. Then drove back. It was a long day and night. At least I got to sleep on the way back.
Too bad that the silly half roof eating into the door came with the nicest fascia and interior, because the body and bumper integration are quite nice for the era. Cadillac tried the same thing in the late 80s, and it didn’t work for them, either.
I think these, especially with the alloy wheels, are some of the best looking cars of that rather ugly era. The chrome trim and miniscule rear side windows make it look almost coupe-like. The first 4 door coupe?
My father, reeling from his mistake of buying an ’81 Buick Skylark (X-Car), and still trying to cut his gas expenses (he was on the road all the time for his sales job), bought a 1984 Chrysler New Yorker K-Car.
It was a terrible car. Powered by the base 2.2, it was slow and noisy. Interior fell apart in a couple years.
My uncle had a light green 1979 New Yorker, which was a nice car and didn’t suffer from water or air leaks from the frameless glass that seemed to affect many of these. My family had a ’77 Bonneville Brougham, also green, which made it easy to compare GM and Chrysler’s downsized big car efforts. The unibody Chrysler felt considerably more open and spacious inside, with no intrusion from frame rails and a smaller driveline hump compared to the B/C or Panthers, and thinner pillars with the frameless glass. It rode as smoothly and quietly too. High quality interior materials. Chrysler should have kept these in production; they got the same fuel economy as the smaller M bodies. I can hardly blame them for dropping them though – sales in 1980-81 were abysmal. GM and Ford, who also saw low big-car sales in those two years, kept their largest cars in production – some of them anyway – but clearly expected to drop them soon as they were busy transferring names like LTD and Bonneville to smaller cars. Almost nobody expected big RWD BOF V8 sedans to survive into the ’90s (GM) or ’10s (Ford), including those companies themselves.
Should have kept the Rs and dropped the Ms instead. Easy to shorten the stretch, especially the front. The drive-ability and quality issues were essentially the same for both. Chrysler lost both the luxury and fleet markets.
Chrysler might have gotten the subsidies IF they had proposed something that the Federal Government really desired at that time, Full Width Front seat airbags similar to what GM had offered with its ACRS(AIR CUSHION RESTRAINT SYSTEM) in the GM C-bodied and B-bodied cars from Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Buick. Agreeing to make the Chrysler ACRS standard on all the full size and mid size versions of the base design. probably would have created lots of support for the requested subsidies within certain segments of the USA Congress and the US DOT. Add in the political support from the big auto insurance companies like ALLSTATE and STATE FARM and it might have helped the subsidies get approved.