By on November 9, 2012

The Chrysler New Yorker went through many variations during the television era, from Warsaw Pact-crushing expression of capitalist triumph to Slant-Six-powered Dodge Diplomat sibling to snazzy-looking LH. Along the way, Chrysler’s marketers created a series of TV ads that now tell the Thirty Years of New Yorker story. Let’s check out a sampling of those ads.

1965: 18 feet of comfort. Two tons of security.

1969: The possible dream.

1973: Just like the Apollo Lunar Module, complete with digital clock!

1976: According to Jack Jones, “Torsion quiet ride, comfort as you drive.”

1977: Jack Jones is back. “Gleaming luxury. All a car can be.”

1983: Ricardo Montalban says it’s the most technologically advanced Chrysler ever built.

1984: Where an electronic cockpit helps keep you secure. Where you sit in the lap of luxury.

1985: Señor Montalban, en México, dice “Silencioso y civilizado.”

1986: Ricardo returns, gloating that the Turbo New Yorker caught the competition sleeping.

1987: The thrust of turbo power.

1988: Corinthian Leather.

1989: ¡El valor de la calidad!

1990: Eat at Killer Joe’s.

1991: Cheaper than a Cadillac!

1993: The car that proves you can have everything.

1994: An eloquent expression of form following function.

1995: Not to be confused with El Intrepid.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “A Broughamic Treasury of Chrysler New Yorker Commercials...”

  • avatar

    I have the last real New Yorker made, a 78 2 door in augusta green sunfire metallic. It has the velour interior, I wish it had leather but the velour is still cool.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    The ’73 reminded me of my father in law’s ’72 Chrysler Imperial – one of the largest land yatchts of the 70’s. I almost got a speeding ticket in it while driving my girl friend and her mother to her college even though the speedo indicateted I was going the speed limit of 65 mph. My future FIL accused me of having a lead foot which was true when I had no passenters. I was vindicated when the dealer told him that the speedos on those cars were inaccurate at anything over 60 mph.
    Nonetheess, it was a great highway cruiser especially when someone else was paying for the gas.

    • 0 avatar

      I take that back, when I acquired my New Yorker 5 years ago it had a small problem with the speedometer that is very common with older cars. The needle was jumping wildly, so I cleaned and lubed both the cable that runs from the speedo to the cruise control unit and the cable running from the cruise control to the trans. It’s been fine ever since.

  • avatar

    My other two C bodies are Imperials, a 63 and a 72. never had a problem with the speedo, I’m not aware of any of my C body friends having problems with their speedometers, although I;m not saying that you didn’t have trouble with yours.

  • avatar

    Love the Godfrey/Apollo commercial: “Who even wants to keep a car for 500,000 miles?”

  • avatar

    That 69 is just beautiful, I think I may have to get one

  • avatar

    I love the way Ricardo and James Earl Jones say “Turbo power”.

    When I was a tot, my best friends grandma had one of the K-Car ones with the Turbo and we thought it was the coolest car because it TALKED when you got in it…love those interiors, but obviously the 70’s ones had the best cabins.

  • avatar

    I do believe that’s Ryan Stiles int he ’91 ad.

  • avatar

    500,000 miles? Certainly not on a Chrysler product!

    My mom had the 73 and yes, I remember the digital clock! Waaay cool for the time!


    • 0 avatar

      JK, you certainly don’t know anything about the old slant 6, LA, B and RB engines, they were much more rugged than anything GM made at the time.

      • 0 avatar

        @Moparman426W…Ah yes, the “leaning tower of power” AKA the 225 Slant six. I had 62 Pontiac Strato Chief with a 261 cu in,and three on the tree.

        My buddy had a 65 Valient. I could take him in the first half of the quarter mile. Though once he got the revs up, I was history.

      • 0 avatar

        Moparman, you are correct. I put 270K on my LA engined Fury before stashing it in my garage as a reminder of my “youte”…and Torqueflites were legends in reliability, especially the 727…

      • 0 avatar

        Yep, those 225 slant sixes, even back in the mid 60’s, could do at least 145K, easily. I know as my parents had a 64 Dodge 330 wagon with that very motor, and yes, they got it up there, but by that point, it was anything but reliable. The torqueflite lasted until I think 1972-73 when it finally went.

        We’d bought the car new in ’64, sold it still running though not great in 1977 as by then, it was a rest bucket since it lived about 3 years of its life in Jacksonville FL, the rest was out here in Tacoma Washington.

        It would be the first car I’d ever become conscious of that I know of, outside of a 68 or so MGB-GT my Dad had for a short period around 1970-71.

  • avatar

    “Corinthian leather? Of course, why not the best?” And with that offhand delivery, Ricardo pegs the cool-meter. Aspirational advertising at its most mellow. I love it.

  • avatar

    “What a beautiful New Yorker!” That’s a catchy jingle.

    I think the New Yorker moniker is extra classy. They should resurrect it.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree and if I was Ricardo Montelbaln my life would be better – of course, I mean when he was alive and all.

      Sadly there is no such thing as Corinthian Leather – or Ionian naugahide when it comes down to it.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree but that doesn’t fit in with the fake alphabet soup luxury car names of today. Maybe Chrysler could go against the grain and innovate yet again.

  • avatar

    My high school football coach had a 65 New Yorker and I vowed I’d own one someday. My chance came in 73 when I found a pristine 66 coupe. Then the first oil embargo hit so I passed.

    These cars represented the way America was in the 60s and 70s. Big, loud and dangerous. Now we drive Chevy Volts.

    • 0 avatar

      Well, there’s always the Dodge Dart…

      Yeah, it was a halcyon time back then, tooling around in a land-barge as it guzzled copious quantities of premium at 30 cents a gallon. Being wild and reckless is great fun (I love the old gigantic Chryslers, too), but, sadly, reality sets in and everyone has to grow up sometime.

  • avatar

    That bunch of Ricardo commercials from the mid-’80s is just. so. eighties. They’re kind of cool, and I’m sure they were right for the time…but the high-tech, spage-age sets, music and graphics just don’t jibe with the baroque broughamtastic cars that actually appear in the commercials. ESPECIALLY the LeBaron version with the wood-sided wagon front and center. OMG. It’s like the prop people brought the wrong batch of cars to the shoot and the whole thing is supposed to be ironic.

    The commercials would be more convincing if the cars actually LOOKED futuristic, ala the Taurus or Japanese cars of the time. Yes, yes, preaching to the choir I know…

  • avatar
    Andy D

    Heh heh , I was 12, 2 yrs older than the 2 tone blue 53 Chrysler New Yorker DELUXE. I bought it for 20 dollars. 332 Hemi, 2 speed auto, 6 volt electrics. When my parents went to choir rehearsal on Wednesday nights,my 9 yr old brother and I would take a half mile run up Church St with open exhaust and just a hand brake.

    BTW, 53 may have been the first yr for the New Yorker. It was the first yr for the hemi V8.

  • avatar

    I’m partial to the ’90-’93 New Yorker Fifth Avenue.

  • avatar

    I love the Jack Jones 1975/6 commercial with the yellow car … the door latch is disabled so he can climb out … so he slams the door with an odd thump, and it pops a little bit back open…

    • 0 avatar

      It looks like all of his moves are with the rhythm of the music. He probably had to do it several times to get it all right. I did not hear a thump, but it was probably on one of the down beats of the trumpet.

  • avatar

    The 30 ish guy in the 1965 ad was too young, I think. Even then, Chrysler was a middle age and up brand. 30ish men back then would drive a Dodge Coronet or even a Sport Fury.

  • avatar

    “but who wants to keep a car for 500,000 miles?” — great line

  • avatar

    My maroon 91 Fifth Avenue lacked the Corinthian applique and a moon roof but it sure was a classy unit with the quarter vinyl roof and plush velour. My Mom said she felt like Queen Elizabeth when she rode in the back seat.

    If only I could have found a solid tranny for it. I think the 4th one may have been the one but sadly it demised at around 300,000 km and only ten years old.

    It did have elegance.

  • avatar

    How many articles can this site post to make me miss my ’85? DOTS, junkyard finds, commercials…

    “All monitored systems are functioning.” sigh…..

    Look at those seats at :05-:06 in the 1987 commercial. Look at them and tell me where I can get some in a new car today and I’ll be there.

    When the 2.6 gave up in 2006 it had 170k miles, and the seats were in better shape than the GFs ’99 Blazer with about 1/2 the miles.

    If it had the 2.2T instead of the 2.6, it’s possible I’d still have it today.

  • avatar
    bill mcgee

    Really enjoyed the 1962 Imperial dealer film shown here . Brought back memories of a co-worker’s 1962 Le Baron sedan , black like the one here that a co-worker had inherited from his grandfather . Everybody called it the Batmobile , ( the eighties ) but it truly could hold 7 or 8 people on a lunch run – truly limo like space . For whatever reason Imperials never sold very well here ( Texas ) but due to their rarity , even new , and their presence I was always impressed with them , more than the current Caddies or Lincolns . And I always enjoy those old Ricardo Montalban commercials .

  • avatar

    I had a 65 New Yorker 4 door hardtop when I was a teen which I got from my late uncle. It was sort of odd that it had pretty much every option except for AC. It had the luxury interior with power windows, 6 way power seats and locks, rear window defrost, remote trunk release and am/fm stereo.
    It had cool padded knee bolsters on the back of the front seat, with stainless steel assist handles on each side of the back of the seat. The interior was almost as luxurious as the interior in my 63 Imperial Lebaron that I have.
    It was one of the cars that made me the Mopar guy that I am today. The awesome 413 with 727 trans, and the torsion bar suspension. Even though it was a 4 door hardtop the structure was very stiff, a testament to the rigidity of mopar unibodies of the era.
    However I will say that I don’t care for the styling of the 65-68 newports/new yorkers at all. In my opinion they are ugly, and I’m sure the styling of those became dated in a short time. I also didn’t like the way that you sat high in those cars, but it did make for great visibility, all four corners were easily visible from the driver’s seat. I didn’t like the high position of the steering wheel in the 65-68 models either. I don’t like a newport of any year, as most of them are too plain for a car with the Chrysler badge, and the newport is the car that began the dilution of the Chrysler division. It should have been a Dodge.

    • 0 avatar

      I own a 65 Newport and when I first bought it, I wasn’t crazy about the styling but it has grown on me. I think the 65/66 New Yorker is one of the prettiest cars ever made. And I agree with your sentiment that the Newport should’ve been a Dodge. They cheapened the brand just a bit too much. All in all though, it’s still a 383/727 st the end of the day.
      While I don’t hate anything pre-65, I always thought the pre-65s looked a little bloated. At least they streamlined the body in 65.

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t have anything against the newport in itself, like I said earlier it just didn’t belong in the Chrysler stable. The second thing they did to further dilute the name was to offer the Cordoba in a base model. It would have been fine to offer it only in mid to top trim level, but offering it in a base model with a vinly bench seat just didn’t cut it.
        If you ever need any parts I have a buddy that owns what is probably the world’s biggest supply of C body Chrysler/Imperial parts. His name is Murray Park. Here is the link [email protected] He also specializes in Desoto parts. He carries Dodge and Plymouth parts also, but mostly Chrysler/Imperial stuff because those are his favorite. He also recently expanded into Mirada and 81-83 Imperial stuff. He doesn’t deal in any K car or R body stuff. I get all of my stuff from him, I usually spend all day there just looking around. It’s the next best thing to heaven, lol.

      • 0 avatar

        My mother had a 1956 Chrysler Windsor Newport 126 inch wheelbase 2-door hardtop. I can’t seem to find a mention of such a car at, but there are survivors. Was it a trim level of the Windsor? Were all ’56 Windsor hardtops called Newports? Wikipedia says the Windsor became the Newport in the US in 1960 and then the Windsor name made a brief return before being replaced by the 300(no letter). Were later Newports more egregiously affordable than Windsors were?

      • 0 avatar

        CJinSD, the only source I have right now on the 56 windsor that I can find shows that the base model windsor was priced at $2870. They were much nicer than a Newport. One of the pictures shows Nixon riding in a windsor convertible when he was running for re-election as vice president. Base price for a New Yorker St. Regis that year was $3995 and a town & country wagon was $4523.
        This is in one of my books on Chrysler products, I have collected stuff for over 30 years, so I’m sure I have soemething with more info on them, the problem is that I have so much stuff that I have no idea when I might find it, lol.

      • 0 avatar

        Thanks for looking! I’m curious why some Windsors in 1956 were Newports. It seems that all the ’56 Windsor hardtops I can find are called Newports, whether they have 2 doors or 4. I’m not sure about the convertibles.

    • 0 avatar

      The 85 NY I got from my grandparents and really liked replaced a ’76 Newport. I can’t find an exact picture of it, it was a 2 door, 400ci, and gold with white 1/2 top. most pics I see are yellow. It was their second vehicle behind the NYer at the time, but I dreamed of getting my hands on that car back in HS (87-91). I have lots of memories riding around in that car in my elementary years and finally getting to drive it with grandpa with my learner’s permit.

      Any time I hear B-52’s “Love Shack” and the line “I got me a Chrysler, it’s as big as a whale and it’s about to set sail” That 2 door 76 Newport comes to mind as the car they were talking about.

      • 0 avatar

        Hoser, most people my age and older can remember when the Chrysler nameplate meant something. Just hearing the word “Chrysler” was almost like hearing the words “Lincoln or Cadillac.”
        The nameplate was dragged through the mud with the Chrysler badged K cars. The K car was a decent car for it’s time, and was the best that detroit had to offer. However it was not suitable to wear the Chrysler badge, but the fact is that it was all that they had to offer at the time, and it probably kept the Chrysler name alive.
        We all know what happened after that, fast forward to today.
        The Chrysler name can be restored to it’s former glory, the 300 is paving the way. But it all depends on Sergio, will he continue to move Chrysler upmarket, or will he introduce more low end cars with the Chrysler nameplate like Mercedes did with the PT cruiser?

  • avatar

    LOVE me one of of those V8 RWD MONSTERS. That screams AMERICAN CAR to me.

  • avatar

    Did Chrysler sell many of the 70s New Yorkers? If I was not so young back then, I might have bought one before buying a Cadillac, it seems to be better looking (Yes, a beautiful New Yorker!) than the Cadillacs at the time but maybe not? It did seem that GM had better colors. Were NY’ers unreliable like the Aspen/Volare? And were they actually lower priced than Cadillacs?

    Oh, I don’t think they make cars that you can sing a song about any more.

    • 0 avatar

      The direct competition for Chrysler was Buick, not Cadillac. I’m sure Buick far outsold Chrysler back then. While the 727 Torqueflite was unbeatable, the rest of the package favored Buick. Build quality of the body was one factor. The ability of GM’s engineers to handle the new, especially California, emissions rules was another. Even with electronic ignition, Mopar drivability was not as good as GM.

      • 0 avatar

        But I don’t see Jack Jones singing or Ricardo taking about a Buick. I wonder if the commercials made a difference in selling Chrysler cars if they were that bad. I know the Aspen/Volare was (and it had a song too). I would wonder if the New Yorker sold well in NYC. I will have to look and see if there is a commercial for the Fury which had a song like Maria from Paint Your Wagon.

        As for the Ricardo 80’s commercials, he was in Star Trek II The Wrath of Kahn and I remember a lot of women liked him as Kahn. So maybe they were trying to get the background like the movie so that the women would get their husbands to buy Kahn’s car.

  • avatar

    Chrysler driveability was fine once you removed the lean burn distributor from the 76 -78 models. The engines were just as rugged as the 727 transmission. Much more rugged than the buick engines, which were grenades with their poorly designed oiling system.
    The New Yorker was about in the same price range as an Electra, the Imperial was in Cadillac’s range. When they dropped the Imperial nameplate in 76 they stuck the New Yorker nameplate on the Imperial body.

  • avatar

    I had a ’69 New Yorker when I was younger. I really liked that car; the seats were tapestry and it didn’t give many problems at all. The 440 Magnum was sufficient to all purposes and the ride was so very smooth. I still remember the button on the floor next to the dimmer switch that changed stations on the radio. The climate control worked great; it’d do 90 on the freeway with ease and grace.

    I also remember its size – that thing was huge. Parking structures with spiral ramps were problematic (don’t ask) and it burned gas with gusto; it had a huge 32 gallon fuel tank and it wasn’t hard to empty it in a night’s cruising. This wasn’t too bad in the days of $0.30 gas, but those days are long behind us.

    Somebody expressed a desire for one of these above. If the idea of spending well over $100 at the gas station and having that only last a day or two is OK with you, then find the best example you can and you’ll love it.

    PS: those slab sides collect parking nicks at an impressive rate.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • SaulTigh: Around $4.25 here. I’ve got a trip to Florida planned for October and seriously thinking about...
  • Master Baiter: You might be able to cheat the government for a while by purchasing an EV, but rest assured, even if...
  • zerofoo: Near as makes no difference 80 grand for an old engine in a vehicle that doesn’t benefit much from it....
  • WalterRohrl: Haha, yeah, just…no. People here have figured you out, most just won’t waste the time on you...
  • EBFlex: Imagine a company with such a poor track record with quality, especially with electronics, making an electric...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber