(EXPANDED FROM 7/8/2022)
Paul Niedermeyer (2021) has called the 1965 Chrysler New Yorker “the last great Chrysler.” He argued that this particular vintage “represents a pinnacle: never again would the New Yorker attain this degree of success, prestige and quality.” That strikes me as a reasonable argument, but I would suggest that the 1968 New Yorker was also worthy of consideration — at least when it came to styling.
The 1968 models were the fourth and final year for a basic design introduced in 1965. Although the 1967-68 reskinning had somewhat chunkier and less original styling, it arguably had a better-looking two-door hardtop, wagon and four-door sedan than 1965 models.
Chrysler Corporation head stylist Elwood Engel deserves credit for the 1965 design, which looked surprisingly lithe for such a large car due to tapered side character lines and a rounded rear end. Meanwhile, back-slanted front fender ridges and headlights housed behind glass gave the New Yorker an unusually unique appearance for a mid-60s American luxury car. That was a tough design to improve upon. Yet Engel arguably did . . . at least in some ways.
Some commentators responded to the original posting of this article by pointing to the 1968 Chrysler’s worsening “frequency-of-repair” record, as reported by Consumer Reports (1970). I am focusing more narrowly on styling because this is a “Design Notes” feature.
New Yorker gets a two-door hardtop that looks like one
As you can see from the above images, one problem with the New Yorker’s two-door hardtop in 1965-66 was that its greenhouse was shared with the four-door hardtop’s.
For 1967-68 the New Yorker was given a semi-fastback two-door hardtop shared with the Plymouth and Dodge. What was lost in exclusivity was arguably counterbalanced by better proportions. The 1968 model was good-looking regardless of whether it was rodded out with mag wheels and fender skirts removed or kept in the New Yorker’s original trim.
Town & Country wagon was one of the best woodies
Meanwhile, Chrysler’s wagon arguably achieved its all-time-peak styling in 1968. The biggest reason why is that the concave side sculpting worked particularly well with newly added simulated woodgrain. However, other stylistic details were also nicely done, such as the rear trim that simulated full-width taillights.
The 1965 wagons looked rather plain in comparison — even in the top-of-line New Yorker trim. (Note that for 1966 the wagon lineup was narrowed to one high-end trim level and the Town & Country name was elevated to a stand-alone series.)
Chrysler quite rightly ditches the six-window sedan
In general, I have an affinity for European design influences. Thus, it feels a little weird to suggest that Chrysler made the right decision when discontinuing the 1965-66 New Yorker’s six-window sedan in favor of a conventional four-window design. The latter looks more appropriate in an American luxury car — particularly with a then-requisite vinyl roof.
The 1968 four-door sedan shown below highlights how side styling was chunkier than its 1965 predecessor. Perhaps the biggest contributor was the concave sculpting, which was less successful on non-wagon models. A more upright fascia and V-shaped rear added to the car’s heftier look. Even so, Chrysler arguably made up for all that with well-executed stylistic details.
For 1968 Chrysler gets the design details right
For 1968 the Chrysler New Yorker received meaningful stylistic changes over the prior year — and they added up to a better design.
The 1967 reskinning of the Chrysler was not terribly successful from an aesthetic standpoint. Both the front and rear were strikingly generic and rather severe.
The 1968 models looked more like the 1965-66 Chryslers, with a cross-hatch grille and matching pattern on simulated full-width taillights. Designers also brought back lower-body brightwork. This gave the New Yorker a richer appearance that was admirably in sync with an emerging brougham era.
Unlike General Motors’ top-end premium-priced cars, the New Yorker did not have a longer wheelbase and different sheetmetal than its entry-level models. However, for 1968 Chrysler did give its Newport series a less-fancy grille and taillight treatment, as well as a less formal-looking four-door hardtop shared with Dodge and Plymouth.
The one Chrysler that was given somewhat unique sheetmetal in 1968 was the 300 sporty series. Designers were able to do this cheaply because the 300 carried over a hood and front bumper from the previous year’s models. Those unique touches were a step up from 1965, when the 300 was only differentiated by trim.
Interior gets more angular and sporty
The biggest difference in the interiors of the 1968 and 1965 Chryslers was a dashboard that ditched a traditional, single-pod instrument cluster in favor of an angular, electric razor look. This would prove to be the end of the line for Chrysler dashboards dominated by metal; for 1969 there would be plastics, plastics everywhere.
Bucket seats and center consoles were the hot item in the late-60s, so it makes sense that Chrysler marketing highlighted this New Yorker option in 1968. In contrast, a 1965 brochure focused more on bench seating with luxurious fabrics.
1968 saw all-time-best sales for Chrysler big cars
The 1965 model year was an unusually good one for the Chrysler brand, but 1968 saw the highest output the brand would ever achieve while selling only full-sized cars. Total production almost reached 269,000 units, which was only slightly higher than the previous peak in 1966 but 28 percent more than in 1965. Just as significantly, Chrysler’s share of the full-sized, premium-priced class increased from 11.4 percent in 1965 to 15.9 percent — another record.
New Yorker output increased between 1965-68 but only by roughly 3 percent to 48,000 units. The Chrysler brand’s market share of the high-end, premium-priced class also went up slightly to 15.1 percent. However, the New Yorker never managed to chip away at the market share of the field-leading Buick Electra, which averaged around 46 percent in the second half of the 1960s.
The most eye-opening aspect of the graph below, which shows production levels, is that the high-end Mercury saw a huge jump in output in 1969 after being given a major redesign and a lineup restructuring.
Although the high-end Marquis nameplate shared the same wheelbase and almost all of its sheetmetal with the lower-priced Monterey, it was given a dramatically different fascia. (Of course, it also helped that the base Marquis captured the sales of what had been the mid-level Montclair.)
Chrysler presumably didn’t give the New Yorker a unique fascia because it wanted to draw more attention to the 300 series. That made some sense — the 300 was the closest thing Chrysler had to a halo car. Even so, 300 production was pretty meager — under 35,000 units in 1968. Chrysler might have gotten a bigger bang for its buck by instead giving the New Yorker a more unique front end, such as with hidden headlights.
The 1968 New Yorker represented the end of an era
The 1968 Chrysler brand’s lineup has a bitter-sweet quality. Some of its models — particularly in two-door and wagon form — were arguably a step up from 1965, but the overall look was chunkier and less sophisticated.
In addition, the breakout success of the 1969 Marquis suggested that Chrysler wasn’t doing enough to differentiate the New Yorker from its lower-priced models. This may go a long way toward explaining why Chrysler’s top-end series did not make much headway against the the Electra and Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight.
Also see ‘1965-69 Chrysler: Trying to sell prestige in a rapidly changing culture’
Then again, in 1968 the New Yorker didn’t lose ground. That was no small thing given the juggernaut that was GM’s premium-priced brands in the late-60s.
I must admit that my affinity for the 1968 Chrysler’s styling is partly influenced by the cars representing the last of an era. Chrysler arguably lost the plot with its 1969 “fuselage” redesign (go here for further discussion).
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on July 8, 2022 and expanded on Nov. 14, 2025. Production figures and prices were from Flory (2004), Gunnell (2002) and the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006). Data was mixed and matched to address discrepancies and potential errors.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Consumer Reports; 1970. Frequency-of-Repair records: 1964 to 1969.” April issue: pp. 228-233.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2021. “Curbside Classic: 1965 Chrysler New Yorker – The Last Great Chrysler?” Curbside Classic. Posted April 17.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chrysler (1965, 1968); Mercury (1969)
One cannot argue taste. What one person prefers, someone else thinks that another design or set of design details are better. That said, I prefer the 1965 Chrysler to the 1968 Chrysler; however, those two years are head and shoulders above all of the other years in the 1960s, in my opinion. I am particularly enamored with the styling of the 1965 Chrysler dashboard as well as the rest of the car.
I have been watching Chrysler’s sales programs on YouTube, and the comparison profiles prepared by Chrysler and produced by Ross-Roy, Inc. of Detroit, illustrate a very interesting problem that should have been obvious. On paper and with competitive cars equipped the same, Chryslers, Plymouths, Dodges and Imperials should have been the better buy all things being equal; however, I think three things killed Chrysler Corporation’s sales after 1968: 1.) The advertising campaigns were not as good as the ones presented for General Motors cars, Ford and at times A.M.C.; 2.) Chrysler Corporation’s cars were not built with the best quality after the 1966 model years, and were in decline, again. (I recall seeing a new 1969 Plymouth Fury on a showroom floor with significant paint defects easily seen by any customer just walking by in the top Chrysler-Plymouth-Imperial dealer in Indianapolis.); which leads to 3.) G.M. and Ford dealer salespeople were probably better at their jobs than the counterparts at Chrysler-Plymouth and Dodge dealers (and maybe the remaining A.M.C. dealers).
Seeing similar sales materials for G.M.’s Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile dealers, even though the G.M. cars may have been at a disadvantage to the Plymouth, Dodge and Chrysler cars in many comparable details, it appears that the highest level of each G.M. division’s management touted the virtues of their division’s vehicles. One 1964 presentation featured Pontiac G.M. Pete Estes and his engineering staff and the 1967 Pontiac presentation featured former chief engineer and recently promoted John Z. Delorean giving dealers and their sales savages the details to drive more deliveries of new cars. Chrysler’s sales presentations did not show the top brass. Perhaps they were too busy fighting among themselves to address the build-quality issues in their plants and the weaknesses in their sales organizations. Sad, because it appears that in many ways, if a particular Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler or Imperial was built with attention and care, it was a superior car for the same amount of money when compared to comparably-equipped competitive makes.
In addition to quality control issues, the styling of the C-body fuselages was a mixed bag. The Chrysler four-door hardtops, wagons and convertibles were good-looking, with the 300 coming off best. The Imperial was too obviously based on the Chrysler.
But I always thought that the 1969 Fury had very plain styling. The VIP and Sport Fury models, with their different grilles, wheel covers and trim, were somewhat better, but the rest of the line could have been used as a generic “car” for, say, a commercial by an insurance company.
That’s a good point about the 1969 Fury. It does look unduly generic. The 1970 facelift improved things somewhat but Plymouth also made the mistake of ditching the VIP for the Sport Fury just as sales of the LTD were taking off (go here for further discussion).
I’m ambivalent about what Chrysler should have done with the 1969 Imperial. The 1967-68 models did not sell all that well, so I can see why management decided that it was time to cut their losses. And I do think that designers displayed some creativity in giving the 1969 Imperial a somewhat distinctive rear end despite all of the shared sheetmetal. To my eyes the front end is the worst part of the car; it didn’t have enough “brougham” for the times, and the donut bumper served to accentuate the car’s unusually tall beltline.
Perhaps Chrysler should have given up trying to compete directly with Cadillac and Lincoln, and simply sold the Imperial as a “Super New Yorker” (while keeping the Imperial name), with a lower sticker price to match? Chrysler could have positioned the Imperial between the New Yorker and Sedan De Ville.
If I recall correctly, Imperial depreciated far more than Cadillac and Lincoln, which suggests that customers simply saw it as an deluxe Chrysler anyway.
Oh gawd, here comes the fuselage aficionado again! Although the ’68 starts with the loop bumper and rounded back end, I think it really puts it together in the ’69. there is nothing extraneous at all in the exterior of this car (except the little turn signal bumps). I suppose the long straight lines can bother some, but to me it accentuates the long and low. Always loved them. And we also need to remember (although Chrysler definitely had the oldest plants and most disaffected workforce, except maybe International) build quality is a global thing. I’ve had 69-70 Chryslers my whole driving life, and have never had a lemon (of course, there is some survivor bias here), and find them really easy to work on. And my ’69 has more metal on the dash than in a whole freakin Toyota!
The 1965-68 Chryslers were what a Chrysler should be – big, powerful and brawny. They were not the most stylish cars on the market, but they were also not hopelessly stodgy (a problem that had plagued the 1949-54 Chryslers).
The main problem was deteriorating build quality after 1966, as James E Duvall notes. Chrysler Corporation quality and reliability had been sliding before the debut of the fuselage generation. But things got even worse with the 1969 models. The fuselage generation also felt cheaper than both their predecessors and the GM competition from Oldsmobile and Buick.
At the big Hershey AACA show last fall, a seller was offering a mint, all-original 1968 New Yorker four-door hardtop. It still looks good today.
It may be helpful to note that I focused on styling because this was a “Design Notes” feature. I sidestepped quality-control issues because I don’t have very good documentation on that front. However, I do have a 1970 Consumer Reports “Auto Buyers Guide” that states that the Chrysler’s frequency-of-repair record was average in 1965, better than average in 1966, average in 1967, worse than average in 1968 and much worse than average in 1969. As a point of comparison, the Dodge Dart six was consistently better than average through that time period.
I have the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Issue for 1970. The magazine specifically noted that Chrysler Corporation cars had more sample defects than their GM, Ford and AMC counterparts, and those defects were also more serious. I can imagine that the Dart (and Valiant) fared better because they hadn’t changed much since 1967, and buyers were less likely to load them up with options, which simplified production.
The problem was that buyers of Chryslers – particularly the 300 and New Yorker – were less likely to tolerate quality problems and sloppy workmanship. It was the opposite at GM, where the Buick and Oldsmobile B- and C-bodies fared better in both reliability and build quality compared to their Chevrolet corporate cousins.
The fuselage styling theme was a very marked change from the previous generation. It can be hard to get a conservative customer base to accept a new styling direction. Combine that with a reputation for declining quality, and it’s not hard to see why the 1969-73 cars struggled in the marketplace.
When I check the design of the 1974 Newport/New Yorker, the roofline have some remeniscences of the 1965-68 models as if Chrysler wanted to recapture the magic of the 1965-68 Newport/New Yorker.
Also,it could be interesting to wonder what if Chrysler had followed Lincoln who did a redesign of their 1970 Continental models by being an evolution instead of a revolution compared to the 1969 model instead of going full fuselage?
I’ve owned the following big 1960s Mopar cars;
’60 LeBaron
’61 New Yorker wagon 413/4-speed & dual carbs! [Was a great tow car for years]
’63 LeBaron
’63 300 Sport convertible
’64 Imperial convertible [rough shape]
’64 Dodge Custom 880 convertible
’65 300 convertible
’65 Imperial Ghia limo with 5700 miles
’66 Plymouth Fury convertible
’66 New Yorker 4 door hardtop
’66 Imperial convertible
’67 Imperial crown coupe, Gold, w/mobile director
’68 Imperial Crown coupe, Triple black
So I am very familiar with these cars, having grown up around them. The cars on that list were bought as used cars in the 1970 to 1990 period. They were ALL great road cars, on long trips they would just “eat up the road” with only small problems over the years, mostly starter motors, electronic ignition modules and solid state voltage regulators, so I tried to keep a spare one of each part in whatever car I was driving.
All of the convertibles had the same very unusual smell, not just my cars, but every 1960s Mopar convertible I’ve ever been in. It’s a smell that one quickly gets used to, even my girlfriends did. Blindfold me and sit me down in a Mopar convertible and I will identify it as one by the smell! The ’66 Fury convertible was my first, bought off the C-P dealer’s lot with about 25,000 miles, in September 1970, for $900.
My best friend and next door neighbor also like big Mopars, and in 1970 the 2 of us, along with his dad, visited the Washington DC Auto Show, where they had a dark metallic gray Imperial LeBaron on display. Well his dad ended up trading their 1967 New Yorker on the Imperial, and that car was trouble from the start. Various electrical problems plagued the car, and the body always had numerous rattle sounds, mostly up front, under the dash, and inside the doors. In 1971 we drove it to the Studebaker parts division in South Bend to buy Studebaker and Packard parts, the car was like a speed boat in a dead calm sea, and 95mph was the norm for that trip.
Welcome to Indie Auto, Bill. You have a lot of valuable background so I look forward to learning from you.
This is an older thread, so maybe nobody will see this. But it’s the perfect place to note that I’m buying a 1968 New Yorker from my cousin. It has about 60,000 miles and I’ll be the third owner. My cousin is a pilot and so he keeps all his machinery in top operating condition. That’s great for me, because I’m not all that handy! The car is in the Pacific NW and I’m going to fly out in the spring and drive it back to Minnesota. I’ll be heading across Montana where there is no speed limit — or if there is, it’s loosely enforced. Talk about a Chrysler eating up the miles! I’ve been reading up on the 65-68 Chrysler C-bodies and it’s really great to see that virtually all the car buffs have very positive things to say about this Mopar generation.
Congrats on picking up the ‘68 New Yorker. Hopefully the tires are not to old. It wouldn’t hurt to take an extra ballast resistor with you too.
Thanks! Don’t laugh at me — I’ve never even heard of a ballast resistor. But i’ll be sure to look into it.
I leave an extra in my glovebox at all times. With that said I haven’t had one fail since the 80’s, but when they do they don’t give you any warning. I’d also check the vacuum advance, if it’s not working correctly mileage and power will be lower. Cheap easy fix.
Thanks again!
The family of a high school buddy bought a new ’65 (or ’66?) Chrysler Windsor. He offered a ride to check it out, and we did that. He drove – and being that it was his Dad’s new car, he was careful.
Sitting in the “Golden Sand” car, with a “Golden Sand” interior, on a “Golden Sand” bench seat, it was no New Yorker! The exterior styling was attractively fresh and “mid-century”, but the over-all experience was “meh”.
Wasn’t the Windsor on the same level as a USA Newport? Not as nice as a New Yorker.
I owned a 1965 New Yorker four-door and a 1968 300 convertible. My vote goes to a peak at 1965. The 1965’s styling was more imposing and the styling touches more unique. The interior was more luxurious and I thought the dashboard (white/black/wood/chrome) was so beautiful that I wanted to mount it on the front of a desk. The 1965 was also more reliable. Alas, the price of gas spurred me to sell it. I still look at the ads for another but wouldn’t actually drive it enough to make it a rational choice.
I first saw the mid decade Chrysler on my way to school. I was looking at the car from behind and it was stunning and modern as all hayle. With the low profile somewhat reminicent of the Turbine Chrysler that I consider their post war pinnacle.
That said – I believe Chrysler reached its highest in the 1972 ~ 1978 – all of the big beasts as well as the midsize and some compacts. Thanks
Chrysler designer and contributor to “Collectible Automobile” magazine, Jeffrey Irvin Godshall (1941-2019), wrote in a review of the 1965-1968 Chryslers that the 1967-1968 Chryslers had severe problems with the concave fenders and door skins of the cars and wagons, especially those in a dark color, which was part of the motivation for the fuselage cars. The quality of the 1967-1968 sheet metal stampings was “wavy”.
Back in the 1960’s the full size Chryslers were all over my neighborhood. One was a retired lady another a retired air force captain and another resided at an upscale retirement center near to us. Still another had a 69 Newport Custom – a CIA man I believe – the exception here.
ITs easy to see the common denominator here. One of these lucky car owners lived a few houses away from me. This lonely old gent had a 67 Newport. It was a big car which swallowed up his driveway. My brother informed me that this said Chrysler had ”sunken sides” as if it were inhaling. I walked by the car every day to the bus stop – yes the car indeed had ”sunken sides”. I always thought that was peculiar and unattractive.
Compare the 67 – 68’s to the green 65 New Yorker pictured above. See the difference? It seemed Chrysler had gotten hijacked . I have reason to believe that the 65 Chrysler was a rejected Lincoln proposal from about 1957 or 1958.