1988 Chrysler New Yorker and Dynasty REACTION Motorweek Retro Review

#motorweek #retro #NewYorker
This week, we'll take a look at the Chrysler New Yorker and Dodge Dynasty, an era and body style I've held off doing a Reaction video on for some time...

[@kaocean]

The New Yorker was such a beauty!! Love the interior, so plush!

[@reallyrandomrides1296]

Yep. The most luxurious K-Cars ever made! Fun fact, in Canada the Dynasty was sold under the Chrysler nameplate.

[@94Cobra123]

Chrysler products of the 70s/80s always have a place in my automotive heart. My dad was a Chrysler guy up until the mid-90s when he switched to Buick and now Toyota. All flavors of Chrysler/Dodge products including Dodge Dart and later the Aspen with the famous slant 6. Many different K Cars including a 2-door LeBaron and Plymouth Reliant. He loved that LeBaron. He never had one of these, but he probably would have liked them based on the styling and value.

[@sunnohh]

Having been in several of these cars, that is an incredibly generous and polite review

[@2006gtobob]

As a 17 yr old, when this was introduced, I NEVER would've wanted a pillow on wheels. As a 50yr old, and over 30 years of sports and muscle cars, a pillow-on-wheels isolation chamber is my jam.

[@AllCarswithJon]

With you man.... almost. :) Take a look at my 'cars I've owned" video... in 86 I was driving a 76 Buick Regal. My 3rd car was an '83 (?) Buick Regal. As a 50+yr old I look at the New Yorker and think "mmmmmm". I love my pillow-top seats I guess! LOL

[@johnh2514]

After watching this I immediately recalled reading about these cars in one of Bob Lutz’s books. When he joined Chrysler in 1986 Lee Iacocca gave him a sneak preview of these cars while mocking Ford’s new “potato cars” Taurus and Sable. It resulted in the first of many design disagreements with Iacocca where Lutz said the cars were aesthetically outdated and uncompetitive. According to Lutz, the cars sold decently, but not without huge incentives to move “the ugly monsters” off the lots. And as we all know, the Taurus/Sable went on to be massively successful.

[@averyparticularsetofskills]

Thanks John H ... that's actually cool to know, you know what, Fck it I'm gonna to start reading more!! (🤥)

[@twinforce_fusion6560]

people laugh at the K cars or at the gm's B platforms, but, these cars sold in big numbers and put a lot of food on the table for millions of North Americans.

[@oscargeorge1]

Thank you to all the sharp edge styling whiners who have now foisted the soul- less, appliance-like rolling bars of soap that we now have to stare at on a daily basis....I just discovered your channel and I like it very much!

[@AllCarswithJon]

Glad you're here!

[@carguy862004]

It's kind of awesome seeing someone enthusiastic about these cars. My grandmother had an 89 New Yorker and I had a 91 Dynasty SE (And a 94 Acclaim). I like the shape of the cars from this era. Boxy, angular, comfortable ride. I loved the square gauges, as well. What did my dynasty in was rust. Midwestern Automotive Cancer... Rear lower spring perches rotted out, lost a coil spring going down the road. Also, the all-too-common Transmission solenoid pack failed... and was replaced 3 times in 15 thousand miles. To be honest, if it hadn't rotted out, I'd still be driving it today. However, the reliability issues (and the fact it was massively uncool to drive a gold dynasty as a 21 year old car guy) and the rot put an end to that. The only photo I have of the car is the one I took as it was being loaded onto the car dolly heading to the scrapyard...

[@AllCarswithJon]

Thanks for being here! When I was 21 I had an 83 Buick Regal and I loved it. Put 2 transmissions in it and it was leaking oil when I got rid of it around 100k miles, but loved how comfortable it was. Of course, it was White... no "gold". :) Of course, I replaced it with a VW Fox station wagon, so being 'cool' wasn't exactly on my radar.

[@catlover15301]

@All Cars with Jon Funny, I had an 83 Buick Regal when I was 21. Loved that car. Had Meineke(because it was close to my house) put brakes and exhaust on it, and never ran right after that. Couldn't prove they did anything wrong. Needless to say, that location closed not long after. Then ended buying an 88 Chevy Sprint. My all time favorite commercial is Recardo Montalban's 88 Chrysler New Yorker ad. Check it out on KZbin. "Everyone asks, Corinthian Leather, of course why not the best......" Classic. Thanks for the review

[@TVHouseHistorian]

I had a 1990 New Yorker Landau. It was a total maintenance nightmare, but boy did it drive like a dream, that is, when it wasn’t being towed behind a tow truck. The ride was just as incredibly soft as the pillow top seats. After a year of terrible reliability, I had no choice but to give it up. You don’t see many of these on the road anymore, and there is a good reason why.

[@romanseano]

The New Yorker Landau was a very good car, and sold quite well. It wasn't my grandparent's car, but it was my 45-year old mom's new car - and she loved it. It had everything she wanted that she could have also had with the similar-sized / shaped / looking Cadillac Seville, except Chrysler offered it for nearly $5K less. I saw many baby-boomer gen drivers behind the wheel of the NYer at this time (sure, older buyers, too - but by no means was this exclusively their taste!)... The 3.0 V6 moved the car more than adequately, it was smooth, the ride soft, but controlled and very quiet. The interior looked and felt expensive. Lots of people liked and bought this car, not because they were "old" or "soft," but because Chrysler offered a combination of luxury, comfort, and style, tech, and safety that many buyers still wanted at the time.

[@aalle015]

I had one for a bit in 2000 as a young 22 year old. It was perfectly smooth and comfortable but there were 2 issues. 1) that 3 litre Mitsubishi engine was notorious for smoking horrendously. It didn't really make the car unreliable but it was amazing how much white smoke belched out of the tailpipe. 2) those ultra drive (I think thats the name)transmissions had a terrible reputation for premature failure. If I remember correctly it was the Chrysler techs putting the wrong fluid in them. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[@TVHouseHistorian]

I had a 1990 New Yorker years ago. It wasn’t terribly old, but the transmission was an enormous headache. At its worst, the transmission had to be rebuilt when something called an “overdrive shift ring” - a $4 part - broke, and funneled its way through the transmission, thus rendering it a total loss. The mechanic at the time told me he saw at least one of those Chrysler transmissions per week, and it was always the same issue. It’s my understanding that this was the primary issue, along with a problematic computer, that made those transmissions so unreliable.

[@reallyrandomrides1296]

Yep, 14 inch/75 profile whitewall tires, wire wheel covers, boxy styling, Landau vinyl roof, luxurious bench seats, three speed automatic and 136 HP... they don't make 'em like they used to!

[@kraigmize1610]

My first car was an 1984 Fifth Avenue .When I turn 18 I purchased a 1990 Dynasty.Lord knows I miss them so much 😢But I have been blessed with a 1988 New Yorker Mark Cross Edition 😎

[@AllCarswithJon]

cool!

[@scottbiddle3967]

I worked at a car rental place where we rented both of them. The owner and his girlfriend had a matching pair of the burgundy New Yorker. Witch oddly enough as far as the badging goes there were 2 different badges on them. They were New Yorker, and Fifth Avenue. On the same car. I love them and the Dynasty I enjoyed driving them and would definitely buy one now,in my 50's. Especially the New Yorker/Fifth Avenue.

[@toddgiaro7657]

I had that 88 Chrysler New Yorker! Lol, it certainly was a pillowy soft ride.

[@johnnymason2460]

Both cars did better over time. The 3.0 liter V6 went to 141hp. The New Yorker even got a 3.3 liter V6 with 147hp. The Imperial that came later gained a 3.8 liter V6 with 150hp(in 1991). I would love to have any of these right now(at least models from 1990 to 1993).

[@johnnymason2460]

The Dynasty also got the 3.3 liter V6 in 1990. I almost forgot about that.

[@tomtbi]

This was more or less Chrysler's competitor to the 87 Sedan De Ville I wish I kept...

[@LGilman479]

My grandparents owned a '91 Dynasty, and I had plenty of front seat passenger time in that car. It had the Chrysler 3.3L V-6 and 4 speed automatic. Very smooth riding car, comfortable seats, and the 3.3 felt more powerful than its 147 hp would suggest. I can't comment to how it handled, but it was certainly a comfortable place to ride in. (Then again, I was brought up in the era of land-yacht "aim the hood ornament in the general direction that you want to go" style of handling, so I doubt I'd have too many complaints about it.) Their previous car was an '85 Aries K, so they probably bought the Dynasty since it was also a Dodge. I'm guessing that the Dynasty felt like quite an upgrade over the Aries without feeling too unfamiliar to them, seeing how it was larger, had a nicer interior, more options, and a V-6 while still driving like, well, a K-car. I don't recall them having any major mechanical issues with the car (though they had the trouble-prone A604 Ultradrive tranny) but it had only registered about 59k miles by the time I headed off to college, and my grandmother ended up not being able to drive anymore soon after. For all the advances in automotive technology we've made since then, we've lost something in the process - the smooth, comfortable, and elegantly styled luxury highway cruiser. Ironically, I look at most of the cars sold today and I have those thoughts of, "Yeah, I'm sure it's a good performing car, but it's not my cup of tea." If someone built a car today with soft living room seats, a suspension tuned toward smooth ride rather than cornering, and with squared-off styling, I'd buy it in an instant. Yes, I'm getting old.

[@vassa1972]

Hello John I'm Peter from Hamilton Ontario Canada and I'll be 51 years old in July and I remember my grandmother Georgina's boyfriend had a original k-car and honestly I didn't like it then or now but unfortunately in '88 my mom vassa past away from a brain aneurysm in her sleep in October of that year and can remember going to the Toronto auto show that year with my father Nick who actually liked the way the new Yorker and the fifth Avenue and I too didn't mind this k-car platform models

[@bearguyva1018]

I had an 88 K-car and it made me decide I would never buy another Chrysler product. Ended up with a 93 Dynasty as a rental. Hitting the highway, pulling out of the airport, I can still remember my buddy looking me and asking what that flashing 85 on the dashboard meant. Digital equivalent of pegging the speedometer!

[@reallyrandomrides1296]

John Davis could hardly contain his excitement over the dash which featured an oil pressure and volt gage. In a Chrysler New Yorker/Dodge Dynasty of all things!

[@johnnymason2460]

I have never understood what the big deal was for having an oil pressure gauge and a voltmeter. Maybe someone can explain that to me.

[@kaleblewis4230]

I currently own a 1993 Chrysler New Yorker Salon and I love it. The interior is plush. I much rather cruise in pillow top leather seats on the highway. I can tell this car was designed for grandparents but I love the old school feel. They don't make cars like this anymore. If you cruise and take care of it, she'll get you around. However, it's impossible to do diagnostic tests because the DRB II scan tools are impossible to find.

[@AllCarswithJon]

A point I've never considered in older cars! Thanks for the comment!

[@christhornycroft3686]

I just bought a 1993 Chrysler New Yorker 5th Avenue, the last of its kind. I've now had 4 Yorkers, the first being a 1988 Landau. All of them have had the velour interior and I wouldn't have it any other way. The worst was a 1985 with the 2.2 Turbo and I'd never get that engine ever again. It broke down almost immediately and was almost irreparable. I wish Chrysler had kept a similar body style to the early 90s ones with the velour seats and just improved mechanics. I'm not looking for 300+ hp in this kind of car, but 150 in the 3.3, which is my preferred engine, is pretty ridiculous. 200 would have been plenty, especially for a V6 that didn't get the greatest gas mileage. But for all my complains, I really like the styling and the comfort. I haven't had one in leather, but I've had cars with leather interior and the velour is far superior. If you're going full luxury comfort, it has to be the old school plush seats. Leather doesn't cut it. I don't think any car manufacturer has made anything with velour interiors since the early 90s. I know grandpa car has become a major slur and even Cadillacs have to have a stiff suspension now, but I really miss these comfortable cars, especially since I had back surgery and now have chronic pain. I love my 93. If it was brand new, I'd want digital dash and sunroof in mine, but given the age and mileage (150,000 kms or 90,000 miles), that's probably not such a good idea. I'd never find replacement parts for either. My 85 had digital dash and as stated, it didn't last more than a few days. I was shattered. $900 Canadian down the tubes when you're in high school is a lot of money. 25 years later, I'm very happy with my 93. But the 88 (blue on blue velour) was pretty awesome too, especially with the voice. "Your door is ajar." "Your engine oil pressure is low. Prompt service is required." Now, if it was Ricardo Maltaban, the guy who did the commercials in the 80s, doing the car's voice, I would have been fine with it. But it was a gruff, computerized old man voice.

[@drewjansen7825]

This is my favorite reaction video of yours thus far! You're really hilarious at a couple points. I shared your KZbin page with a bunch of folks today; hope you see a noticeable bump! Cheers.

[@AllCarswithJon]

Wow, thank you!

[@phillipjoseph8768]

You made me laugh with this one. Your reaction to the seats😂

[@AllCarswithJon]

😃

[@davidkuhlman8004]

1977 Chrysler New Yorker is the best luxury car i have drove.

[@johnwrobel8445]

I think the issue is that everybody is looks at 1980's 'luxury' cars from today's perspective. During the 80's, luxury meant that it cruised like a boat on rivers of concrete. A 'luxury' car was set up so that a snowbird could drive 16 hours on their migration to and from Florida and be able walk afterwards. The New Yorker was targeted at the 65 year old plus crowd. Whereas, the Dynasty was targeted at the blue-collar guy who couldn't get the 3 kids and and all the stuff that comes with 3 kids into an Aries (a plus sized Aries). Eventually, the bugs where worked of A604 transmissions (early 90's) and it became a moderately reliable transmission until it was cancelled with the Journey. Of course, the 80's was was an era of the 2 box design (think 85 Olds Cutlass Supreme, Chevy Celebrity) and hatchbacks.

[@johnwrobel8445]

Correction: 3 box design.

[@g-mang-man7924]

Well into my career as an auto technician by 1988, at that time I was at a Benz dealership. By 91 I was at a Toyota dealership. These would come through the shop as used cars. I was a state inspector, and worked on them for used car department get ready between working on Toyotas. I learned how mechanically horrible these cars were, their known issues and pattern failures. I can understand that affinity for these cars, comfy, soft, with a great highway ride. On side streets, city streets the ride bordered on atrocious as they barely had any suspension travel. Bounding off of bump stops, and I'm sure no one wants to be reminded of Chrysler transmission issues, and the Mitsubishi v6 oil burning. The 2.2 and 2.5 though, were pretty reliable engines. Out west without rust, you will still see early Cressidas, good luck finding one of these.

[@AllCarswithJon]

Thanks for the thoughts.... still, I'd like to drive one (for a while at least).

[@michaelorlando6159]

You right i found the 2.2 2.5 engin rough but reliable. But the mitsu engine same as the mitsu diamante had serios oil burning issues . The 3 speed auto was lacking but i found them trouble free. The 4 spead auto which was fitted to the mini vans as well were trouble especially in the mini vans

[@new2000car]

I just looked up specs for a car from 1988 for the same out the door price as the dynasty; the Honda Civic. With Chrysler discounting off sticker, and Honda stealerships charging over sticker, these two cars that are a world apart in market segments cost similarly. Another similarity is the slow 11 second 0-60, dynasty’s 3.0 a tad slower at 11.5. But the ride is where the civic was so much better than expected, and the dynasty so much worse. Reliability night and day difference. 1 of these cars made one’s life miserable (always arranging drop offs at the dealership for repairs, and getting rides to work) and the other was pure joy, 365 days a year, year after year.

[@michaelorlando6159]

I would too !! I have to say 0 to 60 in 11 seconds isnt bad you adapt your driving style accordingly most cars in europe were slower at that time mos family cars like fiat regata vw jetta renault seat malaga were running 1.3 to 1.5 litre fours with under 100 horses but mated to a five speed they were all nice to drive. Most people dont even have the driving skills to meet thier horsepower. Perhaps 11 secs seem fasta compared with my fiat 850 spider and my mercedes 300d diesel I think it takes 11second to get to 20mph

[@peterchen9763]

I agree with Tyler Hoover. Auto journalists managed to convince most people that every car should be like a BMW M3, They are wrong. On the engines, I don’t see by 1980s standard either the 2.2L or Mitsubishi 3.0L would be slow. I owned the first and last LeBaron convertibles with those two engine. I would say they are adequate. Just remember a Mercedes 240D does 0 to 60 mph in 22 seconds.

[@ianperkins8812]

Now I finally understand why my old dad ditched Chrysler after his second first gen 5th Avenue - the lack of a V8. I guess this model signalled the end of his "Pleasure Barge" phase. No more highway sofas after that. His next car after that was a white GM something, I think - it's hard to recall what that thing was.

[@AllCarswithJon]

There are so many great phrases in here I need to steal!! "second first gen 5th ave.".... I had to read that one twice! :) "white GM something...." OMGoodness, that's a keeper! A 3-word description of 75% of GM's divisional offereings in the 80's! :)

[@ianperkins8812]

@@AllCarswithJon My old dad was a master of metaphor abuse, a "gift" that may or may not have passed down to me.

[@davidkuhlman8004]

i drove a 1990 dodge Dynasty. One of the smoothest midsize luxury car i drove in the 90s. Then the Dodge Intrepid and Eagle Vision TSI.

[@davidkeetz]

I had the dynasty with the V6 and that was a solid car. Man…..I never had any trouble hitting it to 85 on the interstate. It was a very comfortable ride that i didn’t really appreciate until I had moved on to other vehicles. The car was still going strong at over 200,000 miles when I sold it, the transmission had just started to slip and I was ready for an suv at the time. But definitely a good car. Funny enough I’m currently restoring a Mitsubishi montero that shares that same 6g72 3.0 v6 engine.

[@AllCarswithJon]

Cool. What inspired you to restore a Montero??

[@GLHS592]

My uncle and his wife bought her aunt's 1992 New Yorker around 1994. They drove it everywhere until two years ago when my uncle pulled out in front of someone. It was a nice car with zero problems. I wish I could find one in good shape.

[@MisterMikeTexas]

Well, as for Mopar land yachts, I prefer the good old fashioned Fuselage Chrysler New Yorkers and Dodge Monacos. Rear-wheel-drive and 440 V8s! Or, today's Chrysler 300, and especially the current Dodge Charger sedan. I test drove a Pentastar V6 Charger with the 8 speed, and I was impressed with the comfort, response, and ride. That said, this Mopar pair seems to be decent, and if one existed, I'd go for the Dodge Dynasty with a Chrysler New Yorker interior. The Dynasty has cleaner, more pleasing styling on that body shell, and I like the New Yorker's comfy seats. They would feel good on my back, and posterior! Those are also great seats for anyone with inflamed hemmoroids. I agree the Motor Week review was quite flat. I'd like to see Doug DeMuro review this pair, never a dull moment with him. I'd also be interested in the Doug Score. As for the Toyota Cressida, Scotty Kilmer would be happy seeing that honorable mention.

[@cintronmcclain2507]

I owned a 1988 dodge dynasty. I bought it 1997 for $800. It was in perfect condition. It was as plain as plain can get. It had very poor handling when driving in a curve. Although, it's one of the smoothest riding cars that I've ever owned. It had wide seats. I literally felt like I was seated in a soft recliner. The transmission went out 2 years later at 150, 000 miles. After that I did test drive a 88 Ford taurus. That Ford taurus felt like a sports car compared to the dodge dynasty. I ended up buying a newer mercury Sable.

[@reallyrandomrides1296]

At 13:57 it looks and sounds like the transmission was already slipping on that brand new Dynasty!

[@johneldorado]

I look back at this with total nostalgia, but in todays dollars, this was around $50,000. I can't imagine who would think it was a good buy in that era. So dated, even when new, they looked like something leftover from the 1970's.

[@drewchristy]

My mom owned three new New Yorkers. All of them had white exteriors. One had a dark red interior while the other two had dark blue interiors. They were all comfortable but unreliable. My Grandfather was a huge supporter of Chrysler products but I won't buy anything they produced past the 1970's. This even includes today's Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, & Jeep products. I also never got the whole K car thing. They made a bunch of different models from the same platform, but all of them looked the same. It really confuses me as to why Chrysler made so many different varieties of essentially the same vehicle. It seems like this strategy would have cannibalized their own sales.

[@colinschmitz8297]

My dad had two 1991 dynasties as company cars. Both had the Mitsubishi 3 l and the infamous a604 4-speed. When you look at the dynasty, you need to think about the Chevy celebrity and not the lumina. That is more what the dynasty was trying to compete against. My dad's previous company car was a Chevy celebrity. The interior was a massive upgrade from it. They were both generic looking cars. My dad didn't like the dynasty from his recollection, he considered it to be ugly. Other things that didn't help was there is a security system problem that somehow would let the engine start then it would instantly cut off the fuel, which left does stranded, even though ours didn't have the security system in it. I still don't know how that happened exactly. I would say that this was kind of the last breath of Dodge being any hints of entry level luxury which Dodge kind of was back in the days when Plymouth was a full-blown brand. If they had made another generation of the Plymouth caravelle, it might have made a little bit more sense, but I think they needed a sportier focused option to contrast themselves against the Chrysler and Plymouth to just be a cheap vehicle in this segment. I don't know that they could have accomplished this with the k platform. I think they may have just needed to make the premier based Monaco they're offering in the segment and accepted the consequences of whether or not the car was a success. Having both the dynasty and the Monaco the same division competed against each other. It would also be interesting to see if Dodge would have really put in some real effort behind the Monaco with something like a turbo engine option with body cladding, how that would have competed against the Taurus. Considering that the LH platform was largely influenced by the premier thanks to its handling, it really had potential. But the afterthought effort that they put into it sealed its fate as a failure in my opinion.

[@xrmerkur]

Jon, i enjoyed your perspective covering the review. for me it’s 100% about the same generation imperial.

[@JOHNXX1975]

My parents had an 89 Dynasty with the 3.0 4 speed auto. What a piece of junk! 1st transmission replacement at 20k mi. It was burning oil at 50k mi. The transmission went out again at 80k mi. My father was done with it at this point and sent it to the junkyard.

[@josephbzezinski6847]

You should do a reaction video on the original 1990 Infiniti Q45. I remember my dad bought one new over the LS 400 when I was a kid and the car was great for us for 7 years.

[@landyachtfan79]

The marketing strategy at 5:14 is the exact reason why I just thought Chrysler was THE S*** in the 80's-early '90's!!!!!

[@jamesmcintire3800]

Back in the late nineties I was given a used Dynasty as a dealer loaner car for a week or so while my then new Dodge truck was in for service. I really enjoyed that car! I found it to be very comfortable and almost didn’t want to give it back. I believe it was a 1993 Dodge Dynasty but don’t remember exactly. Ever since then I’ve had a generally positive impression towards these cars. I was never very impressed with the Dodge Intrepid that replaced it.

[@williamsampson4926]

So you would love the imperial they made around there or early 90's this body style :)

[@Trapper4265]

The 2000 Intrepid style cars were nice looking, but the New Yorkers and Imperials of this period were beautiful! I'm a fan of the linear and squared off styles of the 60s, so this look is my favorite. In 2010 I sold my 1965 Chrysler New Yorker before moving to Chicago. That was a beautiful car, as the slogan stated.

[@AllCarswithJon]

I do like my squared-off cars.... I admit. :)

[@johnnymason2460]

My mother at one time owned a 1993 Dodge Dynasty. It was a nice car to ride in. She kept that car until it broke down (a lot of years). I actually tried to get her to buy a 1993 Chrysler Imperial. Would have been a better deal.

[@texan903]

I remember my aunt buying a 1991 or '92 Dynasty, brand new. She drove it for years. It was decent enough. Her next vehicle was a Dodge Intrepid. Since then she has driven mostly Nissan Altima sedans, she is on her second Altima.

[@timewellwasted3341]

Jon, as a former 1989 Dodge Shadow owner (with the Mitsubishi 2.5 liter) as well as a Plymouth 1988 Sundance owner (with the Dodge 2.2 liter), we had a neighbour who bought a New Yorker. It's a decent attempt at the luxury market at a modest price. The first thing I remember was the digital dash with the light blue digits attempting to be high tech for the era. I vaguely recall that it also had a talking dashboard (not mentioned in the review?) that would bark out phrases like "Low Fuel", "Door Ajar", "Your fly is open"...stuff like that. They seemed to really like the car and when I rode in it I felt totally comfortable. My personal experience with the Mitsubishi 2.5 liter in my Shadow was that it was a very powerful engine for its time. My Shadow went like stink, unlike my 2.2 liter K-car type motor that I had in the Sundance. So, the 2.5 liter for old people in the Dynasty would have been adequate I think. For the money, a great deal, but when compared to your Buick or a Seville, both of those cars were still a level up with a much more solid structure, quieter with smooth power. Both of those were a lot more than the New Yorker in price, so Chrysler offered what I call the Value-Based luxury car, back in the 1980's.

[@LGilman479]

The "Talking Dash" New Yorkers were from the generation before these ones ('83-'87). Those New Yorkers were also K-based but only had four cylinder engines (albeit one was a turbocharged 2.2L).

[@davidcaprio8919]

Mitsubishi supplied a 2.6liter, and actually label it a hemi. 2.5 was a bigger version of the Chrysler 2.2 liter

[@tomdrum4514]

Be careful about buying ANY Chrysler product that had the Mitsu 3.0 liter engine in 1988 or 89. The tappets around the oil rings would leak, causing the engines to smoke excessively. They fixed the problem by 1990.

[@350zlover2]

My parents were going to buy a New Yorker but ended up buying a 88 Buick Rivera instead. They got so much attention with that car but I do remember that Chrysler was a very nice vehicle for the time. I was looking forward to seeing the Imperial coming out but I don't think Chrysler ever made it. If I am wrong please let me know.

[@tomtbi]

My folks had a 91 New Yorker back in the day and I thought it was a real nice riding car...

[@fuji302]

I remember those when they were new and was around them all through college. Good and nice are words to never associate with them. Garbage disposable junk would be more accurate.

[@vidsbfree4me]

If you liked this Jonh, you would have loved my 1989 Toyota Cressida

[@steinravnik8692]

Some versions of these cars were able to talk to you.

[@adamogden5212]

I love Chrysler's I daily an 87 Chrysler new-yorker turbo, I have an 89 dynasty and what I have to say is these cars are not big by today's standards side by side a modern 300 c is bigger body wise but the interior of the new-yorker is better the ride is better the horse power and the 14inch tires is not what hurts these cars its the transmission that 3 speed auto when mpg is still a goal the 3 speed just eats gas on the highway. as much I has love 80s chryslers this never competed with Cadillac or Lincoln. Chryslers had fallen so hard as brand that they were like Oldsmobile or Mercury they were Affordable luxury. nothing wrong with that but it just didn't justify making a super technical advanced car it paid off more in the 90s with the LH cars but even those cars lacked features that Cadillac and Lincoln had.

[@tomtbi]

This makes me wish I kept my 87 Caddy Sedan De Ville... Too bad when I bought it I didn't buy a winter rat and kept it inside and not driven it in the harsh northeast winters .. I would have had a quasi classic Caddy I could have taken to shows since you are seeing more cars from that era at shows..

[@andregonsalvez9244]

These were pretty comfortable cars back in the day umm how did These compare to something like the Chevrolet Caprice and Ford LTD Crown Victoria ?

[@AllCarswithJon]

The Carprice or Crown Vic were a totally different car. Much larger, body-on-frame, and rear wheel drive. THAT being said, I'd be willing to bet the NY rode and drove better!

[@MrJoeltrain]

My family was buying a full size luxo barge in1986. We test drove a new Yorker like these. Had it been the size of the Town Car we'd have bought it. The Cadillac we tried was SO dated. The Lincoln Town car won out. The New Yorker WAS the nicest, but it was just too small. A shame. There was also the 3l v6. It sucked, and front wheel drive too? The only things we're the awesome looks, the tech, and the headphone Jack's.

[@MrJoeltrain]

I wholeheartedly disagree on the hideaway headlights and the pop ups I absolutely love love love them.

[@TheChill001]

Tbf, that 136 bhp out of a 3L V6 was pathetic, but then again...so was 150 bhp out of a 5l V8, all the while in europe the average BHP/litre was around 60-70 depending on the manufacturer. Granted, most US engines of 6 and 8 cilindres at the time were generally extremely smooth...still unsure about that Mitsu V6...but if we look at what it eventually became... no complaints :D

[@johnnymason2460]

I would suggest doing a reaction to the Motorweek retro review on the 1990 Chrysler Imperial. It was a better car than the New Yorker.

[@new2000car]

The dynasty’s driving and road manners were crude (like the gussied up k car it was). Nowhere near as pleasant as the same money in a Buick century. It squatted under acceleration and its tires chattered on road sand taking off going uphill whereas on the same road the century took off smoothly. A Taurus/sable was even better than the a cars (century/cutlass cierra/6000/celebrity).

[@theonederlof7955]

How heavy are the cars in this catagori? i like the way you compar the cars with help of the orriginal comercials. excuse my bad englisch writhing, i'm from the Nedtherlands. go on with tis work, witch cars will be the next to compair? Greets Theo😀 s

[@tomtbi]

Might be a good find if you could find a clean one in decent shape . I've noticed more cars from the 80s and 90s at car shows ...

[@AllCarswithJon]

Consider that some of these cars from the 80's are now FOURTY YEARS OLD! They're well into "classic" years now.

[@tomtbi]

I actually rather liked the styling...

[@davinp]

When the Japanese cars arrived in the late '70s, Americans notice they were of better quality than the American brands

[@MisterMikeTexas]

Toyota was already here since 1958. Datsun was also here at least since the 60s.

[@michaelorlando6159]

I would have to agree they were at the time not the cars i would want to buy. Not bad cars i was 13 at the time we had a 82 doge aries with the 2.2 carb engine that was a good but rough and slow only complaint was the car ate alternators like nothing i saw before i guess a fully equipped american car withac should not have a 45 amp alternator. But my dad later bought a doge lancer turbo and then a lebaron gts for my mom nonturbo i have to say bothe gave very little problems still rough engines ans seemed to handle very well. But the plastic of the interior was rattling all the time not poor quality just poor attention to design so they dont rattle over time. Paint quality was not there however

[@jasonmoreland8155]

Please do a react on the 1990 Imperial, which is the closest thing they ever did to tough review.

[@juanchernandez3640]

arent we late to the party lol

[@michaelorlando6159]

I can see why when acura came out with the legend coupe and sedan how they just got the luxury buyer taste right. Though they were much more expensive and didnt ride as nice but they did everything else excellent. The styling on the coupe is still attractive today....but in Chrysler's defense i was targeted to the older buyer who liked that styling and didnt care about speed and handling. Just an excellent ride and great brakes. Mercedes ride was hard compared to these cars even the s class w126 which i have. But chysler i have to appreciate the engineers who had to take a low cost aries and use as many parts as you can and som how come out with a luxury car. With decent gas economy for sub 19k prices. Thats no easy to do. But that aproach ultimately hurt Chrysler. Vs look at mercedes only made expensive cars and had to make the cheaper 190 and e class cars . The 190 has just a shrunken e class with less features and made cheaper even the chasis is similar. So you starting with a better foundation. Not that 190s were trouble free....

[@350zlover2]

The Acura Legend was a legendary reliable vehicle for its time. It was extremely popular on the East Coast!

[@runoflife87]

Well Your complains about Mitsubishi V6 are pretty accurate but You should remember the (in)famous Cadillac V8 making 140 bhp. Made by GM clowns for people 60+?

[@luxurreview]

It’s only 2 inches longer than my 2012 Lexus ES so it’s not a huge car

[@davinp]

The K car platform were ugly boxy cars. My father had a 1986 Dodge Caravan and my neighbor had a Chrysler LeBaron