Cheap 1964 Chrysler Newport 4dr. project car

In the words of Walter Sobchak: "That '64 Chrysler really tied the collection together, did it not?"

 

I may be in the minority here, but I think the front end styling on these cars is great. It's waaaaaay better than the funky 62/63 stylings on many of it's Mopar brethren.

 

Well, it's definitely unconventional, but I think we're both in agreement in that I have come around to these cars and think its front end styling is kinda cool, even if I do recognize that it's also quirky and not for everyone. The front end styling can also look mean and ominous, which would serve itself well with how I'd want to build this particular example. Get the stance just right and it would be a pretty awesome, head-turning car overall. But like you said, I might be in the minority here, which I'm totally fine with.

 

Wagon The Dog's analysis seems accurate. I was only going by the side trim, and didn't notice that the Windsor model had the same trim.

 

Yeah, but it does seem weird that the entry level Windsor would share the same side trim as the Saratoga two models above it. You'd think the Newport's simplified side trim would be the one used on the Windsor and the side trim we see pictured on the car in the ad would be used for the midlevel Newport and Saratoga models. With that said, you can see just how confusing and convoluted things got, and why Chrysler began to simplify their lineup.

However, it's still a bit baffling to me as to why the 'Chrysler' badging on the headlight housing and the emblems on the C-pillars are not on the car in the ad. I know Canadian Chrysler models had them, but I'm wondering if this was a rare emblem-delete car or something? To be honest, I'm not sure if I've ever seen another one like it. Regardless of model.

 

Wow. Just to confuse things even further, I just noticed in the examples of the Newport and Saratoga models I supplied on the previous page, they have discrepancies with their badging too! These models normally have badges and emblems on the headlight housing and C-pillar, but...

With this Newport, it has 'Chrysler' headlight housing badges, but no emblem on the C-pillar:



And this Saratoga 300 has emblems on the C-pillar, but no 'Chrysler' badges on the headlight housings:



What the heck were you doing, Chrysler??? lol

 

I suspect it was something to do with the car being Canadian. There always seem to be quirky differences between U.S. and Canadian cars that are the same model during this time period.

 

It's possible, but all the other '64 Windsors I have seen up here have had their full badging, including the ones with Canadian plates in the pictures on the previous page. Regardless, it is an oddity. Again, I wonder if there was an emblem-delete option for that year or something? It's a bit of a mystery.

 

These are always fun o try and figure out. The information is probably buried in some 58 year old sales literature.

 

So, I'd go Candle Apple red, with tan accent color. Tan leather seats. Keep original dash, put in a modern Dodge Charger drive train, transmission, disc brakes and suspension updates etc. And that's from someone who prefers original. maybe cragar type rims

 

Sounds perfect.

 

I'm having a hard time finding and example of the colour I'd want, but if I did a resto-mod of it (which I would be somewhat open to because the original drivetrain is gone and the bench seat doesn't look original), I'd want it either a deep burgundy red or bronze tan metallic pearl paint with an off-white or cream interior, stock dash, either a 727 Torqueflite or perhaps a 5 or 6-speed Tremec manual trans., any vintage Mopar big block (again, doesn't matter which one), disc brakes, and more than likely a carb setup for racing or around town, but if I were driving it long distance through different elevations, etc. I'd have fuel injection.

However, not to go on a tangent, but for me...

I'm a hot rod guy at heart, but I'd never put a modern Hemi in it. Ever. I'm also a died-in-the-wool Mopar guy, but sadly, I wouldn't give you a nickel for a modern Hemi in any car. Not even if it was free. Firstly, I just don't like the sound of them. Chalk that up as personal taste. But most importantly, I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole because of the camshaft/lifter wear and valve seat issues they have. Doesn't matter if it's a 5.7, 6.1, 6.2 or a 6.4, they all have varying potential issues, some of which are severe in nature.

As you may know, wiped camshafts and worn/seized roller lifters are a common issue on modern Hemis. The dreaded "Hemi tick" or "tick of death" is a common fear amongst modern Hemi owners. However, people think this issue is caused by inferior materials and/or heat treating, or inferior needle bearings in the roller lifters, but that's not the issue at all, and it never was. However, to explain the real issue with modern Hemis, a short (and obvious) explanation as to basic camshaft oiling needs to be explained first...

The majority of oiling for the cam lobes is due to oil being slung off the crankshaft as it rotates through a relatively shallow inundation of oil in the oil pan. Normally, with any engine the camshaft galley is open at the bottom for the oil to splash upward and onto the camshaft which, in turn, also provides the majority of oiling on the face of the lifters as well, whether it be flat tappet or roller lifters (like in modern Hemis).

With that explained, the problem with modern Hemis is that, in Ma Mopar's infinite (lack of) wisdom, they designed the modern Hemi blocks with a cast-in oil passage tube that runs the entire length of the galley that obscures the bottom of the camshaft, so the oil being slung off the crankshaft can no longer sufficiently oil the camshaft! Have a look...

A normal block with an open camshaft galley (literally any other V8 in existence):



Modern Hemis...

5.7:



6.1:



6.4:



I couldn't find a good picture of the 6.2L Hemi, but you get the idea.

Essentially, that oil passageway tube acts like a barrier that prevents a good portion of the oil being slung off the crankshaft from splashing onto the camshaft for proper oiling. The issue is made even worse while idling or at low RPMs where there isn't enough oil being slung off the crankshaft to sufficiently oil the cam lobes with those tubes in the way, which is why the cam lobes eventually get wiped because the roller begins to seize and it wipes the lobe. I can only imagine what idling in 100F heat like so many cars did during this year's Power Tour would do to a modern Hemi over time. That's just not a risk I'd want in any car of mine.

Many owners may never have issues and they will sing the praises of the modern Hemi at every chance they get, but there are also countless owners who have had wiped cams and got stuck with thousands of dollars in repairs or replacement costs. A simple internet image and forum search will give you hours of horror stories to read.

IMO, modern Hemis are a ticking time bomb of an engine because of this fatal design flaw. I have no idea what Mopar's "engineers" were thinking when they decided to design an oil supply passageway that is literally in the way of the camshaft like that. It's so absent-minded and negligent it's baffling.

Anyway, I don't mean to go on, but I am not a fan of the modern Hemi at all. Besides, I'd just want an old fashioned big block in this car to match the overall vintage vibe of it. At least I know they can take a beating.

 

I figure, in Mopar terms, one of the last pre-Hemi OHV engines, an LA-series with EFI, would be the best EFI conversion bang for your buck. The engine design is proven, there are aftermarket control systems (so you don't run afoul of CCD), and the small problems the intakes had are quite surmountable. Or, you can put a Holley or other standalone EFI setup on a big block; it'll still make your power, but part-throttle cruise would give you a few MPGs more than any carb ever thought it could.

 

So what would that be? a more modern 5.9 EFI out of a Dakota/Durango?

 

Yes, a modern 5.9L (360) Magnum EFI engine from a Dakota/Durango/Ram/van, etc.