(first posted 9/20/2017) As Chrysler bounced back from the brink of doom in the early 1980s, the company needed to expand its lineup beyond frugal transportation like the K-car. Minivans, sport coupes and convertibles helped to satisfy this goal, and another market niche beckoned as well. Young adults who had grown to appreciate compact (largely imported) cars were aging into a more settled product, yet retaining their preferences for tight handling and good economy. Thus, the 1980s sport sedan market was born. Our featured car was Chrysler’s entry in this market segment – envisioned as a sedan with American traits but with an international feel.
Though a good car, and in some ways one of Chrysler’s best products of the 1980s, the LeBaron GTS never became a major force in the sport sedan market, and within just a few years, sales fizzled away. For Chrysler, it was like hitting a lead-off triple, then stranding the runner on base. So close, and yet so far away.
The GTS was not Chrysler Corporation’s first sport sedan of the 1980s – that honor goes to the Dodge 600ES. Following a formula shared by GM and Ford at the time (Pontiac 6000STE, Ford LTD LX), the 600ES was a gussied-up version of a high-volume mid-size sedan, outfitted with a firmer suspension, bucket seats and alloy wheels. For its next act, Chrysler wanted to up the ante and offer a purpose-built sport sedan.
To Chrysler boss Lee Iacocca, “purpose-built” didn’t mean new from the ground up, but rather a very well-disguised K-car. America’s foremost corporate hero of the 1980s, Iacocca’s impressive sense of business acumen saved Chrysler, and a significant component of his strategy was to create a family of cars around a single platform. Consequently, his sport sedan’s new skin hid a chassis and drivetrain that was familiar to the company’s customers. Its lineage was fairly straightforward: A stretched K-car platform similar in size to the Chrysler E-Class/Dodge 600, mated to a Chrysler Laser/Dodge Daytona drivetrain.
By the mid-1980s, some critics warned that the public was reaching its limit for K-car derivatives. Iacocca scoffed at this notion by recalling his greatest hit at Ford – the Mustang, which he reminded people was “a Falcon in a new dress.” If the Falcon could transform into an industry-changing Pony Car, then the K-car could just as easily transform into America’s premier sport sedan.
The resulting car, code-named the H-body, reflected the preferences of young professional consumers in the early 1980s. Chrysler dropped loud hints that its upcoming model would be outside of its square-and-traditional comfort zone. “This has been called our Yuppie Car, and that’s what it is,” claimed Tom Pappert, Chrysler VP of Sales and Service.
These days, companies chase millennials and their purchasing power. In the 1980s, it was yuppies – due to their collective willingness to spend money and to their relatively young age (suggesting a likelihood to be repeat customers). Crucially, from an automotive standpoint, yuppies liked foreign cars. Along the way, they also picked up a fondness for crisp handling, good economy and a compact size.
When introduced as a 1985 model, LeBaron GTS was a breath of fresh air. Its styling was curvy and contemporary and its driving characteristics mimicked Japanese and European competitors rather than broughamy domestic sedans. Chrysler’s ads offered comparisons with Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs, which was of course rather ambitious, but it made for good advertising copy. The real competition were Japanese mid-size sedans.
Although the styling may have been fresh, the name surely wasn’t. Using the well-worn LeBaron nameplate on a car marketed to a young, import-oriented crowd was a curious choice, and apparently a late choice at that. Chrysler planned on calling this car the Commander, but ultimately chose LeBaron instead, matched to the sportier-sounding GTS suffix. Its Dodge twin, the Lancer, differed only in grille, tail lights and minor trim.
The GTS’s most perceptible distinction was its styling. Lacking the fussiness and pretense of other Pentastar sedans, the GTS featured a flowing and crisp appearance with up-to-date touches such as aircraft-style doors cut into the roof panel, a steeply raked, flush-mounted windshield (called ‘aerowrapped’ by Chrysler), and semi-flush side glass.
The rear end presented an interesting design touch: It was a hatchback, but avoided overtly shouting so. With a notched hatch lid, the car appeared like a conventional sedan with a short trunk lid, though in fact the hatch concealed a useful 18 cu. ft. trunk – expanding to 42 cu. ft. with the 60/40 rear seat folded. Liftover, however, was high, since the tail lights and license plate housing were fixed. Offering a hatchback in the mid-size sedan class was a gamble, since customers typically associated hatches with lower-priced cars.
Chrysler hoped to shift the odds of marketing a hatchback in its favor with the notchback design – the utility of a hatch without the economy-car styling that most hatchbacks implied.
Under its skin, the GTS was more of a conventional Chrysler product. For 1985, GTS came with a 2.2-liter 4-cylinder engine in either normally aspirated (97-hp) or turbocharged (146-hp) form. One year later, a third powerplant was added: A 100-hp 2.5-liter four, which provided considerably more torque than the rather tepid 2.2. All engines were available with either a 5-speed manual or 3-speed automatic transmission.
As one would expect, the 5-speed Turbo received the most press attention, but represented a minority of total sales. The turbo did provide performance that was worth bragging about (0-60 in 8.3 sec. w/ 5-spd.), although power kicked in abruptly and featured all of the lag and turbo whine that epitomized 1980s turbos. Non-turbos had more sedate performance – adequate for the times, though far from exceptional.
H-bodies’ performance credentials were strongest in the suspension department. The standard setup (called Road Touring) featured a noticeably firmer feel than other Chrysler/Plymouth sedans. An optional Sport Handling package offered alloy wheels, firmer suspension settings and sway bars. Compared to other domestic sedans, even the base model handled relatively well. All H-bodies had gas-pressurized MacPherson struts and shocks, anti-roll bars and quick-ratio power steering with excellent on-center feel. Chrysler officials knew that younger drivers preferred a firmer, more European ride, and acted accordingly in setting up the GTS’s suspension characteristics.
Our featured car is not a turbo, but rather a sparsely equipped base model (and in astonishingly good condition). GTS’s came in two trim levels – High Line (the base model) and Premium, with the Premium offering additional niceties that were either optional or unavailable on the High Line. Upon its 1985 introduction, the GTS was priced competitively, starting at $9,099. A fully-loaded turbo would check in near $13,500. Although our featured car is a 1987 model, it’s hard to tell, since Chrysler offered few year-by-year changes as the GTS cycled through its 5-year lifespan.
The interior was clearly that of an American car – not cutting-edge, but at the same time it was thoroughly modern. Full instrumentation came standard, with six legible gauges, including a tachometer.
One of the interior’s best features were the seats. Even the standard bucket seats such as these were contoured, supportive, and comfortable for long distances. The interior also featured novelties like console storage bins and a cup holder that folded out from the dash. Other pieces were upgraded from Chrysler’s standard parts bin as well, such as the soft-touch climate control and radio buttons.
However, the origins of many parts were clear. Major components, such as the as the door hardware and the steering wheel, were plainly sourced from other Chrysler products, and the overall level of finish was more Aries than Accord.
H-bodies excelled at space efficiency, treating the driver and passenger to ample room, even for tall people. The rear seat was plenty big for two (three with a squeeze) adults – something that not all mid-size cars could match.
Sources: Standard Catalog of Chrysler 1914-2000 and turbododge.com
The GTS and Lancer had a lot going for them, and in both 1985 and ’86, the two models combined to exceed 100,000 sales. In terms of demographics, the H-body appeared to be a hit with its intended audience; Iacocca stated that the average H-car buyer was just 34 years old. But after those first two years, sales fell apart. 1987 sales fell by nearly half, and then the H-body hurtled towards irrelevancy.
This was a rapid fall from grace for what had been a promising vehicle. What happened?
First, mid-size hatchbacks never sold well in North America despite good efforts from several manufacturers. One can’t blame carmakers for trying, since it seemed logical that a generation accustomed to hatches on their Civics or Horizons would seek to carry forth that useful fifth door in a family car. But the hatchback perception remained lodged with economy cars. What didn’t help the GTS was that Chrysler’s 1987 bargain-oriented P-cars (Shadow/Sundance) featured the same notched hatch design as the GTS. The struggle to convince buyers to accept a mid-size hatchback got tougher with the P-car’s introduction.
Most importantly, though, was that the H-bodies lacked refinement. The GTS was noisy, rough around the edges, and showed unrefined build quality – more akin to a downscale Chrysler product than to a sophisticated German or Japanese competitor.
This lack of sophistication rose to the forefront when comparing drivability. Both the 2.2 and 2.5 liter engines were loud and relatively course feeling, the cable-shifted manual transmission was stiff and notchy, and the automatic was rough and inflexible. This was all problematic for a car doing battle against the bastions of smoothness – Honda, Toyota and Mazda.
Generally speaking, the GTS and Lancer were competitive cars when introduced in 1985. But their Achilles Heel was that they were engineered to beat early-1980s competition – not the improved late-1980s cars. During the 1980s, Honda, Toyota and Mazda all made significant strides in everything from drivetrain smoothness to interior quality, and Chrysler’s H-bodies couldn’t hold their own against the newer competitors. For the H-bodies, the roughness that was partially tolerable in 1985 became almost archaic just a few years later.
Given this quick trajectory towards obsolescence, it was surprising that Chrysler began European GTS sales in 1988 – sold as the “Chrysler GTS” and featuring the Dodge Lancer grille. Unsurprisingly, sales were slow.
Sales were slow back home by that time, too. And by the end of the decade, Chrysler gave up trying to make a dedicated Euro-inspired sport sedan.
The H-body’s replacement, the AA-body Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron, proudly reverted to Chrysler’s traditional K-derivative boxyness. This 1991 LeBaron brochure boasted of its car’s competitiveness with the Olds Cutlass Ciera and Buick Century… no more BMW or Accord comparisons for the Chrysler brand’s mid-size offering.
The GTS was close to being a great car, and was an excellent first attempt at a sport sedan. What it needed most was some refinement. Unfortunately for auto enthusiasts, this type of car was outside of Chrysler’s comfort zone, and without strong sales, the company reverted to a more familiar product for the crucial mid-size segment. It’s too bad, though, that consumers never got to see what a second-generation LeBaron GTS could be like, since the original version possessed so many good qualities. So close, and yet so far away.
Photographed in August 2016 in Falls Church, Virginia.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1985-89 Chrysler LeBaron GTS – Hatchback Setbacks William Stopford
The featured car is in amazing shape for being 30 years old. It looks brand new!
Excellent analysis Eric. This car should have been released in 1983. While the Plymouth Sundance/Dodge Shadow would have been more timely in 1985. And the Spirit/ Acclaim in 1987, accompanied with more modern styling. Given the consistent K-Car engineering of each these models, it would have helped immensely if the development for each of these lines could have been advanced.
In terms of exterior styling, I thought other five door hatchbacks like the 1983 Mazda 626 and the Ford Sierra already looked more modern than either the Lancer or Lebaron GTS upon the H-Bodies release.
I agree with you on your timeframe—it’s another way of saying in the ’80s and into the ’90s Chrysler were generally a couple-few years too slow to market. That’s probably one reason why the LH cars were such a shock: instead of being me-too latebags, they were somewhere between “right on time” and “fashionably early”, which Chrysler hadn’t managed to achieve since…gosh, I want to say the ’60 Valiant.
I hadn’t thought about it, but I think you’re right about the design of the H-body Mopars versus cars of comparable concept like the 626 and Sierra—maybe the liftback Stanza.
For many, it was refreshing to see such an obviously European influenced design from Chrysler as the Lancer/LeBaron GTS. However, the sport sedan market was moving fast already. And though they seemed impressive for Chrysler, I thought the H-Bodies were already looking out of date by their release. Like something that would have been released 3-4 years earlier in Europe.
As I mentioned below, it was the 600 and E-Class sedans that I thought were the genuinely poorly timed efforts. As they had styling more in common with the basic ’81 K-car or then current Ford Fairmont/LTD styling, than what Ford was accomplishing with their latest aero designs in the same time period. The Ford Thunderbird/Sierra/Tempo/xr4ti looking at least one full generation newer than the next generation models Chrysler was introducing off the K-Cars. Chrysler design was looking outdated by Ford’s aero theme between 1983 and 1986.
Sharing underpinnings should have given their K-based cars a faster to market advantage. However, all their K-Car based efforts looked too much like K-Car derivatives. IMO the Dodge 400/600, Plymouth Caravelle, and the Chrysler E-Class needed to look more modern, with less obvious K-Car heritage, when launched. They looked like deluxe K-Cars that should have launched in 1981. If you judged them on their looks.
Of course, I understand Chrysler was already accomplishing a great deal in terms of product launches, and getting back on their feet. But those cars developed from the K-Cars needed to either be launched sooner, or kept up-to-date with more industry leading design.
I completely agree that the “Super K-Cars” should have launched in 1981, instead of the pathetic “Reliant with a nose job and vinyl toupee” that was the 1982 LeBaron. Then they should have been completely replaced by the H-Body in 1985. At least that would have felt like progress rather than just extra showroom stuffing…
Growing up, my aunt Nancy had this exact same car–color and all–when I was a kid, except it had leather seats. I loved that car, but my aunt Terry had my favorite: a ’94 Concorde. My parents had a ’93 Explorer, and while it was nice, I was always drawn to the various Mopars that many family members of mine owned. I was just like my grandpa, a Mopar man.
Anyways…my aunt Nancy replaced it with a ’98-ish Stratus in the late ’90s. The Stratus was decent and significantly more “modern” but for some reason I still preferred her LeBaron GTS.
I think the H-body was done well. It rounded out the hard, square geometry of the original K-cars (though the original K LeBaron was a snazzy car for it’s time). I think it was great that they were able to graft hatch into this car without looking like one. It just appears to have a lot of greenhouse.
I don’t see any of these around anymore. Last time I seen one had to have been a couple of years ago. Sad. If only I had the space, I’d have one. For now, I think of my ’13 200 Limited as a spiritual successor to the LeBaron/LeBaron GTS.
In fact, I think the 200 would have been an excellent candidate to revive the LeBaron name. I wonder if it would have helped sales. Marchionne should have tried that before calling it quits on a midsize Chrysler offering.
Excellent assessment on the oft forgotten LeBaron!
These cars are significant, because they represent Chrysler’s first attempt at creating a midsize car that a few import buyers would at least raise an eyebrow at, even if many didn’t give it a second look. In truth, I believe it to actually be the first 1980s Chrysler product to represent the dramatically shifting consumer tastes and values of the 1980s.
As you accurately point out, these were very cleverly designed, with the “hidden hatchback” design and featured a lot of thoughtful details such as a flip-out cupholder and console armrest with storage. The standard contoured buckets, manual transmission, and full instrumentation clearly expressed the LeBaron GTS’s import-fighting intentions.
This latter fact was likely something Lido was probably not too happy about, resulting in him doubling down on ultra conservative styling and interiors for its successor, as well as the C-body crop of New Yorkers, Dynasty, and Imperial.
It’s a shame that the GTS and Lancer were largely limited by their K-car roots and large amount of common parts, along with a lack of updates over their lifespan; they definitely had a lot going for them, but were simply too rough around the corners.
In any event, I’m truly amazed at this featured car’s incredible condition! Apart from one visible loose trim piece, it looks like it just drove off the showroom floor! Glad its owner seems to be taking good care of it, and the antique plates are a good sign of that!
I (don’t much) have to wonder how many people who might conceivably have eyed an ostensible import-fighter from Chrysler, wound up laughing instead on account of the risible engineers-agree-600ES-is-bestest-car-in-whole-wide-world ad in the 2nd pic of this article.
The former does not detract from the latter.
Detroit never learns: think of Cadillac’s recent efforts to “prove” that their cars are “better” than BMWs because of arcane test track statistics. Uh huh.
Sad but true. Nobody shopping a BMW sedan would drive a Cadillac sedan. The Escalade or possibly the SUV, but not a sedan. Why Cadillac chases that market is beyond me. Since it is an aspirational American brand, sell it to “”Muricans” in earnest. Lots of power via the LS engine, cushy, floaty ride, and lots of gadgets and whiz-bang features that appeal to the over 50 set. You know, their actual market! Middle American, middle aged people who have driven mid-sized sedans and still want to move up, but don’t want to pay top dollar for the German cars. It may not sell as well in California, but they would in the East Coast and Middle America markets. You know, where any Cadillac sales already are happening. GM never, ever learns.
The difference is Cadillac can compete with BMW in performance, not just cherry picked numbers from a road test. Cadillac has engineered some very good cars, not just “rebodied” inferior cars like the GTS. Every magazine has praised the CTS and ATS….But to your point, unfortunately BMW drivers wouldn’t be caught dead driving a Cadillac….even an Escalade
Sadly, the current Cadillac ATS and CTS are some of the best cars that nobody appears to want, judging by the sales figures.
I don’t know. Traditional American luxury is on life support; if Lincoln is the current practitioner of the art, then the art is in big trouble. I think that FoMoCo is trading on their past, but their past isn’t all that great. After the Engel Continentals, there wasn’t much to crow about.
Cadillac is doing what anyone else would do, compete with the big dogs in the market. Lincoln is trying to trade on it’s past, a distinctly American past. Great for the US, lousy for the rest of the world.
My dad was a “Yuppie” and had a 5-door- a 1984 Mazda 626. His belief that Japanese cars were unquestionably superior in quality, reliability, and durability meant things like a Chrysler LeBaron GTS were like the Queen in three-card monte: off the table.
That being said, I have never shared his belief in Japanese cars- it is an opinion I have long held about certain European brands- specifically Peugeot, Volvo, and Mercedes-Benz.
Did any import buyers take the ‘America’s Driving Machines’ tagline seriously? Or was it meant to convince traditional American car buyers that Chrysler’s cars were more competitive?
I think the H Bodies should have been released at the time the E-Class and 600 were introduced. Making the E-Body sedans redundant. I don’t think the clear appearance of the E-Bodies being direct K-Car descendants would help in their attempt to appear as ‘sport’ sedans.
BTW, is that actor William Devane in the 600ES ad?
Turns out it is William Devane in the 600ES ad. Looks like he was hired as a Chrysler pitchman in 1983 and kept through 1987 or so.
Thinking about it, I’m somewhat surprised that Ricardo Montalban was selected for the GTS ad instead of Devane, since both were working for Chrysler at the time. Seems like Devane would have had more appeal to the GTS’s intended audience.
Devane also made TV ads — here’s one of him selling the K-car:
I think Chrysler was probably as guilty as GM as not taking the Japanese/European car threat as seriously/urgently as they needed to.
This is where I credit Ford for giving the domestic industry a large boost in the early and mid 80s with some of their great product launches, with some of the most competitive domestic designs yet.
The hell are you talking about? GM pasted a strip of various countries’ flags on the side of select Oldsmobile models, Ford changed strategically-chosen models’ chrome trim to black, and Chrysler started selling certain Dodges with “ES” appended to the model name, which stood for “Euro Sport”. If that’s not taking it seriously, well…!
I’ll admit, as a young teenager and regular MT and C&D reader, I was pretty impressed. But I would be disappointed if many young adults of car buying age were influenced. 🙂
Kelly Harmon stunt driving a Dodge 400 on a beach must have changed some attitudes.
Given that John Delorean was arrested in 1982, the same year as this commercial, it seems a bit coincidental that someone at Chrysler decided to use his ex-wife in it. In fact, maybe they could have had her say something like, “It will outperform a Delorean!”.
They should have made the flags bigger then maybe GM wouldn’t have gone bankrupt.
A friend bought one of these – a Lancer turbo, used, about 1988. Exact color inside and out as the subject car. Yes, it was a hot rod of sorts, and it did handle very well on some of the twistier roads in St. Charles County, MO.
I don’t recall the year of his Lancer, but memory tells me it was a 1986 model. He enjoyed his years with the car.
The barber I went to at the time also bought one of these, and he also raved about how nice the car was.
I suppose it wasn’t so bad of a decision by Lido at all to continue the K platform.
Terrific account of the H-body. These were so much different than other Chrysler fare at the time, a real breath of fresh air.
You’ve hit upon a few key elements. The LeBaron name did it no favors whatsoever. It was almost like Chrysler had a roulette wheel to see where to drop the LeBaron name every model year. The name conjured up to many images. Cordoba would have worked better in some regards, but not all. Newport was too aged at that time and this would have been the wrong target.
Interior room, especially the rear seat, was exceptional. In 1986 my parents were shopping for a new car as my sister and I were simply too tall to continue sitting in the rear of a Reliant. Sitting in the rear of a Lancer / LeBaron GTS was an amazing experience, as it was indeed possible to have a relatively small car with ample room for those in the back. They wound up buying a Crown Vic.
From when I wrote my K-Car Chronology, one tidbit I found was the introduction of the Taurus in 1986 was given a degree of credit for the nosedive of H-body sales.
Eric, this was a terrific find. I’m glad you found it in Virginia!
You’re absolutely right about Chrysler’s name games. They did the same with “New Yorker”, and to a lesser degree with “Imperial”. I don’t think “Cordoba” would’ve done much of anything good for this car, but I do think they missed an opportunity on this car’s successor: the European-market version of it was called the Saratoga, which I think might’ve been a fine, baggage-free, confusion-free choice for the H-body (and then the AA-body) LeBarons.
WRT to the names, meh. How many versions of the Corolla have there been? Corolla Tercel, Corolla Matrix, etc. Or the old Nissan Stanza Altima? Lots of companies seem to do this. Right now FCA is doing this with the 500; 500, 500C, 500L and 500X.
I actually agree that the Saratoga would have been a great name for the LeBaron GTS; I thought it was great for the Euro market AA’s.
No, Toyota Corolla and Nissan Stanza are not at all the same as Chrysler Lebaron. What Toyota and Nissan (and Honda, and VW…) do is continuity—as far as most drivers know, there’s always been a Corolla. There’s always been a Civic. There’s always been a Golf. And they’ve always occupied more or less the same niche, as adjusted for evolving context.
What Chrysler did with Lebaron and New Yorker (etc) was spasticity.
Good point about the Taurus. It was a Really Big Deal when it came out and had the advantage of being a dedicated mid-size platform which meant it felt like a big car from the driver’s seat, while the Chrysler (and the Japanese offerings) felt like compacts in front, no matter how impressive the space utilization and rear legroom were.
In his first book, Iacocca called himself a “dedicated GM watcher.”
Perhaps he was inspired by Oldsmobile – which still enjoyed strong sales when these cars were planned – plastering the “Cutlass” moniker on several cars in its line-up.
In the long run, we all discovered how that worked out for both the Cutlass and Oldsmobile.
Looks like somebody has done a very nice job of maintaining their old “K-car” (modified)!.
I bought a 85 Turbo Lancer with 5 speed. As a Industrial Designer, its surprising looks and hatchback appealed to me. Unfortunately it became clear fairly soon that the car really did have rough edges: the most annoying was that pathetic cable shifter. The X-11 I traded in on it wasn’t real precise, but felt, in retrospect, like a hot knife thru butter compared to my Lancer.
Overall the car was ok, until just under 50K miles-blew the head gasket. Shortly thereafter it was gone.
Mt first and LAST Chrysler product. I purchased my first Honda car; precise little HB machine, too. DFO
Oh, now. Don’t let’s get carried away; that’s stretching things a whole hell of a lot. It was nowhere near being a great car; it was slightly upgraded and somewhat less crude in some ways (and not in others) than the Aries and Reliant. The basic mechanical underpinnings were sturdy enough for the job, reasonably dependable, and generally easy to fix. The turbo versions had contextually respectable acceleration, there were a couple of heavily-turbocharged small-volume Dodge versions that were extra-quick, and and after that the list of things to recommend the H-body runs out in a big hurry. It was barely-to-not competitive; it just seemed a bit better than it was in comparison to the abjectly dreadful dreck GM and Ford were foisting off on the North American public at the time. I don’t remember which of the many comparison road tests it was, but one of them at the time said “Nobody wanted to drive the Lancer home from the test track”, because it was so much less of a car than any of the others in what I recall as not an unreasonable assortment. I also recall that being a fair assessment. There was no excuse for a great deal of the crudity and schlock that pervaded the H-body Mopars—only explanations: cheapness, laziness, and cynical apathy.
The AA-body (Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron sedan) successor was a much more credible effort; still not world-class, but at least much more reasonably competitive.
Yeah, we pretty much did, except for the door count. The ’87-’94 J-body LeBaron coupé/convertible was a solid upgrade over both its named forebear and the H-body, with accordant popularity.
What’s really too bad: No pre-’93 J-body front clip (w/hidden headlamps) on an AA-body. I’ve always thought that’d’ve looked sharp and familially appropriate.
That Virginia “Antique Vehicle” plate looks like it would be more at home on a ’20s-’40s vehicle, but it’s nice and easy to read—a rarity in North American plates. Design notwithstanding, it will always seem wrong when I see antique/collector/historic vehicle plates on cars made after I was old enough to perceive cars as such. X-)
Good point on the AA body being a better car. It got overlooked too, though, mostly *because* Lee had doubled down on Brougham styling and the market had moved on.
At least the GTS got people in showrooms even if the test drive led to polite “we’ll call you”s to the salesman; the same buyers took one look at the square-rigged AA in its’ barely-refined-K-car base model look or full-Cleveland LeBaron form and crossed it off their list without a second thought.
…which is a shame, because an Acclaim LX or Spirit ES or R/T went a long way toward erasing the K-car dowd and the brougham gingerbread.
The AA sedans also were much more refined in the way they drove, thanks to the 3L V6 and four-speed automatic fitted to most of them. Neither were paragons of reliability unfortunately. While the LeBaron skewed Brougham-wards, sports sedan buyers could choose the Spirit ES or the faster Spirit R/T with a breathed-upon turbo 4 and a 5 speed.
Actually, most of the AA-bodies got the not-more-than-adequate TBI 2.5 and 3-speed automatic transaxle. Second most popular engine was the 3.0 (fine except for dropped valve guides—a nuisance, but a fixable one, and blue smoke out the exhaust reliably indicated a car with this engine had reached 70k miles). The A604 ProbleMatic 4-speed transaxle used with the 3.0 wasn’t as abjectly bad in the AA-cars as it was in the heavier AC-cars and minivans, but “not as bad” is as good as it got.
The R/T’s powertrain was a hell of a lot more than just “breathed on”. It’ll be a subject once I’m lowered down into the COAL mines.
The AA cars made the Tempo/Corsica look like antiques. Best of big 3 ‘rental cars’ in early 90’s.
Too bad the Cloud cars were not as durable. The AA’s were as tough as the same year minivans, lasting almost as long as beaters.
If I recall correctly, the problems with the Ultradrive transmission surfaced quite quickly. Chrysler did try to repair the troublesome transmissions.
I remember Iacocca himself saying, “We’ve got a problem that could put us out of business,” because the transmissions were used in the corporation’s wildly popular minivans.
It was nowhere near being a great car;
That sums it up for nicely me. Thanks for sparing me from having to write a longer comment.
That Virginia “Antique Vehicle” plate looks like it would be more at home on a ’20s-’40s vehicle, but it’s nice and easy to read—a rarity in North American plates. Design notwithstanding, it will always seem wrong when I see antique/collector/historic vehicle plates on cars made after I was old enough to perceive cars as such. X-)
Yeah that caught my eye, here in Illinois our antique plates don’t directly reference any particular era like those, they’re just light beige/black and significantly less cluttered than the hideous standard state plates, they have a 70s look if anything. Appropriately enough my old neighbor has a red LeBaron coupe they’ve had since I was a little kid there that now sports them. I wish my cougar were currently eligible (25 years in the rule here, many other states are 20), I truly despise the modern silk screened plates ruining this country.
Actually, it’s a state-issued reproduction of Virginia’s first license plate – a porcelain plate made between 1906 and 1909. Below is a picture of the original version (top), which coincidentally has the same registration number as the plate on the LeBaron.
Virginia has two options for antique plates – a more ordinary looking plate (bottom-left) with stamped letters/numbers using the same dies as regular Virginia passenger plates. Or the black/white reproduction version. Vehicle owners can also choose either plate for the same cost. The reproduction plate was initially envisioned as appealing to owners of Very Antique (pre-1940s) vehicles, but they’ve turned out to be very popular, and we see as many of them as we see the yellow versions.
A fantastic read, Eric. I may just have a new respect for these cars. I always felt the timing and popularity of the Ford Taurus at it’s introduction also served to steamroll the LeBaron GTS / Dodge Lancer almost as quickly as its momentum had gotten started.
The sand beige example above (rear three-quarter view) brought something new to my attention: there’s more than a slight resemblance to the concurrent Mazda 626 5-door hatchback (also a great looking car).
A nicely done piece, Eric. These dredge up some memories for me. I was still suffering from a hangover from my Mopar-love of the pre-K car era and wanted to really like this one. I sought one out in my great new car test-drive-a-thon in 1985. My only memory was being underwhelmed at the car, particularly given its price at a spec level that would have interested me.
After driving things like a Mustang GT, the Golf GTI, a Saab Turbo and the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, this seemed like a car that should have been more of a car than it was. I remember the interior feeling dated, the not-good shifter and the general feeling that the car was not as substantial as the others. And by the time you got to a decently equipped turbo model these were getting a mite pricey too. It was a car that I wanted to love but just didn’t do it for me. I was really disappointed.
I wish these had been better executed and more successful than they were. From a styling standpoint, I actually think these were good looking cars–it was nice to see a clean break from the super square K Car looks. Unfortunately Chrysler didn’t have a suitable V6 to offer in 1985, which no doubt hurt, since the 4-cylinder Turbos were too peaky and gruff (albeit potent for the times). The hatch-only body style was also a dubious product planning choice for the U.S. market at the time. As has been noted, build quality was subpar and the LeBaron GTS/Lancer wasn’t enough of a radical breakthrough to compete with the dramatic new Taurus and greatly improved Accord and Camry that were introduced within a few years of the Mopar’s launch.
The worst part is that I think Lee Iacocca might have been pleased to see this cars fail, since they didn’t adhere to his “square, chrome, glitz” mentality. Lido’s revenge was to revert to form for the H-Body replacement with abysmally dated interior and exterior designs. The AA-Body LeBaron introduced for 1990 was such a horrific throwback–talk about a car that should have been offered in the early 1980s (if at all).
In retrospect, it isn’t that clean a break – they could *almost* have stuck this front clip on a K-car wagon. In fact, they might’ve been able to do that with just the nose piece and dashboard if it were deemed necessary to offer a Lancer/GTS wagon.
“What didn’t help the GTS was that Chrysler’s 1987 bargain-oriented P-cars (Shadow/Sundance) featured the same notched hatch design as the GTS.”
I believe the Sundance/Shadow were initially marketed as feature-laden subcompacts. With more luxury touches/options than the Omni/Horizon. More towards what competitors like the Civic were offering. The bargain Shadow America being offered nearer the end of the model’s run.
It was another example of Iacocca doing at Chrysler what he had done at Ford.
Just as he had kept the Maverick/Comet in production for no-frills buyers when the Granada/Monarch debuted, he kept the Omni/Horizon around when the P-cars were introduced to fulfill the same role.
Eric, this is a very generous and thorough look at a car I would have never noticed back then and would still never notice. The very most interesting feature of this car is, to these eyes, the Virginia “antique vehicle” plate.
During the entire 1980s, the era of the Chrysler “K” and derivatives, I worked on the road and rented a lot of cars. I always balked at anything from Chrysler if I had to drive any more than just around town. I thought they were cheap, noisy and put together poorly and I did not trust them. So I would have never considered such a car, nor even noticed one. My contempt runs deep to this day.
The plates though are intriguing. Though not knowing the registration rules in Virginia, I am surprised by the use of them on what I see as an ordinary, obsolete turd. Someone loves the car and it is certainly eligible for entry at an AACA event due to age alone. As a car collector though, one of the least appealing outlets for that interest must be a four door, FWD, sloppy automatic eighties car. I don’t understanding spending the money on and preserving such a car. It is neither interesting nor good – unlike maybe a Gremlin or Pacer or Golf or Malibu. I guess the words “chutzpah” or “panache” might be used to describe the owner of the car displaying these plates. Enjoy it!
I have to say I can see the point in saving some examples of a car no matter how atrocious one might think it is. It may have been a genetic dead end but at least there would be examples of the dead end for people to look back on. Whether it deserves “collector” status, I don’t believe it does, would be up to debate.
Two years ago I looked at a 1986 Caravelle. Original 80 year old owner, 68,000 miles, widower who wants to keep the newer Camry. Falling down headliner, drove well but was failing smog. Several times in fact. He wanted $1500 and I was firm on my offer of $1000 as I knew why it was failing. Offer refused no doubt because of an emotional attachment and it isn’t my job to diagnose your car for you. My reason for saving was how many Caravelles does one see today?
Ironically when I left him and went down to my volunteer work on the USS Hornet I ran into a fellow volunteer on the gangway and told him about it. He then told me he was so busy building his plane, in his garage and needed money, that he was thinking of selling his yellow 135,000 mile1978 Celica GT Liftback. I had seen the car and loved it before I knew who it belonged to and so asked how much. He said volunteer discount of $800 because it was failing smog. Sold and even better than the Caravelle.
I could see saving an early K-car with vinyl top (or wagon with woodgrain) and updating or Shelbyizing the mechanicals while keeping the stock outward appearance – basically a restomod of an FWD car without converting to RWD. But this…must have sentimental value.
What happened to the LeBaron/Lancer? This is what happened – the beautiful and excellent 1986 Honda Accord came out merely one year later. The Mopar just couldn’t compete.
Exactly….When I first saw this Accord my jaw dropped…..Four door Prelude…blew everyone else away.
This, for sure.
And the artist’s impression of the GTS (“Spyscoop 1985 Chrysler H-body”) looked so much better than the final production car. It’s sad how often this happened back then – it gave the impression that the magazines employed better designers than the car companies did.
Nice assessment of a long-forgotten car, Eric! These have virtually vanished from the roads – I think I spot one about once every five years and when I do it’s quite a shock.
I think the main shortcoming with the H-body was that though they looked competitive strictly from a quantitative perspective, and were none too stellar when critiqued solely on their subjective merits. I recall as a child that most of the early K-car derivatives felt and sounded kind of junky, with various creaks and groans even when new. And by the early nineties, the H-bodies had all but disappeared from the roads in the northeast, so the quality was clearly suspect.
Given the futile attempts Chrysler made with its advertising to pitch the H-bodies as a sort of inexpensive alternative to the established European sport sedans of the era, it would be interesting to see some vintage reviews of the LeBaron GTS. Paging, GN!
Reviews? There’s one here and another here.
Thanks for these Daniel
There were entirely too many K-spinoffs in the ’80s, and also way too many LeBaron variations to the point that it became confusing for the average car buyer. Best thing about these cars was probably the front seats which were above average in comfort. The rest was mostly junk.
Oh man, I drove one of these to my prom in 1985…medium metallic blue with dark blue cloth. It was a rental after my mom’s 82 Cutlass Supreme puked its A/C compressor that morning and it was too hot to do without air.
Only time in my life I’ve been in one of these. I DID however, carpool with a kid whose parents bought a Chrysler E-Class, cousin to the Dodge 600 ES, and let the kids drive it. Chrysler used such nice upholstery and carpet in these, and the clear coat-base coat finishes were SO shiny when they were brand now…shame they aged so poorly.
Iacocca may have been able to fool the public a bit that the Mustang was a tarted up Falcon. By the time these cars emerged the public was not so easily fooled. He could call it what he wanted, he could change the sheet metal to whatever he wanted, he could do anything and everything to the exterior to fool people but most knew it was still a K car underneath.
I pass a body shop everyday that has one of these LeBarons for sale at $2600. Bah, not going anywhere at that price and hasn’t in a year. It is no different from the $1000 1984 Aires I saw yesterday in a Grocery Outlet parking lot. The boxy greenhouse stands out like the greenhouse of a Bug. Speaking of cockroaches might the K car had been the American version yet only for a decade?
Mustangs were sold mainly on looks, versus trying to say a K car was equal to German luxury cars. But at same time, Falcon platform in its day was a ‘greatest hit’.
OTOH, too bad the AA cars came out so late.
Ah Chrysler, the Studebaker of the current marques. Such a proud history, but at the end of the day, just a shell of a company churning out outdated models based on entirely too-old platforms. Shall we take bets on when it will be “retired” by FCA (or whoever buys out Fiat to get hold of Jeep)?
The Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable had it all over these. They were roomier inside, rode better, were more tautly suspended and handled better (more “YURPEEN” if that is your preference). No wonder sales tanked, even though the Taurus/Sable 3.0L Vulcan was hardly quicker than the Chrysler/Dodge base engine, and much slower than the Turbo.
Consumer Reports, I recall, wrote these up as being the best K-Car derivatives.
Although the hard points in the design were still the K-Car’s, the outer “wrapper” looked much more modern and concealed its boxy origins…not even all that dated-looking today in silhouette and basic shape. Yes, they should have come out in 1982 to give them a several-year successful run.
I’ve always thought these were very attractive and practical cars. Unfortunately, the design was spoiled by Chrysler not having the bucks to do the job right. I liked my ’86 GTS 2.2 Turbo with a couple of fatal exceptions. One was the 3 speed automatic transmission. Not enough gear off the line; under full throttle acceleration you had to wait until it reached 20 mph for the turbo to make it move. The lack of an overdrive ratio meant you were stuck with a buzzy 3000 rpm @ 60mph cruise, which yielded a mediocre 28 mpg to compensate for the tiring racket. I always regretted not getting the 5 speed manual.
The brakes were terrible, strangely enough showing their weakness mostly at low speeds. They didn’t even have enough bite to lock the wheels at parking lot velocities.
If Chrysler had used a good 4 speed automatic and made the 2.5 turbo or a V-6 standard, then added brakes large enough to do their job, they’d have had a world beater.
H bodies were compacts in all seriousness, and couldn’t compete with Taurus. And then the ’87 Camry was a huge jump forward, along with Accord.
One other reason hatchbacks lost sales was back in the day they squeaked and rattled more often.
Chrysler needed a true new mid size car, to follow the K’s in mid 80’s, instead of stretching the compacts. Bought AMC and tried to push the Eagle Premiere as one, but we know how well that worked.
Meant to add, the LH cars may have been North-Sough FWD, but were not built off the Premiere platform, were all new, but not until 93.
Is that a window crank I see on the back door? I know power windows were still considered a luxury 30 years ago and they weren’t as common then as they are now, but I still would have thought that a car that was supposed to be a “luxury sports sedan” would have come with them standard.
My “88 Caravelle” had winder windows. Lord I miss those. My aunts “91 Cutass” did too.
I had the Dodge Lancer ES turbo version for 11 years and 160K miles. It was the 2.2L/auto combination, with the Level 2 suspension and the copycat Lear seats. I loved the hatch and the room inside the car. I hated the small brakes and the fuel mileage and the need for premium fuel if I wanted the car to build max boost. Coincidentally, I drove one with a 5 speed for a while, it was even more fun when the boost was on and the trans shifted properly.
Back at that time, I had a lot of friends who had turbo Chryslers of one stripe or another; I also had friends who owned many of the imports. While this is all based on memories and opinions now, my Lancer was pretty good competition for the times. I once heard the Omni GLHS described as the Sten gun of high performance automobiles. I would say that description applies to many of the Chrysler products of the time.
Occasionally, I like to think about what I could buy for a fun toy; a turbo Shelby Omni, Daytona CS or Shelby Lancer frequently makes my list. Of those choices, the Lancer would be my first choice…
In addition, the Lancer/LeBaron were the first “aero” mid sized sedans in the US market. Somehow this gets ignored in every post about these cars; while the Taurus made a much bigger splash, the Mopar got there sooner.
On top of it, the car was much more practical, with the hatchback arrangement and the 60/40 fold down seats. An 18 cubic foot trunk was nothing to scoff at; if necessary, you could load a 4′ x 8′ sheet of plywood (.125″ thickness) in the back. There were notches in the interior moldings that allow you to slide them in.
I had enough room in the back seat for both of my kid’s car seats, although those things were a lot smaller back then. I thoroughly enjoyed my old Lancer. Lots of good memories in that car.
Hate to say it, but this (along with the G-body Daytona and Lebaron coupe) was probably the pinnacle of the K-car derivatives. The most modern-looking cars in their line-up at the time.
had they carried these design themes forward and updated/upgraded the architecture and powertrains, they probably wouldn’t have had to go all panic-mode throwing everything out and starting over in the ’90s.
Unfortunately, Lido in all of his tacky old-man-ness pushed forward with the frumpy A cars (Acclaim/Spirit/Lebaron) and the C/Y body New Yorker/Dynasty brougham-tastic throwbacks.
what is it with the hubris that leads these guys to believe their companies should be making cars for them and not their customers? Roy Abernethy did the same thing at AMC, making the Marlin uglier because “he wanted to sit in the rear seat with his hat on.”
I was very impressed with the H-body when it first appeared. So different from the K-car variations coming out of Chrysler.
However, I had just bought my first car on my own after college in ’84 and was broke as hell.
Unfortunately, it could no over come the American mindset of luxury was king and performance and handling were something alien??
The LeBaron GTS and Lancer were the least offensive looking of the K derived sedans. Unfortunately these cars weren’t terribly long lived, especially the turbos which I can remember seeing plumes of blue white smoke billowing from the exhaust pipes on these cars when they were only a few years old. I also remember seeing a brand new 1986 Dodge Lancer Pacifica that sat on a local Dodge dealer’s lot for three years!
I had an 86 Lancer, bought after my first new car (84 Turismo) was rear-ended and totaled (taillights in the back seat). I think my reason for buying the Lancer was my Mopar fanboy mindset at the time, along with the fact that it was black over gray cloth, same as my dearly departed Plymouth. That car ran me back and forth from Poughkeepsie to Long Island for almost a year until I came to my senses and moved back to LI. Happiness is definitely Poketown in your rear view mirror. Gave the Lancer to my sister in law when she needed a car in 1990 and bought a Jeep Cherokee. After my SIL was done with the Lancer, my mother in law used it for a couple of years. By then, the paint on the roof was fading much like many early clearcoats were prone to doing.
One very minor point: “MacPherson” is misspelled in the text.
Stylistically, I feel like the thing that really lets these down is the door frames, which immediately reveals the car’s K-car origins. The reason the C/D artist’s conception looks better is largely that it doesn’t have the production car’s rigid window frames and fussy fixed rear glass panel, giving a sort of four-door Fox Mustang look. (I don’t think the chrome frosting around the headlight surrounds does the nose any favors either, but that’s a lesser point.)
Thanks — fixed the spelling.
Regarding the headlights, I’m surprised that Chrysler did not freshen the car up a bit after 2-3 years, and the headlights are one area that could have benefited, either by fitting flush-mounted headlights or covered headlights with a front clip similar to the ’87+ LeBaron coupe.
I see what you mean about the door frames. To me, the same applies to the interior. I can just see someone finding the styling appealing, going for a test drive, and then writing the car off the minute he sat inside — thinking “Oh, this is a K car.” Some extra attention to these types of details would have gone a long way.
Car was in good ((appearing)) shape in “2017”. My memory of this (and the Dodge cousin) was ..after second, third year, everything about the car seemed to be loose.
Made for a host of rumbles/ rattles.
Was doing “valet parking” in early “90’s”.
Always was amazed at the noise these darn things made..
Seat belt clips and the trim around the doors (interior) was always coming loose too.
One of my favorite cars, and yet one that I have never been able to find (to buy), is the Dodge 600ES. There’s just something about them that I love about the styling and packaging. They had a ton of room, were very comfortable, had a touch of import look and yet were affordable without the high cost of ownership. Between that and this LeBaron GTS, they were my favorite of all the K-car platforms. In those days, I thought the GTS with leather seats had some of the most comfortable seats in the industry. I’d kill to have seats like these or the 600 ES seats today! I can’t stand these overly hard, overly bolstered seats the vehicles have now.
I missed this article the first time around, but I spent a lot of time in one of these, my friend owned a (USA market only I believe) turbo/auto Lancer, that we didn’t normally get here in Canada. His was eventually rebuilt after a T-bone collision and the already terrible squeaks and rattles were amplified.
However, as has been described above, they were quick, handled well and took the abuse from teenage boys better than most cars. We enjoyed it a lot and it was comfortable for both his and my own 6’4″ 200+ lbs frames, and 3 or 4 or even 5 more people. . . . .using the spacious trunk/hatch of course.
They were quite common in our part of the world for a number of years well into the 90s.
These were so much nicer than the early sawed off Ks. Getting ready to graduate college, I might even have been the demographic for these. Really, should have been named the 300, and LeBaron, and good ‘ol Recardo, should have been retired with the Cordoba.
I’m happy to report that as of 2023, this LeBaron still seems to be in service. This summer, my wife took this picture of the LeBaron parked at a service station (with some other CCs thrown in for a bonus).
I’ve seen it driving around once or twice as well since I wrote this article six years ago.
The then-new glued on rear window on the GTS looks like it has about 1/2″ to 3/4″ of “glue space” all around, while rear windows on modern cars often have 1.5″ to 2″ of black-painted borders, Wonder what happened?
“But their Achilles Heel was that they were engineered to beat early-1980s competition – not the improved late-1980s cars.”
That, in a nutshell, was Detroit’s problem. I recall a marketing director stating something to the effect that within 5 years we will be down to same number of defects as Toyota. Of course, Toyota significantly reduced the number of defects in those 5 years while Detroit may or may not have achieved that obsolete metric.
Exactly. For a very long time, the Big 3 competed with each other, and not the Japanese (and for good reason since that would be a way harder and more expensive). Like any other business, the way it worked was they each tried to be just a little bit better to convince the schmoes to buy their product over the competition.
Compound that with Iacocca’s famous quote, “you sell the sizzle, not the steak” and it explains perfectly why the Lebaron GTS showed promise but, instead of being improved upon the original concept in the next model cycle, gave way to the stodgy AA-body Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron.
Simply put, the latter lined up much better with Roger Smith’s same-old, same-old GM products.
The 1985 H-Bodies could have looked genuinely beautiful, if they had received the softer, more aerodynamic styling of the 1987 LeBaron Coupe. Only in this four door form. With the LeBaron GTS four door also getting the ’87 coupe’s hidden headlights.
Styling would have been more competitive with the Taurus as well. As it was in ’85, the softer, more aerodynamic styling of the Merkur XR4ti, looked more modern/leading edge than these Chryslers. Windows on the Tempo and XR4ti appeared more flush and aerodynamic. The chrome trim surrounding the Chrysler’s windows looked dated. Compared to the Fords.
The softer, more modern styling of the four door Dodge Shadow in Eric’s example above, makes these look old.
Car and Driver’s 1985 review:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a43552166/1985-chrysler-lebaron-gts-turbo-by-the-numbers/
I had two friends who were diehard Mopar owners. The first one “went away” after he bought his amazingly troublesome 600, the other one lasted until he had a similar nightmare owning a Lancer. One went to Toyota and later Mazda, the other went to GM, then Honda. Neither came back. Of the three of us, I’m the only one that came back after my ’77 Power Wagon soured me on Mopars until I bought my Ram 1500 in 2003. Since then it’s been A 2008 Charger R/T, a 2010 Challenger R/T, and a 2018 Challenger Scatpack. At this point I have no idea what my next car is going to be. I just hope Stellantis doesn’t screw up the next Charger or whatever. If it looks good and has decent utility, I’ll be back, if not, I don’t know.
I liked these cars when they appeared in the marketplace.
I was the right demographic but the recession at the time hit our young family hard in that a new vehicle was not a priority. As it was we retuned an 82 Cavalier as the monthly payments were killing our budget.
Aimed at a young demographic, I chuckled at the print ad above with the gentlemen in a tuxedo standing by the sedan. That is so 1950’s. I would have nixed the ad had I been in charge of the advertising campaign.
I considered a GTS in 86 as I looked at potential replacements for my 80 Audi 4000 Saloon. A good friend had purchased one and seemed satisfied. After careful consideration, I traded for a new 86 Audi 4000 Saloon, Now dat’s Yuppie.