(first posted 5/8/2014) A big shout out to dmala77 for capturing this beautiful Shelby Lancer, the ultimate of Chrysler’s H-body liftbacks. Debuting near the same time as GM’s own excellent H-bodies, the Lancer and LeBaron GTS put Iacocca’s insistence on Broughaminess into perspective, as they were never as popular as upmarket K-car derivatives like the Dynasty or the regular LeBaron.
Those who took the plunge for the Shelby version, however, were treated to the same experience that made the Omni GLH-S such a sensation, but in a slightly more refined package. If there were much of a difference between the two cars, its insignificance highlighted the predominant role of the turbo powertrain in shaping the character of both cars. I’ll apologize on our contributor’s behalf for the cut-off ends of this photo; I think it’s cool looking enough, with its ground effects and tiny spoiler, to merit being posted. Very period specific, but also very tasteful.
This particular car appears to be an ’88 or ’89 model, meaning it was built by Chrysler in Michigan rather than by Shelby Automobiles in California, as first-year 1987s were. That doesn’t make it any less special, as its intercooled Turbo II now could send an extra twenty-five lb-ft of laggy torque, along with 175 horses, through soft engine mountings and a reinforced transaxle to the stiffly sprung front wheels. It was a genuine guilty pleasure. After all, while front-drive was more widely embraced by consumers in the expensive sedans of the day, critics were a lot less tolerant cars with more than 150 horsepower (or whatever arbitrary number suited them) sent through their front half shafts. Here at CC, where supercharged Park Avenues are popular, we react to such sentiments with an emphatic whatever.
Dodge’s performance sedan for the ’80s was also generously equipped with a ten-speaker Pioneer CD system, a state-of-the-art piece of kit for the time. It was accompanied by deeply bolstered buckets, which looked serious enough to match the fat tires and bodykit. The blocky dashboard may have been the most honest presentation of the car’s workmanlike origins (odd, given the newness of the H-body), but the addition of these extra features showed Chrysler’s intention to woo more upmarket consumers.
As a limited production version of a car with already limited popularity, however, it posed little threat to the period’s modest and limited performance sedan establishment. Perhaps it was a model meant mainly for Mopar fanatics. After all, other cars in the same vain, including chubbier looking Shadow CSX and the manic Spirit R/T (the ultimate turbo K-derivative), kept coming and never achieved much popularity. And after the souped-up turbos went away, and until the debut of the 5.7 Hemi in 2003, high performance Chrysler enthusiasts were limited to the Ram, Dakota and Jeep Grand Cherokee.
It’s likely that people who actually bought the Shelby Lancer weren’t cross shopping the likes of the Mercedes 190E 16-valve or BMW 535i. As an upmarket contender with no snob appeal, and no red-blooded V8, it was a very self-selecting group who plunked down $17,000 for a manic, fully-equipped four-cylinder American turbo. When it came to performance, the era was dominated by expensive imported sedans or cheap thrills, either in the form of the reinvigorated pony cars or pocket rockets. And being American certainly didn’t help, with so many people choosing Legends and Maximas over the LeBaron GTS and Lancer. Not even the slick Merkur managed to make any impact and when you think about it, the critical success of the (admittedly more sophisticated) SHO was a minor miracle given this context.
The flip side of this is that the 2.2 liter tweaker under the hood requires less upkeep today than the Ford’s Yamaha V6. Even better, according to the NADA guide, those who did keep their Shelby Lancer in good condition can get about between $10,000-$14,000 for their car today, more than the similarly conceived Mustang SVO or the SHO. A quick look at online ads paints a different picture, with examples going for between $5-7k, and if anything this more realistic figure is even more encouraging for anyone who wants to own this obscure piece of ’80s muscle. What do you guys think? Does a rare, factory authorized Mopar tuner special have a place in your garage, or is it merely the sort of animal you hope is kept around by other enthusiasts?
Great find on dmala77’s part! And it appears to be in my neck of the woods.
The H-bodies always are a source of interest for me mainly because I’ve only seen several in my lifetime. I guess Chrysler really needed to go big or go home with a anti-Brougham sedan to appeal to more contemporary buyers. The LH eventually accomplished that.
It also surprised me that at least the LeBaron GTS never got concealed headlights like the similar styled LeBaron coupe and convertible.
Agree fully as Exhibit A to your point. I was too young and poor to consider a new Mopar H, but at 31 I took home a new LH Concorde in ’95. That car got a lot of compliments from both my age group, and people above like my parents. The LH was still functional as a back-up family car when we hit three kids. Admittedly, we were quite ready for our large crossover that eventually replaced it.
I think its cool, wouldn’t mind having one. Something very 80s about a hot FWD car with a turbo 4.
I’ve seen that car in person.
Its in remarkable shape considering its an 80’s Mopar.
Shame it doesn’t have the right wheels on it.
Crude turds but pretty cool that some survived.
HI my name is matthew guzman. That car was actually my fathers i was around ten or 11 when that picture was taken. I dont remember vividly but that one was number 467 or around there. We were in cambridge, massachusetts going to eat. the reason it didnt have the original wheels on was because when we got it they were in very poor condition and the tires were terrible. those wheels are actually from a 1989 daytona shelby that we still have. unfortuntely my dad sold the car 2 years ago im still trying to find it but its cool that we have a picture of our car online. And of those who dont believe me you dont have too but i know my truth and im pretty damn well sure that that lancer was ours.
that’s the sad part about this era in Chrysler’s history. They never really “advanced” the K-platform other than a couple of stretches. Had they refined the platform over the years around cars like the Lancer, Daytona, and minivans instead of padding out their lineup of heaven’s taxicabs with vinyl roofs and pillowy seats, they might have been better off.
Here at CC, where supercharged Park Avenues are popular, we react to such sentiments with an emphatic whatever.
Can I get a hallelujah from the congregation? I remember two things about torque steer – reading about it constantly during the early ’90s in auto rags, then experiencing it for the first time in a Mazda 626 ES (where it existed, a little bit, but was quite refined), and then more importantly a ’90 Taurus SHO (those who have driven one know..). My reaction both times?
YEEEEEEEHAAAWWWW!!!!!!!
I’m sorry auto rags, but a true gearhead loves fighting toque steer just as much as they love a good car with a limited slip rear diff in the rain.
To this car? Love ’em. Always have had a thing for these, I wish I would have taken the LeBaron GTS more serious earlier in life and picked one up while they still existed. Would I buy one? Absolutely – given the chance, the right car, and the right number I’d put one in my garage and do terribly irresponsible things with it.
I, however, am still holding out hope that one day I’ll stumble on a Spirit R/T or Daytona IROC R/T. Something about “okay, when the boot hits, hold OOOONNNN!!!” just makes me smile even thinking about it.
I’ve never experienced torque steer, mostly because if I’m driving my CUV in a manner that would cause torque steer, the AWD kicks in and I start spinning the rear wheels. But that’s just as fun for me.
Get your hands on a Citation with V-6. You’ll learn all about torque steer.
once they moved the rack to the subframe on the X cars the torque steer was much better…and better than these mopars.
The turbo IV mopars only went straight if you were coasting…but it was a heck of a ride and wrestling experience.
Those early SHO’s were a blast if you dumped the clutch (like only a teen can do), and so were the early supercharged 3.8’s.
Of course they made a lot of progress, by the time my Dad got his ’96 SHO with the little V8 you couldn’t get it to torque steer if you tried. You could, however, lay two fat patches of rubber from the front wheels from a stop (like only a 20 year old could do..).
For torque steer try 300 Hp of Caddy Northatar.
I test drove a new 85 Lancer sedan in whatever its sportiest trim was, and with a 5 speed. This was a couple of years before the Shelby version. Its problem was that it didn’t really do anything better than less expensive competitors. It was fast, but not as fast as the Mustang GT (at least not that the driver could tell). And it did not feel as substantial as either the Mustang or the VW GTI. The shift linkage in these was legendary for its rubbery feel.
It was relatively expensive, and I was really not fired up to buy a 4 door car at the time, either. So, it could be outperformed or outclassed (in a status kind of way) by other cars that didn’t cost as much.
Your comments on price may explain the relative lack of success of the Mopar H cars. As a college student, I was impressed when my new collage grad cousin bought a LeBaron GTS.
The H’s seemed to fill a gap in the Mopar line up. Much more modern, stylish and up market then the basic K’s, and less expensive and less “Old Man” than the FWD New Yorker.
The lack of a V-6 would have deterred a lot of buyers that were going to GM A and X cars, and Taurus. A V-6 for similar money would make this a hard sell.
Accord and Camry were starting to take off in the 4 cyl world and could get a relative price premium for perceived quality.
The Mopar H’s seemed like pretty good cars, the competition for it was stiff.
I’ve mentioned before that the LeBaron GTS should have been named 300. LeBaron was tied too tightly to broughamy, chromey cars at the time.
“I’ve mentioned before that the LeBaron GTS should have been named 300. LeBaron was tied too tightly to broughamy, chromey cars at the time.”
Yes, the LeBaron was Chrysler’s Cutlass – a name that was used on so many things it stopped having any meaning to anyone.
My favorite K-car. And they’re certainly far and few between. I don’t think my buddy’s Dodge dealership back in Johnstown, PA sold more than 2 or 3 of them during the entire production run.
Yes, I’d love to own one. Power and subtlety, what more can you ask for? And a little bit of torque steer and turbo lag is not a negative in my book.
Always liked the look of these – a nice find!
Always felt these were the handsomest of all the K car derivatives. I haven’t seen one on the road for a long, long time.
Wow, that instrument cluster looks like nearly the same one in the 87-96 Dakota.
These were always good looking cars to me.
These are my favorite K-derivative too. The fact that I like it pretty much means it would never play in Peoria, and it didn’t. Whatever.
This has to be one of the best-looking 1980’s cars. Not a fan of K’s since getting burned badly by my first used car, a used 1984 Reliant back in 1990! *HA! what an oxymoron* the least unreliable car I ever owned. But this one is nice.
You didn’t miss anything. My mother drove a plain-jane Lancer for a brief time in the early 90’s, and it was as reliable as your Reliant.
I always wanted to own a Lancer myself, but I satisified my Mopar itch w/a ’89 LeBaron GTC coupe. I’m surprised that the featured car is a MA one, since I don’t see them in my part of MA anymore.
Oddly enough, I think this might be the car featured in the pics on Wikipedia. Either that or there are at least two of them registered in MA.
Torque-steer question!
I know some powerful fwd cars are reputed to avoid this problem (Deville/DTS, 1st-gen Toronados). I think their magic trick is equal-length half-shafts…?
Anyway, here’s my question: what powerful (250+ net HP) fwd cars have no torque-steer?
Chrysler’s own successor to this car, the LH series, topped out at 205 HP with the 3.5 and had no torque steer. They installed the engine longitudinally hoping to build RWD and AWD versions in the future. Those versions never came, but that planning produced one of the nicest FWD family cars to ever come along.
I owned an LH, so I have some experience. But, there are far better experts here than me. I think torque steer is most associated with FWD cars with horizontally opposed engines that are designed with space, efficiency and low price as top priorities.
equal length half shafts, suspension geometry (front and back) tires, engine mounts…
I had a set of Avon tires on my turbo Grand Prix when I bought it. The damn thing would change lanes from torque steer. Once replaced with a set of original spec Goodyear gatorback’s and the toque steer went away.
A new Turbo Regal has quite a bit of torque steer, the GS model with the hyperstrut front suspension has virtually none.
I’d say its more of a complete package kind of thing than it is just equal length half shafts…just my mundane opinion.
’96 Taurus SHO didn’t, which surprised me the first time I had my hands on it alone as the first gen did in spades. Granted it’s a hair under your HP number, but those cars were brilliantly balanced, Dad absolutely loved his. You could easily lay two fat patches of rubber from the front wheels while leisurely holding on to the wheel and impressing the jerk in the drop top Mustang 5.0 next to you, who then ate tailights.
Granted they got that right, but there is the whole cam debacle on those cars. Thankfully Dad’s got replaced under warranty but that’s a hell of a story for another time…
equal length halfshafts do help a bit, but torque steer is pretty much unavoidable. For me, the worst (in my SRT-4) was not taking off in a straight line, but accelerating with the wheel turned a bit; depending on which way it would either try to pull itself straight or pull itself further into the turn. not always predictably, either.
Sorry about the clipped pics, there’s a narrow sidewalk and a building right there and getting a decent angle was tricky. I figured it was worth grabbing anyway, since I’ve never seen it around before. Who knows when or if I’d get another chance?
While I liked this car when new from a distance imposed by being a poor college student, I’m not sure I’d pursue this as a “classic” today. Its roots as a FWD ’80s appliance sort of car, even if one of the better lookers, simply mean there are too many other things out there that interest me more.
But, if someone said pick a K or K derivative car to enjoy for the summer, this would easily be at the top of my list after a K convertible, and I’d give it space to hang around for a while just to see what it was like.
Unknown cars here Chrysler evaporated in the late 70s downunder and really only came back with the Neon and Cherokee, shame these coulda been fun though how well they’d sell against the local competition would be a problem.
“The flip side of this is that the 2.2 liter tweaker under the hood requires less upkeep today than the Ford’s Yamaha V6.”
That is some funny stuff there. The most pedestrian versions of a turbo’ed 2.2 loved to pop head gaskets and they were pretty much done not too long after they turned 100K. The Yamaha headed Vulcan based 3.0 on the other hand will do 250K under pretty heavy abuse. Yes doing the timing belt is a lot more involved and you are supposed to adjust the valves which is very involved but the reality is that many just kept going and going despite the lack of periodic valve adjustments by their second and third owners.
he should edit and take out SHO 3.0 and 3.2 and put in the GM 3.4 twin dual cam nightmare.
Have to say I disagree on the 100K. A neighbor who was automotively challenged once had a non Shelby turbo Lancer. It racked up over 250K before he sold it, and it was STILL going. It had a significant amount of city mileage, too. These engines are known for being tough.
I’ve heard a few stories of long lasting turbo trans-4s, but the internet has also exposed me to stories of durable and dependable Vegas and Saabs. Having worked at a Chryser-Plymouth-Dodge dealer in 1989 and having watched my Dad’s 1985 Lancer ES Turbo turn into a pumpkin LONG before the ‘warranty’ expired, I consider the good ones to be mysterious exceptions. The dealer didn’t even put ’84-’87 turbos on the used car lot, and by 1989 they were rare visitors to the service bays.
I was going to take issue with this as well. My buddy still hasn’t really forgiven his Dad for giving the family ’90 SHO to his sister who then basically ran the car to the ground. After 15+ years and probably 300-400k on the clock there was nothing left of the body or tires, but – reportedly – the Yamaha V6 still ran like new. I saw the car a couple years before it’s death and it was most certainly a basket case – but I heard the Yamaha V6 sing as it drove away.
Same experience as you with the old 2.2 mopars. Everyone I knew with one blew a gasket, even the non-turbo versions in the K-Cars and minivans. Seems like they got the 2.5 right, but that 2.2 wasn’t good.
IMO everything that old Chicken Farmer touched was magic. I don’t know how many of them I would want unless I could buy them new. I’m sure that the second owner of any Shelby is getting something that’s been hooned mightily.
Great find. I always have a soft spot for a well maintained 25 plus year old driver. I bet it’s a lot of fun, especially back in the day putting so called ‘performance’ cars in their place. It was pricey when new.
My favorite Shelby. One popped up on PA craigslist a few moths ago $2500. I should have but better judgement prevailed.
I liked these Chryslers too. But they did seem old school next to the Taurus by ’86. You’d hope by then, prices would be significantly more negotiable.
I like these a lot, and this is a particularly clean and sharp looking example. For one, its not an actual sedan, as it has a hatch…making it a legit platform for an all around sporty car. The overall look of this kind of melds a bit of American styling and performance but in a very European flavor. The black grille and offset hoodvent really sell the look of this car. Personally, I like the ’84-’86 Daytona and Laser Shelby Z’s better as theyre just more my kind of car. But this would make for an all around great car for a daily driver.
FYI, these didn’t sell in any huge numbers since all of the Shelby’s were limited release, as I understand it. At least the top rung ones, anyway.
+1 on the auto rags being a bunch of candyass naysayers. The sheer visceral fun of driving a powerful turbocharged fwd is a unique and exciting experience. Its completely different from a V8 powered rwd muscle car but its no less actual fun. Screw the ‘smooth and refined’ V6 powered fwd cars. They cant match the raw and rowdy feeling that a turbo 4 gives. The turbo whine, hold-onto-your-ass torque steer, and the suddent kick in the pants once that turbo starts working is sheer magic.
The square headlamps look terrific on this car. I like them on the GM products as well. No cloudy lenses or bug eyes to look at.
Gotta tell you that I wanted one of the genuine Shelby Lancers in the worst way, from when they were new until today, and in the future. I could really dig that Dodge Shelby Lancer as the next best thing. If that baby is for sale, I gotta find a way to buy it. A real Shelby Dodge would never work as a daily driver as by now it is a collectible, rare car.
If anybody finds a good condition Lancer of any year at a reasonable price, what I’d like to do is get the body kit, paint it the factory bright red color and drop in an SRT4 turbo 2.4L (or one out of a PT Cruiser GT). Yes, like in the Bowling For Soup song “1985,” I’m still preoccupied with the ’80’s (cars). And, music.
Always thought these were great looking cars, and for some reason I have a particular memory of either a LeBaron GTS or Lancer being used in the movie Short Circuit 2, I think maybe by the villains. Though I didn’t recall the existence of this Shelby version which makes it even more interesting.
I do love the 80’s-ness of it all, too.
Yes! Short Circuit 2 had a blue Lancer turbo driven by the bad guys. “The Golden Child” also had a blue Lancer driven by the female love interest and a E New Yorker Turbo was driven by Eddie Murphy while it was ripped apart by some other-worldly creature.
Awesome find! Best K-car styling by far and the best K-car period, IMO. I’d love to have one of these or even the regular Turbo. Totally agree with the torque steer comments from everyone else up above. I mean, I’d rather not have torque steer, but it’s hardly the scourge that C&D made it out to be back in the day. For those of us that are just trying to have fun rather than set hot lap times, it’s whatever. You come through a corner, mash it a little too early and the front end is going to push as hard as it can. No big deal – just back off and it’ll correct. Plus, who doesn’t think white smoke pouring out of the front wheelwells is cool?
I loved how Shelby made these simple, boring cars so special. My first car, an 85 Shelby Charger turbo, seemed so cool with the big stripe, ground effects and logo’d seats. It was a great car. 80k plus miles of hard driving with no problems from the engine. Unfortunately, I snapped cv joints once or twice a year.
I bought a ’85 Dodge turbo Lancer stick. The turbo lag was baaaahhd and the “rubbery” shifter was HORRID! Other than that and popping a head gasket, it was a good looking car (still is) and a nice platform for 4 people.
Sadly the quality was such that I have never purchased another MoPar. Now that FCA/Red china owns them…..I never will buy another either. DFO
The Chrysler alloy wheels on the subject car were popular on Daytonas, Spirits, and the Shadow ES. Typically matched to white body colour. Striking, when this look was popular in the very late 80s and early 90s.
It looks perfect to me. I’d never own one but the color, body cladding and wheels just scream 80s in the best way.
now that is a rare find…
I had the joy of driving one of these, once, back in the day. I think it was an ’89 but not sure. It was an experience as many have commented of some degree of crudeness but with acceleration like I had not previously experienced. Of course the torque steer, but back then we kind if thought that just came with the territory.
15 years later I had ’88 Maxima, of course memories fade over time but I would say that the Maxima was 98% as fast with 10% of the drama and 300% of the quality.
I see above that the son of the then-current owner replied two years ago – hoping he notices the piece has re-ran.
Anyone interested I have a 1987 Dodge Shelby lancer number 397 leather interior 121,000 miles some scratches some dentss but it’s been in storage for years. Any offers text me 7039452805