What’s the most effective way to time travel, backwards? For some it’s music, movies, clothes, or other popular culture artifacts. For me, it’s cars. Seeing this pristine TC3 as I drove back suddenly propelled me back to the beginning of the eighties, not exactly one of the more stellar periods in domestic automotive history, and rightfully dubbed the Malaise Era: sky high interest rates, expensive gas, and lots of slow and otherwise mediocre cars.
I had a soft spot for the Horizon and Omni 4-door hatchbacks, as the were the most European and advanced American car on the market when they arrived in 1978. Wow! An American Golf! Even with a VW engine! Stephanie and I gave some thought to actually buying one. And then a year later, the sporty coupe variants, the Horizon TC3 and the Omni 024 appeared. A relatively bold move, by embattled Chrysler at the time. But it left me cold. I find the 4-door decidedly more attractive than the TC3.
Why? Because it wasn’t more like a VW Scirocco, meaning a genuinely sporty coupe. Instead it was just a Horizon with a new dress, and not a soul-stirring one at that. It just wasn’t a very cohesive styling job, starting with its Monza-aping front end. And its body was just too long for the the 96.5″ wheelbase, among other things.
The real letdown was inside, where every possible Horizon part was reused. Understandable, given Chrysler’s finances at the time, but then the Horizon’s interior was a bit of a letdown to start with, in comparison to the Rabbit, never mind the Scirocco. It just lacked that German tidiness and taste.
But then this was never targeted to the Scirocco buyer; it was a way to get Americans into a more efficient, economical FWD coupe, if they were tired of feeding their 1973 Mustang or Chevelle, or whatever. And it did the trick, for a fair number of them, at least in its first year or so.
Another issue was what was under the hood. The 70 hp version of Chrysler’s adaption of the VW 1.7 L four was never a stormer to start with. And it only got worse: in 1980, power was down to 65 hp; and in 1981, it dropped again to 63 hp. Yes, malaise.
Relief came in late 1981, when Chrysler’s new 2.2 L four packing 83 hp was available optionally. Since this car has an automatic, and by 1982, the auto was (thankfully) no longer available with the 1.7, it is blessed with the 2.2.
As well as aftermarket LED headlights. I was just not a fan of this sloping style of front end, which became very popular during this era. It looks cheap and crude.
Is “TC3” or “024” supposed to have meaning or connection to something? If so, it evaded me then, and still does now. But that’s ok; no worse than so many of the artificial names so common now.
Hatchbacks were big of course back then, both physically as well as popular. Plenty of storage room back there under the big pane of glass. Did Plymouth ever consider calling this a Barracuda? In a number of ways, it rather analog to the original Barracuda: practicality over genuine cool and good looks.
I bet there’s a similarly large storage area, suitable for sleeping in a pinch, when the seat is flipped down.
That’s all time traveling; it was march 2023 when I stopped and shot this, and all I could muster was admiration for this time capsule. How did it survive so well all these decades? Did someone’s grandma buy this when she was still relatively youthful? One does wonder. And hope it gets taken care of.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1979 Plymouth Horizon TC3 – Beyond The Blue Horizon by Tom Klockau
Curbside Classics: Plymouth Horizon And Dodge Omni – Detroit Finally Builds A Proper Small Car by PN
Could have been so nice with a Vega-like kammback …
Jeez when I saw TC3 I thought it was the late 90’s RC car by Team Associated…
Wasn’t it a few years later when Carroll Shelby lent his name to one of these things? Or maybe its successor, the Chrysler Laser or Dodge Daytona or something like that? I seem to recall a blue and silver car that a girl I briefly dated had one with Shelby’s name plastered all over it, thinking at the time, “oh how the mighty have fallen”. Malaise Era indeed.
Later on the Plymouth was renamed the Turismo and the Dodge a Charger. The Charger was blessed by Carol Shelby version briefly.
The thing that bothers me most about this car is its name. It’s not just a Horizon, it’s a Horizon TC3.
Did it have a Twin-Cam engine? Nope.
Was it TurboCharged? Nope.
Did it have a 3 liter V6? Nope.
OK, so there’s nothing “T”, “C”, or “3” about it, but meaningless designations on “sporty” variations were rampant during the malaise era, like how all Cavalier hatchbacks were Type-10s. Also malaise-y: changing the name every year or two, like the
Sunbird2000 Sunbird2000J2000 that i had as my first car. Or this one, which I think went through FIVE names in a single generation (Horizon TC3, just TC3 (as with the featured car), Turismo, Turismo Duster, and finally just Duster (which was essentially the original Barracuda’s successor, so yes it probably would have become a Barracuda had it stuck around for another year or two. The Dodge Omni 024 version somehow became a Charger after all).Anyway, this car looked best when they didn’t cover up either of the two rear side windows, or part of the window as with this car, but most TC3s had some sort of panel, fake vent, or cover hiding at least part of it (as with this car) cluttering the appearance. Inside, the driving position of the coupes was a bit off because the seats were lowered to clear the low roof but the dash and steering wheel were at the same height as the sedans. But still a pleasant place if you sprung for the most deluxe interior of the three levels offered.
It was … a three-door Touring Coupe? That’s the best I can do.
The 1980 brochure offers no clues, although insists on referring to the coupe as “TC3” rather than “the TC3,” which I find moderately antagonistic
Hard to believe but they did toyed with the idea of reviving the Barracuda/Cuda nameplate for the TC3/Turismo but Carroll Shelby was opposed to that idea.
https://www.turbinecar.com/misc/Cuda.htm
Always liked these, and this one has the cleaner rear sail-panel / window combination that some other versions lacked. Certain Chargers had a certain graceless clutter back there with different window and filler-panel shapes that seemed totally improvised.
A little more thought to the frontal styling details might have made a vast improvement, making it look a little more finished. I like the overall look, though.
I remember reading how much was made of Ford engineers’ ability to make the ’79 Mustang’s hatchback be cut and integrated into the bodywork, but here, Chrysler engineers did the exact same thing, very artfully, with the L-body coupes.
I also have a preference for the larger taillamps clusters of the early cars. This one makes me smile.
I’m kind of partial to the filler panel used on the Charger 2.2, the one quarter window gains a hoffmiester kink and the other gets smaller, but crucially is still there. I too like these early taillights, the way the lens curves flat at the bottom is a cool detail.
Red interiors always hold up the best. Perhaps they are special ordered more often so owners tend to take care of them better?
My first college roommate had an ’87 model in late ’87, I no longer recall if Dodge or Plymouth, just that it was that light metallic blue with matching light blue interior; at the time it just seemed dated although physically almost new. Which it undoubtedly was compared to all of the then-current competition. The biggest impressions that stuck with me were that one sat in the usual US-vehicle “hole” as a passenger and that had to be one of the most deeply dished steering wheels of all time. It did score a few style points over the regular Omni Horizon hatchback shape just by its relative rarity.
Nonetheless, this is quite the find in this condition and in an attractive color combination.
Red *vinyl*. Red cloth tended to fade in fairly short order, especially across the top of the back seat where the sun shining through the rear window hit it.
I definitely think the 5-door model’s more Euro ergonomics made for a more pleasant driving experience even though my mom’s ’86 Horizon had the overly thick premium seats (shared with the full-size van!) that robbed rear legroom.
I recall when these were new Chrysler saying the deep-dish steering wheel was used to impart a sense of distance and roominess to the driver rather than any safety-related reason.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the real reason was so the actual steering column could be shorter. Therefore saving money.
I will come to this little car’s defense. I loved these when they came out. I found their styling virtually perfect – for a small, sporty coupe in 1979, anyway. Really, look at the other new small sporty coupe that year. Is this any less attractive than the 1979 Mustang? I found the Mopar version to be crisp and light in appearance where the Mustang (especially the hatchback) looked thick and a bit overweight. The Mopar’s front overhang is a tad long, but then it had FWD to contend with where the Mustang did not.
I found the front of the 79 Mustang far worse than this, with it’s sloped front filled with dull black plastic. I will also go to bat for this car’s interior. What PN saw as “German tidiness and taste” I saw as unbroken expanses of black plastic. The interiors were certainly American in their vibe, but were modern and used nice materials. OK, I would have replaced the woodgrain strip on the dash with some brushed aluminum, but it was hard to avoid woodgrain in 1979.
When it was new, I saw this car as the perfect replacement for the Duster that had been such a good choice for so many in the previous decade. I was impressed that Chrysler, in its horrible financial condition, had invested into a totally different package for the coupe that was not simply a 2 door version of the Omnirizon sedan. Had I been in the market for a new inexpensive car in 1979-80 one of these would have been at the top of my list. I think that if Chrysler had not been limited in its engine supply to 300k units (to be split between sedans and coupes), there would have been a lot more of these sold in their first couple of years.
I just checked production figures on the Omni wiki page. It looks like they built roughly 100k of these each year from 79-81, so they did pretty well for something built by Chrysler around the time of its brush with bankruptcy and in a bad economy.
Yes, they were “everywhere”!!
I agree. I’ve always found the 4 doors more attractive, but the coupes weren’t bad, and I thought they improved over time.
The interiors were quite appealing and held up better than some of their contemporaries. And, certainly offered something that previous buyers of larger American cars might find suitable.
One of the first Horizons I saw was a 1978 with the Premium Interior and two-tone dark red paint, tasteful chrome trim – even Mopar’s turn signal indicators on the fenders. Probably a lot like your mother’s car. It turned my head in a way a Chevette or Rabbit never would have.
I’ll agree with Paul that the TC3 and 024 coupe names were meaningless. You bring up Duster, – a great name for the coupe, and of course it eventually received that name.
Ironically, Plymouth introduced a “Duster” package for the 1979 Volare coupe, and the entire Volare line was done for after 1980.
The Horizon coupe was a perpetual identity crisis:
1979-1982 Horizon TC3 Coupe
1983-1984 Turismo
1985 on Turismo “Duster” became the dominant trim for the coupe.
Nothing wrong with a a little bling….
This just continues the love fest for me that was kicked off by yesterday’s Horizon post. I do have to admit though, that looking at these through today’s eyes, I don’t find the coupes very attractive. I did like the split grill on my ’82 Charger better than this one, but as much as I find the “scooped” front end treatment rather cheesy now, I really hated the four-eyed treatments that came later.
I really liked the sounds and sensations of the Chrysler 2.2. Not exactly a powerhouse, but a decent little engine that could. I’m sure I would feel much differently if I’d primarily driven automatics back then, but these things could get out of their own way in traffic. They’d just wheeze and wimp out over 75 MPH.
My Charger 2.2 was my college car, which probably partially explains my unlikely fondness for these. As for sleeping quarters Paul, yes, in a pinch. At nearly 6’3″ I slept more than a couple times in the back of mine, for all the usual reasons a college student might sleep, pass out, or otherwise have need of a mobile bed. The folded rear seatback actually creates about a 5″ “step” just about at rib level if your head’s toward the front of the car, so the better option is to put one’s head at the rear. Just don’t sit up too quickly if the hatch is closed. I kept a sleeping bag in the back of mine at all times. I’d probably never walk again if I tried that now. Actually, maybe I’ve stumbled on the reason for the state of my back nowadays.
I bought mine in ’85, at 3 years old and about 45k miles, for $3500 off the used lot at our local Chrysler dealership. It’d been owned by a local elementary school teacher whose sons were a couple years older than I was, it and was known to have had a few late night hooning sessions and carried at least a few kegs out into field before I owned it (and while I owned it too). So it never lived a pampered life, but it got me through 3 years of very hard (ab)use that included replacement of 3/4 of the front clip and the right axle and hub after an “incident” late one hot Summer night, and the guy down the road who I sold it to in a very tired state got another year or two out of it before the head gasket went and it was time to retire it. It’s still my all-time favorite car, truly it was more about the moment in time than the car. They weren’t great cars, but they were cheap and cheerful, which is my favorite kind.
I always found these quite attractive. Actually test drove one in 1980, a 1.7/stick, but Chrysler’s fortunes were at a low ebb, and I didn’t pull the trigger, lest I be stuck with an orphan.
The name is of course made up, the way the industry makes up a lot of names. Did “XR7” actually stand for something?
Long front overhangs were a thing in the 70s, a cheaper way to make a car longer, rather than actually lengthening the wheelbase. Ford, in particular went nuts with front overhang, example Mustang II, Torino, LTD II.
Everything is relative department: the TC3 was certainly better looking than the EXP.
Yes! If on is ever tempted to dump on the TC3/024, just put it next to an EXP (if you can find one) and it looks like the best thing since the 69 Charger.
Many names used for the 2 door L body Plymouth:
Horizon TC3
TC3
TC3 Turismo
Turismo
Turismo Duster > famous TV ad like a music video
Duster? Not sure if went just by Duster at end of run.
I’d say the TC3 was replacement for slant 6 base Duster. And no kids, not all 1970-76 A body Dusters were “muscle cars”.
Don’t forget the other 2 door L body Plymouth, the Scamp.
A college friend had one of these, light yellow. Terrible car–besides being really plastic-y and cheezy, it made an awful whirring/grinding noise at speed. “What’s that?!” “I think it’s the speedometer cable.” I think he then disconnected it because no one could take it anymore. He replaced that car with a new 1986 Dodge Colt–a real penalty box but it got him to & from school reliably.
Another friend had a 1975(?) AMC Hornet 2-door sedan, also yellow. Not smooth, not quiet, not fast, not good looking, not cool–but it ran and guess that’s what mattered.
And I told you about Robert who had a ’61 Comet (which I liked), badly re-painted sky blue, replaced with a ’71 Dodge Dart Swinger (rusted, vinyl roof cracking, yecch!) Another college student would drive around in a ’76 Buick LeSabre with no shock absorbers (Oboy!)
A lot of people I knew had some really bad cars in those days . . . they don’t call it “Malaise” for nothing!
Joe’s Colt:
First car I ever drove, at age 12 in 1981. My uncle had a gray one with red interior. Stick shift. Took it out on a dirt back road and let me drive. I lusted after one in 1987, my freshman year in college. Drove past a used car dealership to and from home on vacations and the lot had a black one sitting there for a number of months. It was simple, cheap, sporty looking, and a hatchback (perfect for college moves/booze hauling.) I had at the time a 83 Dodge 600 I bought from my grandfather which was a very nice car….but I wanted something sporty. This fit the bill. Instead, I waited and bought a new 92 Trans Am when I graduated (and which I still have).
My favorite combination would be the full glass (no filler panels), and the snowflake alloy wheels. A guy in high school had one of these, in yellow.
The various filler panels always intrigued me. What was the rhyme or reason for it? Only thing I can see is to compete with the looks of the mustang. Especially once they started the quad headlights.
The rear side window panels/louvers were just a way to make the car look different from an older version on the cheap.
Let’s catalog these:
1 – unadorned, two rear side windows with thin post between them. Best look IMO
2 – louver covering back of central window, on early models with sport trim
3 – wide central post seen here, which looks natural until you see it from inside the car
4 – targa band used in Dodge DeTomaso 024 and probably some Plymouth too
5 – Charger 2.2 with Hoffmeister kink in central window and small cutout for rearmost window
6 – central window fully exposed, rearmost window completely covered, used on late models
Nice work!
The only ones of these I’ve ever seen would fall under #6, and I don’t think I’ve seen any since the mid-late 90s. At the time not knowing a whole lot about cars in general let alone this model in particular, that panel looked most assuredly tacked on, and easily removable.
Really, these were great cars for the price and the times, all in all, especially after the 2.2L engine was available.
One could get them in all different flavors of economy/sport.
They were inexpensive and reliable (again, especially with the 2.2L engine).
With the hatchback they were very useful, and the rear seat room wasn’t atrocious in comparison to many “sporty coupes” of the time.
They didn’t have the highest-quality interiors, but if I recall, at least the interior bits were rugged.
The styling was, well, maybe not the greatest. But it wasn’t an ugly car by any means, and definitely not a Brougham.
For an American car in the late 1970’s, to be reliable, sporty (with the 2.2), convenient, practical, economical, and rugged – it’s hard not to respect them even if one didn’t want to, say, drive one every day.
And if you didn’t like the name – well, you could get yourself a Dodge Charger.
Incredible find! I’m amazed that one of these cars is still around in this great condition.
I agree that this is one of those cars where the four-door looked more appealing that the two-door. I find the TC3 styling to be too fussy — as if the designers were trying too hard to achieve the “European look.”
I think the best visual angle is from the rear — the integration between the tail lights, bumper and hatch is all very smooth-looking.
And here’s an early TC3 ad as well. My favorite part is the callout saying “8 windows for all direction visibility” – as if the visibility can be measured in number of windows.
This one and that one make two-two-two-two, do I hear three-three-three who’ll give me three?
Of course – I should have known to check the CC Files before posting that I’m amazed to see any type of car still running!
These were great looking cars – compared to a Ford EXP or Mercury LN7. The interior shot with the near-new looking 1980’s vinyl and plastic juxtaposed with a cellphone holder is classic.
I considered the Omni 024 when I bought my Rampage. The 2.2 liter with a manual transmission was for the time a reasonably peppy car. Not seeing a need for enclosed cargo space, I decided that the Rampage was a better choice for me.
I liked the quad headlight facelift better, the original front end looks like a car from a low budget 80s sci fi movie
Much better.
I actually preferred the 2 headlight nose. Looked more aggressive, especially with the snowflake alloys. And gave it more character. The quad headlight nose looked just like the Daytona that came out the same year.
The ’84 restyle definitely gave these some G-body flavor, and I think that was the intent. Still, I liked the differentiation that the two-headlight models provided. Many who don’t care about Chrysler hatchbacks of the ’80s seem to confuse the Charger and Daytona.
These never appealed to me. They looked light and cheap. The four door was better. Plymouth sold a lot of them when they needed something to sell. So, it helped keep the Chrysler lights on.
Amazing “survivor” !! Been “hermetically sealed” somewhere?
On Funk & Wagnall’s porch?
Those wheels have got to be close to the only set surviving in this condition.
Interesting take on a car we never saw over here, or were ever going even if Chrysler Europe hadn’t passed to Peugeot.
Aside from the long overhangs, not a lot to dislike (visually at least) if you want a value 2+2 coupe in a Capri/Manta mode on a more contemporary template.
No, it’s not a Scirocco or Alfasud Sprint, but a piece of value for money expression that the Horizon didn’t really do.
And, as an aside prompted by the advert shot, get an Horizon at the right angle and colour, perhaps with some dress up options, and the shape seems to have worn pretty well.
I remember it being well-advertised in the major car magazines circa 1980, but only 2,000 examples of the Dodge Omni 024 De Tomaso were manufactured.
Interesting roof treatment.
.
I think 024 was a reference to the car’s drag coefficient, which was pretty good for the time. No idea what TC3 stood for. Paul is exactly right, they were the spiritual successors to the early Slant 6 Barracudas.
’74 Vega: Inspirational?
Mine’s a Dodge, though there was a kit of the Plymouth version.
Only drove one of these once. Rental car, South Padre Island Texas. Drove it down the beach, on the way back had to run thru a bit of incoming surf, mostly sand slurry. Throttle stuck, on the brakes heavily while heading to the nearest car wash. It was a Rent-A-Wreck as nothing was available. Some looked fine other looked like failed Pontiacs, slapped on plastic crap.
The Ford EXP, That’s a car that disappeared rather quickly. A two seat Escort. I think that it was referred to as a commuter car, that’s what the Pontiac Fiero was originally conceived as. Unless a car is as short as a Smart Car, I think that a rear seat should be included. I had a ’90 Civic Si hatch, and I doubt that it was bigger than an EXP. I thought that these little Mopars were neat cars, almost bought a Dodge Daytona at one time. Chrysler did a lot with the 2.2, eventually having a 16 valve, turbo charged and intercooled version. Who can forget the GLH (Goes Like Hell) versions?
Chrysler was there ahead of everyone else, but too far ahead of the market.
These were ALL OVER the rust belt, because (a) your dad was helping you pay for it and so it had the be from the big 3 and (b) your uncle Ed and a Chrysler employee “friends and family” discount.
It didn’t take much to get that “friends and family” discount. I got it when I bought my Rampage. I also got it for several other sailors that I introduced (for a $50 finders fee) to my local dealer.
I bought my TC3 new in ’79 and the first thing I did was to fold down the back seat. My sister-in-law had the four-door Horizon. She wasn’t aware that they were basically the same vehicle. She thought that I had a two-seat sports car. My car was four-speed with the snowflake wheels. I loved that car…in the summer. I heard that front wheel drive was so great in the snow. My TC3 was terrible in snow! Turn the steering wheel and the car still went straight!
A few years ago I saw the ad for the TC3. One of the features shown was the electric hatchback release. My car didn’t have that. Where was that
switch located?