Cool. Commercial being a native New Yorker (no pun intended), a queens resident my whole life, the first second makes me very sad / pissed! You see one of the Twin Towers for a split second. I lost a few people in 9-11. On a happier note, while not a great quality car, these were highly styled and at least made you feel special when going somewhere. These always reminded me of the 4 door 1967-69 thunderbirds! Does anyone else see it, especially the rear doors/roof treatment
The 1979 model was luxurious and quiet but the initial number of defects in the cars were excessive. The St. Regis was notorious as well. Once all those bugs were fixed they did pretty well.
My second car was a '79 Dodge diplomat - terrible build quality, but a bullet - proof motor ( 225 'Super Six' ) My biggest issue was hard starting and rough idle...
Great 'disco' arrangement of the orchestra and chorus in this 'fabulous' ad for the 1979 Chrysler New Yorker! I seem to remember there was an expanded one minute version of this great ad. And- it ends with the New Yorker at the 55th Street marquee entrance of the St Regis Hotel on 5th Avenue- Chrysler used the 'St Regis' name for several of their brands over the years.
I loved those cars, my mother won one in May of 1980. I especially liked the new lock up torque converter. The way it operated was something else. And the hidden head lamps.
Lock up torque converter wasn't new for this car. Started 1978. A good engineering achievement but not something really noticeable in operation, so I don't understand the something else comment. New Yorkers had covered headlights starting in 76, so that was nothing new either. Nicely styled, poorly assembled, and fun to drive with the 360, at least compared with Oldsmobiles, Buicks, etc.
My parents had a 1979 when I was a kid. It was a super attractive car that was let down by horrible quality control. Once the many factory defects were taken care of, the car actually went on to be very reliable! This proves that the design was solid, but the quality control was awful. Surprisingly good fuel economy for its time, and those leather seats were insanely comfortable.
Thanks for that insight from an actual owner/family! Yes, late '70's Chrysler products had quality control issues: many were fine; ...the ones assembled after lunch on a Friday not so much. But their basic engineering was solid. These were beautiful cars in the context of their time! None of the big three could boast of stellar quality control in the late '70's. Remember the Cadillac V8-6-4(!); or the '78-83 GM Diesel...?! HA... my dad had a '79 Cutlass Supreme coupe. Silver... Stunning... and a horror. Two years, two engines and a class-action lawsuit later, they bought it back. ...But they were pretty!
@@RADGarage going by my memory...I recall... * A power seat that was wired backwards. * air leaks from I'll fitted seals * waterleak from the rear driver side door * weird issues with the carburetor and/or the lean burn resulting in 8 MPG and backfiring * a sagging rear suspension Instead of getting rid of the car, My parents kept taking it back to the dealer until the problems were fixed one by one. Amazingly, the car went on to be very reliable, a good performer, and even the fuel economy became excellent (for s large car) So, a very rough beginning to a car that went on to be really good
Cool video, always liked this particular body styled Chrysler. Can't go with a rolls-royce inspired grill and hideaway head lamps. Never can understand why some refer to these types of cars as land yachts. Give me a big full size luxury car and you can keep those sm eggmobles you see on the highways today!
People call cars in the 1970's like the Chrysler New Yorker "land yachts" as either a term of endearment or an insult. I think of it as a term of endearment rather than an insult because cars in this day and age are terribly small and cramped on the inside. Seeing the leather seats in the Chrysler New Yorker in this commercial makes me wish I could sit in one from this generation.
Could use a large fender skirts on this 1979 Chrysler New Yorker 4 door sedan, since they dropped a 2 door coupe and station wagon in the line up. Larger fender skirts used to hide most of the rear wheels, which is standard for New Yorker, but optional on Newport models.
Very cool commercial for a car that was considered poor quality and a sales dud. I remember sitting in one at a new car show when they first came out...the rear quarter windows were a novelty at the time.
@@bradkay Yes, sales of both the Newport and New Yorker were higher in 1979 than in 1978 but sales collapsed in 1980 and 1981 before being discontinued. The first one built could not be driven off the assembly line due to a dead battery...all in front of press reporters. It was common for the rear windows on the New Yorker to not seal properly. Law enforcement detested the similar St. Regis as being underpowered ... the previous Coronet and Fury cop cars with the 440 V-8 were superior. The last high quality big Chryslers were the 1955 - 1956 ... the 1965 - 1968 had decent quality but quality went downhill every year afterwards. My Grandfather's 1972 Newport had issues though he kept it a long time. The big FoMoCo cars and the big GM cars of the same era were more reliable.
Me gusta el carro un Chrysler New Yorker Brougham 1979; es un excelente automóvil; le hizo competencia al Chevrolet Caprice Classic; excelencia Chrysler; saludos.
I miss these full size luxury sedans. This particular New Yorker model year had a pretty unattractive grill but otherwise a gorgeous looking car. My favorite New Yorker was the early 90’s model with squared off rear body and landau padded roof.
It gets 16 in the city and 23 on the highway? Not bad. Especially for a large car with a carburetor. I believe the 2000 Cadillac Seville gets about the same kind of mileage, carrying less weight on a fuel injected engine. (But I just saw this car only has 190 horsepower).
Carmakers have made great strides in weight, aerodynamics, lubrication, metallurgy and everything else in the past 40 years, and they traded every one of those gains for Horsepower. If they had kept the same zeal for better fuel economy, we'd all be getting 40 MPG now.
@@misterwhipple2870 I think we're getting 40 mpg now, but yeah they could have gotten those targets sooner. Chryslers were particularly known for being gas guzzlers in the 60s and 70s - but I always asked why their vaunted team of engineers never thought to switch to digital fuel injection in the 70s. They could have scored the advantage in power and economy over less weighty GM and Ford equivalents.
@@misterwhipple2870 Yeah. But Pontiac and other Detroit car companies also produced midsized cars that didn't take as much gas, if I recall right? Chrysler specialized in big saloons. Furthermore, since Chrysler had the best engineers who were ahead of the game on everything else, from starters to catalytic converters and even digital carburetors (which actually didn't work), they ought to have thought to be the first to use injectors and really get a leg up. Their full sized cars could add insult to injury on GM and Ford, getting better gas milage and having more power.
Dam❤ if I could catch a Learjet disguised as a time machine I'm going back Jesus Take the Wheel 1979 the seventies we're coming to a close have mercy on the 80s they needed it oh so bad these two decades Beautiful People beautiful cars so much respect in the seventies and eighties and love and kindness we got to get back to that quick❤ 1979 I could write a bestseller book about that year it would be a billion dollar seller 7 times Jeff Bezos would discombobulate🤣🤫
Not a fan of this design, but much better than the garbage turned out in the 1980s as far as looks. I also have always found it funny to name a giant car after one of the world's most crowded cities where large cars are not really meant to be.
@@Aman-fv5if I recall reading that Iacocca cancelled them because they had to spend too much being reworked before they could be shipped. Most of them were probably okay when received by the dealers, but it was too costly to fix things that should have been done right the first time. The particular plant was antiquated. They had just got the federal loan guarantee when the R body program was cancelled, they needed to spend wisely on the K-car rollout.
GORGEOUS car!! I'd drive one as my daily driver today!
I remember liking these as a kid. Thought they were very fancy.
Me too they were beautiful cars
Cool. Commercial being a native New Yorker (no pun intended), a queens resident my whole life, the first second makes me very sad / pissed! You see one of the Twin Towers for a split second. I lost a few people in 9-11. On a happier note, while not a great quality car, these were highly styled and at least made you feel special when going somewhere. These always reminded me of the 4 door 1967-69 thunderbirds! Does anyone else see it, especially the rear doors/roof treatment
The 1979 model was luxurious and quiet but the initial number of defects in the cars were excessive. The St. Regis was notorious as well. Once all those bugs were fixed they did pretty well.
My second car was a '79 Dodge diplomat - terrible build quality, but a bullet - proof motor ( 225 'Super Six' ) My biggest issue was hard starting and rough idle...
Great 'disco' arrangement of the orchestra and chorus in this 'fabulous' ad for the 1979 Chrysler New Yorker! I seem to remember there was an expanded one minute version of this great ad. And- it ends with the New Yorker at the 55th Street marquee entrance of the St Regis Hotel on 5th Avenue- Chrysler used the 'St Regis' name for several of their brands over the years.
I loved those cars, my mother won one in May of 1980. I especially liked the new lock up torque converter. The way it operated was something else. And the hidden head lamps.
Won one how?
Lock up torque converter wasn't new for this car. Started 1978. A good engineering achievement but not something really noticeable in operation, so I don't understand the something else comment. New Yorkers had covered headlights starting in 76, so that was nothing new either.
Nicely styled, poorly assembled, and fun to drive with the 360, at least compared with Oldsmobiles, Buicks, etc.
Mr. Exnar would have been delighted to ride in one. So would Mr. Chrysler.
The lock up torque converter was indeed a game changer for these! Quality control aside, this car was indeed *something else* in its day.
My parents had a 1979 when I was a kid. It was a super attractive car that was let down by horrible quality control. Once the many factory defects were taken care of, the car actually went on to be very reliable! This proves that the design was solid, but the quality control was awful. Surprisingly good fuel economy for its time, and those leather seats were insanely comfortable.
Thanks for that insight from an actual owner/family! Yes, late '70's Chrysler products had quality control issues: many were fine; ...the ones assembled after lunch on a Friday not so much. But their basic engineering was solid. These were beautiful cars in the context of their time!
None of the big three could boast of stellar quality control in the late '70's. Remember the Cadillac V8-6-4(!); or the '78-83 GM Diesel...?! HA... my dad had a '79 Cutlass Supreme coupe. Silver... Stunning... and a horror. Two years, two engines and a class-action lawsuit later, they bought it back. ...But they were pretty!
What bugs did it have?
@@RADGarage going by my memory...I recall...
* A power seat that was wired backwards.
* air leaks from I'll fitted seals
* waterleak from the rear driver side door
* weird issues with the carburetor and/or the lean burn resulting in 8 MPG and backfiring
* a sagging rear suspension
Instead of getting rid of the car, My parents kept taking it back to the dealer until the problems were fixed one by one. Amazingly, the car went on to be very reliable, a good performer, and even the fuel economy became excellent (for s large car) So, a very rough beginning to a car that went on to be really good
AWESOME CLASSIC COMMERCIAL! VERY WELL DONE!!! 👍👍👍👍👍✅✅✅✅✅😱😱😱😱😱❤❤❤❤❤⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐👏👏👏👏👏😍😍😍😍😍💖💖💖💖💖🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Amazing that they doubled the highway miles in just under a few years. Just have cell back to a 6 cylinder.
Pure class for the era. My family had a few.
How FABULOUS...get ready for the K - Car! 😮😂
Cool video, always liked this particular body styled Chrysler. Can't go with a rolls-royce inspired grill and hideaway head lamps. Never can understand why some refer to these types of cars as land yachts. Give me a big full size luxury car and you can keep those sm eggmobles you see on the highways today!
People call cars in the 1970's like the Chrysler New Yorker "land yachts" as either a term of endearment or an insult. I think of it as a term of endearment rather than an insult because cars in this day and age are terribly small and cramped on the inside. Seeing the leather seats in the Chrysler New Yorker in this commercial makes me wish I could sit in one from this generation.
I'll take the '73 New Yorker, thank you
I remember that commercial!
Could use a large fender skirts on this 1979 Chrysler New Yorker 4 door sedan, since they dropped a 2 door coupe and station wagon in the line up. Larger fender skirts used to hide most of the rear wheels, which is standard for New Yorker, but optional on Newport models.
I have the same car in deep blue
Ah the good old days of cars
With a Grille as big as your Garage 😁.
Very cool commercial for a car that was considered poor quality and a sales dud. I remember sitting in one at a new car show when they first came out...the rear quarter windows were a novelty at the time.
First year 1979 it sold better than the 79 Newport. And the 78 New Yorker. Sales absolutely died in 80.
@@bradkay Yes, sales of both the Newport and New Yorker were higher in 1979 than in 1978 but sales collapsed in 1980 and 1981 before being discontinued. The first one built could not be driven off the assembly line due to a dead battery...all in front of press reporters. It was common for the rear windows on the New Yorker to not seal properly. Law enforcement detested the similar St. Regis as being underpowered ... the previous Coronet and Fury cop cars with the 440 V-8 were superior. The last high quality big Chryslers were the 1955 - 1956 ... the 1965 - 1968 had decent quality but quality went downhill every year afterwards. My Grandfather's 1972 Newport had issues though he kept it a long time. The big FoMoCo cars and the big GM cars of the same era were more reliable.
@@SpockvsMcCoy And sold FAR, FAR better.
@@aaronwilliams6989 Which cars are you referring to?
@@SpockvsMcCoy The GM and Ford cars sold FAR, FAR better than the Chrysler cars, as well as being more reliable.
Me gusta el carro un Chrysler New Yorker Brougham 1979; es un excelente automóvil; le hizo competencia al Chevrolet Caprice Classic; excelencia Chrysler; saludos.
I feel like watching The Love Boat or ChiPs now.
Looked like town car
I miss these full size luxury sedans. This particular New Yorker model year had a pretty unattractive grill but otherwise a gorgeous looking car. My favorite New Yorker was the early 90’s model with squared off rear body and landau padded roof.
I own a 91 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue mark cross edition. Flag White with the Corinthian leather interior in wine red
@@Underappreciatedclassics nice! Wish I could take a spin in it…..I bet it rides like a dream
@@MrScottie68 what do you think of the pop-up headlights on those cool things? They’re pretty neat, aren’t they?
A brand new ‘62 Plymouth for $10,000!
It gets 16 in the city and 23 on the highway? Not bad. Especially for a large car with a carburetor. I believe the 2000 Cadillac Seville gets about the same kind of mileage, carrying less weight on a fuel injected engine. (But I just saw this car only has 190 horsepower).
Carmakers have made great strides in weight, aerodynamics, lubrication, metallurgy and everything else in the past 40 years, and they traded every one of those gains for Horsepower. If they had kept the same zeal for better fuel economy, we'd all be getting 40 MPG now.
@@misterwhipple2870 I think we're getting 40 mpg now, but yeah they could have gotten those targets sooner. Chryslers were particularly known for being gas guzzlers in the 60s and 70s - but I always asked why their vaunted team of engineers never thought to switch to digital fuel injection in the 70s. They could have scored the advantage in power and economy over less weighty GM and Ford equivalents.
@@broadstreet21 Not to point fingers, but the rest of Detroit was just as bad. I had a 1973 Pontiac Catalina that got 7 MPG, and 8 on a good day,
@@misterwhipple2870 Yeah. But Pontiac and other Detroit car companies also produced midsized cars that didn't take as much gas, if I recall right? Chrysler specialized in big saloons.
Furthermore, since Chrysler had the best engineers who were ahead of the game on everything else, from starters to catalytic converters and even digital carburetors (which actually didn't work), they ought to have thought to be the first to use injectors and really get a leg up. Their full sized cars could add insult to injury on GM and Ford, getting better gas milage and having more power.
@@misterwhipple2870 The Japanese are getting close with their hybrids.
Dam❤ if I could catch a Learjet disguised as a time machine I'm going back Jesus Take the Wheel 1979 the seventies we're coming to a close have mercy on the 80s they needed it oh so bad these two decades Beautiful People beautiful cars so much respect in the seventies and eighties and love and kindness we got to get back to that quick❤ 1979 I could write a bestseller book about that year it would be a billion dollar seller 7 times Jeff Bezos would discombobulate🤣🤫
These were such nice looking cars, but the build quality were terrible.
These are the real cars better than these newer cars out here today a.k.a Hi Tech Cars.
Your kidding, right? These line of cars were known to be crappy.
twin towers
Not a fan of this design, but much better than the garbage turned out in the 1980s as far as looks. I also have always found it funny to name a giant car after one of the world's most crowded cities where large cars are not really meant to be.
Wow this commercial was pretty good at convincing the public to buy this slop job of a car.
Most people here don't seem to agree these works of art being "slop jobs".
@@Aman-fv5if I recall reading that Iacocca cancelled them because they had to spend too much being reworked before they could be shipped. Most of them were probably okay when received by the dealers, but it was too costly to fix things that should have been done right the first time. The particular plant was antiquated. They had just got the federal loan guarantee when the R body program was cancelled, they needed to spend wisely on the K-car rollout.
@@Aman-fv5if work of art? How many are left today?
@@brettcannon74 Not enough.
It’s no Imperial, but it thinks like a Charger.