If you consider "that" to be bad, look at the rear door openings on the 4-dr Chrysler products compared to similar-size GM products! Going back into the later 1950s. Dealer training videos show this graphically! ALL on YouTube.
It seemed that GM cars had more front seat travel room back then, with a generally smaller rear seat leg room. But the rear door openings on the GM 4-drs was markedly smaller. Combine that with the intrusive B-pillar on GM cars back then, and the rear seat passengers were definitely squeezed for leg room! Even with similar-to-Chrysler wheelbases.
Then go back into the pre-1955 Chrysler dealer training videos (on YT) and check out their orientation of men being able to wear hats in Chryslers, as they had to remove them to get in similar GM cars. NOT having to take them off to get through the front door opening.
The '63-'64 Chryslers were a bit "trimmed-down" with "tighter" styling lines than in prior years, but I heard no one complain about the issues you mention. I found the '63-'64 cars to be pretty much the same as the later 1966+ cars, but I am only 5'5". BTAIM
Perhaps you might like a Fuselage Chrysler instead?
Regards,
CBODY67