1968 Chrysler vs the Pontiac Widetrack... I'll take the Chrysler

[@edwardp3502]

First car was a 1968 New Yorker. Man, that was a sweet ride. That 440 was killer. Had a ‘67 Newport as well. Chrysler was really hitting all the right buttons in the late ‘60s.

[@rbcrain2469]

I had a 68 Bonneville convertible and loved it, to this day!

[@dj33036]

I had a '68 Catalina with a 400 2 barrel carb I bought for 200 dollars in'78. It already had 113,000 on it when I bought it. I drove it from St. Louis to Los Angeles and back and it didn't even use a half a quart of oil. It was a great car.

[@thomasdearment3214]

wow I had the same car 68 Cat with a 400 2bbl. I bought it with aprox 80,000 miles, I paid 250.00 put another almost 250,000 miles on it never tore the engine down except to change the timing chain and gears twice, it usually got 12-14 around town all depended if I put my foot in it, and a steady 18 on the HI way did yours have the nose slightly punched in drove that car all over the NW and Canada to California great car, the Newport was more Luxurious but it got 14 15 around town and 17 on the HI way it was better in the snow than the Catalena loved them both just drove the Cat more

[@danielboone72]

400s are good motors!!

[@thomasdearment3214]

@@danielboone72 that's why I liked Pontiac over all other GM cars until they started putting unnecessary scoops, wings, flairs, spoilers on them, they finial stopped just before GM ended one of their better car companies

[@jamesthurber4730]

And so it goes, when I grew up in the 60's , the rivalries were the same. We were staunch Mopar owners, our next door neighbours drove Pontiacs, and my best friends family were Ford fanatics! Btw, I still drive a Mopar!

[@charlesb7019]

I always liked the styling of the 68 Chryslers.

[@gruntherblendin388]

Agreed. I think Elwood Engel's concave sides make these huge cars appear lighter and a bit smaller than they actually are. He was a master at clean, sharp lines and good proportions, and these are a great example. But I love his '69 fuselage look, too.

[@russellmaddock3492]

Great to go back in time and listen to the car companies compare their vehicles to one another. Back in 1968 my dad bought a new 68 Impala. We had a relative who bought a new 68 Plymouth Fury the same year. While riding in both cars I was amazed how quite the Impala was compared to the Fury. The road noise was much more noticeable in the Fury. The ride was about the same, but the Impala was in another league in quietness while going down the road. My dad used to buy Plymouths until his first Impala in 1960. I can remember the 55 Plymouth and the ride was extremely stiff compared to the 60 Impala. It is sad that the vehicles of today pretty much all look the same. I can remember as a kid, my brother and I would look forward to September when the new model adds would be in the Pontiac Press newspaper. Each year there was aways a design change. Boy, how things have changed.

[@KDoyle4]

The 1965 thru 1968 Chrysler Newport and New Yorker are among the most well built and trouble-free mid-priced cars of the era.

[@JackF99]

What is this claim based on? I didn't know statistics were available.

[@timothykeith1367]

These Chryslers had strong sales. Ten years later sales were less than half.

[@edwardp3502]

⁠@@JackF99 I owned two of those (67 Newport, 68 New Yorker). Had a dozen cars since. They were the two best cars I’ve ever had. Built like tanks and really good looking.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

Those cars made it seem like Chrysler had finally recovered from the 57 disaster, but then they slowly went downhill again.

[@KDoyle4]

@@timothykeith1367 How were full-size Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmoblie sales during the mid-1970s?

[@TheArkDoc]

The Pontiac wins on quality and looks. The chrysler wins on power. If I had to pick, it would be the Pontiac for me.

[@johnhobson8886]

I'll take the Pontiac any day!

[@eugenepiurkowski5439]

Great, that leaves me the Chrysler!

[@lucwolf1]

I had a 1968 Chrysler 300 convertible. It would lay rubber at 30mph if you floored it! Put 98 000mi on it. No major problems.

[@cdnpont]

1968 imop was the very last year of GM's high material quality before they began to decontent their products. Both are good cars, but outside of the drivetrain, the Chrysler quality realistically couldn't compare to the GM. Cheers and thanks for this!

[@robertpasquini4097]

True of the Cadillac as well.

[@UberLummox]

It was in '67 that GM slid down a notch, mostly interior. Had/have both ChryCo & GM from the era and a Chrysler's quality from '68 easily keeps up w/a Pontiac imo. Though I do think the video was wrong to judge Pontiac's styling. It was great! ChryCo fit & finish started to suffer in '69 however.

[@chevycamaro78]

I’ll take the Pontiac

[@danielthomas3057]

I still loved my 68 Pontiac Parisienne

[@jamesbosworth4191]

Pontiac used to advertise, "Built to last 100,000 miles" and "Dollar for dollar, you can't go wrong with a Pontiac", back when motor oil was, by today's standards, junk. I would be happy to have a 40s B or C body Pontiac, or a 54 Star Chief, or a 58 Pontiac, any series. Really nice big cars. And everybody lovers the 59 and 60 Pontiacs.

[@larrynason8716]

I had a 68 Catalina in high school (early 70's). I really liked that car. I believe Pontiac was a much better car than a Mopar. Better quality and better looking also.

[@eth39232]

As a little boy in the late 60's, I remember people in the neighborhood owning 68 Pontiacs, and I have always loved the styling.

[@raymondgillespie3529]

No way I'd take a Chrysler over a Pontiac

[@ricardoflot2787]

Me neither, I had a '68 Bonneville Tudor coupe, with that exact color combination, it had a 389 CID, and the only thing I did to it, was change the water pump, that's it! This was in 1978, and I didn't see many '68 Chrysler Newports around, but plenty of Bonnevilles.

[@fairfaxcat1312]

If the “exposed sheet metal below the bumper” was so bad (in the Pontiac) for 1968 why did Chrysler go to it the very next year for 1969?

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

Ive owned them both ! There are some things i liked about the chrysler but the pontiac was the better car and more reliable !

[@TofersCarTales]

Amazing how cars even back then were always just a variation of a very similar theme. Loved this. Thanks for sharing!

[@autochronicles8667]

The industry typically followed GM's lead... they all had spies :)

[@danielboone72]

All GM cars are good from all of the divisions!👍

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@danielboone72 In many years, GM cars were the best overall. Sure, Fords often were the performers, but they had their quirks that you had to correct or live with, and Chrysler products had the best engineering, but in 1949 - 52, weren't very pretty, and the 49 - 50 Saratoga, New Yorker, and Imperial were SLOW.

[@danielboone72]

@@jamesbosworth4191 Yes, Fords are good too. Chryslers didn't sell as well and they had their problems in terms of reliability. Fords and GM cars ruled the 60's.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@danielboone72 In terms of looks, the 52 - 56 Fords win hands down over Chevys in most years, ditto the 62 - 64 Fords. I like the 61 Ford, but the 61 Chevy was sharp.

[@larrymiller851]

I will still take the 68 Pontiac over Chrysler. I owned a 68 Catalina and it was a beast.

[@catiesuncle]

My first car was a 1968 Pontiac Executive 2 door hardtop. A solid, comfortable car. Served me well for many years.

[@robertdryburgh1457]

I had a 68 Newport Custom and loved it. That said, Bonneville's, were not readily available in Canada. They could be special ordered however were priced in Cadillac price range. Today I would love to have either or even better, both cars.

[@kc0lif]

I'll take Chrysler.

[@TigerDominic-uh1dv]

Each Other Has Their Own Unique Ideas 😊

[@ciro356]

The Pontiac looks much better than the Chrysler, especially the Bonneville as a two door long tail fastback ❤

[@kaybroughton9004]

I learned how to drive with my dad's 1967 Newport... What a great car! What a safe car also! I am so happy to watch this!

[@autochronicles8667]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@danielboone72]

I'll take the Pontiac! Much better car!

[@bobtepedino5661]

The fact that the cheapest Chrysler out-classed - in every way - the most expensive Pontiac is no surprise. That Newport really competed with Delta 88/LeSabre and Monterey.

[@billpressler5319]

The Executive was not the most-expensive Pontiac. Bonneville Brougham was--two trim levels above Executive.

[@bobtepedino5661]

@@billpressler5319 I got it, thanks. The Executive/Bonneville competed with MoPar's Polara.

[@JohnnyAloha69]

Neat video, thanks for posting. These sales videos were always so one sided it makes me laugh no matter who made them. Here is my take since I’ve owned both Pontiacs and Chryslers from this era: Styling: generally Pontiacs had better styling with a higher level of metal forming but 68 was a bad year for Pontiac with an Edsel nose and dumpy rear styling Engine: both were making great engines but generally mopar had the edge in power and durability Transmission: both are super durable but the GM turbo 400 was flawless in shift quality Diff: both were bulletproof Brakes: Chrysler brakes were much better unless you ordered the expensive 8 Lug aluminum wheel option from Pontiac Handling: both handle better than you’d think but the higher spring rates on Chrysler definitely deliver better handling and cornering. Ride: the Pontiac was much smoother and way more quiet. Chrysler unit body and primitive rear leaf springs made for rough noisy ride. Interior: Chrysler interior styling was cleaner looking but let down by cheaper materials Reliability: Chrysler definitely used less reliable primitive components around the electric system, especially ignition and starting. Rust: both cars were very rust prone by modern standards but Chrysler unit body would rust out faster and lead to structural failure much sooner than the body on frame Pontiac. Summary: both cars were good choices in their day. Chrysler had the best overall mechanicals and handling but were inferior in terms of ride noise and harshness as well as electrical reliability and rust. Interestingly the comparable Mercury of the era had the best ride and quiet of them all but the worst handling.

[@autochronicles8667]

yeah mercury had a big soft ride...

[@nigelgoodwin6954]

Mmm. Thanks for that. I would buy the Pontiac.

[@fairfaxcat1312]

I get my news from “Car News, Inc.”

[@scottzurbrigen4149]

Pontiac.

[@thomasdearment3214]

I had them both except the Chrysler Newport was a 72, years later I had a 68 Catalena and yes, the Newport was a little better

[@solemandd67]

In '68 and even today, I'd take the Pontiac. No US auto manufacturer surpassed GM in stying and quality of materials.

[@trudygreer2491]

Wouldn't leaf springs by necessity have to be mounted at 2 points? 🤔🤓 I love the liberties these Mopar films take!

[@Falwiz]

Leaf springs like a horse and buggy

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

Pontiac all the way much better style and interior all the way and can get the 428 HO with 4 Speed Buckets & Console !! 👍

[@eugenepiurkowski5439]

Why not a GTO if high output is your goal? They were quite the car.

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

@@eugenepiurkowski5439 I love GTO's I have friends with a 66' 4-Sp Conv. and one with a 69 GTO. I just like and favor the Big Muscle Car styles Catalina, Bonnies also Galaxies & Impalas 👍

[@eugenepiurkowski5439]

@@ronniefarnsworth6465 I certainly can relate to that. Dad was a Plymouth Fury guy and my uncle next door was a Chevy Impala guy back in the 60s. Great memories of those cars.

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

@@eugenepiurkowski5439 Yes Sir they were all great nice styling ✌

[@leehallet381]

I love chryslers, but I'll take the Pontiac just to get away from the ballast resister and shitty chrysler wiring

[@autochronicles8667]

ack ballast resistors...

[@eugenepiurkowski5439]

Every make had ballast resisters when they went to 12 volt systems. The problem with the Duster/Dart was it was mounted in a bad place on the firewall, where slamming the door caused problems. I always kept an extra one in the glove box. Thanks for that memory.

[@captlazer5509]

Could fit 9 kids and 2 adults in the 68 Chrysler Newport. Land barge !

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

Excellent drop!❤

[@autochronicles8667]

Yeah i liked this one... actually sold me on it... and gave the Chrysler salesman some ammo for this so called "widetrack" :0

[@Boneyardfantasy]

I possess both items in my collection.

[@autochronicles8667]

Nice ads :)

[@pebble4713]

Judy was hot... her rear end was nicer than the Pontiac's or the Chrysler's 😍

[@autochronicles8667]

lol i was gonna use that as a thumbnail :)

[@randyrobey5643]

This in a very interesting channel. Thank you for the video.

[@65merc390]

after shopping all the car lots..i think i will lay my money down on a 68 mercury marquis with the 428 p/s power disc brakes amfm radio

[@markwagner4909]

Put skirts on the Pontic it would be my pick

[@mikeweizer3149]

Many full size 1968 Pontiacs DID have fenderskirts as an option!!!!.

[@BrokebackBob]

The Pontiac looks like an Edsel. I'm old enough to have driven the Pontiac and the Chrysler in 1968 and the Chrysler is a much better car.

[@paulcheek5711]

both are beautiful real cars

[@bobbyheffley4955]

American Motors and Ford also used enamel paint.

[@autochronicles8667]

Yeah GM would eventually cave, Enamel would win out.

[@TheSpritz0]

I would honestly skip BOTH and go for the GTO!!! It was a REAL hit and won "Car of the Year" when it was restyled in this year (1968), GORGEOUS!!!

[@larrynason8716]

I would have chosen the Firebird. I currently own a 67 Firebird 400 convertible, and love it.

[@allenwayne2033]

Well, this is testimony to the fact that marketing has always been a load of shit!

[@bigcrowfly]

At one time low level Chrysler was priced like similar Buick/Olds. But by 1968 it fell to Pontiac prices. You could get it for Chevrolet money if you waited till the end of the model year when there were were too many unsold Chryslers on lots.

[@2packs4sure]

I'd really rather have that Pontiac but if Judy wants that Chrysler she's getting it !! :)

[@nlpnt]

Eventually the Newport ate the full-size Plymouth and Dodge's lunch in private sales, leaving them with the cops-and-cabbies market.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

@@nlpnt But that model diluted the Chrysler's prestige. They shouldn't have gone down-market like that.

[@Doobie1975]

Wouldn't an Oldsmobile Delta 88 or a Buick LeSabre be a better competition for the Chrysler Newport?

[@autochronicles8667]

Sometimes they tried to put out competition films for all "close" brands.

[@hdrangers]

Pontiac's gone now, Chrysler is probably going as well. Shame.

[@robertd8572]

I have to go with the crisp styling of the Chrysler. The '68 Pontiac was the lowpoint of styling from that decade, IMO.

[@dalesarff5746]

Wasn’t Chrysler trying to compete with Cadillac? It’s hardly worthwhile to compare a Chrysler up against a Pontiac. They at least should have gone with a Buick Electra. This was all apples and oranges.

[@jamesbosworth4191]

They traditionally competed with the Buick, but that cut-rate Newport was indeed priced at the Pontiac level. They made a mistake with that car.

[@autochronicles8667]

It was the same price, so yes the lower end Chryslers were competing :)

[@danielboone72]

Imperial was trying to compete with Cadillac. They’re both in the same league. I think a Chrysler would be up there with Oldsmobile or Buick. Pontiac is still a better car than the Chrysler though!

[@stevenwolff6866]

I'll take the Chrysler. It looks more upscale

[@murphyallen8493]

If all these things were fact was is it there's more 68 Pontiacs still on the road than chrysler

[@autochronicles8667]

I'm sure they sold many more Pontiacs... thats probably the main factor for that. I think this was a good comparison though...

[@townhall05446]

In 1968, Chrysler was still using filmstrips? Yikes.

[@autochronicles8667]

So was GM and Ford :) so...

[@pjimmbojimmbo1990]

My Uncle had the 68 Chrysler. Of the GM Lines, Pontiacs were always the Ugly Ducklings. 67 was the only year I thought they looked Okay.

[@messagesend8239]

Chrysler's traditional competitors were Olds and Buick, not Pontiac. Doing so may have played played a role in cheapening Chrysler's image. They should have used Dodge instead.

[@autochronicles8667]

this was for dealership salesmen only, not the general public... Chrysler did dilute the brand at this point though. Everyone knew the Newport was the "cheap" Chrysler though... I honestly think they shouldn't have even made that car.

[@murphyallen8493]

Pontiac wasn't a unibody

[@chuckselvage3157]

If course it all points to a Chrysler this propaganda is paid for by Chrysler.

[@jamesmooney8933]

Chrysler had poor build quality in the 50s. Also, Chrysler had some strange designs from '58 to '61. GM always had good advertising, and their design was mostly conservative except for '59 & '60. In '61, GM returns to being conservative. In the 80s, I bought old Chevy work trucks because they were easier to repair for a backyard mechanic than a Ford. Also, there were more Chevy trucks in the junk yard. I never considered Dodge trucks.

[@autochronicles8667]

Their quality took a hit in 57-58 when they rushed to get the cars to market a year earlier... they said they didnt have time to test em fully. They short circuited a year of development.

[@jamesmooney8933]

@autochronicles866It actually started in '55. Salt was the problem. Communities switch from cinders to Salt in the winter. This switch hurt Studebaker the worse, but none n of the car makers faired very well with Salt. The '59 Chevy had no inner fender. The headlight bucket would start to rust, and the headlights would float around.

[@mannfan12]

You can have the garbage Chrysler. I’ll take the Pontiac any day.

[@clembob8004]

They were both good cars.

[@wacknroll]

Garbage pontiac..

[@100aceswid]

Exactly ​@@clembob8004

[@petervitti9]

Did you ever own a chrysler? I owned 8 in a row, starting with a 1972 plymouth fury. Had many gm cars. Buick was the best. Returned to driving a 2006 dodge charger in last few months since own audi was just totalled.

[@mikerundall2456]

Parts falling of the Chrysler like a Boeing plane.

[@rondpert5167]

Hahahahaha. Leaf springs? Like a truck? LOL. Chrysler's stodgy style is the same as quality?

[@KDoyle4]

Due to Chrysler's torsion bar front suspension, that Newport will outhandle any GM or Ford product if it's size,. GM and Ford products were still built in the old-fashioned 'body on frame' style, making them heavy, more prone to rattles, and less safe in a wreck.

[@rondpert5167]

@@KDoyle4 Less safe in a wreck? Having a steel wall around you sounds better. Why don't you tell us about Chrysler's "floating ground" electrical system? Tell us about all the Trans Am series Chrysler won with their outhandling torsion bar suspension. NASCAR is about speed more than handling. I see GM uses torsion bar for their trucks.

[@autochronicles8667]

nothing wrong with leaf springs... they were better than the simple rear spring single control arm rear axles...

[@KDoyle4]

@@rondpert5167 Nobody builds body-on-frame cars anymore. Safety is just one of the reasons for this. The 1965-1968 Chryslers had no electrical problems.

[@rondpert5167]

@@KDoyle4 You want to be safe? I'll ride in a full frame SUV and you can have the unibody. Ask any honest mechanic for the era about Chrysler's electrical wiring. My girlfriends car would play the radio without the key, by putting on the signal light and holding the brake.

[@mow4ncry]

Well I have a 68 Chrysler 300