It's As Big As A Whale! The 1972 Chrysler New Yorker
- Thread starter 67newport
- Start date
Actually, bigger than a whale as the "Big as a Whale" was a '66 Newport in the video by The B-52s. The Fuselage Cars are about 5 inches longer.
The key thing is that no matter how big the Fuselage Cars might be, they don't "roll over and play dead" in the turns like Ford and GM cars tend to do.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
The key thing is that no matter how big the Fuselage Cars might be, they don't "roll over and play dead" in the turns like Ford and GM cars tend to do.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
darth_linux
Well-Known Member
A '65 300 L actually, but same body more or less
Keith926
Member
One of my favourite things about my Newport was that it was big inside and out, 71-76 GM fullsize cars have big bodies but interior dimensions similar to 77-96 fullsize. I once put 4 31x10.50-15 tires on rims in the backseat of the Newport, not many vehicles have that much room inside. The other awesome thing about their size was the rear wheel well didn't interfere with the rear door window, allowing it go down all the way. My only significant Ford fullsize experience is with 79 up so I can only compare the fuselage to a GM, and in the years the fuselage were made there were two different styles of GM, both styles of GM were smaller, lighter and less rigid than the unibody fuselage I feel. The fuselage has the engine further back on the center line of the front axle I feel, a better balanced car especially with a heavier big block. The torsion bars and leaf springs are slightly more forgiving than coil springs with worn shocks and the leafs are less likely to allow the axle to shift vs GM's four link when bushings are old and worn. The "weak point" on the fuselage suspension is the front lower control arm bushing. Not saying it's a design flaw but the part under the most stress, and the most common necessary repair they need. You have to unload the torsion bar and remove the lower control arm to replace the front shocks and I laugh that Chryco did it like that so you would see the bushing is bad.
To compare a 69 Olds 88 or a 72 Olds 88 to a 69 or 72 Newport I think is fair, a Buick would be more in line with a New Yorker, Chev/Pontiac comparable to a Dodge/Plymouth, Cadillac to an Imperial. The Cadillac is a much different beast than an Impala, a 69 Polara shares a lot more with the Imperial almost the same body but a different subframe, even the basic Dodge and Plymouth fusies shared the same platform as a high line Chrysler. The fuselage is one of the best engineered/examples of big cars I think, for having big proportions, decent power available, good ride and handling for the time. A comparable GM is more front heavy and not as balanced of a package, the fuselage was better engineered as a big block boat. I feel like the fusies have the weight of the big block better centered, giving better traction to the rear wheels and less understeer I think you'd call it, when you send it hard into a turn it takes less steering angle to make the turn than the GM because of less weight on the front end, the increased steering angle and weight on the front of the GM makes them lean on the corners more I feel. Despite my opinion on the handling characteristics at speed the GM definitely has more front weight bias based simply on the Chrysler's superior handling and traction in snow, maybe it's not all to do with the engine's location and the long overhanging rear end helps. I had a 77 Nova with a 250 inline 6 that overhanged the front suspension crossmember, when I swapped a V8 that ended a few inches further back it was a noticeable difference in handling
So I would agree that the fusies seem to roll less on turns then others of their time, they have to be pushed real hard to plow or lock up the front wheels. Of all of the rear wheel drive cars and trucks I have had they are the most sure footed in snow. The biggest concern in snow or ice was at about 40-45mph just shifted into 3rd, slow steady acceleration, it might break loose, big block torque lol, the only other issue in the winter was freezing rain and ice on the windows, the rear window defrost fan vs an electric grid was a pitfall of it's time of production. I really like GMs as well so my views aren't hating on them. A SBC powered GM would give better fuel economy than the 400 in my experience. The "worst" thing about daily driving that 72 Newport in modern times was the fuel economy, 10-14mpg vs 17-23mpg from my other classics. If I payed no mind to the fuel cost or the scarcity of some parts it was one of the best cars I had. I remember touring with a friend one day, I was talking about how well it drove, think I had just put 225s on in place of 275s, he was doubting me, and he realized we were on one of the worst roads around and had never rode it so smooth, and became a believer. It's cool to think of some everyday person, maybe a little old lady, driving a basic 69 Newport with a 300 hp 383, just an average car
To compare a 69 Olds 88 or a 72 Olds 88 to a 69 or 72 Newport I think is fair, a Buick would be more in line with a New Yorker, Chev/Pontiac comparable to a Dodge/Plymouth, Cadillac to an Imperial. The Cadillac is a much different beast than an Impala, a 69 Polara shares a lot more with the Imperial almost the same body but a different subframe, even the basic Dodge and Plymouth fusies shared the same platform as a high line Chrysler. The fuselage is one of the best engineered/examples of big cars I think, for having big proportions, decent power available, good ride and handling for the time. A comparable GM is more front heavy and not as balanced of a package, the fuselage was better engineered as a big block boat. I feel like the fusies have the weight of the big block better centered, giving better traction to the rear wheels and less understeer I think you'd call it, when you send it hard into a turn it takes less steering angle to make the turn than the GM because of less weight on the front end, the increased steering angle and weight on the front of the GM makes them lean on the corners more I feel. Despite my opinion on the handling characteristics at speed the GM definitely has more front weight bias based simply on the Chrysler's superior handling and traction in snow, maybe it's not all to do with the engine's location and the long overhanging rear end helps. I had a 77 Nova with a 250 inline 6 that overhanged the front suspension crossmember, when I swapped a V8 that ended a few inches further back it was a noticeable difference in handling
So I would agree that the fusies seem to roll less on turns then others of their time, they have to be pushed real hard to plow or lock up the front wheels. Of all of the rear wheel drive cars and trucks I have had they are the most sure footed in snow. The biggest concern in snow or ice was at about 40-45mph just shifted into 3rd, slow steady acceleration, it might break loose, big block torque lol, the only other issue in the winter was freezing rain and ice on the windows, the rear window defrost fan vs an electric grid was a pitfall of it's time of production. I really like GMs as well so my views aren't hating on them. A SBC powered GM would give better fuel economy than the 400 in my experience. The "worst" thing about daily driving that 72 Newport in modern times was the fuel economy, 10-14mpg vs 17-23mpg from my other classics. If I payed no mind to the fuel cost or the scarcity of some parts it was one of the best cars I had. I remember touring with a friend one day, I was talking about how well it drove, think I had just put 225s on in place of 275s, he was doubting me, and he realized we were on one of the worst roads around and had never rode it so smooth, and became a believer. It's cool to think of some everyday person, maybe a little old lady, driving a basic 69 Newport with a 300 hp 383, just an average car
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,402
- Reaction score
- 1,583
What is wrong with a whale ???
What do you want --- a little puddle jumper --- like a Corvair or a Pinto ???
^^^ If you do ^^^ , put it in the trunk ..... ( L O L )
What do you want --- a little puddle jumper --- like a Corvair or a Pinto ???
^^^ If you do ^^^ , put it in the trunk ..... ( L O L )
In the 1950s in TX, a "puddle jumper" was some lower-powered vehicle, like a Chevy 6-cyl that didn't have enough power to spin the wheels on dry dirt, so it was less likely to get stuck when driving on the many dirt roads back then. And could go pretty much anywhere the skinny tires would take it. Usually older, too.
CBODY67
Personally, I never did like the "boat" or nautical reference with regard to Chryslers. GMs and Fords were worthy of that with their soft suspensions and greater lean in corners. Chryslers were firm and flat, by comparison.
GMs and many Fords had spacious front seats, but rear seat leg room was small. Had been that way for years AND still is. Which is also one reason GMs are still harder to get into the back seat of. Chryslers, by comparison, always touted the ease with which one could get into and out of the back seat, for cars of the same or longer wheelbase.
CBODY67
CBODY67
Thanks. At the time The B52s were not a band I listened to, but I did catch their reference to the old Chrysler. Only saw the glimpse of it a few times on MTV.A '65 300 L actually, but same body more or less
Personally, I never did like the "boat" or nautical reference with regard to Chryslers. GMs and Fords were worthy of that with their soft suspensions and greater lean in corners. Chryslers were firm and flat, by comparison.
GMs and many Fords had spacious front seats, but rear seat leg room was small. Had been that way for years AND still is. Which is also one reason GMs are still harder to get into the back seat of. Chryslers, by comparison, always touted the ease with which one could get into and out of the back seat, for cars of the same or longer wheelbase.
CBODY67
3175375
Senior Member
I own a whale and love it, as well as 2 Corvairs. The Corvairs won’t fit in the trunk, but are smaller in size.
Fender tag at 18:30. This superb GY9 NYer is CH41T2C150706 -- she has generated 438n replies in a day, amazing for a '72 Chrysler 4dr sedan.
@69CoronetRT @cuda hunter @marko @boostedvan
@69CoronetRT @cuda hunter @marko @boostedvan
That video was only posted yesterday. He says he's thinking of selling it. I would have liked to hear more commentary about how Chrysler positioned the New Yorker in terms of branding, pricing and features compared to the Newport and 300.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,402
- Reaction score
- 1,583
^^^ Sorry 3175375 ^^^ ,
Corvair came to mind first !!!
Maybe I should have gone Foreign --- VW Beetle , Fiat 500 , and BMW Isetta ( 3 or 4 wheeler ) !!!
Yours, Craig.....
Corvair came to mind first !!!
Maybe I should have gone Foreign --- VW Beetle , Fiat 500 , and BMW Isetta ( 3 or 4 wheeler ) !!!
Yours, Craig.....
Last edited:
and the formal 76-78 nybs were another 8 inches longer than the fuselage cars, 224" compared to 231............
Some of that length was in the bumper guards and energy-absorbing bumpers. Our '72 Newport Royal is 224", our '66 Newport Town Sedan is 219", on the same wheelbase of 124" (of 123.5", depending upon which specs you read). ALL tastefully styled!
I went into the Internet Car Movie Database (www.icmdb.org) and looked for "Chrysler 300", even "Chrysler 300L" and found nothing of the B-52s video. I then went into "Chrysler Newport" from their menu and found lots of listings. Finally got to the 1965 thumbnails and found the B-52 video. They had the car listed as "1965 Newport"
Watching the video on full screen, with the cursor on the play and pause icons, I watched, stopping to look at details. The car is a 1965 300 convertible. Grille, lower side trim, rr qtr emblem, rr seat radio grille, and fuel door emblem are all "300". Not an "L", though, due to the fuel door, rear panel trim, and rr qtr emblem.
Their easy cruise to the Love Shack was not quite as dynamic of the 1966 Newport scened in "Sheba, Sheba", though.
There are lots of cars listed on that database. Year, brand, and even model in most cases. If the car is "the character", secondary character, or background use, it's all there.
There is also a YouTube channel for "car chases", which can be enjoyable to watch.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Watching the video on full screen, with the cursor on the play and pause icons, I watched, stopping to look at details. The car is a 1965 300 convertible. Grille, lower side trim, rr qtr emblem, rr seat radio grille, and fuel door emblem are all "300". Not an "L", though, due to the fuel door, rear panel trim, and rr qtr emblem.
Their easy cruise to the Love Shack was not quite as dynamic of the 1966 Newport scened in "Sheba, Sheba", though.
There are lots of cars listed on that database. Year, brand, and even model in most cases. If the car is "the character", secondary character, or background use, it's all there.
There is also a YouTube channel for "car chases", which can be enjoyable to watch.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
darth_linux
Well-Known Member
After poring over the ICMDB for a while, I found a black '66 Newport 2 door that looks JUST like my car in the 2016 movie "The Infiltrator." Given the largely unknown history of my car, and that it was originally an east coast vehicle before being auctioned and moved to Washington State in 2020, I think there's a small chance of this being my car. A small chance, but still. I'm gonna look into trying to ID the Infiltrator car a little bit more . . . if you have any tips, please share, thanks @CBODY67 .
chrysler_fan
Active Member
nice looking 1972 New Yorker
marty koirtyohann
Well-Known Member
it was 225"lomg & allmost 5300#!
Similar threads
