When I met my colleague Elsa, she drove a white Plymouth Acclaim. She was a woman of intelligence, education, and sophistication. So the first time we went to lunch together and she drove, I wondered aloud: “A Plymouth Acclaim? I saw you in something sportier, or Japanese.” She replied, “I don’t care about cars. I just need mine to get me from A to B. But this has been the best one I ever owned.”
That was 25 years ago. Elsa and I haven’t worked for the same company in ages, but we still sometimes catch up for lunch. A serious accident, from which she thankfully walked away uninjured, put an end to her Acclaim. She’s driven a succession of Accords since. “But I’d still be driving that Acclaim if I could,” she once said. “It was a great car.”
For the time it was commodious and comfortable enough, with acceptable power even from the base 2.5-liter four. I never rode in a V6-equipped Acclaim like this well-preserved example. It’s crazy, by the way, what little details date a car. It’s a 1992 because of the body-color bumper rub strips, the full-chrome grille, and the style of the V6 badge on the fender. Hat tip to CC author Daniel Stern for helping me pinpoint this car’s year.
I photographed this Acclaim at the library in Fishers, Indiana, in 2017.
Would it be reasonable to think of these Acclaims and Spirits as the Valiants and Darts of their time? My respect for this era of Chryslers has grown over the years in the same way I’ve grown to respect the various old A-body/H-body GMs that continue to populate the Midwestern landscape. Much like the Ciera article reposted a few days back, on the same drive to visit my brother in PA, as I was driving through Greensburg PA, I saw a very well preserved Dynasty tootling along through town, stuck in time. The no-nonsense upright (roomy) designs, comfortable and durable suspensions, the basic and mostly reliable powertrains that any small town mechanic could service. Throw in reasonable prices when new, and good to excellent bad weather performance and there’s a lot to like there, or at the very least begrudgingly respect.
Perhaps in areas where domestic cars were still prevailing, the Valiant/Dart analogy might work, but not in California (and perhaps other parts of the country). While the FWD GM A Bodies were popular with consumers, and of course the Taurus, these cars were mostly fleet vehicles out here. Rental, town government, maybe a phone company supervisor’s car. The only non-truck/Jeep Chrysler products that consumers bought were minivans and convertibles … and those were hugely popular.
The market of the ’90s was very different to the market of the ’60s, but yes, I think it’s quite reasonable to consider these cars the spiritual (zing!) successor to the Dart and Valiant. We’re talking about unpretentious, dependable, durable, generally sturdy boxes on wheels from Chrysler, with function-first design that nevertheless managed to look reasonably attractive in the idiom of their time.
Very well said, my friend.
CC effect this morning. Pulled up next to very clean white Acclaim at a stop light. Surprised how small it looked next to my 03 Accord!
Funny you should mention that. I went directly from a ’91 Spirit (same as the Acclaim you saw) to an ’07 Accord (same as your ’03) and while I don’t have the figures and measurements—and don’t care enough to dig them up—I haven’t found the Accord roomier in any respect than the Spirit. The trunk’s not bigger, the people-room doesn’t seem significantly bigger. I guess the Spirit was configured more space-efficiently.
These cars should come with a 6-pack of RedBull!
Though not exciting by any means, I have respect for these because I still see one here and there in the rust-belt in decent shape when other trendier cars have long gone away.
(Looking at you Beretta/Corsica/ and yes the second and third gen Tauruses/Tauri.)
These were acceptable for going to the store, for driving across the country to visit family in comfort, if not luxury, and for commuting to work. They weren’t designed to stoplight race, pull .9 on a skidpad or corner carve, so of course the buff mags slammed them. But for the CR folk, they were a good alternative to ADP enhanced Hondas and Toyotas, and cheaper to fix.
Just don’t buy one built on a Monday or Friday.
1989-93 era of rental cars, “mid size’ class choices: Corsica, Tempo or Acclaim/Spirit.
The Mopars were may favorite to rent when I had job then with business travel. Corsicas were rattily/tacky, Tempos were slow, but the AA cars seems more put together and more pleasant to drive.
@ TheMann – Not sure why my reply to you went here…
Not to impersonate a Grammar Police Officer, as thankfully, they do not normally patrol this site – I would’ve been cited MANY times by now if they did, just for the run-on sentences alone! LOL…
But your post got me to thinking about this. In a weird sort of CC Effect kind of thing, just yesterday, I went to a grammar page to verify the proper plural for something I was writing here at work. Curious, I scrolled down to see their stance on when to end a word in the letter “i” to denote plural. Sure enough, when a word ends in “us”, the “i” is usually swapped in.
So as we often do here at CC, we say Lexi and Prii as the plural for Lexus and Prius respectively.
But then I recall a discussion years ago in the comments about Chevys. Yes, Chevys and not Chevies. It may’ve even been our very own founder Paul that pointed out to a wannabe Grammar Police cadet that since Chevy is a proper name, albeit a nickname, the plural rule regarding “ies” does not apply. Perhaps we’ve been doing it wrong all along.
Truth be told, I kinda like Lexi and Prii, and now Tauri. “Tauri” actually speaks to me as an amateur astronomer! I’ve seen maps of stars within the constellation Taurus referred to as such. (i.e. Omicron Tauri or Alpha Tauri in the case of Aldebaran.)
A late friend who apparently had studied Latin and had it stick in his brain said that the plural of “Prius” is “Priora.”
This page gives the full declension of “prius”:
https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/noun/14118/
Nice! – I had no idea prius was actually a word. I actually thought that Toyota just made it up, as car companies are wont to do, like Nissan with Altima and Ford with Futura.
I just typed that because I wasn’t sure which was correct, so it’s covered either way.
Daniel Stern had an earlier sentence with “Chrysler have…”. I would have written “has”, but I’ll assume he is correct.
Is that a singular-plural kind of thing? Been out of school a very long time. 😀
In the Queen’s English, as used in Canada too, corporations/companies are referred to in the plural, and in the US, in the singular. Different strokes for different folks…
Thanks to everyone for the replies!
the Queen’s English also uses less definitives – for example, in the UK they say “go to hospital” whereas in the USA, we say “go to the hospital”.
Then is Chrysler like the word deer? Where it is both singular and plural too?
Yeah, it’s been WAY too long since school. This is why I consult the various grammar sites out there. Being pulled over by the Grammar Police is no fun.
I think that SPACE dot com took their comments section down because of the heavy patrolling by the Grammar Police and other trolls. 🤣
Thankfully, it’s just all in the good spirit of fun here. 😊
One Chrysler, two Chryslers, three Chryslers, four Chryslers, etc. A car is a singular noun; there’s just one of it. But if you want to talk about all the parts that make it up, that’s a collective: they are the parts that make up the car, not they is the parts that make up the car. This is the logic behind referring to companies, agencies, and other organisations as a collective noun: they’re made up of multiple people, they’re not monolithic singular entities. Hence, Chrysler are going ahead with plans, the EPA say they are looking at tightening emissions standards, etc. We all do this to one degree or another: can we stop at the hardware store on the way home? No, they close at three. Did you forget my frozen peas? No, they were out of them.
As Paul says, it’s a usage convention that can go either way. I grew up in the States, but I prefer the collective referral to organisations; it seems weird to refer to a multitude of people as a monolithic “it” with agency (“Chrysler said it will recall the vehicles”). And the collective usage helps keep in mind that there are actual, real people making decisions and taking actions.
Best explanation ever, Daniel. 👏 Golf Clap to you, sir. I never considered it from that perspective. Thanks!
“We are the Borg. You will be assimilated into our collective. Resistance is futile.”
Although we Star Trek fans think of the Borg as an entity, they consider themselves a collective (although any individuality is seriously frowned upon). Apparently, they were being grammatically accurate. 😉
If applied to proper names, such as Angus or Gus or Remus, Claudius, etc., I don’t think it would be correct to refer to them in the plural by changing the last letter to an “i”. Many people named Angus in the room would be several Anguses. Say hello to my friends Claudiuses, both of whom are named Claudius.
Extending that thought, I would not refer to a row of Lotus cars as Loti, or a bunch of Ford Taurus other than Tauruses. A lot of Lexus cars would be Lexuses. Lexi or Tauri would sound like characters from outer space in common lingo. To me at least.
Astonomy might have a different scientific convention. Just my 2 cents.
My wife and I are both Immigrants, and these days I am proud of that fact. I have been an American citizen for 72 years now, she remains Swedish. My daily driver is a 1985 Plymouth Voyager and she drives a 1994 Dodge Shadow. These vehicle are both in excellent condition because they are properly maintained AND because they are not computers on wheels like the modern stuff. There are certain values that many ‘foreigners’ have, RESPECT for all people and things. We plan to keep and drive these sensible automobiles to the day we are no longer here.
Here’s one of them.
Bravo!
My brother still has the family 1989 Mazda MPV in his fleet as a parts runner/mountain bike carrier, we bought it used in 1995 with 90k miles. Quite a bit rustier given a life spent in the salty Northeast (parked in a heated garage and not washed enough in the winter), but still on the road and driving very nicely with close to 250k miles.
Excellent! Any 37 year old vehicle still doing daily duty is to be proud of. Way to go!
A neighbor across the street from me many years ago had one of these Acclaims in Emerald Green. He kept that car well maintained and never had a lick of trouble with it. It was his daily driver, and served him well for many many years.
Another neighbor at the same time with this car’s predecessor (a Reliant K) seemed to always be working on his car to deal with various problems.
Perhaps it took Plymouth a while to dial in these cars, reliability-wise.
When I look at this car, I see the 1992 version of that Rambler American in the R&T test of a few days ago. The big difference being that the base Acclaim has all the necessary specs of the day to accelerate, brake, and handle roughly as well as many of the cars out there at the time. The stripper model was not so stripped of the mechanical necessities to keep up with its peer group. Well done, Chrysler of old (pre-Daimler and all the rest).
In my experience driving fleet cars, these were much improved over their K-car predecessors.
But under the sheetmetal was the ‘K’ car platform of old, with improvements, sure, but the very same basic stuff as the 1981 Aris K and the Reliant K
I have worked as a Chrysler ‘mechanic’ since 1959, through 1988, then my one Chrysler repair shop until 2012. So I know these cars inside out.
Here’s the wife’s 1994 Dodge Shadow.
That is a nice looking car. Your wife has good taste.
One more data point in my theory that Chrysler could build a) beautiful cars, b) exciting cars and c) good cars but could never combine those attributes in any single vehicle.
Wow. This is food for thought. Now I’m going through my mental Rolodex of Chrysler products to check this theory…
Under that criteria, 1967-68 Plymouth Furys powered by 318s come to mind at least for me. We’ve had three of them in the family, and I still have the ’68.
Well Mr. Cavanaugh, Chrysler did ‘attempt’ to combine those 3 attributes into one single car. They tried it with the ‘Q’ body known as ‘Chrysler’s TC by Maserati”. In hindsight I can see how it did not go over well with the public. a) It was too high priced! b) It looked almost the same as a car Chrysler had been selling for 2 years by the time the TC was introduced for sale. c) It was a 2 seater and NOT a useful vehicle for families.
However, it was a good looking car, and though not as exciting as a Viper, nonetheless a luxuriously appointed car with it’s all Italian leather interior, all options possible included in the price and even a Dual Overhead Cam Turbo Inter-cooled engine with a Getrag 5 speed transaxle at no additional cost, and they are a good car even today. Time has a way for us all to soften our opinions on a lot of things as look back. What we thought outrageous when introduced in the 50s & 60s seems quaint today. Though I still think 1961 Chrysler built cars are especially UGLY! Many did not like the 1962 models either, but they morphed into the 1963 and then the 1964 which were great liking and performing cars to us MOPAR fans. So, here is my TC as it looks today after 33+ years in service and almost 300,000 miles.
FWIW, I’m disappointed that I never owned one of these. Of course Younger Me wouldn’t have considered the mere thought of driving something so classically practical. Current Me is very drawn to these though. That interior is calling my name loudly.
I think that there are still a lot of people that buy cars and don’t really care about them. Enthusiasts have the handicap of rose colored glasses. They allow the aspects of good looks or high performance overshadow practical concerns. Prime example: the 70-81 Chevy Camaro. Most folks buy something that they can use, that has the best reputation of reliability, and that they can afford. Autos as appliances. I have bought several minivans in the past, so even I have succumbed to my practical needs in the past.
My first car was an Acclaim, 2.5 automatic. I was merciless to that Plymouth, and it suffered as only a cheap old car in the hands of a dumb teenager could. I spent a lot of time learning to go sideways around corners, jumped curbs, floored from every stoplight, made various mods of differing levels of success to get more power (gutted airbox and advanced distributor = good, ozone + K&N = bad) did an oil change and forgot to tighten the drain plug once…
Never once did it break on me, not even the cigarette lighter. It rode so nicely, took unlimited abuse and asked for more, and those seats might still be the most comfortable I’ve sat on.
Great damn car. I wish there was something like it today
After my doing a bunch of homework, the Ms. and I went to buy a new 1993 Dodge Spirit. We got talked into an Intrepid instead. The Intrepid was just fine, but I think the Spirit would have likely been more durable and economical, in hindsight. Spirit, the most-almostest COAL of my lifetime.
I care about cars and like these alot. Attractive and practical shape. Large rectangular doors that won’t clip your head if you don’t lean down enough as you get in. A vertical back window that reduces crud buildup (and makes it less noticeable), maximizes the trunk opening size, and increases rear headroom. Good outward vision (in daytime at least; the headlamps are weak). Solid ergonomics. Proper full set of gauges, including oil pressure and voltage. Comfortable split bench seat. Shifter on the column, where God intended automatic transmission shifters to be. A nice overhead console from the minivans (optional). 4 wheel disk antilock brakes back when they weren’t common (also optional). Decent reliability. Parts easy to find due to gazillions of K based cars being sold. Reasonable price.
Make mine a ’91 though, because that was the last year they offered an elegant dark red (“Bordeaux”) interior; a garish red crimson replaced it in ’92. 1991 was the first year for the available antilock disk brakes and overhead console, as well as an option for analog gauges in the similar LeBaron. I’d especially avoid late models that had a mouse type passive shoulder belt on the passenger side.
I had an 89 in 93. I loved it. I would get one in heartbeat. Comfy. Not too big, not too small. 3.0 V6 A/OD. I love it. Mine was dark cherry red gray pinstripe and dark red velour interior. Did I say it was comfy? It wasn’t the base and it wasn’t the top line but intermediary trim.
A Plymouth Acclaim was my driver’s ed vehicle – it had the 2.5 and medium blue paint with a blue velour interior. I think I was the first person in my summer class to get a shot at driving it, and I was speeding before I’d been behind the wheel 20 minutes. Later, I passed a speed trap in the passing lane on the expressway going five over, and my instructor said, “You’re fine.” He was right. 🙂
There was also an english made car named Triumph Acclaim from the early 80s or so. No lawsuit about the name?😏
Considering that was the last Triumph automobile made, and how British Leyland (or whatever they were calling themselves by that point) were desperately trying to stay alive, I seriously doubt if they noticed. And if they did notice, they couldn’t afford the lawyer’s feed to file a trademark suit.
Wasn’t that based on the Honda Civic?
Er-ruhh…what lawsuit are we talking about? Model names have jumped around from maker to maker over the years even just within the American market—”Suburban”, for example. And there are plenty of cases where a given model name is used on completely different cars from different makers in different markets (Jeep Liberty, Subaru Liberty). Chrysler marketing the Plymouth Acclaim in the North American market would have utterly nothing to do with BL marketing the Triumph Acclaim in the UK market, even if those two things were happening at the same time—much less separated by five years.
Volvo had to change the name Amazon to 120-series on the international market. That was not because of another car ,but because of a german MOPED named Kreidler Amazone!🤔
Yes, and for the same reason Ford changed the Mustang into T5 over here. In this case there were even two other Mustangs on the german market, the Moped Kreidler Mustang and the truck Krupp Mustang
There was also the Lancia Montecarlo. Sold here in the US as the Scorpion. Chevy had the Monte Carlo.
Maybe Scoutdude can correct my memory. I seem to recall Case International coming out with a new side by side ATV and naming it the Scout, even using a IHC Scout 80 as inspiration in their adds. International Truck and Engine Corp threatened to sue Case International as ITE owned the copy write to the name “Scout”.
I always liked these Acclaims and Spirits. They weren’t what you’d call “exciting”, or “cutting edge” but I thought they were modern enough. The styling was conservative, but handsome in my eye. In my opinion, they sort of blurred the line between “compact” and “midsized.” They seemed roomier than a Tempo or Corsica to me and, as long as you didn’t need 3-across seating, they compared well with a Taurus or Lumina, even. Actually, the Lumina felt a bit skimpy on legroom to me, both front and rear, so if you’re a tall driver, the Spirit/Acclaim might have been the better choice.
I liked Chrysler interiors back then, too. GM interiors often seemed like too many random pieces thrown together, and they had a fetish for cheap, hard plastics. I’m not fooling myself into thinking that Mopar wasn’t guilty of that, as well, but just something about the textures often seemed more pleasing to me.
Chrysler back in those days could do a cheap interior better than anyone else. Somehow you got the feeling that the beancounter in the accounting department that was cheaping it down either had more taste, or, Chrysler only used one person to cost cut an interior. GM probably used a dozen, each one picking on a certain part of the interior.
GM probably used a dozen, each one picking on a certain part of the interior.
So that is how we get the Frankenstein interior.
The cloth seat fabrics were very durable, something I’ve noticed in almost every K-car derivative I’ve seen recently. The brown corduroy ones in my mom’s – and later my – ’85 Town and Country wagon showed no wear when it was sold in 1994.
My 94 Saratoga, (EU version of said car, as you all know) has the same colour. It has the 3.0 V6, A/OD, AC, a smooth and comfy car. Everything you ecxpect from a US car over here, but in a smaller, better fitting, package. I drive it daily to work and even travel across europe in it. Perfect for road trips.
Saratoga was a familiar name for a Chrysler here in the states from 1939 to 1952 and from 1957 to 1960. It was the middle model line, between the New Yorker and the Windsor models.
One simply must respect an unexciting, reliable, usable car like this.
Back in 1990, my uncle wanted to get a car, and was interested in the Pontiac Grand Ams. However, as soon as he sat in one, he just couldn’t get past that interior. So instead he bought a used ’88 LeBaron turbo coupe.
That LeBaron was a nice car. It had the leather interior, digital dash, etc. He had a few issues with it, but nothing major as I recall. He sold it to me in 1995 when I got married, and my wife used it. We divorced a year later, and I let her have it in the divorce. By then, it had about 90,000 miles on it. Again, no major issues when we had it. I think the biggest expense was getting the timing belt done, and a little suspension work. I know you’re supposed to get those belts done every 60,000, but we took a chance there!
Some of my relatives got mad, that I let her have that car in the divorce. The other car was a 1968 Dodge Dart V8 that had over 300,000 miles on it. They were saying I should have given her that one, instead, but I knew what I was doing. Between that 90,000 miles, until around 115,000, that LeBaron just totally went to crap. Finally it was a warped head/bad head gasket that did it in. She took it someplace and they “fixed” it for $750, but it still wasn’t right. So she let me take it to my own mechanic, and he checked it out. He said the turbo was shot, compression was low in all four cylinders but really bad in two of them, and in his opinion nobody should sink another dime into the car. It had a list of other issues by that time as well, longer than a CVS receipt.
I don’t hold it against the car, though. I know my ex-wife didn’t take care of it after the divorce, and it also got stolen a few times, and taken on joyrides. And, 115,000 miles is more than a lot of cars have made it!
My parents had two Acclaims with the 2.5 and the A413 automatic an ’89 and a ’92 (or was it a ’93?) The ’89 had the best interior, but the later car had better motor mounts, beefier lower control arms and a higher pressure fuel injection set up over the ’89. The older car protected my mom in a bad accident so well, it was an easy choice for them to get an Acclaim with the driver side air bag to replace the one that didn’t. Both Acclaims gave my parents very good service. When it came time to replace the second one, my dad couldn’t find another one as nice as the first two so they ended up with a 2003 Neon with a 5 speed manual. My dad missed the ease of service of the two Acclaims, though it was hard to argue with the gas mileage the Neon got on the highway.
If I found an ’89 Acclaim like my mom’s, it would be a serious temptation. The bucket seats in it were even more comfortable than the driver’s seat in my ’89 LeBaron Coupe which at the time was saying something.
If the AA cars had been named Valiant and Dart, I would have considered them worthy successors.