In college, I had a structural analysis class. The professor was young, and appeared to think of himself as being pretty impressive. When I dropped the class I told him he wasn’t as impressive as he thought, and I provided explicit examples of why I’d reached that conclusion. Although quite taken aback, he apparently took the critique to heart and changed certain key behaviors.
At one point in my career I turned down an employee for a promotion. As one of the strongest candidates competing for it, he did not understand why he had not been successful. When he inquired why events had transpired as they had, the next 45 minutes were spent explaining what he needed to remedy.
Critiques can go both ways. Several years ago I let my beard grow out. I kept it trim and neat, and several (considerably) older women were quite complimentary of it, but I remained uncertain about its aesthetics the whole time. One day soon thereafter, my wonderful (and blisteringly honest) wife confirmed my uncertainty when she looked me in the eye and said, “I don’t know what you’re trying to do, but it just isn’t working.”
There are times when one must be bold enough to have that brutally honest conversation with others. It makes you wonder if anybody ever had one with Lee Iacocca about his TC by Maserati.
This car has rightfully earned Deadly Sin status, as you can see here. The money of many people shopping for a domestic convertible between 1988-1991 went for the TC’s down-market and almost look-alike Chrysler LeBaron cousin. The TC was indeed the highest-priced K-car of them all.
The TC’s true curse was that of birth order. As I understand it, the TC was actually conceived before its LeBaron cousin, but production delays meant that the LeBaron got to showrooms first. What we were supposed to be breathlessly struck by was how much the LeBaron looked like the more expensive, desirable TC and not the other way around.
It doesn’t help that the LeBaron was a better looking car. I think the LeBaron styling holds up pretty well even today, while the proportions of this thing have always looked wrong. The beak is too long and the midsection looks too pinched.
Lido loved slapping a standup grille on any car. It worked on the Mark III. It doesn’t work here.
From what I’ve read, Lee Iacocca did not like to be questioned. It was his was or no way. I remember reading in “The Critical Path” by Brock Yates that designers of the Dodge Dynasty originally had designed the interior with modern curves reminiscent of the then-new Taurus, but Lido made them change it.
As for the TC, it was just another one of his lavish absurdities. Even if Chrysler didn’t already sell the LeBaron, I doubt many more people would have purchased a new TC. It was plain-looking, oddly proportioned, and obviously K-car based from its looks. At least the Buick Reatta and Cadillac Allante actually looked pretty good in my mind.
Richard II is correct. In fact, I believe that Chrysler was planning other joint projects with Maserati, but Iacocca was so angry at the botched and super-delayed (2 years ?!?) launch of this car that no other joint projects ever made it to showrooms.
These things would have looked really beautiful in 1987 against the still-blocky LeBarons. However, as it actually worked out, these (with their $35k stickers) wound up sitting on dealer lots for 2 or 3 years before they were all gone. This even after they only made about 7300 over 3 years (1989-91), according to Allpar.
Yeah, I can see that, it would have been semi-slick against the 82 vintage LeBarons, it was delayed for a while, because I remember Motor Trend reviewing one in like 1985.
I briefly worked at a startup whose founder had one of these. One of the other early employees drove an Alfa Milano, but his wife had a Cimarron. My boss at the company I left to join the startup, had four cars: an Alfa GTV6, a C4 Corvette, a FWD Caddy DeVille, and a 5 speed Turbo LeBaron. Three people, seven cars, all Chrysler, Alfa or GM. 24 years latter, all are CC’s, deadly sins, or both.
Always thought that TC meant Total Crap
I don’t understand the timing argument. Even if they had beat the new LeBarons to market, the new LeBaron would’ve subsequently wrecked the sales of this thing. And taken on its own, the TC isn’t a very impressive vehicle. I know there was one good powertrain option, but aside from that, this thing is pure gingerbread. I would take a Reatta over this in a heartbeat. And if I wanted a zippy stick-shift convertible, I’d probably go to BMW.
I can totally see why Iaccoca was ticked off.
What was he expecting?
Iacocca always like halo cars and cars with a lot of adornments. The Mustang was actually a rare beast for him originally being cheap, smaller, and rather plain built off of the Falcon and Fairlane. What make the Mustang work is that it defined a market that largely did not exist before.
Since the Imperial of 81-83 did not take off, there wasn’t a real halo car in Chrysler’s lineup so it is understandable why they worked with Maserati since Chrysler owned a piece of that company.
But there is only so much you can do with the K car. The Allante’s body and interior were made in Italy and looked like nothing else Cadilac or GM made at the time. Even the drivetrain was at least somewhat different that regular models using a modified 4.1 engine intially and a slightly modified F7 transmission. The Reatta used the proven and reliable and generally powerful 3.8 Buick V6 powertrain which of course was a Buick motor so it seemed natural, but again looked nothing like anything else. The TC was at least as big as the Allante and Reatta but used the pedestrian 4 cylinder (even with Turbo) and 3.0 V6 which were not anything special.
Part of why many Chrysler halo cars are not successful is that the buying public perceives them to be largely what they are, cobbled together cars from existing sources that ends up being nothing special. By the late 80s, people had become accustomed to virtually everything in the Chrysler lineup being K-car based and there just was a limit to how much you could squeeze out of what essentially started out as a Plymouth Reliant. Of course from a business standpoint, we know why that was done but from a marketing standpoint it was a hard sell. That is why the old RWD Fifth Avenue sold so well for so long because it represented something different, if only a throwback, and unofficially was Chrysler’s halo car for most of the 1980s.
I would agree that even if the TC debuted first, it probably would not have been much more successful simply because it was offering something that wasn’t needed or wanted. The LeBaron Coupe/Convertibles did well because they offered personal luxury in a manageable and affordable package.
I never drove one but sat in an `89 once. I will say this, though, Chrysler, and Iacocca knew how to make a plush interior. The seats in the TC were nice, at least that year. Like my 1981 Imperial, part of the reason I like it is because of its ultra plush ultra comfortable interior and ride.
They did look plush, they have that wrinkled leather thing that makes you want to sink into them.
I dont remember ever seeing one of these. Even on a photo. /// Good thing I havent missed much…
They were around but sold in small numbers. If I am not mistaken, like the earlier Imperials, they were only sold through a select number of dealers. So if your area wasn’t a demographic target, then chances are you didn’t see one. Not sure if this was available in Canada, I suppose our Canadian friends can inform us how popular convertibles were in general up there.
I am canadian, and I can confirm that they did sell them here too.
Is still see a yellow one driving around here (Rouyn-Noranda)
I’ve only seen one TC in person. Twenty years ago or so, I was walking on Penn Ave in Pittsburgh’s Strip, and saw one parked. Yellow with a tan interior, the hard roof was in place. I stopped to look, and I wondered who would buy one of these, at $ 35K. I think the LeBaron is better looking.
Although I absolutely love my 85 LeBaron conv, in 82, I didn’t think they were worth the money. Literally Cadillac money back then, base was around $ 12K, Mark Cross editions up to $ 18K. The base Reliant was about $ 6K or so.
The feature car looks pretty decent. An afternoon of sprucing, it’d be a nice cruiser.
It’s not the best looking car in the world, or even the most attractive K-car derivative, but It might be fun to have one, if I could get it at a LeBaron convertible price. I’d take that ugly portholed hardtop off as soon as I got it home, though.
Any guess about the 3 antennas? That thrown&stuck 3d brakelight looks pretty tacky.
Or the spare wheel and tire in the backseat (last picture).
Looks like an amateur radio setup, with a few different radios for different frequencies. Either that, or the local authorities have odd tastes in command cars.
It looks like dual CB Antenna setup.
Had I ever seen one I would have laughed, its the clown version of a luxury coupe.
Was he trying to make an Imperial out of a LeBaron? I think he must have been hoping for a repeat of what he tweaked on the Falcon To some up with the Mustang.
A friend of mine inherited one of these from his sister in the early 90’s, it was yellow with a tan interior. He was enamored of it, I thought it was a POS, and I remember teasing him that the image it projected brought to mind Arnold Schwarzenegger’s infamous term “girlie men.” No offense to anyone here, it just seemed to have a pronounced feminine look, particularly in that color combination. I think he sold it not long after that.
You may have come up with the final nail in the TC coffin – the styling/size just didn’t have a market demographic. Even if the timing had been better and it got to market before the rounded, more similiar 1987 LeBaron convertible, who, exactly, was supposed to be buying the TC?
In fact, in one of the typical automotive ironies, Iacocca’s former employer, Ford, made almost the exact same mistake 14 years later with the 2002 Thunderbird. It had no defined market (at least that I know of) and didn’t sell, either, and there wasn’t even another similiar Ford product to blame it on.
I have to cut Iacocca some slack on the TC. Convertibles were making a comeback (the LeBaron was a huge seller), Chrysler was in good shape financially and I’m sure they felt it was worth a shot to benefit the brand. You have to remember Americans were paying nearly $50k for a new Biturbo convertible back then, it’s not like the market was overly smart.
Guys like Iaccoca and Bob Lutz had to make dozens of product calls over their long careers and you can’t expect a 1000 batting average. They just hope, on average, that their hits significantly outnumber their misses and they don’t burn through too much investment on the failures.
I would argue Lutz had more misses (and fewer home runs) than Lido. The Holden-based GTO and G5 and Solstice/Sky come to mind as recent examples. The Holden cars were relatively low investment at least.
Still the Chrysler TC by Maserati is the poster child for a bad edict from the top. The final product was so bad no one wanted to put their name on it. Iacocca’s Italian pride was a certainly a contributing factor.
All that said the red feature car is sure pretty! Nice write up Jason.
Speaking of critiquing your boss there is another important lesson in the TC story.
Lutz, in his effort to replace the larger K-cars ASAP with the LH, would often make fun of Iacocca’s tastes in things like vinyl tops and chrome trim, like that would somehow hasten the changeover.
That was just plain dumb for two reasons. 1. You don’t show that kind of disrespect to the guy who saved the company and 2. The LH cab-forward designs looked old much quicker than the K-cars.
That lead to another edict from Lee, ABL or “anyone but Lutz” to replace him as head of Chrysler.
That dynamic sort of reminds me of the “men’s room” scene from Robocop. With “Dick Jones” as Iaccoca and “Bob Morton” as Bob Lutz. Only Iaccoca didnt send Red Forman over to Bob Lutz’ house to blow him up after snorting coccaine with hookers.
The article asks if anyone was brutally honest with Iacocca about the TC before it went forward. I think the answer is definitely yes and that person was Lutz, right when he got to Chrysler in the mid-80s. I’m sure things went downhill from there real fast.
These were sold here in BC, I used to see one outside a local body shop for a little while but that was years ago. There is one I have seen lots of times now, it’s sitting in a wrecking yard close to me. It still has the porthole hardtop sitting next to it to. It’s been in there a while and doesn’t look like much if anything has been taken from it. What wouldn’t surprise me given how few of these there must be is if the one I saw years ago is the same one in the junkyard now as both are red.
My uncle had a white one with tan leather. He put over 200k miles on it before he finally sold it many years later. My father thought he was nuts paying over $30k for it! My uncle made over 15 round trips to Florida from New England with that car with no major issues; the only problem he had was the A/C was always acting up. I rode in it a few times when new and later when it had about 170k on it. When new it felt sporty and luxurious at the same time; as it aged it really just fell apart. The roof leaked horribly and it burned oil. He was meticulous with all maintenance too. Granted he really USED it, but unfortunately it didn’t hold up all that well.
This car reminds me a lot of the Allante. Or maybe the Allante reminds me a lot about this car.
Why? Everything that this car wasn’t the Allante was and vice versa. They were both halo hardtop/convertibles but thats about it. While the TC was clearly a ganked LeBaron, the Allante was very unique in almost every respect. The Allante was moderately successful lasting 7 model years while the TC bombed and was discontinued after a 1 1/2 of production.
They look similar, okay? I have very little knowledge and therefore no opinion on either vehicle.
Detroit kept trying to sell a high-priced personal luxury sports car, but no one ever mistook a TC or an Allante for a 560 SL.
There is a black one of these thats always parked infront of a beauty school, which is irony on its own, I have been meaning to catch a picture of it. I sold a GMC Jimmy to a guy that had one of these in the pastel creamy yellow and a Sterling 825…hatchback! I gottta drive by his neighborhood again and see if they are still there.
I can see one of these parked in front of a beauty school–that would be the demographic that would think people would be impressed by something with the name “Maserati” on it, but couldn’t afford either a new or classic Maserati.
Someone down the street from us in Madison, WI had one of these. It looked in person as it looks in photos, like another tarted-up K-car.
OTOH, I still see the occasional Allante here in LA, and most have been reasonably well maintained. They also have had their problems, but they do look like Cadillacs.
Interesting example and it looks great in red. A neat future collectible from the 80’s. Iaccocas 2nd collaboration with DeTomaso did not prove to be as iconic as their first, the Pantera. Too close in appearence to the LeBaron to justify the much higher price in the eyes of the American car buying public.
A couple of years ago a fellow who was part of my then regular happy hour crowd was telling me one Friday excitedly how he had been to a car auction and seen a guy get “a Maserati” for $3000, and how he had been thinking of bidding. I had a suspicion, and I asked him a couple of questions about what the car looked like, and sure enough, I had to explain to him that what he saw was not a real Maserati. (If it hadn’t been one of these I figured it would have been a Biturbo, and that would have been another important teachable moment).
The closest they ever got was the stick ones had like a Maserati designed head?
I recall a similar moment with my old man, a friend of his got one of these, my old man knew older cars like 57 Chevrolets, but outside of the Buick-Cadillac-Lincoln realm, he paid little attention to modern cars, and he told me his bud said it was a Maserati(these were “new” at the time, and by new, i think he picked it up after it had been on the lot for more than a year, I think it was the last year of these?) and my old man said, “he said its a Maserati, but it looks like a sh**ty Chrysler thing”, and thats when I told him “it is a sh**ty Chrysler thing, its made out of a K-car car”
It was red like the feature car, but with the baby poop/peanut butter colored interior. I think it might have even been a V6? Did these get that Mistu V6 at the end?
These marked the end of my automotive virginity, and turned me into the cynical little turnip I am today. Like the actual purchase of Maserati and Lamborgini,it was just another of Lido’s ego trips at the cost of product that could have helped secure Chrysler as an independant company in the long run…
i find it amusing that you can point to two tough critiques you gave to other people, but the best example you have of someone giving you a critique is over your facial hair!
Believe me, I’ve been the recipient of countless such talks. I was thinking more in terms of relationships when writing this!
Not that these were great cars in any way, but another thing that hurt them was that probably about 85% of them were built in yellow exterior with tan interior, a putrid combo if I must say. Ugh!
The one obvious point about all the detractors of this car is that they have never owned or even driven one. Mine is a 1990 with the 3 litre V6 and after 23 years it still does not burn any oil and starts on the first revolution, it all comes down to regular maintenance. The TC is shorter and considerably heavier than the LeBaron and there are no body parts that are interchangable. The car is an easy classic to keep up mechanically due to the preponderance of parts still available. The handling is superior to a LeBaron and there are no squeaks or other odd noises that haunt other cars of this vintage. The body and interior were built by hand by Maserati and it was one of the last hand built models by them. Before all of you cyber critics shovel insults on the TC, you really should be familiar with it and at least speak from a knowledgable position instead of just repeating the same old trite remarks from those who know nothing of this machine
I agree with you as to the car’s build. I think the problem is that it was perceived as being nothing more than a veiled attempt to make something out of what started out as a LeBaron. Sort of like how Cadillac had the Cimarron and Lincoln the Versailles. The car probably did enjoy impressive build quality and the interior was indeed sumptious. I am sure it is a joy to drive and own, when I go to Chrysler shows with my 81 Imperial, there is usually always one or two of those cars. When you have high end cars, the press and public can be brutal with any real or perceived faults.
Development on the TC started first. The plan was to copy the TC for the lower priced LeBaron. Problem was that program delays in Italy resulted in the car arriving after the LeBaron instead. To the public, the TC was just a tarted up LeBaron, which it really was not.
Yo tengo uno de esos carros en mexico.