(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.
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.