I really enjoyed this video. I would take either car on a sunny Sunday drive. Those older cars had a nice buggy ride with a smooth transmission with plenty of room inside. They used quality materials and had full frames with solid steel bodies. They were real cruisers and enjoyable in an era where people were not in a hurry and enjoyed life much more. Good review.
My father had a Chrysler New Yorker when I was a lad. I have been interested to learn so much about it from this video. His model had an upgraded interior that featured a fold-down rear seat divider as well. When my younger brother was three or so, he loved to sit ON the divider because he could see out of the windscreen! He remembers the car fondly to this day!
@@1voiceofstl But everyone buys SUV's these days. It has been pointed out by others that a modern car-based SUV has a lot in common in seat height etc. with these cars.
emjayay Yes because of those stupid CAFE Standards get rid of all those stupid rules and regulations let the American auto manufacturers build cars that people actually want to buy problem solved
Having owned both a ‘50 Chrysler and ‘49 DeSoto on one hand and a ‘49 Buick on the other hand I can tell you this: - The upright, high seat and high top of the Chrysler are much easier for getting in & out and general visibility - I’m not even 40 yet but getting in and out of my Buick is quite an ordeal with the low roof and high seat: I have to crawl in as if it’s a sports car (and it’s not chopped). Okay, I own the 2dr sedanet and not a 4dr Buick but Chryslers were exceptionally high so people could wear their Sunday top hat inside the car. Chryslers did feel outdated and much less luxurious than the Buick. The square prewar design of the Chryslers felt really outdated when compared to the Buick dash and body styling. The M6 hydroelectric gearbox of Chrysler was, if it worked well, a good idea and design and yes it worked well due to a more direct drive. With the fluid drive coupling it was smooth too. The Dynaflow is a slush box since it has only one forward gear and is essentially throwing away power until you reach cruising speed. Accelerating races the engine and does not do much but generate lots of heat. In the summertime it’s no fun to have that Dynaflow heater warming up the loud pedal and metal at your feet. On the other hand the engine of the Buick (OHV L8) is one of the smoothest and nicest running engines ever. There are no vibrations or other discomforts. The Buick however does have excessive body roll due to its springs & shocks, high center of gravity and geometry. Roundabouts are quite the adventure (it feels like you’re capsizing). It’s quite the car to handle. Chryslers are much easier to drive and more suited for women and elderly.
Everything that makes the Chrysler old and stodgy is an advantage. I'm surprised they didn't say that having a two-piece windshield is an advantage because if you break it, you only have to replace half. And I owned two 1950 Chryslers at one point. One thing though, the Buick was old-fashioned underneath with that torque tube and lever shocks.
@@waynejohnson1304 And how dare anyone replace leaf springs, as found on 19th century carriages, with coils and a Panhard bar. Controlling axle movement is the primary task of shock absorbers.
Oh my, a prewar car..what a dangerous thing. Become real with yourself if you truly wish to stand out as something interesting, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the look of a prewar automobile, whatever that refers to 1944 to 1913? I don't believe it would resemble a Maxwell sedan in 1913.
@@tracy4good non, military inbetween production was stopped for most of all automobiles and jeeps, strategetic automobiles, and tanks were main production until the end of war on May 8th 1945. I know because I was there, although if you were to say how many ported holes a buick 1942 Super, or a Buick 1941 Century had, the answer would be none.
K.T. Keller wanted something along the lines of the 38 - 41 Cadillac 60 Special, but he wouldn't accept that what kool then was old fashioned in 1949 - 52. Plus, Chrysler did it a cheaper way - conventional doors vs the Cad's hardtop style doors.
The Buick looks more modern and aerodynamic. The '50 Chrysler still had a two piece windshield. It looks more like a pre war car. Look at the gas cap. The '50 Chrysler has it on the outside like the '49 Ford.
The Chrysler also has stuck on rear fenders. And notice the wide strip of body between the doors, both at the window and the body levels. The Buick only has a smaller strip at the windows and no extra strip on the body. The construction of the Chrysler is more similar to pre-war cars all around.
Well, looks are subjective. The Buick is clearly a more "modern" design, but it's not especially good looking with that toothy snout. Cadillac and Oldsmobile that year were much better looking, and Pontiac and Chevy looked OK. The Chrysler styling may not have been as up to date as GM in1950, but it has a quiet elegance, and was a well-built, well-engineered car - even if the fluid drive was kinda goofy.
@@herman452 Car's had yet to get better looking and better Tech. Still too soon after the war. Retooling was needed and it was still going to take a while.
True, I noticed that as well even though I am a Chrysler guy. However there's no doubting the Chrysler is a better engineered car with more comfort and luxury. But yeah, it looked heavy and plain compared to the Buick. Way ahead of Buick on other things - electric wipers vs vacuum, power brakes, and better brakes internally, modern tube shock absorbers front and rear compared to the ancient type of Buick, plus so many other thoughtful things.
11:28 Large Buicks used the grindy torque tube drive/suspension through the 1960 model year, that's why they held on to the smooth but slow Dynaflow transmission for so long:"Get that groove down, way down slow, my Dinah Flo, I Love you more each day ..
i prefer gm's styling to Chryslers during this period, but didn't realize is superior 'user friendly' design elements. thanks for posting this for us to reflect on~!!
Chrysler didn't have styling so to speak, the body design was fashioned by the engineers under the direction of leader KT Keller who like a functional shape where GM had Harley Earl, took Virgil Exner to inject some mojo
@Say less , true enough, Chrysler is trash now...and has been for some time. When this video was made Chrysler built solid, sturdy, straightforward stuff. My first legal vehicle was a '47 Dodge. Fluid drive, heater and radio, but no turn signals. I now own a '48 Plymouth. Both were designed around simplicity and reliability; there is no artifice or built-in failure, unlike so many modern cars.
I own a 49 New Yorker, essentially the same car (they were a brand new design not introduced until the spring of the year.) While they lack much "sex appeal" they are a very a solid automobile with a smooth, quiet engine, and ahead of the curve features like the electric wipers, power brakes & key start. The often maligned Fluid Drive/Prestomatic really isn't that bad; you get used to it quickly and the shift is smooth. Of course, it turns that big straight 8 into a slug...but the Buick "Dynaslush" may not have been any better.
First, this is a "film strip", like a bunch of slide connected together. A film usually refer to a moving picture, which would also most often include sound on the film itself. Next, comparing the Buick DynaFlow to Chrysler's Presto-Matic. The DynaFlow used a torque convert, which multiplied torque at start-up. This was the reason that it only had 2 speeds. The Chrysler Presto-Matic was a 4-speed transmission and had a non-torque multiplying fluid coupling, so it needed those 4 speeds to accelerate the quickest. Like the Buick, it only had a hi or lo gear position. In the lo position, the Chrysler would start in 1st and when the driver lifted his foot from the accelerator, it would automatically shift to 2nd. In the hi position, it would start up in 3rd and with the same accelerator action, would shift to 4th. The only thing it did fully automatically was when the accelerator pedal was pushed to the floor, like an overdrive unit, it would kick down to the lower gear. The Buick DynaFlow didn't have this feature, but what it had that the Chrysler didn't was a Park position and totally clutchless shifting. The clutch pedal had to be pressed in the Chrysler when initially engaging a gear position or when shifting between Hi and Lo positions.
While there are some things that I like about the 1950 Chrysler New Yorker vs. the Buick Roadmaster, there are some things about the Roadmaster that I like vs. the Chrysler New Yorker.
Gee, the New Yorker sure treated the little lady nice. That mean ol Buick was so inconsiderate. Love the kids riding in the front seat. So safe with the Safety Cushion dash panel. 😉
I like that they somehow make leaf springs seen like an advantage over coils. And make incredible excuses about why they don't have an automatic transmission. And you have to wonder why they don't mention the engine performance whatsoever.
Check out the raised foot rest on the floor in the rear at 5:40. Don't see those anymore. And the rear doors and area was certainly much better looking and designed and more plush. The outside styling was heavy and plain though - have to give the side profile looks to the Buick on this one.
I LOVE these old videos, i really don't care about the manufacturer that much but i like the comparisons, narrations seeing the features of their time and also the odd names!!!!
I heard that Chrysler Corp. cars retained their high boxy roofline into the mid-'50s because company President Tex Colbert wore 10-gallon hats and didnt want to remove them when he got into the cars.
+Ross Ewage After Cars all low roofs and seats, I bought a a new '83 Ford Pick-Up. Sold it to my youngest son and bought a new '1991 F150, 6 Cyl. SuperCab. Drove it 19 years, traded for a used 2006 F150 5.4L Ford Triton. BTW, you can't wear a western Hat 'cause it hits the head rest. I jest chunk it in the back seat.
President before Tex Colbert was Kaufman Thuma Keller, he stood well over 6 feet tall and weighed nearly 300 pounds. He would not approve a car for production if he could not get behind the wheel and drive it in comfort. Henry Ford on the other hand, was about 5 foot 8 and 140 pounds. Now you know why Chrysler products were so roomy and comfortable, while boys who ate regularly couldn't squeeze into Fords of the 20s and 30s .
It's funny that a year later, Chrysler's hemi would kick the butt of every other V8 ever made. I would have to say that if I had been a buyer in 1950, I would have definitely chosen the Roadmaster. The Chryslers were better designed, but the styling was boring.
Those were the years when the horsepower race was in full swing - everyone was striving to make their cars faster and flashier - The Buick was handicapped by the very smooth,but painfully slow, Dynaflow automatic transmission.
72Disco1998 While GM's Dynaflo wasn't their finest effort, it's amusing to me how they try to make a manual transmission seem more desirable. The Buick looks like a Buick. The New Yorker looks like a large Plymouth with no distinctive styling. Both fine automobiles but in today's collector market a Roadmaster commands a much higher price. I love these old 'let's compare' films! :~)
+WAQWBrentwood It would be good to know if disc brakes were an option on the New Yorker while they were available on the Imperial during those years. Way ahead of their time.
Great video. I'm surprised that they managed to not compare engines (the Buick had a valve-in-head V8, while the Chrysler had a flathead six) and somehow managed to argue that their fluid drive transmission was somehow preferable to Buick's Dynaflow.
Dear Sirs: First: the Buick showed in the video is a 1950 Roadmaster. About 40 years ago, I had a 1951 Buick Super (Dyna Flow), a great car in every way, except for his fuel consumption. Then, my father had a 1949 Chrysler New Yorker, 8 in line engine (Fluid Drive transmission). My father´s car was also a very good vehicle, but I consider, with a serious mechanical design problem. During a travel from Santiago to Mendoza (Argentina), I still remember laying Chrysler brakes and much burning smell, down the Andes, my father being a very good and careful driver. The Fluid Drive transmission had no effective speed to retain that heavy car on long and steep slopes, with curves. Even putting the lever up (first and second), its ability to slow the car down hills was nil. This was a very bad feature of Chrysler, considering its original price. Any automatic 1951 Chevrolet, with only 105 H.P. and its modest Power Glide transmission, up and down much betterthan the Chrysler Los Andes Cordillera. Difficult situation to understand.
That could be a problem in the Rockies too. You could get a standard 4 speed in the new yorker then. You had to wait till 1954 for a true automatic from the chrysler, the 2 speed Airflite, much better then the Power glide.
Most GM's had the Olds/Cadillac 4 speed Hydramatic by then... as did Mercury and Lincoln... The '49 Chrysler New Yorker had the wimpy flathead 6... Airflows got the 8...
Rear coil springs equal a smoother ride. GM had the most money back then ,, so no gimmicks, Buick spent more money on nicer details. Chrysler New Yorker should have picked a lesser car to compare their car to. Buick had a better straight 8 engine than Chrysler th Chrysler straight 8 in 1950. However this New Yorker had electric wipers,,better than vacuum.
Yeah Chrysler products never sold as well as GM. Case in point, in the late '50s, we had the "low priced" three ; Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth. But guess what, Plymouth was OUTSOLD by Pontiac ( a "medium priced" car). At this time period, Chrysler Corp had THE WORST quality control of Any American car manufacturer, this probably impacted the popularity of these cars even though they had SUPERIOR engineering.
WOW!!! .. the Buick won in the first 15 seconds of this... it has the looks! And Chrysler forgot to mention the Buick's powerful OHV 8 engine compared to the Chrysler's extremely wimpy flathead 6 or 8...
@@emjayay No, the Buick Roadmaster motor in 1950 was an overhead valve (not flathead) straight eight (not V8), 320 cubic inches, rated 152 hp. The 50 Chrysler New Yorker had a 323 cubic inch flathead straight eight, which had 135 hp - still pretty good for the day. Lesser Chryslers used a 250 inch flathead six, while lesser Buicks had a 263 inch OHV straight eight.
The GM line was already on it's way to the new style. Chrysler was still stogie. Not until 1957 did the Chrysler Corp. catch up in style. The '57,'58,''59 were the best years for all the Auto manufacturers.
Chrysler was a far better engineered product with fewer flaws. I grew up in a GM family but my wise grandparents on both sides always bought Mopar. They weren't sexy but they were really good no nonsense cars.
The Buick look likes a pre curser to the cars of the mid 50s. The Chrysler look like a hold out from the mid 40s. The Buick for a young couple to go forward , the Chrysler for their parents to look back.
I've pretty much been a "Mopar Man" for my whole 58 years, but I've owned (and loved!) Oldsmobile's, Fords, Chevys and Buicks. Still, Mopar has always built better engines, drivetrains and most of the running gear. General Motors has pretty much always made better interior and sturdier accoutrements than Mopar. Dodge Trucks are so much better than Ford or Chevy that I don't know why anybody bothers to argue, still the single best car I EVER owned was a 1996 Buick Regal I purchased brand new, fully equipped. In a couple of years if I live into "retirement" I'll still buy the best BMW or Mercedes that I can afford. Cars and Trucks are like art. It's in the eye of the beholder. Drive what suits YOU best that is available at the time you purchase. NO manufacturer has a lock on any of the markets.
I love Chrysler's old cars but the Buick made the Chrysler look dowdy and the bit of a car for the out-of-touch. The "advantage" of a clutch over an automatic was hilarious
0:57-1:22 Look at how much of the wheelbases of both cars was under the hood to support those straigt-8 engines. Power steering, radial tires and more compact engine layouts slowly did away with all that, with BMW the only car I can name that still has any distance between the front footwells and the wheel housings. The 1992 Cadillac Brougham was the last domestic car with extra wheelbase under the hood (2.5" beyond the Electra and 98), in order to support the huge engine block they used before the 4100 engine was introduced in 1982.
the wipers of the 1950 plymouth were vacuum operated so I doupt that the chrysler ones were electric but I'm sure that the fuel pump were double, one side for the fuel and the other as a vacuum pump to boost wiper operation in low vacuum engine operation.
@@jacquespoirier9071 But even Plymouths all had electric wipers soon after this. One of a bunch of weird things about AMC cars is that many of them had vacuum wipers many years after everyone else had dropped them.
Wide door swing seems to be a thing for dodge even today. My 2 Jeeps, my Dart, and now my Charger all front doors open almost to a 90 degree angle, the only downside is when you swing it open all the way and it’s kinda hard to reach to close it lol
And that is a shame for us seniors. We don't want a sports car, we want COMFORTABLE cars. That's why many of us are keeping our traditional full-size American cars.
Chrysler’s post-war conservative styling makes the New Yorker much less glamorous than the Roadmaster in this video. As a result, in the 1950s Chrysler lost market share to GM and Ford and never won it back.
Buick looked like a spaceship in comparison though. This was the beginning of major sales domination by Buick in the early 50's = Harlow Curtis days of glory with the Special pushing Buick into 3rd place. This the KT Keller years at Chrysler when they bragged about higher roofs so you could wear your hat.
I would likely choose the Buick due to its more modern styling and I think it has a full automatic transmission in it. As mentioned by others the Chrysler has a pre war design and the Buick looks trimmer and easy to handle.
The Buick is by far the better looking car, but its DynaFlow transmission today would be considered a semi-automatic, as it operated entirely in High when in Drive, unless you MANUALLY put it in Lo. Then, of course, you had to manually put it back into Drive. No automatic shifting with DynaFlow.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I didn’t know that about the Dynaflow. I had a 1950 DeSoto with fluid drive and it was very nice to drive and quiet with its flat head six. Only had it about 1 year and no repairs.
@@richardmorse5307 Chrysler missed a chance to bring back the DeSoto. Remember that short-lived Eagle division? They should have called it DeSoto, and sold Chrysler-based cars, not Dodge-based cars.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I totally agree. My DeSoto was a true luxury car with a purple back lit instrument panel and a hood ornament of DeSoto that lit up at night. I used to take my parents on Sunday drives to Birch Bay near Bellingham, Washington and they loved it. The car was extremely quiet and comfortable and got 17 mpg. I grew to really like the flat head 6 cylinder head for its quietness and smoothness. I never drove it hard as it was a real highway cruiser and the miles just melted by. I sold it to a friend who was desperate to get a car as he had just met a girl in Seattle.
the fluid drive gearbox was far more reliable than the hydramatic of the same vintage, the derivative of this gearbox was used in commercial and industrial applications up to the seventies
The Chrysler features are definitely appealing (I like those rear assist handles and dash pad!) But the styling is so dated! I looks not far off a Checker taxi cab! As a bachelor, I'd prefer the power and radical styling of Buick.
+califdad4 There was a time when I felt the same way - but in recent decades I have seen that the 1949-52 Chrysler products had a really stately appearance, and really good use of passenger space. It would be good if Chrysler could produce an updated version of the same dimensions - just with modern engineering. It would be good if the original build quality could be kept.
My parents, ( before I came along) traded in a 48 V8 Mercury, for a new 52 Plymouth 6cyl, they thought it was such a good car they bought a new one in 58 and were very disappointed , stayed with Ford and Buick and later Cadillac. So I think they might have agreed with you on those 49- early 50's Chrysler Corp cars
1:49 The New Yorker's lines look clunky and dowdy compared to the Roadmaster's smooth, blended, up to date design. With the Chrysler, you'd be buying a new car to put an old looking car in your driveway.
It is true that the Buick drivetrain and suspension arrangement was mostly outdated compared to the Chrysler. The type and mounting of the Chrysler shocks is how modern cars (well, pickups because nothing else still has a solid live rear axle) do it. Also the torque tube had been dropped by Ford in 1949 and also added unsprung weight. AMC cars kept the torque tube for years.
@@herman452 no problem at all with the Chrysler product . Seems like between 72' and 79' they went down hill . Turned me off forever . No personal experience but the Fiat era Chrysler products are worse if you believe what you read . I know the 225 slant six and the 318 were some good engines .
@@p47thunderbolt68 Chrysler Corporation has had quality issues at various points (so have Ford and GM - remember exploding Pintos, or the GM X bodies?), but in the decade after WWII Chrysler Corporation vehicles were some of the most solid, well-built cars available from any manufacturer. The 1950 Chrysler featured here was built in that era.
@@herman452 definantly agree. My angle for singling out Chrysler was it was a family favorite and it seemed the product let us down . The dealer also. My dad bought a 1963 Valiant station wagon when it was about 10 years old . Gave $75 for it spent about $35 for a clutch and the damn thing was still going 6 years later when he finally got rid of it . Ugliest car you ever seen . No power options, 3 speed . Replaced with a 71' Dodge dart 2 door with six cyl. Auto . it to lasted . They 1975 Duster however was a disaster. I totaled it 2 weeks after getting driver's license . He asked was I hurt. I said no . He said good I've been wanting to get rid of that bastard since I bought it . My next car was a Mustang 2 .about as bad as the Duster .
I have driven a 1950 Dodge long ago. Very nice driving car... smooth, quiet, comfortable and not over-done or tacky. Definitely lacked power with the six cylinder, but it was from a different era. Did have the fluid drive.
No offense to Chrysler fans - which I'm one of- and the engineering they were famous for but the Buick of this year is the better looking car. Looks like Chrysler are selling an old pre war car and trying to shout out it's merits versus the new technolocy, really, ''cam-and - lever'' shocks, from the 20's?
Not sure why this is listed as a 1951 when it is clearly a '50 NYKR. The features are very much the same between both years but the '50 used a straight eight while all NYKR's came with the standard 331 HEMI. Great cars - both years!
@@BuzzLOLOL New Yorkers were never 6s, always Straight 8. The reason the New Yorker's engine was wimpy is because Chrysler, for some strange reason, replaced the 2 barrel carb on the 46 and pre-war models with, of all things, a 1 barrel carb. That severely strangled it.
@@michaelbenardo5695 - Maybe the new 1 barrel passed as much air as the older 2 barrel... it was wimpy because it was a flathead... Louie Chevrolet was a race car driver and said his cars would never have a flathead... and they didn't...
@@BuzzLOLOL It did not, as the detuned 46 - the 40 - 41 offered up to 143 horsepower - had 135 horses at 3400 RPM with a 2 barrel, they did not change the official rating for the 47 - 48, but the 48 - 50 had much higher compression, but still 135 horsepower and at only 3200 RPM. And I know, Chevrolet and Buick never used flatheads.
@@BuzzLOLOL Plus, the 46 and older Chryslers were capable of 90 MPH and 0 - 60 in less than 18 seconds despite the Fluid Drive. The 49 and 50, and probably the 48 as well, were barely capable of 83 - 85, and took well over 20 seconds to reach 60.
Enough for a Buick salesman to break down in tears......except the Buick had coil springs all round like all cars today and damper struts just like all cars today and the Buick looks more stylish what a decision to have to make............
Embarrassing comparison for the New Yorker, 1940 styling with ancient flathead straight eight engine; the Roadmaster with much newer aerodynamic styling plus a highly developed OHV straight eight. Chrysler did make a comeback in 1951 with their famous Hemi V-8 and much newer styling. And make no mistake, the Bendix servo brake system used by GM and most others was much better that the Lockheed system used by Chrysler. The Bendix brake is used by most all manufacturers to this day in addition to the disk brake systems.
The reason these Mopars had such dated styling was mainly due to CEO K T Keller's insistance that enough headroom existed to wear a hat. That's why they sold so poorly. By 1955, the styling was much better, many say the mid 50's Mopars were the best styled cars of the era. No auto transmission available also cost Mopar many sales. They finally came out with a powerglide clone...in 1954!
Buick looks far less bulky then the Chrysler and the grill looks wounderful, panorama front window, classic lines so i would prefer the Buick Roadmaster
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
I really enjoyed this video. I would take either car on a sunny Sunday drive. Those older cars had a nice buggy ride with a smooth transmission with plenty of room inside. They used quality materials and had full frames with solid steel bodies. They were real cruisers and enjoyable in an era where people were not in a hurry and enjoyed life much more. Good review.
Forever and always a Mopar guy. But I just picked up a Roadmaster Estate wagon. I couldn't resist that huge wooden barge.
How is it treating you?
If I was alive and able back then, I’d want the Buick!
I'd take either one! But I much prefer the Chrysler designs. This video clearly spells out a lot of advantage to the Chrysler
As soon as I find my hat, I'm going down to the Chrysler dealer to order one.
I fully agree. Now if I can locate my hat....
Already found mine (I’m a journalist, it wasn’t hard.)
LOL!!!
I'll Help you find your hat,,,,If you'll take me back in time with you,,, I want one of those fine machines ,,
I lost my hat and ended up with a Buick
My father had a Chrysler New Yorker when I was a lad. I have been interested to learn so much about it from this video. His model had an upgraded interior that featured a fold-down rear seat divider as well. When my younger brother was three or so, he loved to sit ON the divider because he could see out of the windscreen! He remembers the car fondly to this day!
I love how the people in the cars are told to smile in The Chrysler and to frown in the Buick, LOL @ shady marketing !!
Real people, not actors
This is training material, not marketing material.
Marketing is always sleazy...
@@L4sleeko Well, she is very unhappy about the small and inconveniently located vent window!
Lol.
This is the only video on Earth that suggests that a Buick might NOT be the best car for older people.
Every standard car from the early 50's was alot better for entry/exit and seat hieght then new cars.
Chrysler, Ford, Hudson, AMC, Packard bad-mouthed Buicks every year...
@@1voiceofstl But everyone buys SUV's these days. It has been pointed out by others that a modern car-based SUV has a lot in common in seat height etc. with these cars.
emjayay Yes because of those stupid CAFE Standards get rid of all those stupid rules and regulations let the American auto manufacturers build cars that people actually want to buy problem solved
Having owned both a ‘50 Chrysler and ‘49 DeSoto on one hand and a ‘49 Buick on the other hand I can tell you this:
- The upright, high seat and high top of the Chrysler are much easier for getting in & out and general visibility
- I’m not even 40 yet but getting in and out of my Buick is quite an ordeal with the low roof and high seat: I have to crawl in as if it’s a sports car (and it’s not chopped).
Okay, I own the 2dr sedanet and not a 4dr Buick but Chryslers were exceptionally high so people could wear their Sunday top hat inside the car.
Chryslers did feel outdated and much less luxurious than the Buick. The square prewar design of the Chryslers felt really outdated when compared to the Buick dash and body styling.
The M6 hydroelectric gearbox of Chrysler was, if it worked well, a good idea and design and yes it worked well due to a more direct drive. With the fluid drive coupling it was smooth too.
The Dynaflow is a slush box since it has only one forward gear and is essentially throwing away power until you reach cruising speed. Accelerating races the engine and does not do much but generate lots of heat. In the summertime it’s no fun to have that Dynaflow heater warming up the loud pedal and metal at your feet.
On the other hand the engine of the Buick (OHV L8) is one of the smoothest and nicest running engines ever. There are no vibrations or other discomforts.
The Buick however does have excessive body roll due to its springs & shocks, high center of gravity and geometry. Roundabouts are quite the adventure (it feels like you’re capsizing). It’s quite the car to handle.
Chryslers are much easier to drive and more suited for women and elderly.
Kids standing on the front floor. lol. It was the 50s for sure.
Everything that makes the Chrysler old and stodgy is an advantage. I'm surprised they didn't say that having a two-piece windshield is an advantage because if you break it, you only have to replace half. And I owned two 1950 Chryslers at one point. One thing though, the Buick was old-fashioned underneath with that torque tube and lever shocks.
Thank goodness the Chrysler still had the convenience and control of a clutch.
Take that, Buick!
I know. I had to chuckle too. LOL It is obvious that the Buick was the better car and that the Chrysler was out-of-date.
@@waynejohnson1304 And how dare anyone replace leaf springs, as found on 19th century carriages, with coils and a Panhard bar. Controlling axle movement is the primary task of shock absorbers.
Ha ha! Chrysler brushed the fluid drive under the rug real quick when they came up with Power Flite!
A@@fordtruxdad5155 IT WAS A 12 YEAR OLD DESIGN
looks so comfortable , makes me want to sleep in the back all the way home from granma's, those were the days .
This was from a time when comfort and luxury were important.
The Chrysler is so "dowdy" looking, the rear fenders look like a pre-war car.
Oh my, a prewar car..what a dangerous thing. Become real with yourself if you truly wish to stand out as something interesting, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the look of a prewar automobile, whatever that refers to 1944 to 1913? I don't believe it would resemble a Maxwell sedan in 1913.
Today's Car Quiz -
How many portholes does a 1944 Buick Roadmaster have ?
Submit your response in the form of a question...
@@tracy4good non, military inbetween production was stopped for most of all automobiles and jeeps, strategetic automobiles, and tanks were main production until the end of war on May 8th 1945. I know because I was there, although if you were to say how many ported holes a buick 1942 Super, or a Buick 1941 Century had, the answer would be none.
True, but it has that clutch pedal to make parking easier. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
K.T. Keller wanted something along the lines of the 38 - 41 Cadillac 60 Special, but he wouldn't accept that what kool then was old fashioned in 1949 - 52. Plus, Chrysler did it a cheaper way - conventional doors vs the Cad's hardtop style doors.
History seems to have judged the Buick less harshly than Chrysler did.
If only today's Mopars placed the same importance on comfort as they did 70 yrs. ago.
The Buick looks more modern and aerodynamic. The '50 Chrysler still had a two piece windshield. It looks more like a pre war car. Look at the gas cap. The '50 Chrysler has it on the outside like the '49 Ford.
The Chrysler also has stuck on rear fenders. And notice the wide strip of body between the doors, both at the window and the body levels. The Buick only has a smaller strip at the windows and no extra strip on the body. The construction of the Chrysler is more similar to pre-war cars all around.
On the other hand the inside door panels and dashboard are more modern in the Chrysler. Also the hood opening.
Well, looks are subjective. The Buick is clearly a more "modern" design, but it's not especially good looking with that toothy snout. Cadillac and Oldsmobile that year were much better looking, and Pontiac and Chevy looked OK. The Chrysler styling may not have been as up to date as GM in1950, but it has a quiet elegance, and was a well-built, well-engineered car - even if the fluid drive was kinda goofy.
@@herman452 Car's had yet to get better looking and better Tech. Still too soon after the war. Retooling was needed and it was still going to take a while.
True, I noticed that as well even though I am a Chrysler guy. However there's no doubting the Chrysler is a better engineered car with more comfort and luxury. But yeah, it looked heavy and plain compared to the Buick. Way ahead of Buick on other things - electric wipers vs vacuum, power brakes, and better brakes internally, modern tube shock absorbers front and rear compared to the ancient type of Buick, plus so many other thoughtful things.
11:28 Large Buicks used the grindy torque tube drive/suspension through the 1960 model year, that's why they held on to the smooth but slow Dynaflow transmission for so long:"Get that groove down, way down slow, my Dinah Flo, I Love you more each day ..
i prefer gm's styling to Chryslers during this period, but didn't realize is superior 'user friendly' design elements. thanks for posting this for us to reflect on~!!
Chrysler didn't have styling so to speak, the body design was fashioned by the engineers under the direction of leader KT Keller who like a functional shape where GM had Harley Earl, took Virgil Exner to inject some mojo
@Say less , true enough, Chrysler is trash now...and has been for some time. When this video was made Chrysler built solid, sturdy, straightforward stuff. My first legal vehicle was a '47 Dodge. Fluid drive, heater and radio, but no turn signals. I now own a '48 Plymouth. Both were designed around simplicity and reliability; there is no artifice or built-in failure, unlike so many modern cars.
I like both cars I would love to have one of each fully restored
I own a 49 New Yorker, essentially the same car (they were a brand new design not introduced until the spring of the year.) While they lack much "sex appeal" they are a very a solid automobile with a smooth, quiet engine, and ahead of the curve features like the electric wipers, power brakes & key start. The often maligned Fluid Drive/Prestomatic really isn't that bad; you get used to it quickly and the shift is smooth. Of course, it turns that big straight 8 into a slug...but the Buick "Dynaslush" may not have been any better.
First, this is a "film strip", like a bunch of slide connected together. A film usually refer to a moving picture, which would also most often include sound on the film itself. Next, comparing the Buick DynaFlow to Chrysler's Presto-Matic. The DynaFlow used a torque convert, which multiplied torque at start-up. This was the reason that it only had 2 speeds. The Chrysler Presto-Matic was a 4-speed transmission and had a non-torque multiplying fluid coupling, so it needed those 4 speeds to accelerate the quickest. Like the Buick, it only had a hi or lo gear position. In the lo position, the Chrysler would start in 1st and when the driver lifted his foot from the accelerator, it would automatically shift to 2nd. In the hi position, it would start up in 3rd and with the same accelerator action, would shift to 4th. The only thing it did fully automatically was when the accelerator pedal was pushed to the floor, like an overdrive unit, it would kick down to the lower gear. The Buick DynaFlow didn't have this feature, but what it had that the Chrysler didn't was a Park position and totally clutchless shifting. The clutch pedal had to be pressed in the Chrysler when initially engaging a gear position or when shifting between Hi and Lo positions.
While there are some things that I like about the 1950 Chrysler New Yorker vs. the Buick Roadmaster, there are some things about the Roadmaster that I like vs. the Chrysler New Yorker.
Gee, the New Yorker sure treated the little lady nice. That mean ol Buick was so inconsiderate. Love the kids riding in the front seat. So safe with the Safety Cushion dash panel. 😉
I like that they somehow make leaf springs seen like an advantage over coils. And make incredible excuses about why they don't have an automatic transmission.
And you have to wonder why they don't mention the engine performance whatsoever.
Well they may not have had an automatic transmission, but remember, they did have the convenience and control of a clutch. 😉
Check out the raised foot rest on the floor in the rear at 5:40. Don't see those anymore. And the rear doors and area was certainly much better looking and designed and more plush. The outside styling was heavy and plain though - have to give the side profile looks to the Buick on this one.
I LOVE these old videos, i really don't care about the manufacturer that much but i like the comparisons, narrations seeing the features of their time and also the odd names!!!!
I heard that Chrysler Corp. cars retained their high boxy roofline into the mid-'50s because company President Tex Colbert wore 10-gallon hats and didnt want to remove them when he got into the cars.
+Ross Ewage After Cars all low roofs and seats, I bought a a new '83 Ford Pick-Up. Sold it to my youngest son and bought a new '1991 F150, 6 Cyl. SuperCab. Drove it 19 years, traded for a used 2006 F150 5.4L Ford Triton. BTW, you can't wear a western Hat 'cause it hits the head rest. I jest chunk it in the back seat.
President before Tex Colbert was Kaufman Thuma Keller, he stood well over 6 feet tall and weighed nearly 300 pounds. He would not approve a car for production if he could not get behind the wheel and drive it in comfort.
Henry Ford on the other hand, was about 5 foot 8 and 140 pounds.
Now you know why Chrysler products were so roomy and comfortable, while boys who ate regularly couldn't squeeze into Fords of the 20s and 30s .
thank you Mr. Danforth! never knew what the initials K.T. stood for. what a change from the early '50s to the "forward look" in '57.
I wish the Keller rule still applied.
The high boxy roofline was discontinued after the 1952 model year.
GREAT VIDEO WISH I HAD A MODEL OF A 1951 CHRYSLER
The Buick had the overhead valve inline 8. Chrysler was a flat head inline 8. 1951 would be a game changer with the new Hemi!!!
It's funny that a year later, Chrysler's hemi would kick the butt of every other V8 ever made. I would have to say that if I had been a buyer in 1950, I would have definitely chosen the Roadmaster. The Chryslers were better designed, but the styling was boring.
Those were the years when the horsepower race was in full swing - everyone was striving to make their cars faster and flashier - The Buick was handicapped by the very smooth,but painfully slow, Dynaflow automatic transmission.
Love these old videos. Thanks for the upload.
72Disco1998 While GM's Dynaflo wasn't their finest effort, it's amusing to me how they try to make a manual transmission seem more desirable. The Buick looks like a Buick. The New Yorker looks like a large Plymouth with no distinctive styling. Both fine automobiles but in today's collector market a Roadmaster commands a much higher price. I love these old 'let's compare' films! :~)
Jimmy Kraktov Oh, I agree.
+Jimmy Kraktov But, The NYer is was oddly ahead of it's time. It's not radically different in concept to a modern Chrysler 300.
+WAQWBrentwood >> Like I said, it was a fine automobile :~)
+WAQWBrentwood It would be good to know if disc brakes were an option on the New Yorker while they were available on the Imperial during those years. Way ahead of their time.
Great video. I'm surprised that they managed to not compare engines (the Buick had a valve-in-head V8, while the Chrysler had a flathead six) and somehow managed to argue that their fluid drive transmission was somehow preferable to Buick's Dynaflow.
Buick did not have a v8, they did have an overhead valve straight 8.
New Yorker had an in-line 8 cylinder engine.
While I usually like Mopar, I would in this instance still opt for the Buick. I've always loved the style of the Roadmaster.
So you prefer the lesser car because it looks better.?
Dear Sirs: First: the Buick showed in the video is a 1950 Roadmaster. About 40 years ago, I had a 1951 Buick Super (Dyna Flow), a great car in every way, except for his fuel consumption. Then, my father had a 1949 Chrysler New Yorker, 8 in line engine (Fluid Drive transmission). My father´s car was also a very good vehicle, but I consider, with a serious mechanical design problem. During a travel from Santiago to Mendoza (Argentina), I still remember laying Chrysler brakes and much burning smell, down the Andes, my father being a very good and careful driver. The Fluid Drive transmission had no effective speed to retain that heavy car on long and steep slopes, with curves. Even putting the lever up (first and second), its ability to slow the car down hills was nil. This was a very bad feature of Chrysler, considering its original price. Any automatic 1951 Chevrolet, with only 105 H.P. and its modest Power Glide transmission, up and down much betterthan the Chrysler Los Andes Cordillera. Difficult situation to understand.
+Santiago Rubio I have good feelings toward Argentina in those years - I still feel that Juan Domingo Perón was heroic....
Parece que somos de edad similar.
That could be a problem in the Rockies too. You could get a standard 4 speed in the new yorker then. You had to wait till 1954 for a true automatic from the chrysler, the 2 speed Airflite, much better then the Power glide.
Most GM's had the Olds/Cadillac 4 speed Hydramatic by then... as did Mercury and Lincoln... The '49 Chrysler New Yorker had the wimpy flathead 6... Airflows got the 8...
NEW YORKERS WERE 8CYLINDER
The Chrysler styling was less gimmicky than the Buick.
Rear coil springs equal a smoother ride. GM had the most money back then ,, so no gimmicks, Buick spent more money on nicer details. Chrysler New Yorker should have picked a lesser car to compare their car to. Buick had a better straight 8 engine than Chrysler th Chrysler straight 8 in 1950. However this New Yorker had electric wipers,,better than vacuum.
Yeah Chrysler products never sold as well as GM. Case in point, in the late '50s, we had the "low priced" three ; Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth. But guess what, Plymouth was OUTSOLD by Pontiac ( a "medium priced" car). At this time period, Chrysler Corp had THE WORST quality control of Any American car manufacturer, this probably impacted the popularity of these cars even though they had SUPERIOR engineering.
The people inside the Chrysler look happier than the people inside the Buick. That's it! I'm buying a New Yorker!
Get me one Too, I'll pay you when you get back,
Video quality is great... what a throwback.
It's a filmstrip. Thus the beeps on the phonograph record so the projectionist can advance the frame.
I hope no one gets sued for airing and/or watching this video! this is supposed to be "CONFIDENTIAL" ! LOL
Industrial spies are everywhere! Ford or GM might get some ideas on how to improve their 2018's! lol
LOL Bob Johnson! you might be right!
Chrysler was a better car, though the buick was better looking.
WOW!!! .. the Buick won in the first 15 seconds of this... it has the looks! And Chrysler forgot to mention the Buick's powerful OHV 8 engine compared to the Chrysler's extremely wimpy flathead 6 or 8...
NEW YORKERS WERE 8 CYLINDERS
Sorry, but the Buick had prewar based flathead straight 8 engines until 1953, and then only on more expensive models.
@@emjayay No, the Buick Roadmaster motor in 1950 was an overhead valve (not flathead) straight eight (not V8), 320 cubic inches, rated 152 hp. The 50 Chrysler New Yorker had a 323 cubic inch flathead straight eight, which had 135 hp - still pretty good for the day. Lesser Chryslers used a 250 inch flathead six, while lesser Buicks had a 263 inch OHV straight eight.
Every Buick ever made had Overhead Valves . The adverts used to say "Buick- Valve-in-Head Motors"
The New Yorker was a Straight 8, never a 6.
The GM line was already on it's way to the new style. Chrysler was still stogie. Not until 1957 did the Chrysler Corp. catch up in style. The '57,'58,''59 were the best years for all the Auto manufacturers.
Chrysler was a far better engineered product with fewer flaws. I grew up in a GM family but my wise grandparents on both sides always bought Mopar. They weren't sexy but they were really good no nonsense cars.
The Buick look likes a pre curser to the cars of the mid 50s. The Chrysler look like a hold out from the mid 40s. The Buick for a young couple to go forward , the Chrysler for their parents to look back.
Chrysler is the most underrated brand
The Buick looks way better, seems to me that the Buick must be a threat to Chrysler and that’s why they are making a comparison.
oldsmobile had a four speed auto.
I've pretty much been a "Mopar Man" for my whole 58 years, but I've owned (and loved!) Oldsmobile's, Fords, Chevys and Buicks. Still, Mopar has always built better engines, drivetrains and most of the running gear. General Motors has pretty much always made better interior and sturdier accoutrements than Mopar. Dodge Trucks are so much better than Ford or Chevy that I don't know why anybody bothers to argue, still the single best car I EVER owned was a 1996 Buick Regal I purchased brand new, fully equipped. In a couple of years if I live into "retirement" I'll still buy the best BMW or Mercedes that I can afford. Cars and Trucks are like art. It's in the eye of the beholder. Drive what suits YOU best that is available at the time you purchase. NO manufacturer has a lock on any of the markets.
Stay away from BMW and Mercedes!
All German cars are MONEY PITS!
There's enough metal in the hood alone to manufacture my Beetle AND my GTI.
Wish they would bring back the window vents sure do miss them! Made a big difference when someone would cut the cheese you could fan it out faster!
Plus dad could use it to flick his cigarette ashes out of.
Dave Jordan 4, 60 air conditioning. Open 4 windows and drive 60.
I love Chrysler's old cars but the Buick made the Chrysler look dowdy and the bit of a car for the out-of-touch. The "advantage" of a clutch over an automatic was hilarious
0:57-1:22 Look at how much of the wheelbases of both cars was under the hood to support those straigt-8 engines. Power steering, radial tires and more compact engine layouts slowly did away with all that, with BMW the only car I can name that still has any distance between the front footwells and the wheel housings. The 1992 Cadillac Brougham was the last domestic car with extra wheelbase under the hood (2.5" beyond the Electra and 98), in order to support the huge engine block they used before the 4100 engine was introduced in 1982.
Although I’m an avid Mopar Fan, I prefer the Roadmaster
Both are nice, But love the looks of all 1942-1954 Buicks (any model)
The Buick just looks so much more modern.
I hated those vacuum windshield wipers.
I belive that chrysler used electric wipers.then.
Only people who had them would understand :-) Going uphill on a rainy day, not good!
the wipers of the 1950 plymouth were vacuum operated so I doupt that the chrysler ones were electric but I'm sure that the fuel pump were double, one side for the fuel and the other as a vacuum pump to boost wiper operation in low vacuum engine operation.
Ah yes, the old "double fuel pump" ... I remember them well :-)
@@jacquespoirier9071 But even Plymouths all had electric wipers soon after this. One of a bunch of weird things about AMC cars is that many of them had vacuum wipers many years after everyone else had dropped them.
Wide door swing seems to be a thing for dodge even today. My 2 Jeeps, my Dart, and now my Charger all front doors open almost to a 90 degree angle, the only downside is when you swing it open all the way and it’s kinda hard to reach to close it lol
Cars today are no longer designed or marketed towards senior citizens.
And that is a shame for us seniors. We don't want a sports car, we want COMFORTABLE cars. That's why many of us are keeping our traditional full-size American cars.
Chrysler’s post-war conservative styling makes the New Yorker much less glamorous than the Roadmaster in this video. As a result, in the 1950s Chrysler lost market share to GM and Ford and never won it back.
Buick looked like a spaceship in comparison though. This was the beginning of major sales domination by Buick in the early 50's = Harlow Curtis days of glory with the Special pushing Buick into 3rd place. This the KT Keller years at Chrysler when they bragged about higher roofs so you could wear your hat.
Most of these slideshows are B.S. but it seems a lot of thought went into the design of the New Yorker vs. the Buick.
I would likely choose the Buick due to its more modern styling and I think it has a full automatic transmission in it. As mentioned by others the Chrysler has a pre war design and the Buick looks trimmer and easy to handle.
The Buick is by far the better looking car, but its DynaFlow transmission today would be considered a semi-automatic, as it operated entirely in High when in Drive, unless you MANUALLY put it in Lo. Then, of course, you had to manually put it back into Drive. No automatic shifting with DynaFlow.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I didn’t know that about the Dynaflow. I had a 1950 DeSoto with fluid drive and it was very nice to drive and quiet with its flat head six. Only had it about 1 year and no repairs.
@@richardmorse5307 Chrysler missed a chance to bring back the DeSoto. Remember that short-lived Eagle division? They should have called it DeSoto, and sold Chrysler-based cars, not Dodge-based cars.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I totally agree. My DeSoto was a true luxury car with a purple back lit instrument panel and a hood ornament of DeSoto that lit up at night. I used to take my parents on Sunday drives to Birch Bay near Bellingham, Washington and they loved it. The car was extremely quiet and comfortable and got 17 mpg. I grew to really like the flat head 6 cylinder head for its quietness and smoothness. I never drove it hard as it was a real highway cruiser and the miles just melted by. I sold it to a friend who was desperate to get a car as he had just met a girl in Seattle.
@@richardmorse5307 And DeSotos, even though they were slightly cheaper than a Chrysler 6, were more stylish looking.
Both beautiful cars. Dynaflow and the one piece windscreen are more advanced. What about Nash, Hudson and Mercury? They did not compare them.
The Chrysler New Yorker would have made a better taxi than the Buicks.
FLUID DRIVE WAS THE REASON DE SOTO WAS A CITY CAB
Yeah, has the same profile as Checker Cab
the fluid drive gearbox was far more reliable than the hydramatic of the same vintage, the derivative of this gearbox was used in commercial and industrial applications up to the seventies
The DeSoto Suburban was then popular with taxis.
The Chrysler features are definitely appealing (I like those rear assist handles and dash pad!) But the styling is so dated! I looks not far off a Checker taxi cab! As a bachelor, I'd prefer the power and radical styling of Buick.
Never once mentioned engines Chrysler was still running a obsolete flat head while Buick had an overhead valve straight 8 no comparison
Fir the next year, 1951, Chrysler got a Hemi V8 which was more modern than the straight 8
Kids standing in the front foot well are protected by the “significant” safety feature of a padded dash panel.
Great fascinating amusing hilarious automotive snake oil con artists sales Advertisers!!!! Thanks for this great historical CAR TREAT!!!!
The Buick reminds me of a 195? Desoto that was passed down to my family in the early 60's. Wish we never sold it!
Wow the safety padded dashboard as the child stands in the front and the other kid in the front seat with nothing for safety. Ahh those were the days.
I mean its bad by todays standards but compared to your kids head slamming in to an unpadded steel dash was quite the upgrade
I would have bought the Buick! Never cared for the early 50s Chrysler styling
+califdad4 There was a time when I felt the same way - but in recent decades I have seen that the 1949-52 Chrysler products had a really stately appearance, and really good use of passenger space. It would be good if Chrysler could produce an updated version of the same dimensions - just with modern engineering. It would be good if the original build quality could be kept.
My parents, ( before I came along) traded in a 48 V8 Mercury, for a new 52 Plymouth 6cyl, they thought it was such a good car they bought a new one in 58 and were very disappointed , stayed with Ford and Buick and later Cadillac.
So I think they might have agreed with you on those 49- early 50's Chrysler Corp cars
If they made a car of the same size and quality today no one could afford to buy one.
compared to a 70's chrysler, those were small cars.
@@1voiceofstl Not really, they just looked stubby because of their "styling".
1:49 The New Yorker's lines look clunky and dowdy compared to the Roadmaster's smooth, blended, up to date design. With the Chrysler, you'd be buying a new car to put an old looking car in your driveway.
It is true that the Buick drivetrain and suspension arrangement was mostly outdated compared to the Chrysler. The type and mounting of the Chrysler shocks is how modern cars (well, pickups because nothing else still has a solid live rear axle) do it. Also the torque tube had been dropped by Ford in 1949 and also added unsprung weight. AMC cars kept the torque tube for years.
Buick had coil springs not old fashioned leaf springs
buicks were like chevys, auto. trans. only had two speeds.
I had a '54 Roadmaster and a '55 New Yorker - by then Chrysler was way out front.
@Beardio Son, you have no idea about Chrysler quality in the decade following WWII.
@@herman452 no problem at all with the Chrysler product . Seems like between 72' and 79' they went down hill . Turned me off forever . No personal experience but the Fiat era Chrysler products are worse if you believe what you read . I know the 225 slant six and the 318 were some good engines .
@@p47thunderbolt68 Chrysler Corporation has had quality issues at various points (so have Ford and GM - remember exploding Pintos, or the GM X bodies?), but in the decade after WWII Chrysler Corporation vehicles were some of the most solid, well-built cars available from any manufacturer. The 1950 Chrysler featured here was built in that era.
@@herman452 definantly agree. My angle for singling out Chrysler was it was a family favorite and it seemed the product let us down . The dealer also.
My dad bought a 1963 Valiant station wagon when it was about 10 years old . Gave $75 for it spent about $35 for a clutch and the damn thing was still going 6 years later when he finally got rid of it . Ugliest car you ever seen . No power options, 3 speed . Replaced with a 71' Dodge dart 2 door with six cyl. Auto . it to lasted . They 1975 Duster however was a disaster. I totaled it 2 weeks after getting driver's license . He asked was I hurt. I said no . He said good I've been wanting to get rid of that bastard since I bought it .
My next car was a Mustang 2 .about as bad as the Duster .
I think the Buick is so much cooler
I have driven a 1950 Dodge long ago. Very nice driving car... smooth, quiet, comfortable and not over-done or tacky. Definitely lacked power with the six cylinder, but it was from a different era. Did have the fluid drive.
No offense to Chrysler fans - which I'm one of- and the engineering they were famous for but the Buick of this year is the better looking car. Looks like Chrysler are selling an old pre war car and trying to shout out it's merits versus the new technolocy, really, ''cam-and - lever'' shocks, from the 20's?
Not sure why this is listed as a 1951 when it is clearly a '50 NYKR.
The features are very much the same between both years but the '50 used a straight eight while all NYKR's came with the standard 331 HEMI. Great cars - both years!
NYers had 6, AirFlow the 8... both wimpy engines...
@@BuzzLOLOL New Yorkers were never 6s, always Straight 8. The reason the New Yorker's engine was wimpy is because Chrysler, for some strange reason, replaced the 2 barrel carb on the 46 and pre-war models with, of all things, a 1 barrel carb. That severely strangled it.
@@michaelbenardo5695 - Maybe the new 1 barrel passed as much air as the older 2 barrel... it was wimpy because it was a flathead... Louie Chevrolet was a race car driver and said his cars would never have a flathead... and they didn't...
@@BuzzLOLOL It did not, as the detuned 46 - the 40 - 41 offered up to 143 horsepower - had 135 horses at 3400 RPM with a 2 barrel, they did not change the official rating for the 47 - 48, but the 48 - 50 had much higher compression, but still 135 horsepower and at only 3200 RPM. And I know, Chevrolet and Buick never used flatheads.
@@BuzzLOLOL Plus, the 46 and older Chryslers were capable of 90 MPH and 0 - 60 in less than 18 seconds despite the Fluid Drive. The 49 and 50, and probably the 48 as well, were barely capable of 83 - 85, and took well over 20 seconds to reach 60.
Enough for a Buick salesman to break down in tears......except the Buick had coil springs all round like all cars today and damper struts just like all cars today and the Buick looks more stylish what a decision to have to make............
That little girl is going through the windshield for sure.
She is definitely NOT happy in the Buick.
I wonder if they had recalls back then or even the set up of recalls
I'd buy the roadmaster purely because it looks better
The president of Chrysler wore hats so he insisted on high roof lines. This pretty much ran Chrysler into the ground by 1954.
K.T. Keller
4:01 looks like Joan Crawford finding out wire hangers were used.
Just looking at how the hood opens on the Buick. No I don't want any part of anything like that.
They should make direct comparison ads legal again. The game has become way too soft as everyone is a friend now, happily sharing sales in China
Good to see the padded dash for the kids free wheeling in the front seat.Great safety feature. Lol.
The female model in the video was probably 20 years old at the time of filming. Boy am I glad I get to live in the 2000s.
Chrysler as superior in every way but styling. Chrysler was too boxy.
Buick far superior... Buick OHV 8 vs wimpy Chrysler flathead 6...
@@BuzzLOLOL OK, once again, the Chrysler New Yorker was an 8, not a six.
New Yorker for me I like that '' heavy'' look.
They forgot to mention that the New Yorker is far safer when drunk.
Both look nice but if I was shopping for a car in this price field, I would get neither, I'd go for a Hudson Commodore.
The Buick Roadmaster looked cooler.
Embarrassing comparison for the New Yorker, 1940 styling with ancient flathead straight eight engine; the Roadmaster with much newer aerodynamic styling plus a highly developed OHV straight eight. Chrysler did make a comeback in 1951 with their famous Hemi V-8 and much newer styling. And make no mistake, the Bendix servo brake system used by GM and most others was much better that the Lockheed system used by Chrysler. The Bendix brake is used by most all manufacturers to this day in addition to the disk brake systems.
But the Chrysler did have Power Brakes, which the Buick didn't have until 52.
Back when there was no such thing as physics and cars were designed like stationary objects. 7:58 is illegal in many states today.
The Chrysler is in the 1940's, while the buick in the 50's...
The reason these Mopars had such dated styling was mainly due to CEO K T Keller's insistance that enough headroom existed to wear a hat. That's why they sold so poorly. By 1955, the styling was much better, many say the mid 50's Mopars were the best styled cars of the era.
No auto transmission available also cost Mopar many sales. They finally came out with a powerglide clone...in 1954!
That "Chrysler " factory applied rustproofing helps to SEAL IN the rust that comes, FREE OF CHARGE with every Chrysler Product.
Nice film.
Buick looks far less bulky then the Chrysler and the grill looks wounderful, panorama front window, classic lines so i would prefer the Buick Roadmaster