I think I read the buyer is from Ontario, so could be a Toronto area financebro/techbro, real estate speculation lottery winner, actual lottery winner, residency purchaser with unvetted fortune, trust funder, Leafs/Blue Jays player, etc.
That New Yorker above is a '64. I always thought Mopar styling through '64 still was pretty 'fiftiesh'--even the big-script nameplates. Most of the '65's got simpler/cleaner I think.
I could very-much like a '65 Chrysler 300-L.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@imidazol97 , I passed on two separate opportunities to buy one of those '80s Delta 88 coupes. Around 1997 I drove an '85 coupe, black with red interior, really a sharp-looking car. It drove fine (as well as one of those with the 307 could) but the seller said it had been run into a ditch and while it had no body damage, I was wary. A couple of years later a dark blue metallic one with blue interior was on a used lot nearby and again it drove fine. I actually made an offer on it but either through miscommunication or sleight of hand by the indy dealer it went to someone else. They were very nice inside but would seem huge today.
That New Yorker above is a '64. I always thought Mopar styling through '64 still was pretty 'fiftiesh'--even the big-script nameplates. Most of the '65's got simpler/cleaner I think.
I could very-much like a '65 Chrysler 300-L.
I didn't really care for the '63-64 Chryslers when I was younger, but like with most things, my attitude has softened on them. From what the mechanic who did all the work on my DeSoto told me, there's still a lot of 1957 in these cars. Even though they went Unibody for 1960, he said that Chrysler did it quick and dirty. They just took the 1957 frame, cut out the middle section, and then welded the front and rear pieces to the underside of the body. I believe the front suspension was all the same though, and the rear-end carried over until whenever Mopar discontinued the 8 3/4 rear end in the 1970's.
I do believe the 1960 body was all-new, though, compared to 1957-59, even though it doesn't look it.
As for the '63-64 Chryslers, I think my problem with them is that, while that body is okay for a Newport-class car, it really was too diminutive for something in the New Yorker's price range...a car meant to compete with the Buick Electra and Olds Ninety-Eight.
But, maybe it was meant to be. The bigger New Yorker was becoming a mere shell of its former self, seeming to have never truly recovered from the 1958 recession. While the Chrysler brand made a comeback, it did so mainly on the strength of the Newport and non-Letter 300 cars, which were priced in what had once been Dodge and low-end DeSoto territory. The big Saratoga went away after 1960, leaving just the New Yorker and 300G on the 126" wb for 1961. I think the New Yorker dropped the hardtop coupe and convertible for '62, and the 300H went to the shorter 122" wb. So that would have left the New Yorker with just pillared and hardtop sedans, and the Town & Country wagon. But, to make the New Yorker bigger, they just stretched it out ahead of the firewall, giving it a longer hood and fenders, but with no increase in interior room over a Newport. At least with a Buick/Olds, you got a larger interior when you went from a LeSabre/88 to an Electra/Ninety-Eight.
The prestige did return for '65, in my opinion. And, I guess Chrysler did benefit from not messing around with compacts and midsized cars like Olds, Buick, and Mercury did, so that gave them a little cachet. Still, even though the cars were bigger, I think the fact that the New Yorker wasn't actually bigger than a Newport/300 hurt its prestige a bit. Nevermind the fact that they were ALL big cars!
I could very-much like a '65 Chrysler 300-L. Careful Up, you're a GM fan and those 65's were heavily influenced by former Fomoco designer Elwood Engel who took over at Chrysler from Virgil Exner. Personally, I found the 63/64 Chrysler design inside and outside interesting and different, but maybe it needed a bit more to compete with its GM competitors that were very clean looking. The 64 Pontiac kind of went its own way too with the headlight design.
Volvo 544 (you can tell it's not a 444 because of no split windshield). Fun to drive, simple to work on, a heater than will make the bottoms of your shoes sticky, and it will probably outlive you. And, with some zippy parts from IPD, you can get more power out of that sturdy B18 engine.
I could very-much like a '65 Chrysler 300-L. Careful Up, you're a GM fan and those 65's were heavily influenced by former Fomoco designer Elwood Engel who took over at Chrysler from Virgil Exner. Personally, I found the 63/64 Chrysler design inside and outside interesting and different, but maybe it needed a bit more to compete with its GM competitors that were very clean looking. The 64 Pontiac kind of went its own way too with the headlight design.
One thing I'll say for those '63-64 Chryslers, and much of the '60-64 Mopar lineup in general...love 'em or hate 'em, at least they had some imagination and creativity! Personally, I always thought the '61 Plymouth was the low point when it came to any sense of good taste. And, not surprisingly, it was a poor seller. I always thought the '61 Chevy did a good job of pulling off a youthful, sporty look, and even managed to look a bit upscale. The '61 Ford seemed much more conservative, but still tasteful and pretty stylish. So, I'm not sure what market that really left for Plymouth, and the Dodge Dart for that matter. I know the Dart outsold the Plymouths model for model in '60, and I'd imagine they did it again in '61. The Dart, at least, had sort of a rugged, no-nonsense look about it, although the reverse-slant fins were a bit "interesting".
I guess Plymouth still might have sold on engineering...stuff like the torsion bar suspension, which gave superior handling, early adopter of the alternator, and also an early adopter in making a 3-speed the standard automatic, and using a decent-sized engine for the standard V-8. Maybe the geeks, engineers, and such liked it for that? Plus, the styling did somewhat tie in to the various turbine show cars of the time.
I've heard that one reason people like the style of the Toyota Prius is that it stands out and draws attention to itself...it doesn't look like every other compact/midsized car out there. And that was one reason it's been so popular...a hybrid Accord, Fusion, whatever, looked just like the non-hybrid version, but the Prius buyers wanted their cars to stand out. So maybe the '61 Plymouth buyers were a similar sort?
That's one reason I'm kinda fond of the '62 Dodges. To me, they seem wild, offbeat, and definitely stick out, in a combination that I find appealing. But, the '62 Plymouth, I just find kinda ugly.
I like the 64 Dodge and Plymouth styling. I also liked the downsized 62's, although it would have been interesting to see the original full sized Exner designed versions. The 62's bring up the interesting point that the platform led to the much under appreciated 1965 Dodge Coronet and, at least to me, its plain Jane sibling the Plymouth Belvidere. Maybe that was partially due to the new styling of all of the Big 3 full sized lineups that year. But they were comfortable, relatively roomy and reliable Intermediates that also brought Chrysler more than a few customers from their competitors. They were often used as police cars and also helped spur on the Mopar performance image down the road with variants like the Road Runner, Charger and Super Bee.
Then there is the ongoing question of who really introduced the successful Intermediate car. The 62 Ford Fairlane was probably the first official Big 3 Intermediate entry. Ironically, Ford didn't really dominate in that segment and even the subsequent Torino seemed to appeal mostly to Ford loyalists or buyers shopping the deal. GM's senior compacts quickly ballooned in size and GM made their entry official with the all new 64 Malibu. Was the 62 downsized Chrysler full sized entry actually an Intermediate in disguise? Same goes for the 58 Rambler. Some will argue the first Intermediates were actually from the Independents like the first half of the 50's Nash and 53-55 (?) Loewy Studebakers, as well as the Willys Aero.
They were sturdy cars, the first Valiants, with the bullet-proof Slant-6 and durable Torqueflite-6 transmission (as long as you didn't slam it in reverse while moving forward). They also handled pretty well for the time.
The first Falcons were tin cans, and the Corvair was...well, a Corvair, but had the nicest interiors and, arguably, most palatable styling. The Valiants were just weird-looking, and the Falcons were blah (but got better).
My favorites of the bunch were the Falcon Sprints for performance and the '65 Corvair for looks.
Like the 53 Studebaker, I always thought the 60 Valiant was kind of European influenced in its design, while the Corvair might be called tech look today (given the times back in 1960), and the Falcon was just pretty conventional. The 60 Rambler American looked kind of stale by then, but would be redesigned with kind of a chiseled look for 61. The 59 Lark was supposed to be French inspired I believe. Just my personal thoughts though. The 60 Comet (Don't think it was called a Mercury until 61 officially) was built off the Falcon, but was a bit bigger like the senior compacts over at GM were for 61. You might consider the Comet fairly conventional until you got to the rear quarter of it where its Edsel roots showed.
The early Valiants seemed rare by the time I was a kid - maybe they didn't sell as many around here. Falcons and even Corvairs seem to be around in larger numbers, but maybe they just sold more to begin with.
I remember around 1993 when my dad found the 68 Fairlane, we took it on a drive to visit my grandparents. My grandfather was surprised by it, as apparently my mom told him about the latest acquisition, and he was expecting a Falcon. He said something along the lines of "Falcons are terrible cars" - they must have had some negative vibes early on.
I remember around that time, when I was starting to drive, there was a red on red 63 Sprint in town, and I would have loved to have it as my first car. I know I have told the story before, alas, the owner never drove it but wouldn't sell.
Something maybe more typical here than elsewhere, saw an 85 Camry (composite lights, no CHMSL) still on the road in good shape. However, it was making a CV joint noise.
The Falcon was considered kind of chintzy by some, but ironically the much touted Mustang was based on the Falcon. I think two things played into not seeing as many Valiant's perhaps; the style maybe stood out too much for some consumers and Plymouth sales in general lagged both Ford and Chevy. I think buyers often had more brand loyalty back in those days.
Remember the old days, when they used to do those luxurious glamour shots, of the cars by a swimming pool? Well, as of settlement on Friday the 7th, a couple days ago, I can now officially do this...
I know it's not quite as glamorous as a '60 Imperial or Caddy at some Olympic sized pool in the hamptons, but I guess it's not a half-bad substitute...
Thanks, guys. It's something like 25x50 feet. I don't know what a "typical" swimming pool is, although I think my neighbor's is 16x40. I did have a chance to play in it on Friday, right after closing, with temps in the 90s, but then the rains came through and the rest of the weekend was only in the 60's Definitely NOT bikini weather!
And the first project is definitely going to be having a garage built!
I'm going to take a wild guess that the Cutlass is a '74. I'm mainly going by the tail lights and color. The '73 did indeed have more integrated rear bumpers, but they jutted them out for '74. The coupes tended to have a different rear/taillight treatment than the sedans, and in '76-77 the coupe got new sheetmetal all around that made it look more modern. The sedan got a new front clip, with the quad headlights, but as far as I know the doors and rear quarters didn't change.
I was able to find pics showing the rear of a '75, 76, and '77 Cutlass sedan, and they all had a vertical piece splitting the taillight into two thin, tall sections. So maybe the '74 sedan had that treatment with the horizontal cut? And, for some reason, that particular hue of washed out green just screams "1974" to me. It might have been a one-year-only color, or maybe just a color that was really popular that one year, and then soon faded away?
Comments
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I could very-much like a '65 Chrysler 300-L.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I do believe the 1960 body was all-new, though, compared to 1957-59, even though it doesn't look it.
As for the '63-64 Chryslers, I think my problem with them is that, while that body is okay for a Newport-class car, it really was too diminutive for something in the New Yorker's price range...a car meant to compete with the Buick Electra and Olds Ninety-Eight.
But, maybe it was meant to be. The bigger New Yorker was becoming a mere shell of its former self, seeming to have never truly recovered from the 1958 recession. While the Chrysler brand made a comeback, it did so mainly on the strength of the Newport and non-Letter 300 cars, which were priced in what had once been Dodge and low-end DeSoto territory. The big Saratoga went away after 1960, leaving just the New Yorker and 300G on the 126" wb for 1961. I think the New Yorker dropped the hardtop coupe and convertible for '62, and the 300H went to the shorter 122" wb. So that would have left the New Yorker with just pillared and hardtop sedans, and the Town & Country wagon. But, to make the New Yorker bigger, they just stretched it out ahead of the firewall, giving it a longer hood and fenders, but with no increase in interior room over a Newport. At least with a Buick/Olds, you got a larger interior when you went from a LeSabre/88 to an Electra/Ninety-Eight.
The prestige did return for '65, in my opinion. And, I guess Chrysler did benefit from not messing around with compacts and midsized cars like Olds, Buick, and Mercury did, so that gave them a little cachet. Still, even though the cars were bigger, I think the fact that the New Yorker wasn't actually bigger than a Newport/300 hurt its prestige a bit. Nevermind the fact that they were ALL big cars!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Careful Up, you're a GM fan and those 65's were heavily influenced by former Fomoco designer Elwood Engel who took over at Chrysler from Virgil Exner. Personally, I found the 63/64 Chrysler design inside and outside interesting and different, but maybe it needed a bit more to compete with its GM competitors that were very clean looking. The 64 Pontiac kind of went its own way too with the headlight design.
I guess Plymouth still might have sold on engineering...stuff like the torsion bar suspension, which gave superior handling, early adopter of the alternator, and also an early adopter in making a 3-speed the standard automatic, and using a decent-sized engine for the standard V-8. Maybe the geeks, engineers, and such liked it for that? Plus, the styling did somewhat tie in to the various turbine show cars of the time.
I've heard that one reason people like the style of the Toyota Prius is that it stands out and draws attention to itself...it doesn't look like every other compact/midsized car out there. And that was one reason it's been so popular...a hybrid Accord, Fusion, whatever, looked just like the non-hybrid version, but the Prius buyers wanted their cars to stand out. So maybe the '61 Plymouth buyers were a similar sort?
That's one reason I'm kinda fond of the '62 Dodges. To me, they seem wild, offbeat, and definitely stick out, in a combination that I find appealing. But, the '62 Plymouth, I just find kinda ugly.
Saw something now-obscure - a pristine first gen Olds Bravada.
Then there is the ongoing question of who really introduced the successful Intermediate car. The 62 Ford Fairlane was probably the first official Big 3 Intermediate entry. Ironically, Ford didn't really dominate in that segment and even the subsequent Torino seemed to appeal mostly to Ford loyalists or buyers shopping the deal. GM's senior compacts quickly ballooned in size and GM made their entry official with the all new 64 Malibu. Was the 62 downsized Chrysler full sized entry actually an Intermediate in disguise? Same goes for the 58 Rambler. Some will argue the first Intermediates were actually from the Independents like the first half of the 50's Nash and 53-55 (?) Loewy Studebakers, as well as the Willys Aero.
Cars did get heavy, my Bluetec is half a ton heavier than the fintail, literally 1000 pounds.
The first Falcons were tin cans, and the Corvair was...well, a Corvair, but had the nicest interiors and, arguably, most palatable styling. The Valiants were just weird-looking, and the Falcons were blah (but got better).
My favorites of the bunch were the Falcon Sprints for performance and the '65 Corvair for looks.
I remember around 1993 when my dad found the 68 Fairlane, we took it on a drive to visit my grandparents. My grandfather was surprised by it, as apparently my mom told him about the latest acquisition, and he was expecting a Falcon. He said something along the lines of "Falcons are terrible cars" - they must have had some negative vibes early on.
I remember around that time, when I was starting to drive, there was a red on red 63 Sprint in town, and I would have loved to have it as my first car. I know I have told the story before, alas, the owner never drove it but wouldn't sell.
I know it's not quite as glamorous as a '60 Imperial or Caddy at some Olympic sized pool in the hamptons, but I guess it's not a half-bad substitute...
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
And the first project is definitely going to be having a garage built!
Pools are based on gallons anyway. What’s that, 35,000-40,000?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
E500
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Third rig from the right is an Alert Red Nissan Sentra SR Turbo! Whoo-hoo!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I was able to find pics showing the rear of a '75, 76, and '77 Cutlass sedan, and they all had a vertical piece splitting the taillight into two thin, tall sections. So maybe the '74 sedan had that treatment with the horizontal cut? And, for some reason, that particular hue of washed out green just screams "1974" to me. It might have been a one-year-only color, or maybe just a color that was really popular that one year, and then soon faded away?
Not a "classic" or particularly obscure, but...