(first posted 1/6/2016) Chrysler’s radical Cab-Forward LH sedans were nothing short of a sheer breakthrough for the smallest Big Three automaker, bringing it out of the dark ages, and for the first time in decades, to the forefront of automobile styling. But with sleek, expressive designs emerging from competitors, as well as the continuing advancement of the Cab Forward design language on smaller Chryslers, the LH was in need of a makeover to stay ahead of the curve, both figuratively and literally.
Unveiled at the 1992 North American International Auto Show, and going on sale later that year as 1993 models, the original LH sedans (Chrysler Concorde, Dodge Intrepid, and Eagle Vision) signaled an end to the prolonged era of K-cars, which were becoming embarrassingly lackluster in their boxy, un-advancing, and all too familiar ways.
With their sleek, low noses, steeply-raked front and rear windshields, short overhangs, and flowing body lines, the 1993-1997 Chrysler LH sedans were a breath of fresh air in Chrysler-Plymouth, Dodge, and Jeep-Eagle showrooms, as well as the marketplace in general.
The LH were by no means the first aerodynamically styled full-size sedans, as in the immediately preceding years, nearly everyone from Chevrolet to Lexus had implemented fluid “aero” design language to some degree in their full-size sedans. But compared to cross-town rivals’ efforts with the 1991 Chevrolet Caprice/Buick Roadmaster and 1992 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, the LH best pulled off avant-garde styling in this traditionally conservative class.
A large part of this was owed to the fact that where GM and Ford grafted new bodies atop the identical chassis they’d been producing since the late 1970s, Chrysler’s LH was an entirely new platform. Indeed the LH chassis was heavily modeled after the Eagle Premier’s which in turn was derived Renault 25, but the LH was extensively modified to serve Chrysler’s new sedans. This gave designers and engineers more freedom to adjust the architecture and underpinnings for improved proportions, space efficiency, and handling.
Despite their fresh styling and critical acclaim for it, after five years on the market, the LH sedans were starting to look somewhat staid, and buyers were losing interest. With a heavy emphasis on highly expressive styling and making its concept vehicles come to life during these years, a cautious, evolutionary update was out of the question.
In terms of making the second generation LH just as radical as the first, Chrysler certainly didn’t disappoint. While the second generation Dodge Intrepid owed its general appearance to its own Intrepid ESX concept vehicle, the Chrysler Concorde and especially the LHS borrowed their design primarily from the 1996 Chrysler LHX concept, taking cues from other Chrysler concepts as well.
While the first generation LH sedans were bold and dramatic, they did it with a degree of conservatism (with the possible exception of the Intrepid). For the second generation however, Chrysler designers pushed the envelope even further, making for some ungainly proportions, and styling that was rather beautiful from some angles, and cartoonish from others.
Other cars, such as the Infiniti J30/Nissan Leopard J Ferie, Nissan Altima/Bluebird, and Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable had already tried organic-shaped “jellybean” styling to mixed acceptance, but the second generation Chrysler Concorde and LHS were among the largest cars to hop aboard this styling trend.
While in some ways the second generation LH was a rather elegant shape, compared to the sharp, aggressive looks of their predecessors, all second generation LHs exhibited somewhat inflated-looking midsections. Particularly the Concorde and now near-identical LHS received the most unusual styling, with their bulbous front and rear ends, and longer looking trunk lids than any Chrysler since the R-body.
Sharing most of their sheetmetal, the main distinguishing factor between the Concorde and LHS was their front clip and grille designs. The Concorde featured a somewhat unusual full-width “bottom breather” grille. Vaguely reminiscent of vintage Ferraris, it was implemented late into the design process, as the original air intakes didn’t provide sufficient cooling to the engine.
The costlier LHS featured an even more out-of place 1950’s Chrysler 300-inspired chrome egg crate grille. Regardless of which grille design, the shared jellybean-shaped headlights and hood creases, making for a startling catfish-like face.
The Dodge Intrepid meanwhile, made the transition to Gen 2 less controversially than its Chrysler brethren. With a sharper nose and more upright trunk, the Intrepid came across as significantly less lumpy, and exuded a far more athletic appearance, despite mostly identical dimensions. Likewise, the de-facto Eagle Vision replacement, the new Chrysler 300M, managed to wear a more understated, vaguely German look than its other Chrysler siblings.
With shorter front and rear overhangs contributing for a nearly a foot less in overall length, the 300M displayed more flattering proportions. In light of this, the 300M and Intrepid have seemed to age better than the Concorde/LHS, which in only a decade and a half’s time, look nearly as out of this world among modern cars as a 1969 Fuselage C-body.
Although the evolution of styling is clearly a matter of preference, the numerous improvements and refinements over the original LH is undisputed. Cabin volume was up over the old Concorde, and the massive 18.7 cubic feet of trunk space was even bigger than the old LHS. Wheelbase remained unchanged at 113 inches, but overall length was up nearly 8 inches for the Concorde. Despite the added bulk, weight was kept down thanks to the use of high-strength aluminum for suspension components, engine construction, and the hood, the latter of which helped the 1998 Concorde’s body shell achieve a weight reduction of approximately 40 pounds over the 1997 Concorde. Headlights, a major weakness of the first generation cars, were 50 percent brighter.
Using new technologies, Chrysler engineers carefully studied sources of noise and vibration, making numerous improvements to the body structure, chassis, powertrain, and interior construction, to reduce NVH. Over the previous bodies, torsional stiffness was up 37%, bending stiffness was increased by 46%, and overall interior noise was reduced by 3 decibels. Chrysler reportedly implemented two millimeter body construction, ensuring that all components fit within two millimeters of the specified position.
Suspension systems for all four second generation LH cars were upgraded, and were tailored to each car’s intended market. Front suspension now used Chrysler-designed Iso struts with integral gas-charged shock absorbers mounted within low-rate coil springs for a better engine isolation. Inside, tracks for more supportive front seats were increased to 8.7 inches to better accommodate bodies of different sizes. The center armrest was raised and placed further forward, and controls were placed within closer reach and better view of the driver.
Befitting of its luxury position, the LHS received a standard touring suspension providing a high level of comfort for the long haul, but also enough responsiveness for more aggressive handling. Some of its standard featured included leather upholstery, two-stage heated front seats, 8-way power front seats with two-position driver’s memory, 9-speaker audio system, automatic climate control, dual front airbags, speed-sensitive steering, anti-lock brakes, traction control, and 17-inch aluminum wheels. Beginning in 2001, side-impact airbags and a new Luxury Group including real wood trim, universal garage door opener, and automatically adjusting exterior mirrors became options.
Both the pushrod 3.3L and single overhead cam 3.5L V6s of the previous generation were replaced by new DOHC 2.7L and SOHC 3.2L V6s, respectively. Despite their smaller displacements, both new all-aluminum engines were more powerful than their predecessors, with the 2.7L producing 200 horsepower and 190 lb-ft torque and the 3.2L producing 225 horsepower and 225 lb-ft torque. For in 2002, the 3.2L was dropped in favor of two new versions of the 3.5L: the LXi’s standard output version now making 234 horsepower and 241 lb-ft torque and the Limited’s high output version from the LHS making 250 horsepower and 250 lb-ft torque.
(Concorde LXi interior – top; 300M – bottom)
Interiors had not been one of Chrysler’s strong points since the mid-1960s, and predictably, there were some noticeable areas of cost-cutting, unfortunately marring otherwise handsome interior designs. Particularly in the lower-line Concorde and Intrepid, there were some hard and hollow-feeling surfaces, tacky-looking accent trim, and vents and door handles were black plastic regardless of interior color. At any rate, these big Chryslers’ interiors were no worse and in many cases better than most domestic competition.
Furthermore, the higher-positioned LHS (later Concorde Limited) and 300M fared somewhat better than their standard Concorde/Intrepid brethren. Some of the cheap, hard plastic remained, but more elegant instrument and door panels, statelier seat designs, and available two-toned color schemes and real wood trim, conveyed a higher level of quality. The instrument panel of these two cars emanated an Art-Deco vibe, with circular vents, an elegant analogue clock, and chrome-ringed white-faced gauges in the Swiss watch fashion.
Higher grade French-stitched leather covered seats, as well as the console armrest. Faux wood trim accents were better-placed for a more convincing appearance, and beginning in 2001, rich-looking genuine polished burl wood accents and steering wheel trim were available. Door panels were also less flimsy looking than on standard Concordes, and chrome door handles were standard.
Whether it be the now striking resemblance to the less expensive Concorde, or the similarly-priced but handsomer and slightly sportier 300M which it had to share showroom space with, but sales of the second generation LHS never took off. Upon its release, the 300M received all the attention, and double the sales. After three disappointing years, the LHS was de-glorified a bit, and added to the top of the Concorde range as the “Limited” trim, wheels, interior, front and rear fascias in all. The lesser Concorde LX and LXi models also adopted the former LHS’s exterior styling, but stayed with their original less opulent interiors.
Despite somewhat subjective styling, less than perfect interiors and a few common reliability issues, the second generation LH sedans, particularly the LHS and 300M were respectable efforts, and received high praise and accolades in their early years. Compared to SUV-crazed Ford and GM, there’s little denying that Chrysler showed a much stronger commitment to its sedans during this period with cars such as the LH.
Unfortunately, as time went on, Daimler-Chrysler began losing interest in the LH and Cab-Forward, choosing instead to invest into the rear-wheel drive LX program, more or less relegating the LH to lame duck status in its final years. Although the Cab-Forward LH cars have little meaning to most fans of the brutish-looking LX cars, they’ll forever be remembered as some of the most highly expressive and eloquently styled full-sized cars of their time, and among some of the best handling large front-wheel drive cars ever.
Related Reading:
I bought a 1993 intrepid Es new for $26,000 cad
3.5 24 valve engine
Great motor
Great style
Awful car
I still have nightmares about it from time to time
I had a 1998 Chrysler LX and enjoyed 250,000 trouble-free miles. Unlike others, I did scheduled maintenance, but nothing out of the ordinary!
I love my Concorde Limited. I’ve been thinking about getting another one and retire mine, if I could find a low low mileage version out there. But only in Limited trim. Lxi need not apply.
It looks great, rides nice, gets GREAT mileage on the highway (close to 30 USMPG) and has great room for everyone.
I even swapped out the rear seat for one from a 300M. The 300M has a back that folds down. The LHS/ Concorde Limited only has a pass through. With that back seat folded down, I can carry some pretty big stuff!!
And that long trunk lid mentioned in the article is actually a huge benefit. I don’t get the knock against it. It is great when you are putting bulky items in the trunk. I mean, what good is a large trunk if you have a virtual mail slot to try to put things in it through?
The reference to the long trunk was not meant as a “knock against” the car. I was only highlighting the fact that it was unusual to see on a modern FWD sedan.
Very nice article Brendan – this is the car that restored my faith in US manufacturers. After a bad run of Big 3 cars in the 70s and early 80s I went to Toyotas and Nissans for almost 18 years. I thought the styling of the 99 LHS was breathtaking – the closest to a production “concept car” that I’d yet seen – and after reading several favorable road tests, decided to give the Big 3 one last chance.
I bought a new ’99 White LHS for about $27K – it was a great car, beautifully styled like nothing else on the road, 3.5L V6 had plenty of punch, extremely large comfortable interior. Gave me no reliability issues in 4 years of ownership. Only reason I sold it was due to an overseas military assignment.
I would have to disagree that the styling was unbalanced or ungainly – “lithe” is the best adjective I would use to describe it, even given its size. I thought it spoke more “Jaguar” than any cars that company was building at the time.
Count me as another former owner who would buy another today of I could find a mint, low mileage one.
I may be in a minority here, but the melted look of these has me pining for the crisp lines of the true originator of this line, the Gugiaro styled Eagle Premier.
Given the mature clientele of the car, the Chrysler 3.8 V6 might have been a more appropriate engine. A 2.7, even without it’s problems, had all it’s power at crazy high rpms, again inappropriate for the old drivers.
One wonders if Chrysler designers were targeting a good C/D review rather than the actual customers. Sometimes a company over corrects, C/D hated the 80s-90s New Yorkers for actually targeting the mature buyer.
These were stunning designs from K-car Chrysler at the time….unfortunately some friends bought the first year Concorde LXi; it was gone after 12 months under the then-new Lemon Law. The replacement Maxima put them on the Japanese road for life.
I’ll take a 2nd gen 300M. Beautiful car.
For the life of me though I don’t understand why every single Chrysler from the 94-96 period had the worst headlights ever (LH, Cloud cars, minivans). Was there no testing done at all?
In regards to the headlights, could it have been the fault of whatever supplier Chrysler was contractually obligated to use for headlight components?
No, manufacturers still design and spec the components. All plastic headlights fade and age poorly, but these were poor from the start. That is a design problem.
I agree about the ineffective headlights since I would outrun the headlights on my 95 Voyager around 55-60 MPH. I wish I had installed a pair of Hella Foglights earlier.
Drive a 1993-96 Lincoln Mark VIII, and tell me if you still think the Chrysler units are worse. The very slim units made the car look great, but were about as effective as a candle in a hurricane (in the memorable words of a forum post I once read).
The ’95-’96 LSC got very early diffuser HIDs, which were better. Sadly mine was not so equipped.
That’s a thing folks who weren’t around or car-watching at that time can’t appreciate. The styling leap they took from the likes of the New Yorker, Spirit and Acclaim to get here was astonishing. Night and day in a 1992 Caddy Eldorado/Seville sense. A 1985 LTD vs. 1986 Taurus sense.
Sad that the quality couldn’t make the leap.
The LH cars were some of the finest cars Chrysler ever produced in terms of styling. It was a real shame that early in the 1990s the Ultradrive problems followed late in the decade by the notorious 2.7L did more to destroy forever potential Chrysler customers than any asian OEM.
Funny how other manufacturers – especially the asians – had drivetrain issues with engines and trannys, but Chrysler stood out as being the only bad guy in the room.
Why???
Truth be told, when our 1996 Intrepid 3.5L began having hard starting problems after having the fuel rail recall, I got scared and we traded it on a 1999 Stratus 2.4L Torqueflite and sold it shortly before the warranty ran out in 2002 because we bought Wifey’s 2002 CR-V, which she still drives, but is getting rather old, now.
This platform was not compleatly new , it was a re hash of the old amc medallion with a new body on it just like ford and g m did with the crown vic and the whale caprice
The earlier Eagle Premier (not the LH) was based off of a Renault platform, but that used by the Renault 25, not the smaller Renault 21 which was sold in North America as the AMC/Eagle Medallion.
But the LH was a completely new, unibody platform. It used the Eagle Premier’s independent suspension geometry, but that’s about it as far as mechanics. The body-on-frame B-body and Panther cars were merely new bodies on old, unchanged platforms.
Chrysler(along with the rest of the automotive world) was
going in the right direction in the early ’90s-to-early-’00s
with these LH jobs.
Why the EFFFF they suddenly went BRICK-ON-WHEELS
with the 2004 300 is anybody’s guess. Heavier, less
aerodynamic, rear wheel drive – a thirty year devolution in
auto design terms. A damn shame! And even a short
driver like myself couldn’t see the traffic light they pulled
up to thanks to the short stubby windshield.
I may just yet figure out how to get ahold of a 2000-2003
example of the LH class – a true marvel of American car
engineering. And I hear tell they handled pretty darn well,
tight steering, the works.
+100
Devolution, the LH looked like a true car of the “future”, the meaning of which is open to interpretation. The LX, on the other hand, I thought it was an abomination 10 years ago and I still do.
++
Glad to know I’m not the only one who feels that wat about the 2005 Chrysler 300. Personally I always saw it as a Rolls-Royce knock-off for those who like to trick their rides out. I never saw it as the classy vehicle Chrysler tried to market it as.
Agreed, Roger. The LX recalls the Fuselage Chryslers with its high waistline and small windows; the LH still looks “WOW!”.
must disagree… always liked the styling on these but just like the last Riviera, they needed to be RWD V8 cars to make me buy one…
matt: re: V8/rwd.
It’s 2016.
Also, the LH class were probably far easier to
see out of than their LX successors. Low belt
lines and a windshield that wrapped up into the
roof = very likely 20-30% more glass area than
that in the LX cars in all directions. Easy to park
as well.
I think you’re shortchanging the 300c. RWD with multiple V8 variants appeals to many- on a level where the LH cars do not. Plus, the Charger stands alone in that category. There is literally no other car that offers what it does without stepping up to a premium mark. Also, while styling is subjective, the 300c absolutely made its mark. I personally think it looks awesome, and I’m certainly not alone. CC readers may fondly remember the LH cars for their style, but I doubt the general public does.
FWIW- in high school a friend’s step dad bought a new 300m. I thought the interior was really nice. As for the 300c (first gen), the interior is bad enough to put it out of consideration.
You have the BEST handle on here. LOL!!
Only thing I’m offering on Chrysler’s styling at the time is they thought they could make another bold aesthetic leap just as easily.
But as many football teams and bands have learned, replacing a Hall-of-Famer with another generally only seems to work once.
Had their art-deco flirtations hit paydirt and the Crossfire and 200 been runaway successes, history would be a lot different.
Chalk me up as one who has had some experience with these. My wife’s parents had a white 2003 Concorde Limited for several years. Having had considerable seat time in it, this car was a very good handler and got terrific fuel mileage for what it was.
The only complaint they ever had about the car was the rear main seal began leaking somewhere around 50,000 miles. It wasn’t serious, but it was making its presence known. At the time I was concerned the Chrysler may have a rash of them, but whether or not that was the case I don’t know.
This leak never was fixed as my mother-in-law was rear-ended while driving it, with the rear bumper shoved forward to where the wheel well is. She was unhurt, a testament to how well Chrysler built these.
The styling of the Concorde was the best of the lot, and while it doesn’t really excite me, I do have a profound respect for the driving dynamics and safety of these sedans.
Chrysler was really a happening place when these came out. These were the closest connection of show car to showroom car I had ever seen. I really wanted one at the time.
I have always wondered how these would have fared on the used car market had the 3.5 been the only engine. The 2.7 was such a disaster, and enough of these were so equipped that these became cheap disposable used cars almost overnight. They have virtually disappeared from the streets.
When you look at style/appeal, build quality and durability, Chrysler’s problem during my lifetime has been that you could pick only 2 of the 3.
Good point on them having disappeared. I saw a well worn second generation Intrepid this past Saturday on I-70 heading toward St. Louis. What struck me was it having Wyoming plates combined with it being a second generation Intrepid – a rare sight. It must have had the 3.5 liter.
…and the U-Pull it here is absolutely FULL of these in the Mopar section. As far as the eye can see, with the occasional Neon or cloud car in between.
I can’t help but think that a 5 speed Neon would be the perfect cheap little runabout car…no resale value, so you could buy it for next to nothing, simple to work on, known issues to work around, lots of them in salvage lots to grab parts off of…
A friend had a 1999 Dodge Intrepid that he bought brand-new. He didn’t have much trouble with it, but at 135,000 miles, a pickup truck ran OVER one of the front fenders while the car was parked in a restaurant parking lot. The external damage wasn’t that serious, but apparently the truck had crushed some sort of computer, so the insurance company simply totaled the car.
If important components are located in vulnerable places, then even seemingly minor accidents can result in a car being scrapped. Particularly if the car doesn’t have much resale value in the first place.
Always liked the look of the LHs, especially the Intrepid. Great looking design. My Grandpa had a second Gen Intrepid, it was a nice car.
Good cars–minus some quality issues here and there–at approximately the right time. It was one of the last hits from what was a great era for Chrysler. I knew a few folks that had 2nd generation Concordes, and my folks had a 2nd generation (1999) Intrepid for about 7 years. I really liked the styling of both at the time. I remember being particularly impressed by the ’98 Concordes (and this is coming from someone only 17 at the time)….they looked way more expensive and classy to me than they were. The LHS (and 2002-2004 Concorde) front end was weirder to me, but I still liked it and found it unique.
There was nothing at the time that even came close to meeting the passenger/cargo space for the money. GM’s full sizers, while probably better cars mechanically, were at least a few thousand more, and didn’t seem as cool/sporty to me at the time. Concordes and Intrepids were incredible values in the late 1990s. Probably the biggest gripe I have with them was the rear visibility, though it probably wouldn’t seem so bad compared to many newer vehicles, which have adopted the high trunklid design en masse.
My mom actually grew to strongly dislike her Intrepid after a few years, despite it being completely fine mechanically. I think she just grew to dislike the large size and bad visibility. She had in her mind that it was an old person’s car, though I didn’t necessarily agree. Fortunately, they unloaded it before a head gasket failure that seemed to plague many with the base 2.7 liter.
Thanks for the nice write up.
I remember the 2003 Chrysler Concorde. At the time, I thought it looked hideous by comparison to what came before then. I believe that the best looking Chrysler LH was the 1993-97 model years.
Aunt and Uncle had one of the last of the LHS models. I always found their progression of daily drivers (for my Aunt – my uncle is a farmer and his daily driver was often a tractor.) They had an early 80s Grand Prix coupe, followed by a late 80s Oldsmobile 98 sedan, next the LHS, and the last I checked a 3800 powered Buick Lucerne.
What was truly amazing is during the time they had the Oldsmobile 98 their 4th child was born. Still managed to squeeze everybody in there.
As a family car I much prefer that 2nd gen Intrepid (sans spoiler) to today’s boxy, boy-racer Charger. It’s aged quite nicely.
Funny how during this time they seemed to know what to do but couldn’t execute on reliability and quality. Now their reliability and quality is much better but their cars aren’t desireable, at least not to the families who should be their main targeted demographic. Those 2nd gen Intrepids and 300Ms were really an industry high point, IMO, of good-looking yet practical design.
Big sedans just aren’t the main desire of middle/upper middle class family buyers, most of whom want SUV/CUVs, maybe a few vans. I happened to have bought a newer 300c as my family car, but I’m a different sort when it comes that sort of demographic.
These aren’t the kind of car I’d ever thought I would own, but I do admire them and have always wondered what subsequent generations would have looked like. You really have to congratulate Chrysler for the bold moves they made….twice: these cars and then their replacements.
A co-worker had both generations of the Intrepid, maybe because it was so “groundbreaking” I preferred the 1st generation Intrepid.
Aside from drivetrain “problems”, the other area I thought was questionable with these cars (primarily with the Dodges) was the color choices.
As I understand it, the Eagle Vision Tsi is THE LH to own, though for style these Chrysler models are the best look with the 300M my favorite.
As far as these cars disappearing, so are their GM contemporaries, while the Fords seem ubiquitous.
I chalk it up to the Fords being fairly durable yet disposable, no one wants a Taurus but it will last nearly forever as long as the transmission doesn’t shit the bed. I would also say that a lot of GM’s electrical quirks of the 90’s/00’s are taking older cars off the road. I know my friend’s family had a well-maintained early 2000’s Impala that had persistent electrical problems no matter who they took it too. Well, it probably didn’t help that said friend tried to “fix” the problems with his come-along repair skills.
These cars were Chrysler at the top of their game IMO. The first version of these and the earlier Intrepids brought Chrysler back into civilization after they got lost in the K-Car wilderness, but these cars really showed what they could do. I especially loved the Concorde at the time. I remember all the hoopla around the 300M when it came out, but I wasn’t all that keen on it at the time. Funny thing is, there are still a lot of 300Ms running around Detroit, and they look better now stylewise than they did back then.
I will say, though, I think the Concorde, while now looking very much a product of its era, still looks amongst the best that came from then. I can honestly see it as one that has a bit of cachet about it in another 15 years.
I’ve mentioned before that I had a ’99 Concorde from ’03 to ’05, and I fell victim to that horrid 2.7 engine. Mine looked exactly like the gold one in the middle of the article, and I really loved the car – it was roomy, stylish, and rather economical. Not the fastest thing I ever drove, but better than its displacement would have you believe.
I learned about the 2.7 not long after buying the car. I switched to synthetic oil immediately, and I was told that was the reason it lasted as long as it did. Had it two years, it had 101,000 miles and an obvious rod knock. I wanted to go back to the LH well one more time, and looked at a year-old 2004 300M at a Chrysler/Jeep dealership, one that eventually closed during the 2009 bailouts. I was upside down on the Concorde (they offered me $1000 trade-in after hearing it run), and they wouldn’t roll it over onto a used car. They would, however, roll it over to a lease on a brand new 2005 Grand Cherokee, which I reluctantly went ahead with. It was my first and only brand new vehicle, and I’ll never do that again.
Today I drive, of all things, a 2003 Crown Vic Police Interceptor, one that actually was a patrol car. Damn thing will probably outlast me…
The 300M is one of my favourites from this generation as I was able to test one for a week back in the day and attend a media event that had us take some around a track in Calgary. I know someone who currently owns a lightly used example and he really enjoys the car.
The Intrepid is also a handsome looking sedan and there are a couple of them in the parkade of an office building I work in. I would say their design has aged well. Overall Chrysler did a good job developing the LH cars.
Great read Brendan and learned a little about these cars. I fixed my brother up with a 2000 LHS which had been used by a former president at the College I work at in 2002. It looks about identical to the featured car today. He got it with 20000 miles on it. It now has 233000 miles on it and has given him very little trouble. When he got it his mechanic Brother in Law told them they are nice cars but do not keep it over 85000 miles since Chryslers at the time were known to be problematic particularly with the transmissions. I dont think he has even had to add a drop of fluid to the transmission, he has just kept the timing belt replaced every 60 to 80000 miles.
Spent New Years eve working on the car replacing the timing belt and water pump, now you talk about a job compared to the cars with the old RWD design from 20+ years ago. Anyway always thought the car was a great looker, not quite as great as the orignal LHS, but still good. As far as drive, comfort, and room goes I have not been in a FWD car that can compare.
I see an LH virtually daily, and it is a first-generation…my Dodge Intrepid. I was tempted by a couple of car rentals to trade for a second-generation Intrepid but did not…probably fortunate given the 2.7L engine woes.
I thought the 2005 Chrysler 300 was styling-retrograde (it was probably INTENDED as such) and looked like a caricature. With the passing of the years, what Chrysler called “cab-forward,” a term I previously associated with a design of Southern Pacific steam locomotive that operated with its cab in front, is in vogue again. What makes the LHs seem dated is their size, but that also makes them downright comfortable; and they handle like no big car would seem to have the right to.
I don’t think cab-forward styling ever went away – the 2006 Honda Civic had fairly extreme cab-forward proportions, which carried through to its successors and competitors.
In defense of the 300, the large “near-luxury” sedan market was starting to shrink, and Chrysler had to do something radical to revive interest. The 300 still looks OK, but its Charger sibling has not aged well. The LH cars still look decent as well.
Maybe I’m the only one on earth, But I like the LH 300 and LX 300!
I like them both as well, but I prefer the looks of the later Concorde/LHS over the 300m.
I would also agree that the 1st Gen. LH 300 does look a bit like a caricature, but I’d say it still looks better than what they cribbed. Both the Bentley and Rolls Royce from approximately 2000 to now look like cheap kit cars made out of 1st Gen. LH 300s-they are ghastly. Obviously screwed together better than kit cars, but the styling is just ghetto fabulous ugly. Now, with the 2nd Gen. 300, I think they made them into a very fetching sedan, especially in “c” trim.
In reality a lot of it was “windshield forward”, dramatic for looks, but having an aircraft-carrier-sized dashboard doesn’t really count as extra room.
My Dad had a ’94 Concorde (LXi I think) that looked almost exactly like the third picture down right down to the wheels. His was that color over silver two-tone (remember two-tone cars?… I sure do, and really liked them!).
Fortunately, his had the 3.5L and not the dreaded 2.7L. It had pretty decent pick-up for a normally aspirated V6 on such a big car. I drove the car a few times and thought it was quite nice. Although he did not have the LHS trim level, his car had a lot of its goodies as options.
But alas (or maybe not) he did not find out about its longevity, as he traded it in on a 1998 Buick Regal GS for a little more of a performance kick. Ironically, his Buick was almost the same color combo as his Concorde.
Chrysler “LH”. I always thought that LH meant Last Hope.
Automotive pundits at the time latched onto that meme from the beginning… and they weren’t wrong.
Always believed that “Cab Forward” as expressed by Chrysler was a great design. Still believe that . Chrysler should bring the concept back. One vehicle forgotten in this history lesson is the Sebring Convertible, the only Cab Forward designed convertible Great interior space. We had two. A 97 and as my partner then asked for An accompanying ’06. Both were good dependable cars. I know about the hate on these cars. being a darling of the rental fleets. However. We suffered no such issues. Traded the 06 in favor of a new Edge only due to health needs for an easier entry and exit as well as more interior load space. the 97 stayed on as my DD, even after I had gotten a Lincoln LS, and I only sold it a few months ago, to a friend, who always wanted it. Still serving well as a co daily driver for hi, along with a 97 Blazer, which has been a problem.
Thanks for bringing up the Sebring convertible. I’ve actually been meaning to do a write-up on that car for close to 2 years now, but somehow it keeps escaping me. Maybe it’s finally time? 🙂
They used to be a part of the street scene in Vienna up until maybe 3-4 years ago but are now virtually extinct. This was the period during which Chrysler seemed to be on the up in Europe but then MB took control and I have a feeling they did not think the brand should do more than sell 4X4s and Voyagers here.
These big Chryslers are the last gasp of the Forward Look. I realize that’s an odd thing to say, but I mean it: It was the final Chrysler flagship that looked to the future rather than the past. It’s big, bold, and very American… without being the visual equivalent of an Oldies radio station. Just as dressed-up Citroen DSs were used as “future cars” in the 2nd Back to the Future movie, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Concorde/LHS gets to play a similar role some day.
The 300M is certainly the best-resolved design, but I love the scale and confidence of the Concorde LHS.
A family friend used to drive one… the back seat has almost 42″ of leg room, 2″ more than even a Town Car. It was an LXi, so the trim was merely OK. But if you use the definition of luxury recently expounded on That Other Site (“having more than is necessary”), then the Concorde has it in spades–at least in one very usable sense.
I agree. I would call the LH the third coming of the Forward Look; the first obviously being the original 1955-1961 Chryslers and the second being the 1969-1973 Fuselages.
The Fuselages actually were cab-backward compared to their ’65-’68 predecessors. The hoods were about 3″ longer and the trunks 3″ shorter.
“Forward Look” was a marketing term describing forward in the sense of futuristic (i.e. “looking ahead), not anything to do with the front of the vehicle.
Great write up! I loved the first-gen LH cars, and was working at a Chevy store when our CPJE sister dealership began receiving the second-gen LHs in Fall 1997. Even with its Chrysler origins, some obvious signs of cost-cutting and a few ungainly proportions, IMO the Concorde was absolutely superior to anything offered by GM at the time.
Minor quibble: the pushrod engine in the first-gen LHs was a 3.3L, not 3.2.
The very last model year for LH’s was 2004, but they were brought to market in spring 2003, so I can see why some say 2003 MY.
But back then it was odd to suddenly have a few “2004” cars in showrooms so early, as if new model years were going to start in January “MY-1”. In long run, early model year products end up as “higher mileage” used cars, compared to a normal run.
Always liked this design, particularly the long trunk. Very unusual with the cab-forward design but still striking. The oddly shaped headlamps I could do without, but it’s a minor quibble.
A friend’s father had a Concorde Limited, an ’03 with the 3.5. Nice car, though he only kept it for 3 years as he did a lot of traveling for work at the time and it was already over 100K miles. Traded in on an ’06 Corvette in a “now for something completely different” move.
The Concorde Limited was my personal favorite, style wise, of all the second gen LH cars. The color combination on the feature car is perfect to my eyes as well. It appears to be Steel Blue Pearl, which would actually make this a 2002, as it was only available for that year (Sapphire Blue Pearl is similar, but should appear darker than these photos show).
I ran the Carfax on it and it says it’s an ’03. Special order maybe? https://secure.carfax.com/creditCard.cfx?partner=CFX_S&year=2003&make=CHRYSLER&model=CONCORDE+LIMITED&recordCheckType=quickVin&numberOfRecords=79&partnerCode=CFX&partnerSiteLocation=S&checkReport=HCR&checkReportVersion=01&suggest=N&fid=&affiliateId=0&bannerName=&subId=
There was a dark gray color on early LHS’s with big, “bass boat” metalflake in it that was beautiful…best feature on the whole car, in my opinion.
Chryslers have a bad habit of aging poorly…not sure if it’s a production issue, or a function of deferred/lack of maintenance by the buying demographic of these cars…Mitsubishi sedans tend to do the same thing. Mitsubishi Galants all seem to be smoking, faded, dented, beat up, missing at least one wheel cover by the time they are 5 years old.
It’s an interrelated combination of poor resale value, poor quality, and the ownership that follows those. Most new Galants and Chryslers are rental cars (I recall reading that something like 75% of Chrysler Sebrings were sold to fleets around 2007ish), and those end up as BHPH fodder at 4-5 years old, financed at 18% interest to people who can barely make the monthly payment as they live paycheck to paycheck, let alone have $700 on hand to replace the timing belt or even bother to get regular washes and oil changes.
Working at a dealership briefly and a credit union later on hammered home how badly some buyers treat their late-model cars. A lot of people don’t know any better, or just don’t have the money on hand.
I’m surprised this design seems to be so well-liked on here. I was so so glad when sedan styling finally took a sharp and rapid turn from this bulbous blob direction around 2004-2005. I couldn’t stand the ’98 LH cars when they came out, along with the ’96-’99 Taurus, the ’97-’03 Grand Prix, and all these overly “organic” designs from that time period. I was worried this was the direction car styling was headed in forever (which was further strengthened by period reviews that seemed to think so, too… incorrectly).
Curves, smooth edges, and ‘aero’ shapes are fine… but when every single surface inside and out lacks a crisp straight edge anywhere, especially on larger cars, the results are disastrous. IMO, the ’98 Concorde was the worst example of this trend – that butt is bigger, saggier, and rounder than Nicki Minaj’s and all the Kardashians’ combined! (not a compliment when referring to the car) I remember being behind them in traffic as a kid thinking “who in their right mind would buy that?”. I actually thought they were worse than the ’96 Taurus, myself. The 300M was more attractive with its clipped overhangs, angular trunk lid, and more angular fascia, but the midsection still looked too fat.
I remember thinking that car styling was in a renaissance around 2004-2006 after this ’90s blob pod fad dragged into the early-2000s for way too long. The crisp ’03 CTS, then the crisper, blocky ’04 Malibu and STS, culminating beautifully with the muscular RWD 300 in 2005. Boy did that car seem sexy at the Detroit Autoshow when I was 13! Finally some strong, straight lines, muscular, blocky contours and sheer class brought back into the sedan market. Ford joined too with the 2006 Fusion, and pretty soon, sedans had a distinct 3-box shape again. The 2005 Chrysler 300 made the 2004 Concorde look just as instantly dated as the original Concorde made the K-car New Yorker look ancient in 1993. Perhaps that car deserves a CC soon as well? They are 11 years old now, but I saw an early example at the car wash today and it still looked modern and new. (you can tell when those cars are still on their first owner because they lack 22 inch rims that the second/third owners inevitably slap on them)
These Gen2 LH cars also aged horribly due to Daimler’s cost cutting that hit hard around that time – self-destructing 2.7L engines, weak transmissions, disintegrating suspensions, cloudy yellowed headlights, and alloy wheels that peeled and corroded after a few years did no favors for an already anachronistic design. Really the only nice thing I have to say about them is that they did drive well for their time (as did the ’96 Taurus), but I just could never get over the ungainly bulbous styling.
It’s all opinion, a simple matter of perspective, for which we’re all the richer.
When the LX cars came out, I thought they were cool, because they looked so different than anything that was out on the streets back in 2004. Now that a decade has passed, I feel they look gawky and cartoonish, which to be perfectly fair was part of the design teams’s original intention. They’re certainly not dull, that’s for sure, but the LX’s try to hard to appeal to the ‘hey, look at me crowd,’ which to answer your question, is why the 22’s get slapped on sooner rather than later.
In contrast, I never truly appreciated the second generation LH cars when they were a common sight, but now that they’re almost gone I’ve gained a new found appreciation for them. The Intrepid in particular looks like a grounded spacecraft, and confidently appears sleek and modern to this very day, despite automotive tastes changing trajectory in favor of designs, well designs like the 300!
The Concorde/LHS might not be as visually attractive as the Intrepid, but in the right color with the chrome wheels it does manage to impart a sense of grace and elegance befitting a large American sedan. Brendan was lucky to capture a fetching example. I also like the way the long, protruding trunk is evocative of 1960’s automotive design – the heyday of the large American car!
As a kid, I thought the 300M and Intrepid looked very futuristic! The Concorde, on the other hand…yikes, I agree with you. It is too blobby.
Looking back, the “organic/jellybean” theme of the 90s either ended up stunning or hideous to my eyes, but rarely in between. The Supra, RX-7, Viper, Grand Prix (yes, I like their styling), and 300M were in the former category, while the ’97 F-150, ’96 Taurus, and Concorde were in the latter. Perhaps the worst was the Jaguar S-Type…retro and organic do not go together well. I never cared for the Infiniti J30, either.
The mid-00s shift in styling was indeed exciting to see, and the ’05 300 still looks good if left stock. OTOH, the original CTS looked great at first, but has not aged well in my eyes (what was with GM and Nissan’s fascination with blocky vertical headlights all about?).
I mean to call only the original fish-faced Concorde ugly, not the “Concorde Limited” featured. 300M>Intrepid>LHS/Concorde Limited>>>>fish-faced Concorde in terms of styling to me.
Of course I’m a huge fan of these cars. I loved the jellybean era of automotive styling. I rented an ’98 LHS when they where new, and later a ’99 Concorde. It took me awhile to realize there were 2 different dash layouts. I prefer the higher end (with the analog clock). Beautiful interiors. Almost bought one once, $1800, but it was really beat up. I like the styling of all of them except the 300 M because the backend looked chopped off. I hope to buy one some day. They’re dirt cheap around here in Vancouver.
If ever there was a car that was designed not to have a front license plate it is the LHS. Nice looking cars but a front plate on one reminds me of Hitler’s mustache. The front plate should have been off to one side like 60’s Pontiacs, with the foglights pulled in closer to the grill.
Unfortunately most of Canada’s provinces have front license plate laws, it was rare to see one of these without a front plate marring the design.
These really look like nothing else. Chrysler was really knocking it out of the park with their designs in the 1990s! The pre-LHS facelift Concorde is my least favourite because of the grille and headlights… I just feel they make the already bulbous car seem a little more so. The LHS grille somehow works better. These have aged rather well, even the interiors still look decent. Nice to hear these weren’t just a pretty face: available AutoStick on some of them, decent 3.5, capable handling, spacious interiors.
It’s so interesting that Chrysler just completely closed the door on the cab-forward era. The Charger/300/Magnum were just a complete shift in design, not only visually but mechanically as well. They have their foibles as well but I like them too.
100% Chrysler, and a testament to the results that could be accomplished as an independent company firing on all cylinders. Shame the Chrysler quality ghosts still haunted the product, however.
The LH was another chapter in the radical transformation the company’s large products experienced every life cycle: The stodgy early 50s models succeeded by the brilliant Forward look that crashed into confusion in the early 60s. Flip the switch and we’re in the sheer-look Engel era, only to be replaced by the radically different Fuselage cars. Then, conventionality until the EPA, OPEC, Energy Crisis II, and another brush with death ushered in the K era on the tail of the half-baked R-body fiasco. The box is reborn as the lovely LH and then reemerges as the blob, only to become the box again in ’05. Question is, what replaces the LX?
Anyone have any information on the stillborn LH Plymouth Accolade? That could have made a nice Fury, but I suppose it would have ended up as nothing more than a big Breeze.
And I love them all.
It’s stated on allpar.com (Chrysler’s site) that the Plymouth Accolade was being considered as an additional variant. Presumably that claim was copied into Wikipedia and other sources.
I haven’t found any other evidence to suggest that there were serious plans for the Accolade, as in design sketches, etc. My feeling is that it was along the ideas of something said at an internal Chrysler meaning way back when, and the statement has lived on in text and been spun into a larger rumor.
It’s hard to belive those sweet LHS and 300M interiors gave way to the hard plastics in the 300C and Charger. It really wasn’t until 2015 Chrysler managed to get interiors worthy of the exterior back in the cars. That’s Chrslyer all over, never seeming to have the funds to get everything right in one model.
I was pleasantly surprised at the lack of hard plastics in my 2014 300c compared to the previous generation. I think the 2nd Generation has the nicest interior but the 2015 and up 300s are rather nice in the upper trim levels.
+1 The latest 300 has a beautiful interior, especially considering the cheesy “computer tower” interior of the previous one.
I’ve never liked the styling of these as well as the first-generation LH cars. The Intrepid I think is the best-looking of the bunch, in part because it’s crisper, although it ends up looking quite Pontiac-like to my eyes (specifically, the 1996-vintage Grand Prix, which I’ve always thought was a nice-looking car). The initial ’98 Concorde almost works, but the lights and grille don’t seem quite resolved graphically.
The LHS and later Concorde I think are a mess. The narrow grille ends up making the car look tall and bulbous; it recalls for me the 1949 ‘bathtub’ Nash. The shape and overall proportions were potentially workable, but it’s crying out for more aggressive detailing. If you applied some of the sharkishness of an E24 6-Series to the basic shell, it could have looked really good, but it comes across as roly-poly instead.
The 300M frustrates me the most, from a visual standpoint. Conceptually, I appreciate trimming the overhangs, and the greenhouse isn’t bad in profile, but it feels like almost every other detail does the opposite of what the eye would prefer. The deck slopes inward when it would have done better with a treatment like the Intrepid’s and the chrome surround makes the grille look recessed and hesitant where it needs to be bold. The headlight treatment is the worst of the bunch, making it look like the car has been pulling too many all-nighters before its debut. I see what they were going for, and in concept, the 300M is the most my speed, but it just doesn’t come off.
All of them suffer from cheap-feeling details, like the early Concorde’s tacky-looking wheelcovers. The interiors fare the worst in that regard; as with a lot of otherwise-nice looking ’90s GM cars (last-gen Riviera, the aforementioned Grand Prix), you have designs that probably looked really nice at the mockup stage, but in production are let down by bargain-bin materials. It may not be any worse than the contemporary domestic competition, but that would have been an easy area for Chrysler to step ahead.
Aaron, in your opinion, what would you consider to be some of the better designs from the jellybean era, and why?
It depends on how you define the era or the themes, but some of my favorites (in no particular order:
Z30 Toyota Soarer/Lexus SC: Kind of archetypal jellybean. What makes it work is formic consistency with just enough relief to give the eye something to look at. (The early production car works better than the prototype in this respect, although the facelift didn’t do it any favors visually.) I might have wished for a little more sharpness to the decklid — the lip spoiler helps in that regard — but it’s a great design.
Mazda FD RX-7: Coupes are often easier than sedans or hatchbacks because they can favor visual style over practicality, but what makes the final RX-7 work as a design is surface tension. It’s not just smooth and bland (which one could say of the 924-like previous version) because it has a real muscularity to it. It looks athletic, like a sprinter or track and field star.
1985 Ford Granada Scorpio: IMO the best-realized of Ford’s early aero designs. Compared to the Tempo and Thunderbird (which were compromised in part by sealed-beam headlights), it’s much better resolved. Again, there’s just enough detail to break up the smoothness, giving it visual interest without making it overwrought (as happened to the 1996 Taurus and the subsequent Scorpio) or seeming like they ran out of ideas.
1994 Buick Riviera: Again let down by cheap detailing and interior finish (which isn’t the stylists’ fault), but a really attractive big coupe. There’s something distinctly Jaguar-ish to the curves (a better Jag homage than the Nissan efforts, I think) that makes it feel indulgent without looking bloated. (The second-generation LHS pictured tries the same thing and just misses.)
1996 Pontiac Grand Prix: The interior finish is lamentable and the later junk Pontiac ladled onto the shape was no help, but the original managed to look good, look modern, and look like a Pontiac without any retro second-guessing. It also managed to look equally good as a four-door sedan.
Mazda Lantis/323F four-door coupe (which I’m surprised Mazda didn’t call a hardtop, at least at home): Succeeds at doing what the Nissan NX tried and failed to do aesthetically and miles more interesting to look at than the contemporary 323/Protege/Familia line, to which I think it was mechanically related.
I think the recurring themes here are having a good overall proportions, a good shape, and enough detailing (either in the actual surfaces or in the design of graphic elements like quarter windows and taillights or both) so that it doesn’t just look like a puffy lozenge.
I do like the second-generation Intrepid, as I mentioned, which works better than its siblings because it still looks like a sedan; the later Concorde ends up looking like parts of it want to be a fourth-generation Camaro, which for better or worse is just not happening. The Intrepid has a clearer visual linkage to its predecessor while still looking newer and slicker and more ‘modern,’ which has the effect of making it seem more confident as a design.
True the Nineties were really let down my drab supposedly euro interiors. Lots of mucky gray leather about.
It’s also the plastics. I’m not in the ‘squishy-expensive-plastic’ obsessive camp, but a lot of the interiors (even on upscale cars like the Riviera) end up feeling like the materials had a previous life as cheap plastic organizer bins.
It’s possible to design stuff to help visually camouflage, or at least deemphasize, cheap materials, but on a lot of domestics of the time, you end up with big in-your-face slabs of it, often in really unfortunate colors. I get the feeling the interior designers kept anticipating higher-quality stuff than they ended up getting.
The second-gen Concorde was best with its 2002 refresh (like the one featured here) when it took the exterior styling of the then-cancelled LHS. The 98-01 seemed to have more of a bulbous look to its rear end even though the sheet metal and body was identical to the LHS. I never did like the 300M or the dashboard/seats that the Concorde Limited borrowed from it.
Nevertheless, I absolutely love the LH platform. I’ve owned one from each generation: a 1997 Concorde LXi and a 2004 Intrepid ES. Unprecedented design and timeless styling, not to mention comfortable and reliable in my experience. I don’t think I will ever own a car that I’ve liked so much, and I’m quite content with my 2013 200 Limited.
I never did care for the following LX cars (300, Charger, Magnum) but I will admit that the second-gen 300 is a winner (at least until the ’15 refresh in regards to the front end grille/bumper). Still, the LH cars were remarkable.
+1
I think the 2015 refresh was a step backward. I like the quilted leather in higher trims but preferred the wood steering wheel. The tail lights just don’t look right nor does the grille. Not horrible, but not an improvement.
I have to say these cars did nothing for me, either in looks or behind the wheel experience. I drove a neighbor’s 300M several times, and a friend’s Concorde, and wasn’t impressed with them at all. It would take the RWD 300C to impress me, and even then, while I basically liked the looks of them better than the “Catfish” looking FWD cars, it would take the 2011 restyle to get them to the “it looks good” level.
My high school friend bought a brand new leftover 1998 all new body style Intrepid with the 2.7. I bought a 1999 Intrigue program car with 11K miles on it several months later. The Dodge was trouble from the first week of ownership starting with the radio which intermittently did not work. In the 70K miles he owned it the transmission needed replacing, the 2.7 started using and smoking oil out the exhaust, window regulators went bad, the trunk leaked and kept leaking even after 3 dealer visits. The headlights were terrible and night vision was bad. Upgraded bulbs helped some. The seals around all 4 doors shrunk and pulled away and needed replacing twice and the replacement transmission made a clunk every time it downshifted to accelerate. The interior was also mostly hard cheap black plastic or black lung as one of the major magazine editors described it with the cup holder breaking, the glove box door rattling and worse the nuts and bolt holding down the front seats rusted terribly. It was such a shame because that car rode and handled very well, was roomy and the front seats were all day comfortable. Perhaps a first year lemon.
My 1999 Intrigue (I avoided the first year because of his bad experiences with the Dodge) with the then new 3.5 Shortstar went close to 100K with the intermediate steering shaft lubricated at the dealer, the purge valve solenoid replaced by the gas tank and a battery. The trim around the front center dash vent was starting to lift up but I easily was able to fix that with some Pliobond and nothing else went wrong with that car. It was such a good car it prompted me to buy a 2002 that went 150K with the ISS greasing the only issue to speak of. The Northstar and Shortstar are often criticized for being crap but none of mine every had an issue and the dealer told me that many people were confusing the 3800 with the new 3.5 and only putting in 4 quarts of oil instead of 6 and that compromised these engines rather quickly.
WRONG…..The LH plateform was NOT entirely new. The development is well documented. It’s based off the Eagle Premier which had previously been based off the Renault 25. You’re not going to find a lot of history on it but Chrysler couldn’t say it was a AMC Renault. They had to say it was all new. It wasn’t. Here are comments related to the LH from Bob Lutz which can be found on wikipedia. “The LH platform was based on the American Motors-developed and Renault-derived Eagle Premier. According to Bob Lutz, “[t]he Premier had an excellent chassis and drove so damned well that it served as a benchmark for the LH … the spiritual father, the genetic antecedent of the LH is the Premier.”[2] Like the Premier, the LH-cars featured a longitudinally-mounted engine with a front-wheel drive drivetrain, unusual in most American front-wheel drive cars, but a hallmark of Renault’s designs.[3] This arrangement meant that the design team had to use a chain to connect the automatic transmission with the front differential, a design reminiscent of the original Oldsmobile Toronado though subject to greater wear and noise” Also please bear in mind, I have owned both cars brand new, a 1989 Eagle Premier and a 1993 Eagle Vision. When you open the hood of a Vision, it’s an Eagle Premier, you can see everything is basically the same. (you can’t always believe all the PR about “NEW” designs…..that’s simply justification for Chrysler to get attention in the Market.
You’re quite right. The LH was a direct development/evolution of the R25-based Premier. It was an excellent platform and chassis, and it’s a lot cheaper to do this than develop a truly new platform from scratch.
The longitudinal engine is a key give-away. Since Chrysler already had a transverse V6/transaxle drivetrain from its minivans and K cars, if the LH had been truly new, it would have been much cheaper and easier to use that. But obviously the expense of adapting the transmission to a longitudinal orientation was well less than creating a whole new platform.
This has been a frequent debate on here before over what “entirely new” really means. True that the LH’s chassis was modeled after the Renault’s and they shared a lot of similarities in design underneath. The longitudinal engine layout was definitely inspired by Renault a la the Premier. The suspension was also modeled after the Premier’s though the rear was changed a bit. There was a lot of inspiration there, I’m not contesting that.
The LH’s architecture was based on the Renault, but wasn’t as if Chrysler took a Renault 25’s chassis and merely gave it swoopy new sheetmetal, keeping all the mechanics identical. The two were not interchangeable.
The LH was heavily adapted and lot underneath was changed. In fact, Allpar states verbatim: “Castaing suggested using the Premier/R25 chassis as a starting point for a new big car. Most everything was changed”.
Honda and Audi also had longitudinally mounted engines in their fwd cars during this time. It was less common, but nothing radical.
A thought on how this flagship Chrysler is kind of the mirror-image of earlier big Chryslers:
-fwd vs rwd
-cab forward vs cab backward
-2.7 liter engine vs. 7.2 liter
(Of course, the last one is what actually got me thinking…)
I would love to see the “Dynasty on steroids.” I wonder if any drawings are publicly available?
Oops, wrong post
It might be apocryphal, but I read somewhere that Bob Lutz once parked an LH sedan in a GM design building and asked the designers why they couldn’t design a car so beautiful.
The designers covered the vehicle with sticky notes describing why each feature wouldn’t pass GM design rules (e.g. GM wheels needed to be tucked under the car to avoid creating rock chips, guaranteeing a wimpy stance).
?? the last sentence. That’s what dealer installed rock guards are for.
Actually, the rock chip problem was solved decades ago with a special primer on the lower part of the car. GM wheel offset rules didn’t catch up until the Lutz era.
It was exciting to see Chrysler finally join the parade of aerodynamic cars, and the 2nd generation Intrepid was quite a handsome piece. Yet, by 1993, everyone was making a jellybean car. Ford had by 1993 built millions of them, and you could have a Probe, up to a conservatively styled Lincoln Continental with many neat jellybean designs in between.
Then there was the reality. Those neat looking cars weren’t as neat as they appeared. My coworker had a new Intrepid that had too many quality issues. Sad. Another had an Eagle with a cheesy interior. Neat looking cars that had a lot of appeal, yes – yet.
I don’t think of them as bad cars – I just think of them as rental cars.
I have a near-immaculate 2000 Concorde with 60,000 miles. Sand/gold colored (of course) with painted alloys in almost-new condition.
It is a good looking car to me.
It replaced my Avalon which aged out of practicality, and an ’02 Grand Marquis LS that did everything just a little worse than either the Toyota or the Chrysler.
Coming straight from the Toyota and the GM I will say that it”s seats could be better, and I bumped my head getting in at first, but it does everything quite well. Excellent mileage, a roomy back seat area and huge trunk. Smooth and powerful enough motor. Very attractive interior, with matching textures and patterns throughout. Nice clean gauge design. It just seems to at least look like class. I don’t care for the headlight shape, kind of googly-eyed, but the chrome-outlined Ferrari-style grille is sharp. The base stereo is surprisingly bad. I really need to upgrade all of that. Had it about a year. So far I’m pleased with it, but we will see what happens as it ages.
Oh, and how could I forget the battery placement way down at the bottom and accessible through the inner fender. That is just terrible. Honda managed to have low hoodlines without resorting to such silliness.
At least it has connections up high for jump starts, which worked well enough when I needed to jump-start a co-worker’s car once.
87,000 miles now. Still working and looking great. Only needed front pads and a tie-rod bushing. It gets a surprising amount of compliments, as these are mostly gone now and the remainders don’t look very good.
Still have the stock stereo, because life keeps getting in the way.
I think I would have loved to have had an Intrepid, probably a gen 1 version.
On these 2003’s, they were nice enough cars, but I found the grille opening too small for the proportion of the car. That was especially true on the 300M in my view, although I think they were all about the same size.
They gave me the appearance of a mee-ewwing cat, to me an unattractive look.
I never understood the appeal of any of the LH cars, put me into the LX fan group. A neighbor traded his Crown Vic in on a black 300C and I liked it a lot. I’ve owned a Charger R/T (2008, didn’t like it’s looks but I couldn’t afford an SRT Challenger), a 2010 Challenger R/T and now an ’18 Challenger Scatpack. My present car is my favorite of all the vehicles I’ve ever owned. It makes me happy every time I drive it.
Good friends bought a 2000 Maxima which was prompted totaled within a year by a drunk driver. They replaced it with a Concorde; unfortunately it was not made on one of Chrysler’s better days and within 6 months they were constantly having engine or electrical problems with it. They promptly replaced it with a Mazda MPV, which gave them good service up until they traded for a Lexus 150k miles later….
I’m on my second second generation Concorde. The first being a well optioned 1999 Concorde Lxi that I only got to enjoy for a year and a half which sadly got t-boned on my way to work one morning. It was replaced by a 2002 Concorde Lxi that wasn’t as well optioned but it seemed that I didn’t actually need some of those options like anti-lock brakes and traction control as it goes through the snow just as good as the 1999 car did. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the time or the money to shop around for the best example possible and the second car needed everything the first one didn’t. Also, made the mistake of buying the only car I didn’t run the Carfax on eventually discovering the current car had been wrecked.
Here’s my take on the second gen cars. I love the styling and the room. I prefer the art deco LHS/LHS style Concorde over the earlier one that had what I thought had a grille that looked like the same era Camaro. For big cars, they get really good gas mileage and are good long distance interstate cars but can also do the winding twisting 2 lane roads just fine. This September, I will have had the 2002 car ten years and we’ve already put well over 100k beyond the mileage the car had when I bought it. It’s nearing 255k now. A couple of thousand miles ago I had to replace the original driver side front axle and to my horror, discovered that when the water pump and timing belt had to be replaced at 167k, they were both the factory originals. Some really long trips I wouldn’t have made if I’d known!
Over the years, I’ve developed a love/hate relationship with the LH cars with the hate coming from having to work on them myself as they are extremely tightly packaged cars, the only thing worse is a PT Cruiser. When everything is all good, I love driving them almost as much as my ’68 Fury VIP. When I hate them, it’s usually from what should have been a simple part replacement turning into a multi-day repair nightmare, I tell my partner our replacement car is going to be a ’75 Valiant sedan. She said as long as it’s got an FM radio, she’s fine with whatever we drive.
The interior has aged very well. Everything still looks good inside. The headline amazingly is still very nice. The seats are leather of the kind I’d describe as old catcher’s mitt. They’ve held up visually but they’re hard as a rock and hit my back in all of the wrong places. The lumbar support adjustment can’t find the right spot. This is less a fault of the car and more about my back injuries when I got T-boned in the previous Concorde. There was no radio in the Concorde when I got it so I put in a factory combo CD/cassette/AM-FM. Unlike the previous Concorde it was not an Infinity system. The radio picks up stations I can’t get in any other car. It’s probably because of that monster powered antenna box in the trunk. In spite of the narrow rear window, It’s an easy car to see out of, easier than my former ’74 Duster or the ’73 Barracuda I once sat in. Parking like all jellybean cars is not as easy for me as it is to park my much larger ’68 Fury VIP or my ’79 St. Regis. The major interior change I’d make is to give it a folding rear seat and front buckets that had more padding for my beat up old back.
Would I get a third one? It would have to be crazy low miles and I’d rather someone else do all the repair work. At this point, I’m more likely to go much older than newer for ease of do it yourself repair.
Anyone knows what happened to the author? He had good articles
He moved on to other activities and pastimes, as far as I know.
Thanks, Daniel!
I always thought the 1st generation LHS looked quite classy. This article seems so sad. If it suffered no major issues I wouls happily have bought it. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/junkyard/curbside-recycling-1994-chrysler-lhs-i-would-drive-this-car-home-from-phoenix-and-so-would-you/