I may have inadvertently ruffled a feather or two with my oh-so-erudite comparative analysis between two Cadillac Cimarrons recently, the upshot was we’ve (again) been more or less accused of shilling in favor of all imports to the detriment of the domestic automotive industry. Well, today we have one of those foreign-built jobs that we apparently hold in such high esteem to take a closer look at. I’ll call ’em how I see ’em, and I’ll admit right off the bat that there are a couple of things that appeal here…but Maserati do have a history of laying a few eggs and some might have gotten broken in the making of this veritable omelette of a car.
First and foremost, I don’t know that I ever consciously realized that it actually is called “Chrysler’s TC….” and not “Chrysler TC…”, yeah, with the apostrophe and the “s”. Jon Stephenson found another one early last year and he got it right in his text as I realized when I reread his piece, but I had glossed right over that the first time and the entire time I’ve been aware of the car since the later 80s. Virtually nobody anywhere else seems to get it right either. But jeez, it does come across as a little pretentious, kind of like opera windows etc, but I may be getting ahead of myself there so just hang on. It just sounds stupid as in “Hey, Vanessa, come check out my new car, a 1989 Chrysler’s TC By Maserati“.
The backstory of course was that Lee Iacocca and Alejandro deTomaso of Maserati (at the time) were old buddies; they got together and decided on a mutually beneficial project wherein Chrysler would give ungodly amounts of money to Maserati, perhaps the only automaker with a worse reputation than Chrysler, and in return Maserati would design and build a brand new gorgeous Convertible. With a Turbo, so they could call it the Turbo Convertible (TC). Clever name. Seemed like a win-win. Or maybe two wins for the Italian side, since it was apparently a LOT of money, my understanding well over half a billion 1980s dollars. Maybe that’s well over half a billion wins. It’s hard to compete against that many wins. But never mind, we have eggs to crack!
Of course Maserati didn’t have complete free reign, the engineering team was shackled to the Chrysler parts bin and told to use whatever bits weren’t being used up in K-cars at the moment. Originally slated to appear in 1986, the Italians took their sweet time, waved their hands around a lot while shouting excitedly in foreign language gibberish at the American engineers looking over their shoulders, waited for Iacocca to actually release the new Chrysler LeBaron in its homeland and THEN declared the almost dead ringer TC for it ready for prime time well after the checks had cleared and there could be no clawbacks. La Dolce Vita indeed. And the buyers took a quick glance and said maybe instead of Chrysler’s TC it should be Chrysler’s WTF.
The bodywork is unique and created at Innocenti, nothing is actually shared with any Chrysler no matter how much it looks like it and in person the TC is in fact far better looking than the LeBaron, but then again lots of people in other places buy those Chinese knockoffs of RAV4s and F150s and Range Rovers that look almost exactly but not 100% like the original for less than half the money.
That’s sort of how this is, but the awkward part was that in this case the knockoff made it to the showroom first and was sold in the same one. Doh. Both cars are on different platforms, but both of those are different variants of the basic K platform, making this of course the only Maserati(-ish car) to be front wheel drive. It does make one wonder why are there multiple platforms used for what most people think is the same exact car? (Correction: There was a FWD Maserati prior, the Quattroporte II, using Citroen SM mechanicals, it never received Type Approval and was hand built/sold a total of 13 times in a handful of countries that looked beyond that. Yet it did exist.)
Do you guys like opera windows? I don’t. I think they look ridiculous, especially on anything this side of 1960. The same people bitching about modern cars not having enough window area seemed to have no problem buying cars with tiny opera windows placed in a huge expanse of B or C pillar by the parking-lot-full not so long ago.
Does Maserati have a history of opera windows? Did Pavarotti stand backstage and peer out a tiny little window at the audience before making his entrance? What’s the deal here? Or did Lido simply think THIS is what will bring them running. I can imagine the boardroom fights when he lost the battles for a landau top, hood ornament, and curb feelers.
These cars had a standard hard top AND a soft top as well, just like a Mercedes SL. Sehr cool. Most of these cars seem to have the hardtop on permanently, at least the ones I’ve seen, perhaps the soft tops deteriorate and are too expensive to fix or replace? Who knows. Or the second, third, or fourth owner has nowhere to store the hardtop on those beautiful late summer days.
The color on this one is the Black Cherry hue, one of six colors available in 1989 according to a brochure I referenced although other sources say only three colors were available initially. Most of these seem to be the buttercream yellowish color, but white, black, red, and a charcoal were also supposedly available, but perhaps not that first year.
Wheels were by Fondmetal, exclusive supplied to Formula 1 racing back then, not that I can imagine anyone in the US caring a hoot or even barely knowing what F1 was/is, more likely they are just whoever sent in the lowest bid response to Maserati’s RFQ, it’s not like it was ever planned to be a huge contract. I’ll be a little cynical and just assume this is as close to Iacocca’s preferred wire wheel look as the Italians would accede to.
The wheels don’t look bad and fit in with the era; the BF Goodrich Radial T/A white letter tires (and on just the rears) sort of ruin the premium look the car was going for at the time though, but they aren’t original to the car. The chrome fender lips ARE original and as much as I don’t particularly have an opinion on black plastic cladding on many modern wheelwells, I’m not particularly carrying a torch for the chrome version either. See? We’re up to at least two things I don’t really like on this import.
And yes, it most assuredly is an import, just like all the Mitsubishis that were taking up the other half of the Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth/Eagle/Who’d-I-Miss showrooms at the time. Made in Italy, manufactured by Maserati, and with a Z VIN. No mention of Chrysler here whatsoever.
This one is number 3086 off the line in that first year run which turned out to be the lion’s share with 3,764 produced. 1990 ended up at 1,900 and then there is a bit of a confusing tale of a further 1,636 or so built in 1990 but held over or not sold until the 1991 model year. Any way you slice it, a far, far cry from the projected numbers at the outset and at a base (but very well equipped) price of $33,000 in 1989 rising to $37,000 at the end, a Loser with a capital L. Do the math, if the numbers are all correct, the investment vs sales (not profit, sales) return was less than 50%.
Standing in front of the car the hood was stuck closed, it even said so on the hood. I figured it out after much prodding and probing, mainly because I was curious what engine was in it before I looked inside the cabin which made it obvious. Chrysler used the 160hp 2.2liter Turbo engine from the Daytona for these, mated to the hoary 3-speed automatic, but optionally (and supposedly at zero cost according to the early brochure) an engine based on the same block but with a Maserati and Cosworth designed 16-valve head along with some other changes that added 40hp (for an even 200) was available.
Those changes encompassed supposedly using items such as a Crane-designed cam manufactured by Maserati, Mahle pistons, and a different, Japanese supplied turbocharger. This was paired exclusively with a 5-speed manual Getrag transmission. While the Venn diagrams for Opera-windowed cars and manual transmission turbocharged drivetrains in my mind are on opposite sides of the planet (much like Chrysler and Maserati) apparently 500 or so people saw it differently and chose that combination. Or perhaps a few of the 300 select (lucky?) Chrysler dealers that were “allowed” to peddle these ticked the wrong box on the order sheet and then faced an even bigger challenge moving these off their lot.
I do like the grille and after spending far too much time groping around under it trying to open the hood, I removed it and bought it for my garage wall, I find it looks cool, the combination Pentastar/Trident logo will warn future generations in my garage of entering into ill-advised dalliances and the stainless surround is actually steel and not plastic.
One would think (and frankly hope) that the most reliable thing in a Maserati-Chrysler badged car might be the engine churned out by the millions in Detroit, sadly in this case that does not appear to be so. The comically appropriate plastic trashbag was tightly covering the engine, I was the one to remove it to make sure it wasn’t obscuring the special Maserati-fettled engine; alas, it was not.
Someone was plucky enough to remove the top parts of the engine, perhaps being familiar with an Omni or something before, but then somehow paused and tucked it away for that special day when it would all be restored to new. Or even better!
Apparently Chrysler agreed that their engine sucked as for the 1990 and 1991 models they told Maserati that they would be supplying Mitsubishi 3.0l V6s instead. Say what? Yes, all the 1990 and 1991 models have a Mitsu V6 mated to a 4-speed automatic unless they were part of the 500 with the special engine. The whole name was based on them all being turbocharged…oh well, best laid plans and all that…
I was firmly hoping that the engine simply lived for 32 years and provided dutiful and faithful service for many hundreds of thousands of miles as the condition of the paint might indicate, so it was time to get inside the car and find out.
And there it hit me that no, the car (and engine) had only clocked 67,092 miles before apparently giving up. I can’t even blame this on a crappy Veglia or VDO odometer as that looks to be straight out of a Plymouth Voyager or similar. At least the gauges are complete-ish with no blanks, I wonder if the owner saw the coolant temp spike or the oil pressure dwindle or both at the same time? More fun than just a warning light I guess.
This though is my favorite part of the car (besides the grille). The steering wheel. The Italians know how to do leather and this cabin is draped in it. It even still smelled good! Or at least less bad than other cars but some goodness was definitely in the air. That wheel looks great, alas it was for 1989 only, in 1990 they swapped it out for an airbag equipped wheel out of a minivan from the Mopar parts bin, which, I’ll be frank, didn’t look quite as inviting. Still round, still sort of tan, but not quite the same.
No LeBaron even looked this good inside. Actually, most new LeBaron’s looked worse than this one today. The seats are practically still moo-ing, the door panels more or less have leather blankets tossed over them, the wheel is great, and if you could deep-fry the top of a dashboard in leather at the Milan State Fair, then that’s what this one had done, even if today the leather on that dashtop looks more like a funnel cake than anything else.
And my favorite part of course may be the thick baked-together-bun look on the center console armrest. It’s as soft as it looks, I poked it like I was poking the Pillsbury Doughboy’s belly and when it yielded a couple of inches I giggled like the Doughboy himself. Thinking about it, they should have engineered in the parts bin Chrysler Electronic Voice Alert System “Your door is ajar” etc and made that thing giggle every time it got poked.
While the wood is real (veneer) and holding up quite well in this car, the buttons, switchgear, and other bits and pieces are clearly and painfully lower grade K-car bits. They work and all, they just look and feel cheap. Perfectly fine in a value oriented vehicle, not so much here. And that font is atrocious in this or any context, especially with the varied letter spacing as is clearly evident here.
But I guess any dollar of the investment that Maserati didn’t have to convert into a lire to buy or make their own bits is a dollar socked away or squandered on something completely different; after all, even though it’s a Maserati (or a “By” Maserati), it didn’t have to actually be sold by Maserati, a small but perhaps critical detail. Mitsubishi didn’t have to operate under the same constraints, but then again, the Dodge Colt “By Mitsubishi” was also sold as the Mitsubishi Mirage across the street. Things to ponder before getting out of bed this morning…
More parts bin bits here, but with the wood and stitched leather they are more passable I suppose. Well no, not really, below is what a 1989 Maserati Biturbo Spyder’s interior looked like.
Same model year car, same builder, probably same suppliers for much of it. And based on a design almost a decade old. It’s better and just more sophisticated looking. And the interior of the Chrysler’s TC By Maserati probably turned out to be its best part! I wonder how much Chrysler actually saved by using the interior bits, it’s not like someone felt immediately comfortable in the car due to having had a Plymouth Horizon and recognizing the door handle or something.
Awkwardly placed behind the driver’s shoulder are controls to lower or raise the top and solid tonneau cover. Someone did a pretty good job color matching the grainy plastic to the stitched leather here. And the gathered leather with elastic pouch below it is a great place to stash absolutely nothing I can think of.
Unlike in the Lebaron, there is no +2 here, just space for a bag or maybe a Corgi or two. That cover lifts up to provide a generously sized bin that unfathomably holds a spare tire (gone on this one, what’s wrong with the trunk for that?) and also has a pull cable release for the trunk lid.
We don’t have pictures of the trunk interior as even though there was a key in the car (with the black plastic Chrysler head of the era), said key actually twisted and broke in half when I tried to turn it in the trunk lock, and then the pull release didn’t work either at which point I just decided to sod it and walked away…
After all that, I can’t really bring myself to entirely dislike it. Yes, it was a complete mistake of an idea and then things just got worse from inception on, the ship never really got righted, and it’s beyond baffling that Lee Iacocca didn’t just get fired from Chrysler by 1990, I myself have been fired over far more trivial things. The car perhaps had some initial promise conceptually but the reality was never going to live up to the dream/hype/whatever-was-being-smoked, not once it got delayed, not with all the low buck components, not with front wheel drive, not with the unfortunate LeBaron timing and styling and certainly not with an Italian car marque involved that was best known and remembered in the U.S. for making almost a decade’s worth of their Biturbo models go bang unexpectedly, expensively, and generally consistently so.
One of the best bits of info that I came across was actually in the yard while I was trying to figure out how to open the trunk once the key broke. I googled it on my phone and came across a forum where multiple people had asked the same question, apparently it’s an issue, the best response was from an owner who lamented why oy why did Chrysler decide to partner with Maserati of all companies instead of just picking a German company to hand their money to…
I am 100 percent sure the portholes on the hardtop were intended to evoke the ’57 Thunderbird, which was continuing to rise in stature thanks to the Reagan era’s obsession with ’50s nostalgia. Do they? Uh, well, I can see what they were thinking, I guess.
As for why so many of these cars seem to live with their hardtops on, my guess would be that they’re fairly heavy (the extra glass of the portholes can’t help), a pain to store, and cumbersome for one person to remove or install. An older single person living in an apartment or condo, even a very nice one with an assigned indoor parking space, probably wouldn’t have any secure place to put the hardtop if they removed it, and putting it back on would be a hassle.
I notice that you say an older single person. It definitely strikes me as a car aimed at senior citizens, aside from the fact that most young people couldn’t afford one.
I don’t claim to have any idea what the demographics of this car’s few purchasers were, but it was quite expensive, had no back seat, and was not that terribly sporty. The first two factors would tend to put off younger buyers, and the latter makes it seem less enticing as a second car for affluent empty nesters trying to recapture their youth.
My guess, then, would be that the typical customer for these, such as were, was an older single urbanite who only needed/had room for one car, seldom carried more than one passenger, but could afford something moderately luxurious. (These were roughly the same range in MSRP as the U.S. Mercedes 190E, which I think skewed similarly.)
Such a buyer would probably have liked the idea of the Maserati name, perhaps assumed that the Chrysler running gear would make it more reliable than a true European car (oh well), and might have felt a sense of accomplishment at being able to negotiate a steep discount off the sticker price.
Well, Lido was at Ford when that car was made. And he never shied away from, uh, exposing the public to his automotive taste. This TC is probably the most unrestrained Iacocca vehicle that could have been made from the available parts, and with the added Italian collaborative flair.
But man, that Maserati ciabatta center console lid… yuck.
Regarding the centre console, I’d probably tell my friends it was repurposed, and refurbished, from the top 1/3 of one of ‘Gump’ Worsley’s goalie pads.
“Happy Days”, “Laverne and Shirley”, “American Graffiti”, Sha-Na- Na and their “Grease – the musical, and the 1978 humongous movie hit, “Grease” were all before Reagan. 1950s obsession was well entrenched before The Gipper.
Fair.
JUST SAY IT:
This car was as uncool as the Rambler Marlin.
It is Lee Iacocca, Frank Sinatra, lounge-era and jazz.
It was the PT Cruiser of the K-Cars.
It is LasVegas Liberace Museum uncool.
It is Beef Wellington served at a buffet with instant gravy uncool.
It is Bingo Hall uncool.
It is so uncool, even I can’t bail it out from a Jim Klein review uncool.
Thanks for digging this fossil up. It’s like finding a dinosaur known for lifting its tail and shooting out more methane than an abandoned KOA campground.
If this car had thrived, I could realistically see a TC By Maserati KG edition, later being released. Stacked with Kenny G cassettes in the console.
Sinatra was once cool, as was jazz, although I will freely concede that by the time this car was conceived, that hadn’t been true in many years, and wouldn’t be again until after Frank was off to the great drinkery in the sky.
I do agree that this is conceptually the kind of car the Rat Pack guys liked, or would have liked, had it not ended up looking like a J-body LeBaron — something flashy and “different” to show off with. (Sinatra and Dean Martin each had a Dual-Ghia, Sinatra I think more than one.)
Definitely Tbird. Opera windows to me are weird geometric slats, sometimes more than one, mostly festooned on large cars with vinyl tops. The Mark IV with oval ones might come close, and there may well have been some Tbird channeling by Lido with those as well, but perfectly round portholes on a painted removable hardtop is unquestionably 56-57 Tbird. Which makes zero sense since this is the Chrysler TC by Maserati… why is it using obvious touches from the 30 year old Ford thunderbird? and not, you know, Maserati’s? Were customers supposed to take it as a nod to Lido’s heritage? Even if that were the case, why the Tbird, even the most died in the wool car guys mainly associate his Ford tenure with the Mustang.
What’s so weird about it is the roof is a straight up retro piece, it looks more authentic than the porthole removable top you could equip on 02-05 Thunderbirds! But the rest of the car is typical 80s aero boxy, it couldn’t be further than 1950s themed inside or out and with the top on it’s a jarring combination. The TC with the top removed(with the soft top down or up) looks like a completely conventional 80s convertible, on the stubby side, but conventional to be sure. It would still draw the ire and wrath of detractors I’m sure, but I don’t think it would have nearly as big of a bullseye on it without that porthole roof. It’s like if Ford made a removable hardtop for the 89 Foxbody convertibles shaped almost exactly like the 65 2+2 roof, its one thing to add little retro touches like taillight shapes and emblems on a “modern” design but you cant get away adding an entire section of a car from disparate eras
Losing seven inches of wheelbase, compared to the standard LeBaron, really destroyed the proportions of these cars. That’s less wheelbase than most subcompacts. This was too large a car, for such a small wheelbase. It turned this car into a caricature of the standard LeBaron, aided by the tacky porthole. The interior was also overdone. It looks out-of-place in this car. The hardtop was also too upright, and formal, for a sporty car. I was encouraged by the 1985 Lebaron GTS, and the standard 1987 LeBaron. But with this, and the too boxy Dynasty/New Yorker, Chrysler was becoming embarrassing again.
Interesting, to hear John Davis of Motorweek during this period. Somewhere between the staid early 80s host, and the smarmier salesman-like host of the 1990s and beyond.
Excellent find and critique!
What’s with the sponsorship by two dot-coms in a 1989 review? Is that Motorweek clip really from 1989 or was it a retrospective done later?
It is an original 1989 review. They post retro reviews at their Retro Motorweek YouTube channel. The sponsors are current.
First things first: the TC is not the only Maserati to have front drive; the second-generation Quattroporte from the mid-1970s was also FWD, and it was a bona fide Maserati too, albeit one designed with Citroën. Basically a four-door sedan body on an SM platform which already used a Maserati V6. They didn’t make very many, but they did make them.
There’s a reason for the awkward “Chrysler’s TC by Maserati” syntax – it helped skirt a legal stipulation Chrysler had with their dealerships that allowed any of them to sell all Chrysler-branded cars that were offered in the US. Chrysler wanted to sell TCs only through a hand-picked 300 dealers that had the nicest facilities or locations and were up to selling such a prestigious car 🙂 , so they got around the legal verbiage by making it not technically a Chrysler. (Volkswagen did the same thing with the Phaeton in the US, minus having to call it “VW’s Phaeton” – only nicer dealers were allowed to sell them).
Nice as all that leather is, the overall look inside reminds me of low-volume cars like a ’70s or ’80s Stutz, or those last Avantis built from modified Camaros or Firebirds. Despite all the restyling, the donor car cant help but bleed through, with pieces of the original dash showing through cutouts in the new padding and such. The TC interior looks like you took a LeBaron, removed some of the dash and door trim, and put padded leather in its place. But the gauge cluster and window/lock controls and radio & ventilation controls are all so obviously K-car, just one with padded leather thrown everywhere. (the TC interior does look great at night though, with red backlighting). And yeah, what are those pouches in back for? What has a curved shape like that?
Ah yes, “Citroen’s 4D by Maserati”, 13 in total built by hand after not receiving type approval and sold by (or to) pretty much nobody, right you are of course though, can’t have a Quattroporte 3 or 4 without a 2 first, thank you and the text will be amended. I’ll keep an eye out for one though, that would make an excellent Curbside Recycling! 🙂
FWD or no, the SM seems a more respectable starting point for a high-end luxury tourer than a Chrysler K car.
I wonder if like the odd name, the placard making no mention of Chrysler was also done to drive home that for legal purposes this was a Maserati and not a Chrysler.
Just take an SM as the factory supplied it. You won’t get much better than that.
There is another upshot about these also…a while back I stumbled upon one or two of these for sale, and in pretty decent condition, for quite reasonable prices. The unique factor alone is worth $20 or so…
Jim, of everything you’ve said here, the one that grabbed me most is the wheels. These are unique? Good grief. The ’91 Dynasty my parents bought new had these wheels as did countless minivans. Or maybe they weren’t the same wheels it seems. Makes sense…building an expensive car that is a weird clone of one you already have should extend to duplicating the wheels also, I suppose. At least the door handles are body colored, unlike the chrome ones on my father-in-law’s LeBaron convertible. Oh, and the turn signal switch is on the steering column here, not on the dash as it is in the LeBaron. Gotta differentiate, I suppose.
This car is just sad. And the tag saying “Off A Maserati” seems fitting somehow.
Perhaps by the end TC stood for Too Costly.
I’ll agree this is terrible, but not a terrible as a Cimmaron. At least they didn’t take a garden variety K car, fly it to Italy, cut the roof off it and put on a different grille for twice the price.
I was thinking perhaps a mickey of rum would fit in that elastic bag. Then you could sing yo ho ho and look out the porthole?
My knee-jerk reaction has always been to defend this car by reminding everyone of the initial plan – this was to have been in showrooms a year before the restyled LeBaron. This would have been a stunning car in 1986, when there were still so many straight lines and corners in high-end showrooms. Other than the parts bin pieces, the rest of the package was unique and the interior was decadent. The looks of the car, that seem so derivative of the LeBaron and other later Chrysler products, were actually to be out ahead of them all.
But then I must acknowledge the terrific cynicism of this car. Could there have been any plan other than to snooker the maximum number of “I have to have this first” people into spending a silly amount of money, then to slide into showrooms with a knockoff that provides most of the looks at normal-people prices. How could they possibly have expected to sell any more of them after 1986?
I know nothing about these, other than remembering one of my local dealers advertising them in the paper LONG after they had stopped production. Their oddity kind of appeals to me, but I have never been able to get past the car being the very worst of Chrysler and the very worst of Maserati, all rolled into one, with nothing but a bunch of leather to compensate.
Someone has a couple of these ridiculous things in their yard out here in Deming. They don’t move, as well as the other couple dozen or so cars on the property.
Only two things came to me while reading this.
1. No this is not better looking than a Chrysler LeBaron inside or out.
2. Solid White Letter tires make anything look better even this
Agree!
The “Chrysler WTF” – LOL
I’ll go on record as saying I like these, and the sight of this one is depressing. With that said, I wonder if any aftermarket manufacturer ever made a removable hardtop for the LeBaron convertible. As far as the exterior styling comparison goes, it’s six of one, half-dozen of the other, though it goes without saying that the TC’s interior is of an infinitely higher order.
A LeBaron convertible with a removable hardtop (sans porthole) would look mighty appealing to me – plus, there would be a back seat.
I think, of them all, I’d have chosen a LeBaron coupe (or a Dodge Daytona if any of the era’s 2 door Mopars are on the table).
I still would not mind one today.
It’s not a “Chrysler WTF”, it’s a “Chrysler’s WTF by Maserati”…
While I’ve never seen a removable hardtop for the LeBaron, I was thinking its successor the Sebring convertible offered one in its last generation, but apparently not – rather it was available in two convertible body styles, a softtop and a retractable hardtop.
The Queen is gone; “free rein” is the operative phrase.
I’ve long held the controversial opinion that the ’87 LeBaron was one of the best automotive styling efforts of that questionable decade, and I actually thought the leather interiors of the higher end models were quite attractively trimmed. So no, I don’t think this thing improved on it in any way, except possibly in the quality of (some) materials. But then again the quality of materials and workmanship on the LeBaron….well, let’s just say “quality” and “workmanship” are clearly oxymoronic in this instance.
Please note I specified that I was a fan of the styling. I’d be as quick as anyone else to point out that sadly they were just rather pretty shitboxes.
So, as many of you may have noticed, I’m frequently on craigslist looking at old cars. Well, a weird coincidence kept repeating itself: two cars somehow linked, but the ads themselves unrelated, ended up next to each other. I have dozens of examples, but these two showed up a while back. A LeBaron in Oregon, a TC in Washington, for almost the same price.
I’ve thought about creating a series based around similar captures. They’re all random, I did not manipulate the list to make them appear next to each other (like, I guess, searching for “Chrysler” could have made these appear together). As for a title, how about “Pic(k) a Pair”?
Great finds. It would be an interesting series. The view selections might consist of more front and rear views, because of these cars often being parked in confined spaces. Sadly, the hardtop on the TC has a dated ’70s look and feel. Especially, from the rear, but in profile as well. In fact, the full rear view of the TC looks dated. The LeBaron coupe looks more modern and aerodynamic. Very poor reverse light integration on both.
Honestly, a TC search might compel me to look for M-Body LeBaron coupes from the ’77 to ’79 era. Just as luxurious in Medallion trim, and better looking.
Thanks, Daniel, I thought the same thing. The Lebaron makes the TC look strikingly old-hat by comparison. And yes, I’d take the old RWD car over any.
It actually started when I found a Jeep Patriot and Jeep Compass, both rare combinations of AWD+manual transmission, appearing next to each other on the list, but actually not that close to one another. I don’t love the vehicles or anything, it just struck me: such a rare combination, twice, and right next to each other, but totally unrelated. So, I saved it. Then, later, there was a Chrysler Laser and Dodge Daytona next to each other. Then two identical Explorers thousands of miles apart. It snowballed from there.
That LeBaron RWD coupe really stepped on the Cordoba’s toes; they were competing for the same buyer and the former’s sales never recovered (an unfortunate facelift didn’t help). I find the Dodge Diplomat coupe even more interesting because it’s so utterly forgotten; it’s a reminder the Diplomat was originally intended to be a stylish personal luxury coupe with a companion sedan for those who needed more practicality, not the cop car and fleet queen it became for most of its run.
This was before the interior design renaissance of the 1990s, that saw more refined and interesting interfaces and typefaces used in cars, for gauge clusters, and general identification.
The gauge cluster looks like it belongs in a Sundance. While, the white typeface used on the saddle-coloured surfaces appears to be Microgramma. A generic, industrial-grade face dating from the 1950s.
Unfortunately, in trying to look like Italian leather, the leather and plastic surfaces appear too colour saturated. Cheapening the overall appearance. The colour is near identical to the vinyl interior on my dad’s ’78 Aspen.
The parcel shelf decor has a 1890’s Pullman look and feel.
What were they thinking. Poor execution in many ways, and I felt that way in ’89, when I saw the first reviews.
I’m not sure if this qualifies as an “interior design renaissance”, but late LeBaron coupes and convertibles got a revamped interior that was unquestionably the least K-car-like interior to find its way into a K-related platform. Lots of soft curves, very ’90s, nothing at all like the all-rectangles look with cheap switchgear that most of the K variants had.
I felt it took the arrival of the LH cars, for Chrysler to present a genuinely modern and appealing dash and cluster design, during that era. Credit to Chrysler for recognizing they had to freshen the very dated original 1987 design in the LeBaron. But I found this design with the GM-like ‘hood’ surrounding the instrument cluster, wasn’t significantly more attractive. To me, it looked like a design suited for a compact sedan, not their premium personal luxury car. See the similar 1992 Lumina APV dash design. It was different for Chrysler, up to that point. But it had a generic GM quality to it.
Their interiors improved dramatically with the LH cars.
The late J-body LeBaron interior still felt cheap and plasticky, though. It had better ergonomics and more equipment, but it still felt like a big box store white label product, which a few thousand miles of cowl shake and exposure to the elements only accentuated.
In its favor, the LeBaron was also priced like a big box store white label product, so it wasn’t a bad deal for what it was. Unlike the TC, you got pretty much what you paid for, which gave it a certain honesty I respected. I wouldn’t have ever bought one (I hate convertibles, and there were more compelling alternatives to the coupe), but I could see why someone would.
It’s similar if not exactly the same as the Daytona, no? I remember thinking, the gauge hood reminded me of GMs (and Isuzu products commonly sold under GM brands, like the Geo Storm/Isuzu Stylus), even the refreshed Corsica/Beretta.
On a different branch of the same tree, I always remember thinking as a kid how much the Sundance/Shadow reminded me of our ‘85.5 Escort. The hatch profile and tail lights are very familiar.
I could’ve sworn my 1996 Concorde had the same font as this. Maybe because it was released in 1993?
As far as buyer perceptions were concerned, I’m not sure that Chrysler was doing itself much of a favor by deciding to have these cars assembled in Italy. This car came out only about 5 years after Fiat had been sent packing from the US, and quality perceptions – at least among mainstream American buyers – had a lot to do with that. How many people in Chrysler dealerships were really ready to shell out for an Italian-built car in 1989? And the comments in that Motorweek segment only underscore questionable build quality.
I also think that it takes a unique buyer to actually want a car with a removable hard top. This thought occurred to me also this morning when reading the post about the Thunderbird with tonneau cover. The standard question is “where are you going to put that thing when you take it off?” For a truly small car, well, ok, maybe the removable roof doesn’t take up much space. But for this thing, you’d need a space that’s close to about 1/2 the footprint of the car. More than many owners would want to deal with…and hence they leave the roof on; which sort of defeats the point of having a removable top.
All in all, there are just a number of ill conceived notions about this car and I can easily see how lots of potential buyers just opted for a LeBaron instead.
Personally, I’d much prefer a removable hardtop to a soft top, on this or any other type of convertible (like a Bronco for example).
Yeah, it’s a hassle to remove and store, but you’d think that if someone had the money for this car, they probably had a garage to keep it (and the top) in. I’d still much prefer it to a noisy, vulnerable, leaky soft top.
But, I’d be way more likely to just buy a coupe with a fixed roof, LOL.
I’ve seen articles somewhere about folks rigging up some contraption with ropes and pulleys to winch these removable roofs up to the garage ceiling when not in use. So I guess that’s one solution.
The Motorweek segment mentions that it takes 2 people to put on or take off the hard top (makes sense). Somehow I don’t imagine the typical TC owner engaging the Missus to help with the top OR having kids still in the house who could help. Again, all things considered, the top probably just stays on.
Porsche and Mercedes offer rolling stands where the top stands on end/upright but still requires two people to remove/install it. Lots of Jeep Wrangler folks do a winch thing to lift the removeable hard top to the top of a garage as do people with camper shells that they don’t want/need on all year round.
It was very common for at least Porsche 911 hardtops from convertibles of the 996 generation (’99-04) be listed for sale at extremely low (i.e. a few hundred dollars) prices for a long time, even if most of the cars were garaged, often there was no space (or desire) for the top, especially in very sunny markets like CA that rarely have basements, so the garage usually already has a lot of stuff in it. If you needed a top and found the right color for sale locally it was usually a bargain, but otherwise just a pain to deal with. And these tops (like the TCs) were fully lined, glass windowed with defrosters, i.e. not cheap pieces.
My dad tried the suspended camper shell one time I think. None of the houses we had seemed to have a garage tall enough to make it worthwhile.
Worked better with two industrial sized hooks mounted to the garage wall, it would hang there nicely against the wall, and there was still room for mom’s Mercury Sable and typical other family junk like bicycles and lawnmowers and recycle bins piled around it, lol.
I think you kinda hit the nail on the head with the Porsche part. Perhaps Lido intended for people to take the tops off and just park the car inside, while living in sunny California, because everyone does. Except, of course, not everyone does, and the ones that did were more apt to be looking for imported luxury vehicles *not* derived from the dinky K cars they rent on business trips.
Thinking about those tops for sale reminds me of yesterday where I saw once again two perfectly nice removable minivan seats sitting on the curb in front of a house. Offered free to whoever wanted them. I see this kind of thing a couple of times a month. And I also see van seats routinely tossed in the scrap metal recycling area at my transfer station (town dump).
I think that people just take out a row of seats at some point and never put them back. Eventually they get rid of the van and are left with the seats…which they can’t even give away. Seems so wasteful, but I get it. I had a couple of those in my basement during the minivan days. Fortunately, I remembered to throw them back in the van on trade-in day.
I haven’t seen too many hard tops being actually tossed out (maybe one or two from a Jeep over the years). But I wouldn’t be surprised.
I don’t know how much the TC hardtop weighed, but the Mercedes pagoda hardtop was something like 50 kg, which is not a one-person job even for a strapping young owner. It’s not just that it’s heavy, it’s that it’s an awkward shape to lift and maneuver by yourself, and you probably don’t want to drop it.
At least in the early years of the Thunderbird if you purchased the car with a hard top the folding stand was included. Like the others it was a 2 person affair to remove it, so Ford offered an electric winch kit to make removal a 1-person job. I’ve seen a couple of them in ads for the cars. I’d worry about getting it lined up properly when putting it on. Though I figure for me that would be a once a year thing. Remove in Mar/Apr and install in Sep/Oct.
True, but think about it like this: 99% of soft-top LeBarons, Sebrings, Mustangs, Miatas, Cabrios and Solaras you see have their tops closed, even in perfect conditions for open-top motoring. The only exception I can think of is the Jeep Wrangler.
I think people like the *idea* of having a convertible (car) more than they like actually having a convertible (car).
Driving a convertible Sebring with the top up in the rain was an absolutely miserable experience I’d never want to repeat. The rain beating down was so loud, visibility out the back was horrible, and the entire car felt moist inside, windows constantly fogging up with the defogger blasting. No thanks.
I don’t know about the Miatas, at least around here I often see them with the top down in appropriate weather.
My MIL has a daily driver so her Mustang only leaves the garage if the top is going down.
My dad was pretty hard core with his LeBaron, Sebring and 200, frequently putting the top down.
I used to be and that is why I’ve been looking for the right convertible to add to the fleet.
Fair enough, I just have distinct memories of people with Miatas who never put the top down, which is why I included it. But, you’re right, you’re more likely to see one with the top down.
I was to ride with a co-worker to pick up another car. It was the first time I’d seen a Miata with an automatic. It was a beautiful summer evening in western Washington, so I suggested we put the top down. She said she never had, and for me not to try since it “might not go back”. I bit my tongue so hard to keep from saying “THEN WHY DID YOU BUY A MIATA?”, but, ultimately, it’s her car that she bought with her money, so I just nodded politely and sat there.
I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a Sebring/200 with the top down. Saw one covered in ducktape and missing part of its front bumper the other day, though.
I admit that if I owned one (any convertible car), I’d rarely drive it with the top up.
Great writing.
Half a billion dollars! Compare this to previous Chrysler/Euro partnerships, the Dual Ghia and the Facel Vega. Expensive cars that were worth the cost.
Chrysler didn’t pour huge amounts of money into those projects, just supplied the running gear and some technical advice.
The drivers fender reads “89 TC by Maserti”. I guess “Hooked On Phonics” didn’t work for the junkyard attendant. 67,000 miles is beyond pitiful.
…with a thick Italian accent.
Might should’ve grabbed the headlamps while you were at it; intact ones in good condition like these are highly prized (and paid) by the few and the proud. Matter of fact, I see a fair number of pounce-y parts on this car. That steering wheel is one of them; the road wheels are four more. The taillights and trunklid appliqué, etc. Probably the grille, come to that!
I’m standing on crackly-thin ice (having gored an ox or two myself), and I can’t well argue against much of this what you say about the TC and its Lido’s-ego genesis, but it is a fascinating artefact. The 16-valve motor is quite a thing to see, when one sees it, and a well-sorted TC is a very nicely-driving car.
And now if you’ll please excuse me, I’m headed down to hide under a sturdy desk in the basement for when Hemi “Doctor TC” Andersen will read this post!
Oh, part of me certainly likes the car. My mental game is trying to decide if I’d prefer the engine in this year, the Maserati-fettled one (as opposed to a real Maserati engine for better or worse) with a manual that just seems 180 degrees opposed to absolutely everything else about the car, or actually the even lower powered Mitsu V6 90-91. I can’t decide and would probably rather have a Biturbo since either car would most likely just sit in my garage anyway…And don’t start suggesting engine swaps!
The problem with rare parts in my experience is that while there may be somewhat of a profit down the line, that line can be awfully far away. And in the meantime there are dollars invested and more importantly, space taken up. Next thing you know, you’re parking Rivieras in the driveway and Volvo P1800s on Tokyo sidewalk areas or hiring dumpsters when it’s time to move. 🙂 I have an ECU for a V8-powered Audi C4 S4/S6 (1992-1995 Euro-market) still in a box on a shelf that came to me with a load of other S4 parts almost two decades ago, it’s still there because it’s small but may end up going to tech class with my son on dissection day this year…
No need to hide Daniel. You have been more fair minded than most others. Since I only own Chrysler built cars and have an ‘85 Voyager and the wife has a ‘94 Shadow, I am perfectly happy with the MOPAR parts bin parts. I bought my ‘89 TC in ‘95 with around 88 thousand miles on the odometer. WHY? Because I heard so many people ‘bitching’ about them. I wanted to know for myself. I discovered it was a great road car and as dependable as any of my other cars have been. Now with 295,500+ miles showing, it is JUST AS GREAT! My engine is the same 2.2L Turbo 8 valve engine as this car has. I’ve driven cross country more times than I can remember and I’ll tell you all, badmouthing any particular brand of car being discussed on CC is beneath you all. I’m sure the junkyard hunter could not point out any particular reason for why this car was scrapped so early in its life, though I would highly presume only because of its deteriorating ‘clear coat’. These days it costs more to repaint a car than most any old car is worth. Those engines don’t fail at such low mileage, don’t tell me different, I’ve wrenched on MOPARS professionally since 1959, mostly for Dealerships and also my own shop for my last 22 years before retiring.
Congratulations on scoring what was no doubt a very compelling deal. I have no idea why this car was in the junkyard, however the half-disassembled engine strongly points toward some sort of engine issue, nobody removes the top off an engine if it doesn’t need it. A perfectly running 67k miles version of this car might actually be worth the investment of some paint work, moreso than the same car with whatever “normal” mileage might be. While I don’t believe (and didn’t say, mind you) that every Chrysler engine fails at under 70k miles (or certainly hope not, mine isn’t there yet), I also don’t believe that every single Chrysler engine lasts 295K+ miles. You got a good one and perhaps take better care of it than most might.
I believe it was clear to the vast majority of the people reading that 90% of the post was emphasizing how the car, when new, didn’t seem to make a compelling case for costing 2.5x the cost of a very similar looking LeBaron, powered by a similar engine, irrespective of the unfortunate timing that caused that. And that is the overriding reason why it was a failure in the new car marketplace. If it sold for half the cost of a LeBaron I’d probably be writing about how the LeBaron was overpriced. And to be clear, I do believe the TC is worthy of some sort of premium over the LeBaron, but wouldn’t have paid the new car asking price for it at the time especially with the LB in the picture, it would have driven me in a different direction. All my opinion of course.
You don’t have to answer of course but I would be interested in the price you paid for your car back in 1995 if you’d care to share, I presume it was at a very significant discount to what a new one had cost. When new in 1989, the sticker was right at $33,000 and the only options if I am not mistaken were color and drivetrain (Stock Chrysler with Auto or modified Chrysler/Maserati collaboration with manual), I believe neither option had an extra cost associated with it.
PS: What DO you store in the little elastic pouch pocket thingies attached to the convertible compartment trim in the rear area?
I can’t speak for him but in cars like this that predate cupholders elastic pouches are a decent substitute, at least for resealable bottles and thermoses, if they’re reachable of course.
May I ask you two questions Hemi?
Would you have spent the equivalent of over $70,000 for a newTC?
Do you think it was worth the equivalent of $70,000?
Much of the criticism here is because of the cynicism many perceive of Chrysler, selling this car at the original price.
Anyone can buy a heavily depreciated car, and say it’s a great value.
Lido partnering with a German company? Perish the thought; it had to be a fratello. And what German company would have been willing to take this on? Goggomobil?
Nobody, they generally had more business sense, yet not ten years later, we had “the merger of equals!” 🙂
Lido supposedly thought he wanted to compete with the Mercedes SL… With a turbo 4 vs a silky I-6 and V8. At least his pricing was more attractive on an absolute basis and discarding value, making it all the more of an embarrassment when neither the rich nor the poor took advantage.
Interestingly, later you had the SLK, i.e. a sort of miniature SL. And then the Crossfire based on exactly that in both coupe and convertible forms.
The TC was to Italian car design, what Joe Dolce’s 1981 hit ‘Shaddap You Face’ was to Italian songs.
This is a great all-around post-mortem on a hapless vehicle.
Regarding the name, certainly “Chrysler’s TC by Maserati” will go down in history as one of the more unfortunate jumbles of words and letters ever to describe a car, but from what I recall, Chrysler seriously considered naming it the “Chrysler Lido.” I guess even Iacocca’s vanity had its limits.
Technically, if we were to follow the conventional naming rubric, this car is “The Chrysler Chrysler’s TC by Maserati”.
One more fine piece of……………………. journalism.
Hey Dan, feel free to leave the chat anytime but in the meantime, thanks for the clicks!
But while you’re here and making things personal for some reason without any hard data in opposition, I suppose you get what you pay for or at the very least what you want to see or read into things. Even Motorweek, probably the friendliest of any reviewers since time began and that I actually included in the piece, didn’t exactly fall all over themselves with praise and their last bit was soon proven false by actual sales data showing that the few dozen people that paid over sticker for some reason were the chumps, there’s always a few.
Then again, I’ll point out that just like the Cadillac Cimarron piece recently, the OVERWHELMING majority of respondents here and there seems to hold similar if not more negative views of this as well as that vehicle. Interesting you don’t try to take things up with any of them and refute their points.
But let me guess, you saw the promise in the TC? You’ve stated you’re a longtime car salesperson, please explain to all of us as a potential new car customer how this was worth more than two and a half LeBarons at $13,995 base per NADA.com and $33,000 for the TC? How would you upsell a buyer from a LeBaron into a TC?
You began this article as bait and you got what you wanted. Funny how I made a very simple and short comment that could easily have been taken in a positive manner. But you were waiting on the sidelines for the chance and you jumped. But just to make sure we are clear, here’s your very first sentence:
” I may have inadvertently ruffled a feather or two with my oh-so-erudite comparative analysis between two Cadillac Cimarrons recently, the upshot was we’ve (again) been more or less accused of shilling in favor of all imports to the detriment of the domestic automotive industry.”
I’m not interested in writing stories on here. I am interested in being able to come to a site as such and read interesting articles that aren’t filled with negative (personal) opinions about certain brands. Your articles just seem to be that. But don’t come at me like I’m picking on you when you had personal intentions from the first line.
Dan, please stop. Nobody forces you to read Jim’s posts. If you choose to read them, nobody forces you to comment. If you choose to comment, nobody forces you to be bitchy. If you choose to be bitchy, odds are you’re going to get called out for it.
Make better choices and there’ll be no problem.
In regard to taking your comment in a positive manner, sure, that was your intention…riiiight. /s
In regard to the second, what exactly about the quote was untrue or problematic? I was quite sure you’d just skip my byline after the last go-round. I certainly somehow did ruffle some feathers and I was certainly baselessly accused by you personally of favoring imports over domestics. Thus my explanation to the readership as a while, try reading that paragraph again, I neither addressed nor mentioned you.
I’ve written lots of interesting and positive posts about Chrysler Corp’s offerings over the years, I actually own one currently…and I’ve written several posts calling out the dogs. As has this site in general in regard to many vehicles. Usually those who get offended or see mistakes actually provide counterpoints and/or facts to assert their position. If those facts are accurate, it usually gets acknowledged and the article gets updated – as did this one in regard to Maserati’s FWD offerings. Plenty of Chrysler owners past and/or present, seemed to chime in here about this car and plenty of Cadillac owners, past and/or present, did the same in regard to the Cimarron.
I’ve also written about Cadillacs on this site. Same thing. Positive and negative, difference is I have not owned one, but have owned GM vehicles in general.
However you only want to read positive puff-pieces about everything?
Nobody on here has managed to write a boldly positive piece about a Cimarron or TC yet. Because objectively (not just subjectively), when taken in whole and including the market, the company, the subject, the results, they sucked. Sorry if that hurts, but it DOESN’T mean each individual car sucked (there’s a difference), just mainly the idea behind or execution thereof in general of that model. It’s not necessarily always a happy post when that happens, but generally the vast majority of readers are in complete agreement and the few dissenters seem to never be able to have objective facts to back up their position beyond how rose tinted their glasses are. My opinions are my opinions, but they seem to be shared fairly broadly.
Here’s the main fact: Neither the TC nor the Cimarron as two poster child examples did anywhere near as well in the market as their makers had planned/hoped/prayed, both for excellent reasons that were explained in these posts, and in neither case for the first time. In fact, both of these cars had specific people at their own companies doubting the viability of the cars prior to production. The buying public generally isn’t nearly as stupid as some product planners would think. Conversely, could they make great used car buys? Sure, of course, one dealer’s new car misery is potentially a future used car buyer’s delight if the only metric is cost of purchase.
If I may, I can go anywhere to read vanilla regurgatations of sales brochures and period ads and magazine pieces. And for most of what we long-timers write about, a straight historical piece was likely written long ago, so check the index.
What I can’t get elsewhere are car features that bring some opinions and start some lively, interesting and often funny discussions. Jim Klein does these as well as anyone here, but maybe you are looking for something else. You are certainly entitled to like what you like, but don’t spoil things for those who are looking for something different.
Dan, the vast majority of the writer’s posts at CC are opinion pieces. The personal views of the author. And they are consistently fair, and objective, regarding facts. The best way to promote a car you may feel doesn’t get due credit, is to write an article of your own.
Or at least leave a comment that makes a case for how the market and history have treated this car unfairly. That is a taller order for some cars than others, and goodness knows that even the biggest failures deserve to have their fans. Just ask me – I have gone to bat with a dissenting opinion on more than a few unpopular cars around here.
Exactly, well said JP. If a reader doesn’t agree with a writer’s point of view, or analysis, this comment section allows every opportunity to present their own interpretation. It’s almost a luxury we can sometimes take for granted, to be able interact in real time with the author, and other readers.
One of the greatest qualities of this blog, is civilized debate, and banter. Authors and readers regularly present compelling arguments and facts, contrary to the accepted historical perception of different cars. Present a case.
Seems to be a tight group here. So what I’m understanding is that opinions (if we agree or not with the writer) are encouraged and good. That is unless it’s me leaving my comment that I feel Jim’s writing’s seem rather negative unless it’s about a BMW or proclaiming the superiority of the Japanese brands.
The go-to is telling me to write articles on here or provide facts to counter the negatives? Really? Just an FYI, I’m not actually a fan of the TC and have zero reason to defend it or counter with facts. But it’s my opinion that it would be nice to click on this site and read about a car, even if it’s one I may not like, without the drool of negative. Well, I guess I have read articles on here without all that negative, but they were either written by someone else or about import cars.
So from now on I’ll skip anything written by Jim and read just the articles that don’t call the vehicle “crap” in the title.
People have every right to vent about a car that was far overpriced for what it was. We are all independent thinkers, with nothing to gain or lose by being candid and honest in our opinions. If the overall sentiment is that this was an cynical attempt by Chrysler to sell a car that was nowhere worth what they were asking, I say ‘bravo’, to the author and posters. For calling a spade a spade. Refreshing. Something you aren’t assured from automotive ‘journalists’, who are often far too chummy with the manufacturers.
Did you support Chrysler by buying one of these new? Or did you buy one second hand, a heavily depreciated car, and say it’s a great value?
The candidness, combined with the civility here, is a breath of fresh air.
Dan, if there’s one thing that has kept me reading and commenting here it’s that no matter how much you might disagree on the take of an author, or a commenter, about a car you like(or dislike) we’re here talking about a car few other places have active discussions about.
I don’t know about you, but most people I personally know aren’t engaging in talking about the Chrysler TC by Maserati or the Cadillac Cimarron (no matter how much I try!), and even for those into cars it’s a tad off the beaten path of cars to try to converse about unless its right in front of them at a show or something where you may able to broach the subject, which doesn’t exactly happen often with cars like these. CC is a bastion for those cars, love em or hate em, and after reading their CC article we’ve got a car everyone else has long forgotten about lingering in our heads all day.
This TC is going to be crushed soon(if it already hasn’t) and if not for Jim snapping photos of it and writing up this article(whether you objected to his take or not) nobody but the person who junked it would have ever looked at it or thought about it again.
Still better than a Levante.
Thank you.
Easy to ridicule what we don’t understand. So sad.
A defunct, slow-seller, made exclusively in North America, like the Mirada, and its faux convertible top, had significantly more presence and elegance. A step backwards.
Makes one appreciate the Mirada, that much more.
I could weep when I lament how the Mirada should have raised Dodge’s stock based on its great looks alone, but alas… This red Mirada is just gorgeous.
Couldn’t agree more Joe. When I first saw the Mirada, I said to myself, “Chrysler styled THAT!?”
So, many events conspired against Chrysler during that era. Wish, I was old enough to buy one at the time. I’d likely still own it. lol
Though the 1980 Thunderbird was a turkey, GM had some strong competition for the Mirada and Cordoba, as well.
Perhaps, some day, 3D printed electric Miradas will be cost effective. haha
Right there with you Joe – had I not been a dumb college student with neither money nor credit, I would have absolutely bought one of these!
I think there could have been a market for these had they stuck it out, the design is a perfect in between of the aero 83 Tbirds and formal GM G bodies
Great points, and I agree. Like the M-bodies, I remember auto writers and reviewers, treating these cars as almost archaic because of their F-body underpinnings, and roots. The consumer magazines treated them like dinosaurs. There was pressure on Chrysler to replace the M and J-bodies with newer, downsized designs. Using the Fairmont and 1978 GM A-bodies as templates, as the segment leaders. These were bigger cars, and handled accordingly, even if they held their own in handling, and slalom tests. This is besides the mileage penalties of the heavier Chrysler platforms, in an era when mileage meant a lot. Not helping matters of course, was Chrysler’s still precarious financial position.
In spite of the Mirada’s great looks, I think the public started to look to newer designs by ’81 and ’82. No looking back by then. Some people simply didn’t appreciate these cars, while they were on the market. As some, later regretted their early depart.
^This. There was no hope in hell for the TC, not when the LeBaron already existed. But there was a niche for a RWD convertible/coupe with Italian styling built in Detroit, and for that purpose I don’t think it would have been that hard to revive and modernize the Mirada’s platform. It would have been limited production of course but I’ll hazard a guess the investment would have been MUCH lower than the money Chrysler threw at the TC, with some nice returns too.
If Chrysler used the Chrysler 300 formula of a brawny, unabashed America personal luxury muscle car around 1987, with the beauty of the Mirada, it would have sold well, in a very different market than 1980. The Allante, TC, and Reatta, each had ‘meh’ styling. Not convinced, Italian styling would have made any difference. Unless it was genuinely gorgeous.
The Mirada/Diplomat/Gran Fury used transverse torsion bars in the front and leaf springs, with a sway bar in the rear. Its suspension was already considered obsolete by the time the Mirada was introduced. Couldn’t really modernize that setup.
The greatest blunder, as was well-reported at the time, was the delay of the TC. As you said, it needed to come out before the better looking, and more reasonably priced LeBaron. The staggering price of the TC, was never going to fly, besides its other shortcomings. In fact, the TC’s high price and controversial looks (hardtop and porthole), might have compromised the impact of the LeBaron on the market. And hurt the higher sales volume of the LeBaron. The TC was just a dud all around, solidified by its high price.
“Not convinced, Italian styling would have made any difference. Unless it was genuinely gorgeous.”
Great choice. Funny, as I felt Cadillac cribbed the Pinin styling with the 1992 Cadillac STS.
Stick that Maserati trident fork in it – it’s done.
European cars powered by American engines had a long history. Some became legendary, especially the earlier models, before this Chrysler/ Maserati melange. The Facel Vega, Jensen Interceptor, Sunbeam Tiger, the Bizzarini and it’s siblings. Cadillac introduced the Italian built Allante in 1987, no wonder Chrysler thought that they could offer something similar, but cheaper, and compete in the “cachet” market. Absolutely everyone was chasing the Mercedes SL during this period, but there was only one original, and it was the car to die for. Does anybody remember the Qvale Mangusta? Mustang power in an ugly body.
Even after the failure of the Allante ( not to mention it’s brother, the Buick Reatta) GM continued to try with the Corvette based Cadillac XLR.
The Allante dropped to a very value for years after it was discontinued, likewise the TC. Even the XLR is not particularly valuable. Though lately the high prices asked for most old junk has lifted the values of all boats.
I think that Chrysler hoped that the TC would appeal to fans of the original Thunderbird,who were now in that “mature” age group with enough income to buy some of the things that they always wanted. Maybe they couldn’t afford a real Mercedes SL, but they could afford this. When Ford revived the real two seat Thunderbird, they found that the anticipated demand just wasn’t there.
American automakers have a hard time accepting that niche cars, are just that. They are not worth gearing up and investing in for high production, they are more successfully built by cottage industry European producers. Production will only ever be in the hundreds, if even that.
If the TC uses a lot of ChryCo parts at least it might be possible to keep it on the road. Well, if the Ultramatic trans holds up, The Allante had bespoke electronic image speedo and tach as well as banks of push buttons to control other functions. I considered an Allante for a long time, but I know that there isn’t any easy way to bypass these controls and it would be a nightmare to keep on the road.
In my opinion: The hardtop and convertible Chrysler LeBaron models were a better looking cars, inside and outside, than this Italian slap-dash disaster.
This vehicle is so bad, it makes the Buick Reatta look cool.
The asking price for one of these in 1989 was obviously ridiculously high for what it was, but that alone doesn’t properly convey just how good money after bad this is. When you realize only two thousand dollars separated Chrysler’s finest and the also new-that-year Lexus LS400, that reality gets ultra stark.
I recall a fellow with two white ones in the North Bay around 3-4 years ago who had them up on Craigslist forever and I seriously don’t think he ever sold them.
Interesting car – looking back, you feel that maybe Chrysler were indulging Lee Iacocca for his achievements (or his timing and execution of others’ plans) with the K car and minivans.
I don’t think they did it promote and recognise his excellent taste in automotive couture.
That interior still looks gorgeous. Worn, but gorgeous.
What a clunky name though!