UncleSam

He guys, just bought a 1965 Chrysler New Yorker 2dr with clear tail lights.
During my search on the web I read that only a few had 'em before they changed during the production. I was very confused cause it's almost impossible to get any closer informations - Wikipedia f.e. doesn't even mention anything about it!
I'd like to know more about that! Can anyone tell me how many with this clear rear lights have been built? How many might stiĺl exist?
If I'm right 9367 2-doors in 65... so looks like this car is a rare one.
I hope anyone of you can help me finding the answer. ..

moe7404

i had a 65 300 L. for many years. i know that the clear tail lights was very few. cause the clear tail lights was VERY hard to make and many was damaged in the making. they are VERY rare. if it was mine i would put the regular red lens in and store the clear ones. i think the clear ones was only on a new yorker. at one time i had a pair of red lights that the white back light light was red, not white.

UncleSam

Thanks for your answer moe7404!
Would be great to know how many of those have been built - or at least in what period they did!

That's what I figured out that far:

"Only the early 65s had the clear lamps. I have heard several reasons why they changed back to the red ones. The first is Cost. The clear lens with the red internal illumination was costly to manufacture. Second: The effect (lighting) wasn't as good as anticipated. Third: It was debated that it didn't meet the Federal rear illumination/reflection standards."

"Chrysler offered replacement red lenses as a non compulsory recall, to fix the fact that the white lenses did not show forth as "red" enough. It is a plus when the correct lenses are still in place."

moe7404

yep what you listed may be what i read years ago. i do remember that i saw them on 2 dr and 4 dr new yorkers. but not on New Ports or 300 Ls. the 300 L had a constant velocity U-Joint on the front drive shaft Joint. it was a pain to change out. the New Yorker wagon might have had it to, but not sure. i did not see any advantage to one. update: the new yorker had as very mild cam. the 300 L had a bigger cam but not TO big. .430 valve lift, 264 degrees duration. same for both intake and exhaust. and 30 more HP. the 300 L is 360 HP. but no loss in MPG. it is very street able. i got my 4200 lb 300 L pure stock, 3.23 gear, to go 16.00 E.T. 1/4 mile. found cam NO. this is the closest to the 65 300 L cam it is 260 degree. B Eng. P4286675 D.C.-260-113 260 34 .430" 110 Zero

UncleSam

I found a Video of Chrysler showing the clear tail lights (at 3:21)

moe7404

WAY COOL. i for got about the glass headlight cover. i think they came only on the 300 L and new yorker.. and only in 1965. BUT the imperial had a glass cover but was a different shape, I.E. NOT interchangeable with the chrysler. and i think was used from 1964 to 1966, i think. i have some Imp ones some where. might have chrys ones somewhere? after i sold my 300 L to my dad he took the stock covers off to store and had a glass shop make regular glass for it.