Thank you so much for this recent upload! When I was 17 in 1977, I bought my first car, a 1958 Chrysler New Yorker two door Hardtop with a 392 Hemi. I loved that car, and still do. I don't own it anymore, but it's in Sweden now and totall restored. Better than when I owned it. I still think the 58 Chrysler were the prettiest Chrysler cars in all of the 1950's decade
Wow, thays amazing that you still at least know the whereabouts of your first car. You are in my strike zone. I was 16 in 1977. My parents had a 1962 Chrysler Newport 2 door hardtop. That was one beautiful car. Unfortunately a drunk took it out on 11/03/72. I still miss that car today. My mom says that was her favorite car out of all the cars we owned in her almost 80 years.
Hey Osborn, that is incredible that you do still know THE WHERE abouts of your very first one. I was 16 in 1977 as well, however a year later I bought my very first car , I'm afraid it wasn't one of these beautiful machines LIKE the one above ; however once I started driving around in my first vehicle I started noticing these beautiful pieces of machinery almost EVERY WHERE I went....As I continued to study the construction & design of automobiles , I did notice how much " tamer" those outrageous and fabulous designs became ; coming up through the late seventies......I was so disappointed with the mid to late 70's designs , but also very aware of impending O.P.E.C. conditions throughout the USA.
The 1958 Windsor shrunk from the 126 to 122 inch chassis used by Dodge. Notice the front fenders are shorter from the cowl forward compared to the Saratoga and New Yorker.
We had that '58 Windsor two door, two tone. Unfortunately, we had it in 1964-67, when it looked distinctly uncool compared to what was on the road then, although it was kind of Batmobile like, when that series came out in '66, even though it was based on a Futura. We bought the Windsor from a bad driver. The fins were scraped because you'd hit the signs when parallel parking. By '64 the front seat had to be recovered. So much for the quality referenced in the filmstrip. The electrical system was terrible, including the push button console. I love how they crow about the push button setup. Who exactly wanted it, and who cared? Our '55 Windsor that we'd had years earlier had the gear shifter on the dash. That was cooler, I thought. The door handles deteriorated so that I remember not being able to lock the car - with a hardtop they were so easy to break into anyway. The radio was a tube radio, and by the 60s they were all transistor. And I tend to see very few videos of surviving Windsors from '58 - I'm sure the one we had did not survive long after we got rid of it.
Oh I so agree with the comments about these old cars. They have style, they are works of art on wheels. Cars are nice these days but, they're just cars and there's too much emphasis on speed. A question I would like to ask auto companies today is "Why don't you bring out a retro of the old style cruisers?" They've done quite a good job with the Mustang, but why not bring out a retro of something NOT a muscle car, a retro of a cruiser like this, complete with chrome and white walls. Doesn't have to be as big, they can be the size of those beautifull compacts they made in the 60s and 70s, like the Dodge Dart. They can even be electric, just lets bring back style. These old car aesthetics are so good they don't look old fashioned, in fact they look more like cars of the future than the past.
This is a Chrysler line-up dealer promo (short for promotional) film. The idea is to promote the product in such a way as to help the dealer promote the product as well. If he learns to promote the product well enough he will become a top-seller. The product he will be promoting and potentially selling is the Chrysler automobile. The more of these Chrysler automobiles he sells the more money he and the motor company will make. Fortunately the Chrysler nameplate is a fairly old and reputable one. It derives from an engineer named Walter P. Chrysler. Because his car was so good he named it after himself. Additionally, a tall building in New York is named after him though neither the motor company nor his family now owns it.
@Crimson Idol Apparently you haven't heard about "planned obsolescence." You also haven't heard how anecdotes don't make something statistically true. Lemme guess: older cars are safer than newer cars?
Is it just me or is that headlight assembly om the Windsor Dodge rather than Chrysler? I know there was a little crossover with various models so I'd be really interested to know!
The Windsor was basically a Dodge, it used the shorter wheelbase Dodge body with Chrysler appointments. The Saratoga and New Yorker were actually longer wheel base cars. DeSoto and Chrysler shared bodies too. The DeSoto Firesweep also used the Dodge Body.
just further point....so the Dodge Door front door of a four door would fit a Chrysler Windsor or DeSoto Firesweep. But the doors are not the same on the longer wheelbase Chrysler and DeSotos. They look the same at first glance, but look at the actual frames around the four doors. The Window Frame on the New Yorker bolts to the door and is made of Aluminium, It's a two piece door, but look at the Windsor and it's a solid one piece door with the Door Frame color of the body. It won't fit on a larger Chrysler. They are very different
@OsbornTramain thanks for the great explanation! I did wonder as there was some genuinely interesting money saving measures used back then then meant you had a huge range of cars that all FELT different to the buyer, but were similar enough mechanically that parts were easier etc, so that makes sense! Thanks again!
Actually the 1958 Chrysler Corporation cars were just slightly redesigned versions of the '57s, which were the real trendsetters when they'd been put on the market. Unfortunately for Detroit, 1958 was a recession year and car sales dropped considerably.
Hmmm....I wonder why *The IMPERIAL* wasn't included in this video ? Could it be because *it's NOT A CHRYSLER ??* Yeah....THAT just could be it !!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_(automobile)#First_generation_(1955%E2%80%931956):_A_separate_make
geeze...chrysler must have liked to rip ppl off back then..these cars are nothing more then glorified plymouths ...and the first one looks like the cheaper ranger and pacer edsels from the side
@@davidthomsen1065 lmao we had a stock 1964 galaxy 500 bucket seats 390 four speed ninety miles a hour in just second gear. Lmao,and one of the most beautiful cars there is 64 galaxy. Not to mention everyone built a hemispherical engine I believe Ford was the first. Lmao.
Aha!! We have an admitted COMmunist! Sir, only communists do not like tailfins. I suppose next you'll be deriding the lack of SEATBELTS and AIRBAGS, and calling for the removal of all three ashtrays and two of the cylinders!! Americans need those ashtrays for ashin' in, and those extra cylinders... uhh... for more pep and go-power! OK, more seriously: I love a '70 'Cuda as much as the next guy but @00:20 there is not a bad line or proportion anywhere on that big, beautiful, brilliant car.
More (chrome, needless molding and curves, general shiny bits) is better isn't a style philosophy for everyone. Personally I don't like the giant slab Lego look of the late 60's and 70's. But do like the sweeping Coke Bottle design they, and GM, used around the same time.
Agreed! Which is why I like the '55-61 Chryslers so much. The shape is beautiful on its own, and the use of chrome (to me, and especially for the time period) is minimal. Compare the best '50s/ early 60's Exner designs to most GM or Ford designs of the period, and I think they stand out as beautiful scupture, much more restrained than others. To each his own, but I think the Exner designs don't generally deserve to be lumped in with all the glitzy stuff. Sure, they had lots of chrome up front, but it was less purely decorative and more sculptural in comparison to most others of the time. But the beauty is in their overall shape and proportion, not in decoration.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The best part of the late fifties was the ' unique' design of each tailfin of each different company.
I HAD 1958 CHRYSLER WINDSOR 2 DR HDTP BLACK W/ 392 HEMI W/2 FOURS. WISHED I STILL HAD IT TODAY.
That was early Mopar Muscle! It would indeed be something to have today. : )
So you're still pretty upset about it all judging by yer all caps...
Thank you so much for this recent upload! When I was 17 in 1977, I bought my first car, a 1958 Chrysler New Yorker two door Hardtop with a 392 Hemi. I loved that car, and still do. I don't own it anymore, but it's in Sweden now and totall restored. Better than when I owned it. I still think the 58 Chrysler were the prettiest Chrysler cars in all of the 1950's decade
Wow, thays amazing that you still at least know the whereabouts of your first car. You are in my strike zone. I was 16 in 1977. My parents had a 1962 Chrysler Newport 2 door hardtop. That was one beautiful car. Unfortunately a drunk took it out on 11/03/72. I still miss that car today. My mom says that was her favorite car out of all the cars we owned in her almost 80 years.
Hey Osborn, that is incredible that you do still know THE WHERE abouts of your very first one. I was 16 in 1977 as well, however a year later I bought my very first car , I'm afraid it wasn't one of these beautiful machines LIKE the one above ; however once I started driving around in my first vehicle I started noticing these beautiful pieces of machinery almost EVERY WHERE I went....As I continued to study the construction & design of automobiles , I did notice how much " tamer" those outrageous and fabulous designs became ; coming up through the late seventies......I was so disappointed with the mid to late 70's designs , but also very aware of impending O.P.E.C. conditions throughout the USA.
Our family had a 2 door hard top white and gold, also a 60 Desoto 383 with 2 four cross ram intake manifolds, love those tail fins.
Really love these clips
Beautiful car with actual STYLING, something lost on most of today's plastic cars.
All plastic cars look the same today
There's plenty of beautiful cars being made today.
@@rosenb37 Yeah you're right, they're are, but compared to the designs of the "dream machines" of the 50's, there's no comparison.
Name a couple of them.
@@johanbrand8601 Dodge Challenger, Ford Mustang
The 1958 Windsor shrunk from the 126 to 122 inch chassis used by Dodge. Notice the front fenders are shorter from the cowl forward compared to the Saratoga and New Yorker.
AWESOME BODYLINES
Beauuuutiful Car!💕
Forward Look FTW! Even today.
We had that '58 Windsor two door, two tone. Unfortunately, we had it in 1964-67, when it looked distinctly uncool compared to what was on the road then, although it was kind of Batmobile like, when that series came out in '66, even though it was based on a Futura. We bought the Windsor from a bad driver. The fins were scraped because you'd hit the signs when parallel parking. By '64 the front seat had to be recovered. So much for the quality referenced in the filmstrip. The electrical system was terrible, including the push button console. I love how they crow about the push button setup. Who exactly wanted it, and who cared? Our '55 Windsor that we'd had years earlier had the gear shifter on the dash. That was cooler, I thought. The door handles deteriorated so that I remember not being able to lock the car - with a hardtop they were so easy to break into anyway. The radio was a tube radio, and by the 60s they were all transistor. And I tend to see very few videos of surviving Windsors from '58 - I'm sure the one we had did not survive long after we got rid of it.
Their was more thought and design put into a tailfin than their is in a whole car today.
Oh I so agree with the comments about these old cars. They have style, they are works of art on wheels. Cars are nice these days but, they're just cars and there's too much emphasis on speed. A question I would like to ask auto companies today is "Why don't you bring out a retro of the old style cruisers?" They've done quite a good job with the Mustang, but why not bring out a retro of something NOT a muscle car, a retro of a cruiser like this, complete with chrome and white walls. Doesn't have to be as big, they can be the size of those beautifull compacts they made in the 60s and 70s, like the Dodge Dart. They can even be electric, just lets bring back style. These old car aesthetics are so good they don't look old fashioned, in fact they look more like cars of the future than the past.
More Harp!!! Added bigness!!!
Back when stylists knew what style was.
Happy New Year BTW..
This is a Chrysler line-up dealer promo (short for promotional) film. The idea is to promote the product in such a way as to help the dealer promote the product as well. If he learns to promote the product well enough he will become a top-seller. The product he will be promoting and potentially selling is the Chrysler automobile. The more of these Chrysler automobiles he sells the more money he and the motor company will make. Fortunately the Chrysler nameplate is a fairly old and reputable one. It derives from an engineer named Walter P. Chrysler. Because his car was so good he named it after himself. Additionally, a tall building in New York is named after him though neither the motor company nor his family now owns it.
For sure. I think Peugeot now owns Fiat-Chrysler. 🚗
Push button automatic at 3:52,and 392 V-8!
The big 392 Firepower V8 was available on the 1958 New Yorker models. Windsor and Saratoga models had the 354 Spitfire V8.
No mistaking the large 58 Chrysler Rear Fins...
If you "squint" just right, The Windsor 2Dr hardtop looks like a really big Studebaker!
I often use a set of "squintacles".
ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE A DESOTOT FIRESWEEP!
Absolutely,at first glance it looked like a Golden Hawk ,color and all.
Out of the 57 -8 -9 Chryslers, I still think they got it right the first time, and that the 57 is the nicest of all.
If only they were built to last.
The '57s were rushed into production and suffered built issues, The '58s were much better built, Maybe not to '56 levels, But much better.
@@jamesslick4790 Nonetheless, cars were not built to last back then.
@@rosenb37 I realize that, I was referring to this specific generation (2nd "Foward Look") of MoPars.
@@johanbrand8601 If you have a problem with an opinion, you're invited to offer counterpoint.
@Crimson Idol Apparently you haven't heard about "planned obsolescence."
You also haven't heard how anecdotes don't make something statistically true.
Lemme guess: older cars are safer than newer cars?
GOLDEN COMMANDO FTW!!
This looks like the Canadian Chrysler. Almost like the model of budget Desoto which was a combination of Dodge ab
Nd DeSoto parts...
Is it just me or is that headlight assembly om the Windsor Dodge rather than Chrysler? I know there was a little crossover with various models so I'd be really interested to know!
The Windsor was basically a Dodge, it used the shorter wheelbase Dodge body with Chrysler appointments. The Saratoga and New Yorker were actually longer wheel base cars. DeSoto and Chrysler shared bodies too. The DeSoto Firesweep also used the Dodge Body.
just further point....so the Dodge Door front door of a four door would fit a Chrysler Windsor or DeSoto Firesweep. But the doors are not the same on the longer wheelbase Chrysler and DeSotos. They look the same at first glance, but look at the actual frames around the four doors. The Window Frame on the New Yorker bolts to the door and is made of Aluminium, It's a two piece door, but look at the Windsor and it's a solid one piece door with the Door Frame color of the body. It won't fit on a larger Chrysler. They are very different
@OsbornTramain thanks for the great explanation! I did wonder as there was some genuinely interesting money saving measures used back then then meant you had a huge range of cars that all FELT different to the buyer, but were similar enough mechanically that parts were easier etc, so that makes sense! Thanks again!
That particular Windsor was not equipped with a radio. Power Steering and automatic trans were also options. Imagine driving this thing.
Added bigness ?!
😏
That was a big deal back then
In the fifties, it was either glissing harps or trombone stabs.
"And this year, we offer a standard warranty on body rust-through for the life of the car...just kidding!"
A great car
Surprised they didn't mention the 300 model
Actually the 1958 Chrysler Corporation cars were just slightly redesigned versions of the '57s, which were the real trendsetters when they'd been put on the market. Unfortunately for Detroit, 1958 was a recession year and car sales dropped considerably.
They sure knew how to make a decent car back then, but it was a horrible year for the economy!
No mention of the 300....
Being a unique model rather than a "line" of models,The "300" may have had it's own sales film.
@@jamesslick4790 And the 300-D came out on January '58 vs Sept '57 for the rest of the line.
@@jonathanmorrisey5771 Makes even more sense now.
"Swanky Looking"
These things crack me up.
?
Easily in the Top 5 of best looking American cars. And engine power to match. (but yeah, those old commercials/promos were very cheesy)
I favor New Yorker 4-door hardtop.
Save some cash, Buy a DeSoto!
Pretty soon, it will be 2058
Hmmm....I wonder why *The IMPERIAL* wasn't included in this video ?
Could it be because *it's NOT A CHRYSLER ??* Yeah....THAT just could be it !!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_(automobile)#First_generation_(1955%E2%80%931956):_A_separate_make
Huge land yachts with horribly fitting body panels and doors. Manufacturing has come a long way since the 50s.
Remember?
, the white man built all these wonderful beautiful machines.
'''58 was a semi-disastrous recession year for the U.S. auto industry. And with a repulsive tail-finned model like this, it was no wonder.
Imperial is better
So was Lincoln. Lmao
I like Lincoln V12 1941 year and Chalmers with Overland
It should be better, It cost more!
Chryslers were junk
geeze...chrysler must have liked to rip ppl off back then..these cars are nothing more then glorified plymouths ...and the first one looks like the cheaper ranger and pacer edsels from the side
It seem that someone ripped off your "Shift" key.
Love the channel but that is one ugly car. Lmao
Want ugly look at new cars,look at a poopieass (Prius).
Want ugly look at new cars, Look at a poopieass (Prius),
@@michaelweizer7794 I'm sixty years old this month brother I get it,but that car back then was on the ugly side.
I OWNA 1958 CHRYSLER WINDSOR HARDTOP JUST LIKE THIS PICTURE BACK IN 1967. 392 HEMI W/2 4 BBL. CLOCKED ONE NIGHT AT 135 PH.
@@davidthomsen1065 lmao we had a stock 1964 galaxy 500 bucket seats 390 four speed ninety miles a hour in just second gear. Lmao,and one of the most beautiful cars there is 64 galaxy. Not to mention everyone built a hemispherical engine I believe Ford was the first. Lmao.
Sorry, these cars are just hideous compared to what they did in the 1960s and early 70s. Those were some timeless designs.
Aha!! We have an admitted COMmunist!
Sir, only communists do not like tailfins. I suppose next you'll be deriding the lack of SEATBELTS and AIRBAGS, and calling for the removal of all three ashtrays and two of the cylinders!! Americans need those ashtrays for ashin' in, and those extra cylinders... uhh... for more pep and go-power!
OK, more seriously: I love a '70 'Cuda as much as the next guy but @00:20 there is not a bad line or proportion anywhere on that big, beautiful, brilliant car.
More (chrome, needless molding and curves, general shiny bits) is better isn't a style philosophy for everyone.
Personally I don't like the giant slab Lego look of the late 60's and 70's. But do like the sweeping Coke Bottle design they, and GM, used around the same time.
Agreed! Which is why I like the '55-61 Chryslers so much.
The shape is beautiful on its own, and the use of chrome (to me, and especially for the time period) is minimal.
Compare the best '50s/ early 60's Exner designs to most GM or Ford designs of the period, and I think they stand out as beautiful scupture, much more restrained than others.
To each his own, but I think the Exner designs don't generally deserve to be lumped in with all the glitzy stuff. Sure, they had lots of chrome up front, but it was less purely decorative and more sculptural in comparison to most others of the time. But the beauty is in their overall shape and proportion, not in decoration.
You got to have bigness brah 😐