Almost New: 1964 Chrysler Newport


This 1964 Chrysler Newport may be the lowest mileage example in the world if the seller’s claims are true! With only 9,845 miles on the odometer and a story to back it up, this car is very intriguing. It’s located in Marshallville, Ohio, and is listed for sale here on eBay, where bidding, as I write this, is only just over $1,000!


The top picture was what the car looked like before it was removed from the garage it had been stored in since 1990, when the original owner died. This picture is after cleanup – isn’t it a beauty? Ok, it may not have the best design in the world, but like the recently featured Lincoln, it is striking. I used to live in Summit County, Ohio, where the license plates say the car was from, so there’s another reason this car appeals to me.


The design of this Newport is much more restrained than that of only two years before. You can see that looking at this 1962 model also for sale on eBay. The seller tells us that the 80 year old wife of the owner stopped by their house when he had his old Studebaker out and asked if they might be interested in this car. After purchasing it, they have done some basic mechanical maintenance and redone the brakes. They say that the car starts and runs like new now.


Look at this great dashboard! The seller claims that after cleaning, the interior looks like new. I’m wondering a little about blue seat belts given the color combination, but that’s a minor nitpick. I’d want to make sure that the mechanical work was done well and then I think I’d want to drive this car home. Well, I guess I’d replace those tires first, but that’s about it. Even with the little bit of rust showing, I would be proud to have this car in my garage. How about you?


  1. Howard A Member

    My brother had a car very similar to this. It was a great cruiser. While this is a wonderful site, BF’s, I question whether the authors of these threads really believe these alleged “low mileage” cars are really low mileage. ( or maybe they are just helping the seller) If you look at the new brake drum pictures, this thing is a rusty mess underneath. While low mileage cars do come through here, this clearly isn’t one of them. I guess you can’t blame the seller, as they may actually believe the mileage indicated on the speedo, without really knowing what a low mileage car looks like. Still, a nice car, but lot’s of work ahead.

    • Jamie Palmer Jamie Staff

      Hi, Howard, I’m the author of this one (I can’t speak for the other folks that write for BF). I’ve seen REALLY low mileage cars that are a rusty mess underneath due to road salt. No, I don’t try to help the seller out, but I don’t automatically assume they are lying either. :-)

      And yes, I did notice the extent of rust underneath. If the car wasn’t garaged, especially in the Northeast, I can believe the low miles. However, the shock absorber points noted by other commenters + the points you made probably tip the scale towards the mileage being wrong.

      You can read some of my other posts; if a car is obviously being misrepresented, I’m always willing to point that out!

      Then again, I am an eternal optimist who spent 30 years driving Triumphs every day and actually thinking I’d get to school and work all the time, so you may well see me erring on the side of optimistic belief…

      • Howard A Member

        Thanks Jamie, you know, it’s optimists like you that give us pessimists a hard time. I don’t mean to rip on anyone, except, when low mileage cars come thru, it’s pretty obvious that they are. Don’t change a thing. We need optimists, more than ever.

      • Jamie Palmer Jamie Staff

        :-) Thanks, Howard!

  2. p

    The ad on eBay is full of typos.
    Hooked on Phonics, anyone?

    • Jason Houston

      That’s way over his head! Poor guy…bought an old lady car for $300 but never cleared 8th grade.

    • Marshall

      Perhaps the ad was submitted on an iPhone 5s (like mine), that takes lousy dictation (but at least it has dictation) and therefore requires frequent manual keyboard corrections.

      Regarding the car: that reminds me of a same color 1964 Chrysler I saw back during the late 20th century. It was in nice shape with about a quarter million miles on it back then. The owner said that they will last forever if you take care of them. In 1974, an uncle I visited in California had a 1966 Chrysler with 160,000 miles on it back then. He echoed the same sentiment.

  3. The Walrus

    I doubt it came with seatbelts, so those were probably added from another car. Seatbelts weren’t mandatory until 68.

    • Bill McCoskey Bill McCoskey Member

      Actually, seat belts in cars sold in the US were required starting on 1 January 1964, and all US cars built on & after that date were equipped with [front only] seat belts. The blue belts suggests this car was actually manufactured in 1963. I used to own a 1964 Chrysler New Yorker SALON, a rather rare upscale version with lots of special features like a locking & opening center armrest for the front seat. My car was the same color as this car, and the seat belts were matching color.

      The second series of MVSS [motor vehicle safety standards] came in to play on 1 Jan 1968, and dealt with ergonomic standards, placement & design of dash switches, door handles etc], lighting standards [including side marker lites] and many things we don’t even think about today, like SAE standards for brake & steering components. These 1968 standards included mandating a right side sun visor if there was a right side front seat. Also required the interior rear view mirror to be the day/nite type, and mandated an outside driver’s mirror that can be adjusted while the driver is in his seat. [Hence the lack of the forward “wing mirrors” on British cars unless installed after the car was built.]

      • The Walrus

        Front seat belts weren’t mandated until model year 1965. All seats were mandated in ’68. Not that I believe everything on Wikipedia, but I know they weren’t required in 1964 and were optional on Chrysler products that year.

  4. Jim

    Nope, Not buying the mileage. First off, if he ONLY drove it to church (highly unlikely) every weekend for twenty five years that would equal 32,500 miles JUST for the church run. Also, he says it was Z-Bart coated, if that were true, it would not have any appreciable signs of rust with only 10,000 miles on it. In the 60’s the approved method for undercoating was to shoot about 200 pounds of it on the car and let the excess drip off. You would still be able to see where it dripped onto the rear axle and other places. If you look at the back bumper, it is rusted through on both sides and like Howard noted, the under carriage is a rusty mess.
    Looking at the material condition of the car, both bumpers have been sprung and are out of position. The Shock Absorbers are not OEM and are too rusty to be less than 10,000 miles. Besides, they are overload shocks which means that cars was used to haul either heavy loads or a trailer (to church)
    Further, it looks like the parts he used to repair it were the cheapest available considering the maximum diameter cast into the brake drums is in metric and not imperial measurements.
    Well cared for? Yes! Low mileage? NO!

    • Jason Houston

      Now, that is some good forensics work!

      But, hey, give the poor flipper a break… he never finished 8th grade, so he missed learning how decimals work.

      The car looks to be a lilac color with a maroon interior. If so, that’s one of the few plusses. But this guy never mentions such things as color, so we’ll never know for sure.

      A rare low-mileage car, or just another pumped-up eBay seller with a clever bedtime story?

      I’ll vote for the latter.

    • Chebby

      Those brake drums even LOOK cheap, might have been better idea to machine the metal that was on there.

      We had a 1964 Dart in the mid-70s and I remember being surprised how the owner’s manual said seat belts were an extra-cost option, just like the heater, AM radio, and cigarette lighter. I think ours had some, but they may have been retrofitted.

      1964 was the Dodge Golden Anniversary year, not sure if that applies to this Chrysler.


    Owners says the mileage was verified. At the dmv they only go with what’s on the odometer. This ones hard to figure out but it’s not that desire able of a car in the first place.
    Would you want an old pink Chrysler?

    • Jason Houston

      Most, if not all DMVs, ignore mileage reporting on cars older than ten years. Even so, relying on the DMV to verify mileage is like going deer hunting with your accordion.

      Would I want an old pink Chrysler? Sure. If it’s factory, it beats the hell out of white or beige.

  6. DRV

    Jamie, I am in summit county and that’s the only reason I looked at this! It’s overbuilt to the max and will be around long after I am gone even if it is pink.

    • Jamie Palmer Jamie Staff

      I have fond memories! We visited the house I grew up in during 2009 and saw that the custom benches my Mom had made for the front porch were still there, and still painted the same color :-) Nice area!

  7. Donnie

    this guy has done a good job of advertising the car give him a brake

    • audifan

      Indeed, this car might need “brakes”.

      • Jason Houston

        Indeed, there’s a big gap between simple typo and borderline illiterate.

  8. Brad

    Someone should park this next to a 1960 Pontiac Catalina so they can argue over whose receding hairline is worse.

    • Jacob

      Hey. C’mon now.

    • Marshall

      Uploader “TurboThrust348” has been restoring a 1960 Pontiac Catalina over the past couple of months or so, as shown on his YouTube videos. You may want to check them out.

  9. Todd Zuercher

    I grew up in neighboring Wayne County and I’m surprised that a car of this age still exists. Most were a pile of iron oxide by the mid 70s.

  10. Gerry

    Compared to the recently advertised beautiful Lincoln ? I think not . Apples and oranges !

  11. ydnar

    Great comments, and I never liked this style Mopar, it looks like an oversized Dart to me.

    • krash

      Bingo, ydnar!!

  12. Kincer Dave Member

    Wow I had a hard time following his detailed description! I would say 109,000 miles, well cared for but still.

  13. audifan

    If this car is like the seller’s spelling, “it surley ain’t no dael”

  14. booya

    One of the first cars I remember. I can still hear the rumble of the engine. Dad sold it for $50 after running it into the ground.

  15. Luke Fitzgerald

    Seen heaps of Eastern cars with frighteningly low low mileage with equally frighteningly sized holes and or bumpers that had the consistency of Christmas wrapping…ZB can also conceal and hold rust – I like it when it works and has to be there. This car, I don’t know – I’d fall on the side of 109K very careful miles – but the interior ( what we can see ) appears to supports the sellers claim – great shape and model tho’ – engine bay and trunk would be nice to see

  16. Brian B

    Pity the poor fool who buys this thinking it actually has 9845 original miles. This car at best has 109845 miles. You see this all the time on Ebay with old 5 digit odometers, I’m so sick of it. I have seen 40 and 50 year old classics in the past with mileage under 10k and those cars still smelled new inside! the underside were like day one from the factory etc. This clunker has none of those qualities.

  17. James

    My dad had a 64 4 door with a 383 3 speed on the floor. The shifter and handle was solid stainless steel If I remember right.. will have to look because I kept the t handle .. the old chrysler was a battering ram that couldnt be stooped.

    Like 1

Leave A Comment

RULES: No profanity, politics, or personal attacks.

Become a member to add images to your comments.


Keep me in the conversation via email. Or subscribe without commenting.