(First posted on September 7, 2015) Just mentioning the word “K-Car” will ignite a firestorm of opinions, ranging from flaming hatred, to acceptance, to even admiration. We could sit here for days and discuss how overboard Chrysler went with its continued endless array of K-based offerings, all while it could have been putting its resources towards developing new products.
Yet this is what Chrysler (under Lido’s command) did and there’s nothing to do about it more than twenty years later. Nearly all of the very many EEKs (excellent family tree by Jason Shafer) were basic family-oriented vehicles. However, a select few did manage to evoke a tad more emotion, such as the J-body LeBaron, H-body Lancer/LeBaron GTS, and the G-body Daytona/Laser.
Introduced as a 1984, the G-body Dodge Daytona and Chrysler Laser were the first K-car derivatives that sought to project a sporty image and appeal to the driving enthusiast. While the Daytona and Laser were never true high-performance sports cars, they represented baby steps back to Chrysler’s performance legacy, which had been mostly lost with the 1970s fuel crises and Chrysler’s own near-death. At the time of their introduction, these were Chrysler’s closest home grown entries in the then-vast field of sporty coupes.
During this period, Chrysler also sold the smaller but more powerful Mitsubishi Starion as a captive import under the name “Conquest”. Initially sold under the Dodge and Plymouth brands from 1984-1986, the Conquest became a Chrysler for 1987-1989. Along with most other captive imports sold by Chrysler, the Conquest never really gained much of a following, resulting in low interest and unsubstantial sales. Although still a rebadged Mitsubishi, the 1990 Dodge Stealth that replaced it was a slightly more serious effort, yielding moderately more success.
Riding on a 97-inch wheelbase, the Daytona totaled about 179 inches in overall length, placing within close dimensions of cars such as the Camaro, Firebird, 300 ZX, and Supra. The Daytona’s styling and handling could’ve benefitted from a longer wheelbase, but in an era when large overhangs were still the norm in American automobiles, there were much poorer-proportioned cars out there at the time.
Styling while decidedly different from the boxy K-cars, was somewhat derivative of the L-body Charger/Turismo coupes. Thankfully, the G-body coupes had a considerably more solid appearance than the somewhat clumsier-looking econobox L-bodies. Like many other cars in their class, the Daytona/Laser design was characterized by a long, low-slung hood, rakish windshield, and an expansive rear glass hatch.
This rear was where the G-bodies were most distinctive, with their trapezoidal rear side windows beginning higher than the front-door beltline. Forward-slanting B-pillars enhanced the racy look. Unlike some competitors that offered notchbacks and fastbacks, all Daytonas had a sleek fastback-style roofline, allowing for a liftback hatch. The large wraparound spoiler on higher trims added serious magnetism to the overall look of the car. Base models without this spoiler and ground effects looked significantly cheaper and less impressive.
This 1987 Daytona Shelby Z features the optional T-top removable roof panels. With this roof treatment also came blacked-out A-pillars and front window surrounds. Particularly with flame red exterior paint, the black contrasted very nicely in an aggressive manner. Overall, the Daytona and Laser were very attractive vehicles and in truth, the G-body was one of the most striking Chrysler designs of the 1980s, though in reality there wasn’t much competition for this title.
In original form, the Daytona and Laser featured quad sealed-beam headlights, but these were replaced with the in-vogue pop-up units as part of the Daytona’s first freshening for 1987. These new headlights were part of a redesigned front fascia that also featured the other new styling trend of eschewing a traditional grille for a solid panel and lower air intakes. New taillights now had smoked lenses and a full-width effect.
The interiors of the G-bodies were also a thankful departure from the very basic and boring K-car interiors. The upper dash and center stack each sported a more driver-focused presentation. Large analogue gauges were standard, with an interesting digital instrumentation package available. Also optional was a 22-function vehicle information center, providing digital readouts for information such as fuel economy, trip computer, and doors ajar (along with Chrysler’s Digital Voice Alert). Pretty high technology for 1987!
A standard center console housed either an automatic or 5-speed manual shifter. It’s standard glove compartment “cascaded” into it for a better-integrated look than the available consoles in the K-cars and most other EEKs. Several controls, including those for the window defroster, were located on this slanted panel. Even the door panels showed some curvature for a bit of a cockpit-look.
Speaking of seats, this Daytona Shelby Z features very coddling 8-way power adjustable sport seats with available leather. These specially-designed seats also featured manually adjustable thigh and lumbar support, and even inflatable side bolsters, providing both ease of ingress/egress and greater lateral support once in motion. The roll of Kodak film on the passenger’s seat is a nice vintage touch.
While the Daytona was clearly sporty in looks, its actual performance was not always something to brag about. As an early-1980s Chrysler product, the Daytona had several strikes against it. In the wake of several fuel crises, the early-1980s was an unquestionably low-output era for all automakers. Unlike other automakers, Chrysler almost totally committed itself to small front-wheel drive cars and 4-cylinder power, its V8-powered M-bodies the exception.
As a result, in predictable early-’80s fashion, initial output levels were rather weak. While an affordable poser sports car probably suited some of this decade’s very image-conscious buyers just fine, for those who desired actual performance credentials, Chrysler was able to crank out additional increments of power nearly every year, either in the form of turbocharging or eventually larger engines.
For its inaugural year, engines were either the K-car’s naturally-aspirated carbureted 2.2L I4 making 93 horsepower, or a new turbocharged version of this engine with fuel injection, the “Turbo I”, making 142 horsepower. The first use of a turbo in a front-wheel drive American sports car, this engine could get the relatively light Daytona to sixty in about 8.5 seconds, which was comparable to the Camaro Z28, Firebird Trans Am, Supra, and 300 ZX.
In 1985, the power rating of the 2.2L Turbo I increased marginally to 146 horsepower and all engines now used fuel injection. For 1986, the base engine became a 2.5L I4, now making 96 horsepower. The big news however, was for 1987, when the Shelby Z model debuted with an available new version of the 2.2 turbo, dubbed “Turbo II”. Now making 174 horsepower and 200 pound-foot of torque, the Daytona Shelby Z was capable of a zero-to-sixty sprint in 7.5 seconds. Carroll Shelby himself was not as heavily involved in the Daytona as he was in other Dodge-based Shelby models, however the Daytona Shelby Z did feature some Shelby modifications, including upgraded brakes and suspension components.
By 1989, the Turbo I had been enlarged to 2.5 liters and now made 150 horsepower and 170 pound-foot of torque. Also for this year, the turbocharger in the 2.2L Turbo II was improved to reduce lag. The following year, a Mitsubishi-sourced 3.0L V6 arrived as an optional powerplant. Despite its greater popularity, it did make less power than both turbo I4s, at 141 horsepower and 161 pound-foot of torque. For the Daytona’s final two years (1992-1993), a more powerful iteration of the 2.2L (the “Turbo III”) was added in IROC R/T models, making an impressive 224 horsepower and 217 pound-foot of torque.
Unfortunately, by this time the Daytona was approaching a decade old. With newer sport coupes from competitors and Chrysler, the Daytona’s aging underpinnings and design were becoming apparent not only in its looks, but in its performance. Based on the humble K-platform, the Daytona’s chassis and body lacked the structural rigidity allowing it to handle as well as newer entries in its class. Next to Dodge’s own Stealth and Viper in showrooms, the Daytona looked positively frumpy and ancient.
Chrysler had toyed with redesigning the Daytona in the late-1980s, even constructing this prototype in 1987. However, the Daytona was left to soldier on in its vintage-1984 body through 1993. By that point, Chrysler had the DSM Eagle Talon and Plymouth Laser coupes, which were externally smaller, but offered similar power and better handling with a more competitive chassis and modern styling. Another Diamond Star product, the Avenger coupe, arrived for 1995, effectively filling the Daytona’s role in terms of size.
The Daytona was based on the K-platform, so by default, it could never be a truly-dedicated sports car. However, given what designers and engineers had to work with, Chrysler does deserve some credit for not only an all-around effort in making a sporty coupe based on the K-car, but for incrementally improving it right up until the end of its long life.
Related Reading:
Not a bad looking effort compared with some of the other K cars seen here, a hell of a lot of front overhang it makes my Citroen look positively restrained, Sporty isnt really about zero to sixty its more about being able to turn left and right at that sixty acceleration isnt all that important if you have no need to lift off and slow to turn you can carry speed and just cruise.
There definition of a sports car isn’t set in stone. Ideally, a sports car should possess a balance of power, handling, ride quality, and styling. In reality, many cars can be considered “sporty” even if they don’t measure up in each of these categories. And for what it’s worth, I’m not calling the Daytona a true high-performance sports car:
“While the Daytona and Laser were never true high-performance sports cars, they represented baby steps back to Chrysler’s performance legacy, which had been mostly lost with the 1970s fuel crises and Chrysler’s own near-death. At the time of their introduction, these were Chrysler’s closest home grown entries in the then-vast field of sporty coupes.”
Drive ur french fry car, I’ll keep my 225 hp Daytona like a real man….
Had one of the last ones (either a 93 or 94), a black coupe with red interior, 2.5 and the five speed. It was a really nice budget GT, handling was decent, very comfortable on long trips. Biggest complaint was the cable shifter could never be compared to the Miata’s, but it did the job decently well.
Unfortunately, this was my hard luck car. In the year I had it, it: a. Hit a deer, b. Was clipped in a parking lot, hit and run, and c. Was hit by a drunk driver. At that point, and needing to trade my short bed 2wd Dakota in for a long bed 4wd, both cars were traded on the new one.
Syke your Daytona would have been one the last 2 yrs. they dropped the hideaway headlamps and went back to a aero looking exposed headlamp housing with a halogen bulb. An example is not shown here. That was 92 93 models. The J body Lebaron dropped the hideaways after 92 and used the same headlamp until the end their run through 95. Those last ones seem quit scarce now and perhaps were back in their day if sales were dropping off .
It’s odd what the passage of time can do….the front overhang was something I never noticed until now.
Thinking about it, these likely received more annual changes – and obvious ones at that – then any of the other cars Chrysler was producing at the time. It seems to indicate Chrysler knew the sporty car field was more dynamic than was the sedan class.
Overhangs were so common back in the day that this car’s weren’t anything unusual! Today, any car with overhang looks like a roller skate.
There’s still plenty of FWD cars with long front overhang. Most FWD cars have that issue. This is just one example.
Most cars designed well into the 2000s were still pretty square jawed, nearly all FWD cars still have a lot of overhang today, but the difference is the front ends are much more curved than they used to be (which is also why every new car has that same grinning expression). At certain angles the overhang can look miniscule on the CR-Z, even though in profile it’s as big as ever.
Also, at least in FWD cars, hoods tend to be shorter and higher due to more forward-located A-pillars and front ends needing to meet pedestrian safety standards. Personally I’d prefer a longer overhang with a long, low hood as opposed to the opposite.
Good point.
Exactly! It’s very refreshing to see that Chrysler did give this car, arguably one of its most compelling at the time, annual changes in attempt to keep it somewhat competitive. Can’t say the same for most other EEKs.
I just could never develop any love for these cars. As a child of the 60’s, I have a very clear picture in my mind of what constitutes a Dodge Daytona.
I knew Dodge Daytonas.
Friends of mine had Dodge Daytonas
This, Sir, Is no Dodge Daytona
+1
One of the few cars that the mid-life facelift actually improved. The later front clip looks like the car was originally designed that way.
My memory of these cars is the nice black Chrysler Laser my uncle bought in the early 90s. It turned out to be a complete lemon but when he first bought it he was super proud of it. I went with him to a car wash where the machine stopped taking his quarters just as the car was covered in soap. I remember him being steaming mad as we drove the car, covered in drying soap suds a few miles to my great aunts house to rinse it off.
Talk about overhangs and EEKs reminds me of how the compact Neon was put on the same wheelbase as the outgoing “full-size” Dynasty to ease changeover at the factory. It was stated in such a way that having been catapulted from the long-overhang elephant on roller skates look to the modern pushed-out-to-the-corners look was a side benefit at most.
I wonder what the production breakout was for the t-top models. There couldn’t have been that many made. Loved the ’87 restyle…thought it completely transformed the look of the Daytona like…well, a Transformer.
I liked these as a child and bought a 1984 Laser in ’93, my senior year of high school and piling in friends after school in one of these cars wasn’t an easy task. We’d usually make the girls sit wedged against the back glass of the hatch; not their favorite ride home from school.
The Daytona shared many visible components with the J body Lebaron after the J body debut in 87. The dash and console were the same as was the Saginaw sourced steering column . In 90 the dash was redesigned to use the corporate steering column in order to share the same air bag components across the product range . Also the rear drive M body was dropped in 89 that the first gen restraint system had been developed for using the Saginaw column. Chrysler was the first U.S. automaker to offer the standard air bag. My son had a base 89 2.5, 5spd manual in high school (96,97) and for what it was it got 30 mpg on level terrain. My son also hit a deer, about 55 mph, fotunately he was not hurt. The wedge shaped nose under full braking sent the deer well over the roof instead of into the windshield. He also learned from it. Despite my best efforts he was not wearing a seatbelt. He learned that an air bag deployment without the seatbelt was like taking a punch in face from a prize fighter
I had a 1987 Lebaron coupe and I bought that top of the line message center/computer from a Daytona and it was plug and play.
The K cars came after/with the bailout. Chrysler really did not have resources until Mercedes took over. Why ever Mercedes wanted Chrysler is not clear to me, however Chrysler got more out of the arrangement than Mercedes did. Otherwise we might still have K cars.
Chrysler had Jeep, which was printing money by the Grand Cherokee load, minivans, a growing pickup truck business, and they were even achieving some passenger car success with the PT Cruiser. The K-cars had been replaced by the Neon at the low end, the Stratus/Cirrus/Breeze in the middle, and the LHs at the top. Quality was still awful, but they were a design leader and a very profitable business. Mercedes did little to address quality, but they replaced good platforms with awful ones from Mitsubishi and took Chrysler from the forefront of design to the Caliber.
You forget that by taking over AMC they took over a huge debt too. The LH cars came with Mercedes, who poured lots of money into Chrysler.
SomeOneInTheWest:
Your history is mangled. The LH cars were developed in 1990, and arrived in 1993. Same with the Neon. The “Breeze” cars came a couple years after. The Mercedes merger happened in 1999!! That’s six year later.
Chrysler made a killing on the AMC acquisition, and the huge profits they made from Jeep allowed them to invest in these three new car lines. They bought AMC cheap ($1.5 billion), and the cash flow from the Cherokee more than paid for that debt very quickly. It was a very successful merger.
Mercedes specifically wanted Chrysler because of all the cash they were generating and the hoard they were sitting on.
Quite different than the picture you paint.
I got the information from wiki’s Chrysler history page, which skipped over the first gen LH (1993-1997). The LH came from AMC. Wiki says that Mercedes poured billions into Chrysler, not the other way around.
Not everything from Wikipedia is true SomeOneInTheWildWest. They’ve done a lot in recent years to address their quality standards, but it’s still an open-source format that allows anyone with a computer to go in and edit, without requiring citing of the original source. This leads to information and details that are often skewed and inaccurate.
This is why college professors won’t accept Wikipedia as a valid source for information and citations. Wikipedia is good for basic background info, but not always for the finer details.
Paul is correct. The development of the LH sedans, the 1995 “Cloud Cars,” the new-from-the-tires-up minivans, the Dodge Ram light trucks and the Neon were all by Chrysler itself with Jeep profits. They were accompanied by a major overhaul in how the vehicles were designed and built, and overall made Chrysler profitable and cash-rich, which is what Daimler coveted. It was reported at the time that the only part of Daimler that was running at a profit was the truck division. Mercedes cars were losing money, along with market share and image to Euro and Japanese competitors, and rail transit was doing so badly, Daimler folded it up not long afterward. Daimler, if anything, took Chrysler’s cash, ran off its management and design leadership, and shortchanged it of investment capital and talent. With that combination, no wonder Chrysler ran into the ground, to be cast off by Daimler.
As for Wikipedia, it is at times amazing how it reads like a biased opinion rag rather than a source that can be trusted.
@Brendan Saur
Really? we can’t believe everything on the WEB! Shocking.
Seriously though in May of 2008 Dieter Zetsche, then CEO of Mercedes (technically Daimler-Benz), said that the merger was officially a mistake. I think that is what wiki says.
I do think when Chrysler came out with the LH cars (1993), well before the Mercedes merger, this was a turning point for Chrysler. They looked like much better cars to me. I even considered the Chrysler LHS, but did not think much of the engines. Mercedes gave Chrysler the 300, and I liked it except for the V6 engines.
So, why couldn’t AMC pay its debt with Cherokee profits? Did they owners just wanted to exit the car business for good, or is it more of a cash flow issue?
@Ramón
AMC was losing money at the time. Jeep was profitable, but the cars were not. Renault owned part of AMC, which is what Chrysler bought. Standard and Poors estimated that the actual cost may have been $2 billion to basically buy Jeep and junk AMC. But they also got the design for the LH cars from AMC.
Renault was having its own serious problems at the time, and wanted out.
The LH cars were NOT developed by AMC. The LH cars used the R25/Premier platform as a starting point for developing the LH cars, but that’s just what it was: a starting point. The rest was done by Chrysler, but under the direction of Francois Castaing, who had been AMC’s lead engineer. He was instrumental in creating the new platform development teams at Chrysler that were so much cheaper and made it possible to develop the three new car platforms.
Thanks! I remember now, the then head of Renault wanted to go on with the relationship with AMC, but he was killed by leftist terrorists. His replacement wasn’t so interested in the US, and decided to sell.
LH had a substantial quantity of Renault DNA, but nothing Mercedes.
Thank You
As some have pointed out (see above) my Chrysler history is fuzzy. After a bit of work (as pointed out above the internet is suspect) I think the following is more or less correct:
1) Chrysler does need bailed out in the late 70’s. The bailout allows them to bring in the K-car. The K car is successful? The minivans are.
2) Chrysler is able to buy AMC which is struggling. This gives them Jeep which is profitable. They also continue one (or so) AMC products for a short time (till early 90’s). However, with the takeover of AMC, Chrysler gets both people and technology to help design the LH cars.
3)Mercedes merges with Chrysler at a cost of $36 billion see this reference:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/moving-on-without-chrysler-daimler-s-27-5-billion-lesson-a-482971.html
4)Chrysler did have $12 billion in cash at the time Mercedes took over. Not quite sure how spending $36 billion to get $12 billion makes sense but then I am not an accountant. Some of you are far smarter than I and perhaps you can explain.
“…Chrysler did have $12 billion in cash at the time Mercedes took over. Not quite sure how spending $36 billion to get $12 billion makes sense but then I am not an accountant. Some of you are far smarter than I and perhaps you can explain…”
If you spend $36 billion to get $12 billion in cash, you’ve bought all the rest of Chrysler’s considerable assets for $24 billion, which sounds like a good deal, since those assets are still making a lot of money. The problem is that if you are so stupid as to insist that the newly-acquired company be run your way (remember, the Mercedes-Benz car operations were losing money) and run off the intellectual part of Chrysler management (which must be considered as part of the $24 billion investment…a very important part, the BRAINS of the operation), you will be stuck ten years later, admitting that the takeover was a mistake. YOUR mistake.
So Mercedes was headed for bankruptcy? How could they buy Chrysler if that was true?
What I understand is that Mercedes thought they could somehow save $3 billion in costs with the merger, but only managed about half that.
Chrysler did get the 300 series cars out of the deal and in general I think Chrysler is much better off, at least until Fiat took over. I am now driving a Dart with a Fiat engine…
I looked up a Mercedes financial statement for the period from 1988 through 1997. One year is bad, otherwise profitable. So your comments are questionable.
When these were new, my local Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge dealer actually had a reception when the new models were released. It seems quaint now, but in the mid-’80s it was still their practice to invite all their customers for drinks, appetizers, door prizes, and test drives one night in the late summer/early fall. Get people loaded, dazzle them with the newest features, let them take a spin in a car they hadn’t even seen before, and then try to take an order. It worked on us with the Lancer the following year, but the ground work was laid when my Dad and I were turned loose in a 1984 Laser XE Turbo. I recall that it had a boost gauge, something that was omitted from our 1985 Lancer ES Turbo, which was false economy from Mopar.
When new, these cars sounded good, accelerated briskly, and had much better drivability than the emissions carburetor cars of a few years earlier. Turbo lag didn’t seem that bad compared to stumbling, dieseling, hot-starting issues, and all the other garbage that came along with regulations that exceeded the capabilities of the UAW-3. They also had nice seats and pretty tasteful detailing. Unfortunately, the quality and materials were still abysmal.
Sorry. I hit the wrong reply. I strongly agree with your comment above.
I never liked the black plastic cladding these T-Top versions used, both aesthetically, and, having ridden in one of these over the course of a weekend, it feels like I’m riding around in a mattel toy, the lack of rigidity(on top of the already lack of it in this platform) certainly didn’t help matters. And just look at how it turns grey, Yuck! The newest Daytonas/Lasers all looked like the state of this car by 1997.
I did like these in regular coupe form though, preferring the original quad sealed beam nose and slanted taillight treatment to these later popups, but I don’t dislike these. Really I thought they were better looking than the four eye Foxbody Mustangs(which in 85-86 used a very similar treatment to the original Laser/Daytona nose) and were let down only by the FWD and wimpy little 4 bangers (yes yes, I know, they can be made fast after the fact with enough boost). I only experienced these cars in used form so some of their gimmicks became a bit comical, especially the digital voice alert system “your door is a jarrr”, and there’s nothing quite as perfect cheezy 80s as the digital instrument panel these used. The seats were super comfy though.
In the ’80s, Detroit seemed to think black trim was sporty and European. I never liked it either.
Absence of chrome was sporty and European.
Black trim was sporty and late-sixties Detroit.
This much black trim was tacky.
No, THIS much blackout trim was tacky. Lol 😉
The 1980 Olds Omega SX… “SuX is more like it.
Great article, but the Camaro and Firebird were wider, heavier and a foot longer. The Daytona/Laser were Cavalier sized. Camaro was the length of a Celebrity or Ciera and wider than those as well.
I always considered these as more rational than GM and Ford’s traditional sporty coupes. At the time they weren’t playing [nor taken as seriously] in the same market as Camaro and Mustang, primarily because of FWD.
The Camaro and Firebird, I felt, were bloated caricatures of themselves and the Daytona seemed a return to the original spirit of the Mustang/Camaro/Barracuda:small, light and stylish cars with a wide array of options.
Chevy and Pontiac could have slapped the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix badges on their offerings such was their mission creep.
The Dodge Dart would make a decent platform for a new Daytona if there was a market for sporty FWD coupes/hatchbacks. Something more stylish and rational than Honda’s CRZ might hit a sweet spot.
Yup. This was Def Leppard.
My brother conned his then-girlfriend in to buying one of these new. Fast, yes. Good looking, sure. Beyond that……. The car seemed to have way too much power for a FWD K-car platform, and I thought the handing was rather spooky. Chrysler quality was dicey those years, I had a similar vintage Ram that was a very good truck. That Daytona, however, was not.
Great writeup on a car that Ive been an unbashed fan of for quite some time. For an ’87 the featured car seems to have all the right bones to make for a worthwhile restoration. That said, I like the ’84-’86 cars FAR more. The fact that the front clip has exposed headlights and a real grille give it much more character than the masked over later models. That 9th pic down, sitting on the rocky beach could very well by my dream ‘Tona. Paint that baby in electric blue and itd be a full on win for me.
Ive never seen that concept car, where’d you dig that up? I can see where it has a lot of elements to the shape which found their way onto the first gen DSM Talon/Lazer/Eclipse.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly agree that these weren’t conceived as ‘hard core’ performance cars, when you maxed out your options these cars were far more than the sum of their parts. As you said, the Turbo Z and CS versions of these with the top level turbo were more than a match for the competition. One thing you touched on was the Turbo III powered IROC R/T. That car and its sibling the Spirit R/T were the fastest fwd vehicles on the planet at the time. With 0-60 times in the low 6’s or high 5’s the numbers hold up even today. If I remember right, there was like one or two Bimmers at the time that could have outran that Spirit…if we’re talking sedans specifically.
I actually never knew that about the Daytona IROC R/T and Spirit R/T. Thanks for providing that info. As for the ’87 concept, I found it on favcars.com. They have a lot of good original manufacturer’s promotional photos of production and concept cars, which is an excellent resource for use in articles. Too bad they never went ahead with it. Chrysler’s concepts of the late-1980s through late-1990s were some of the most interesting.
The most iconic 1984 Daytona Turbo Z has to be Sgt. DiDi Mc Call’s undercover car in Hunter.
“Works for me.” 🙂
Wow! Her car came to my mind while reading this post.
A co-worker of my Dad’s had that same exact car. Turbo Z, Burgundy with silver lower body and “bullet hole” alloys, can’t recall whether or not it had T-tops. I always thought that was the coolest car in the parking lot, especially since that was the same color scheme that the Matchbox version came in. Since it was identical, he had the matchbox verison of his car affixed to the dash. Little car inside real life version!
In the later seasons of Hunter, DiDi stayed with a Daytona Turbo Z, but updated with a new facelift, flip-up light version.
Which do you prefer?
I prefer the look of the original 84 turbo Z, I remember DeeDee making some serious handling moves in that one!
The Spirit R/T was a BADASS sleeper of a family sedan… Except for the monochromatic “Miami Vice” red or white color scheme and subtle ground effects kit.
I owned a 91 red one, but snapped the axles, too many midnite runs against Tbird SCs, Iroc Camaros, Supra Turbos, 5.0s and RX7s. The engine still ran great.
I almost bought a good runner for $1200, two years ago… But thought it was to far to pick up. Stupid me.
DOH!!! 🙁
Is this a candidate a for the longest front overhang award?
Despite being RWD, the Fox Thunderbirds would have to be in the running for that award as well.
I think the 92 Olds Trofeo could win on, The longest overhangs on a car.
Looks like, the tiny 86 Toronado with a long nose job and butt implants in the rear.
Overhangs, oh the humanity!
The influential sports cars of the day from the almighty Pininfarina certainly couldn’t have contributed to this…
Look at the front overhang on this guy.
Ten or so years ago, the Automotive Department of the college where I worked had a European spec. Shelby Daytona with, supposedly, 10 more HP than the domestic (US) version due to higher available boost. I distinctly remember the different taillight lenses and other things like the seat belt design compared to the other US model one they had at the time.
Always wonder what became of it. Went to the crusher I suspect. What a shame.
Reg B.
This brings back memories. An older musician friend who I thought of as an uncle bought one of these, also in red. It was strange to see him driving anything other than a pickup or a tractor.
He decided that driving the 50 miles into town to the hardware or parts store (or feed store for perhaps some ivermectin, for the horses and cattle ONLY) was way too slow in his pickup. He drove his Daytona like a bat out of hell and so it also took a lot less time to get to his beloved Cowboy poetry gatherings and fiddle contests.
Young me was horrified that the exterior finish of such a desirable vehicle was fading and always covered with a thick coat of dust. I offered to detail the Daytona for him for free, but he said, “Nah, it’ll just look like crap again in a week.”
The Daytona was a good car in its time. The fact that it was based on the K-Car chassis isn’t a bad thing. The original Mustang was based off of the Falcon and the 80s Mustang was based on the Fox (Fairmont) platform. Camaros and Novas until 1982 were based on the Nova. Chrysler did keep the car looking “current” as best it could. The Mustang and Camaros from the early 1990s were based on late 1970s or early 1980s designs.
Also good to think of Chrysler’s other 2 sporty cars of the 1980s. These were the Dodge Omni 024 later renamed Charger and the Plymouth Horizon TC3 later renamed the Turismo. These cars were based on the Omni and Horizon. So using sedan chassis for sports cars is done often. Love the Shelby Daytona but if I had a rear wheel drive sporty car, I’d be happier than with the front wheel drive sports car.
Two friends just out of college bought identical black/black Daytona turbos. Within a couple of years, one had flipped his and totaled it, the other drove in a deep puddle and cracked the engine block. Even in daylight, it was quite dark inside them, and forget about rear headroom.