First impressions are important, which is why career advisors instruct people to dress for success. If you head to a job interview wearing conservative, fashionable clothing, looking confident, and avoiding questionable accessorizing, you are likely to be viewed as a successful candidate. Of course, this has to be backed up with actual skills, or else the charade will be superficially obvious. Many people fall short of that latter point; cars do, too. Our featured car is like the good-looking job applicant who has little to back up those looks. This might be Chrysler’s prettiest design of the 1980s, but under the skin it was disappointingly identical to every front-drive Chrysler product of the decade.
This was certainly an attractive design, in both coupe and convertible form. Joking about the LeBaron’s sexy appearance, the Washington Post’s automotive correspondent wrote that “if the LeBaron were a textbook, it would be banned in Alabama.” Banned or not, it represented a break from the boxy tedium and tacky accessories that had filled Chrysler showrooms for many years, and the company held hopes that it would attract legions of upper-middle class customers to become customers for life. These hopes went largely unfilled, as many car shoppers saw beyond the car’s seductive appearance. Instead of being a transformative car, the coupe version quickly tanked, and the convertible only stayed afloat by finding a niche as a bargain soft top.
Chrysler Corporation flirted with death in the early 1980s before staging a remarkable comeback, thanks to two factors: The successful Aries/Reliant K-car, and increased manufacturing efficiencies. This latter point included the company’s ability to create a whole family of cars from the humble Aries/Reliant twins. From minivans to New Yorkers to Daytonas, K-car derivatives filled Chrysler Corporation’s wallet due to saved costs. Chrysler returned to profitability, but as the North American auto market emerged from its malaise-era doldrums, how long would customers remain satisfied with gussied-up K-cars?
The mid-80s Chrysler-brand lineup illustrates this challenge: How could cars like these stack up to increasing domestic and import competition? Chrysler sensed this looming problem and sought to shake off its “Miser Motors” reputation by attracting a younger and more affluent clientele. Furthermore, with consumers rediscovering their affection for large cars, Aries/Reliant derivatives were losing appeal across all demographic segments. Meeting these challenges required both fresh products and a fresh mindset. Chrysler’s mid-1980s strategy was to refashion its midrange LeBarons into international-flavored models. The LeBaron GTS / Dodge Lancer twins debuted for 1985, while Round Two starred our featured car… the LeBaron coupe and convertible (known internally as the J-body), which bowed two years later.
LeBaron’s introduction coincided with a refocusing of the Chrysler brand itself, emphasizing semi-premium models unique within Chrysler Corporation’s offerings. Initially, Dodge dealers were to get a version of this car to sell as a Lancer coupe, but ultimately it wound up being a Chrysler-only product.
Given that Chrysler hoped to expand its customer base to new horizons with this car, it’s curious that they named it LeBaron. Intended to evoke visions of 1930s coachbuilt grandeur, the name more likely reminded customers of a more recent decade’s string of unexceptional sedans.
If Chrysler really wanted to use a name from its recent past, it should have called the new car Cordoba. When introduced for 1975, the elegantly-styled Cordoba coupe vaulted to the top of the sales charts, accounting for two-thirds of Chrysler brand sales for its first two years. No such success, however, would accompany the 1987 LeBaron coupe and convertible. In its introductory year, for example, the new LeBaron accounted for only a quarter of Chrysler brand sales.
The LeBaron coupe was introduced first, in February 1987, and from the outset, sales were somewhat disappointing. Part of this reflected that the car’s introduction caught the tail end of the personal luxury coupe era. While still a notable market segment, 2-door car sales were heading downhill quickly in the late 1980s; a repeat of the Cordoba’s success was unthinkable. But just as significantly was that beyond its looks, this car just didn’t resonate with buyers. Initially, Chrysler blamed its odd February introduction for the car’s tepid sales, though by October, dealers were saddled with a three-month supply of LeBarons – more than the ideal 60-day supply, and rather discouraging for a new model.
Given its early lack of success, the LeBaron may have faded away quickly were it not for the introduction of a second body style – the convertible, launched several months after the coupe. With the 1982-86 LeBaron convertible ranking as one of Chrysler’s 1980s hits (it helped to reinvigorate interest in droptops after they faded away a decade earlier), Chrysler expected this new convertible to be well received… but few could have imagined that over the model’s lifespan, the convertible would actually outsell the coupe.
Source: Standard Catalog of Chrysler, 1914-2000
For 1987, Chrysler produced about 83,000 LeBarons, though convertibles accounted for only 8,000 units due to its late introduction. The following year saw an interesting turnabout: Coupe sales plunged by 35%, and the convertible came on remarkably strong. Between 1988-90, annual convertible production averaged 38,000 units, even among falling coupe sales. By 1990, convertibles comprised two-thirds of LeBaron production, and after 1993, the coupe was dropped altogether. Even in those final years, the then-aged convertible still pulled in over 30,000 annual sales.
Unlike other 1980s Big Three convertibles, LeBaron was designed completely in-house, rather than being a coupe with its top cut off by an aftermarket company. Engineered as a convertible from the bottom up, LeBaron’s chassis was reinforced (particularly in the central tunnel and surrounding the rear seat) on Chrysler’s St. Louis assembly line. LeBaron also featured a power-operated hydraulic top with a glass rear window – both somewhat of a novelty among 1980s convertibles.
Coupe or convertible, people’s initial reaction to these cars was typically positive, since the design was very well executed. The car’s signature design feature was the concealed headlights – different from the more typical 1980s pop-up headlights, these swing-up doors provided a sleek, yet still formal look. This permitted a dignified grille, in keeping with Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca’s preference for traditional designs rather than the trendy, bubbly cars he dismissed as “flying potatoes.” LeBaron pulled off its traditionalism very well, with its steeply-raked windshield and subdued athleticism avoiding the boxy gingerbread look of other period Chrysler products.
Incidentally, while the concealed headlights may have seemed like a fresh idea, it was recycled from a decade earlier when similar “retractable headlamp doors” appeared on Chrysler’s 1977 LeBaron Turbine concept car, and modified versions appeared on the 1979-81 New Yorker and 1981-83 Imperial. Of these designs, the ’87 LeBaron’s was easily the most attractive.
LeBaron’s design smoothness is carried over to the rear, where a full-width light panel produces a clean, contemporary appearance. The rear quarter’s vaguely Coke-Bottle, athletic shape translated well to 1980s design trends, managing to be neither stodgy nor futuristic. Overall, the design is devoid of period cliches or tacky embellishments, making it one of the more polished designs to come out of the Big Three during its era.
Undoubtedly, LeBaron gained many sales based on its appearance – but likely lost as many due to its undistinguished drivetrain. Despite its status as 1987’s Indy 500 Pace Car, it was based on the humble K-car (in fact, this car rides on the same 100.3” wheelbase as the Aries/Reliant) and had a predictable drivetrain. Power options for 1987-88 started with Chrysler’s 2.5-liter 100-hp 4-cylinder engine, with an optional 146-hp 2.2-liter turbo powerplant (later versions offered an upgraded turbo or a V-6). Five-speed manual transmissions were standard, though the vast majority of LeBarons left the factory equipped with three-speed automatics. None of this was particularly thrilling in the late 1980s, and it wasn’t just the engine that lacked excitement or refinement. For example, the MacPherson strut / rear beam axle suspension was hardly advanced, nor were the standard disc/drum brakes.
A lack of refinement made the sleekly-styled LeBaron drive like an Aries. These cars weren’t bad to drive, but they lacked any outstanding feature with which to impress test-driving customers. Buyers interested in spirited driving could choose the optional sport suspension and larger tires, but even this didn’t approach leading-edge driving dynamics for its day. Combined with over-boosted power steering, LeBaron won few friends based on its personality.
While disappointing, this relative lack of refinement wasn’t a fatal flaw in the late-1980s personal coupe sector. Looking at LeBaron coupe’s competitors, the GM-10 cars (Cutlass Supreme, Regal, etc.) had similarly uninspired base models and questionable quality control. But Chrysler found an advantage on price: LeBaron undercut the GM-10s’ prices by about 15%. Ford’s RWD Thunderbird felt more substantial, but it likewise came at a hefty premium. Chrysler’s competitive pricing kept LeBaron coupe in the game for a while even without any compelling mechanical advantages; though in hindsight, it’s clear that a better-engineered car would have crushed the GM competition.
As for the LeBaron convertible, it was basically in a league of its own. A $14,000 base price positioned it as a value-leader for convertibles – undercutting the Mustang, Cavalier, and even the VW Cabriolet. While fully-loaded LeBaron turbos pushed $20,000, even they seemed like a value when compared to the competition. Thus, the concept of an affordable convertible wound up being LeBaron’s lifeline. Ironically, for a car that was supposed to bring Chrysler out of the bargain basement, LeBaron found its greatest advantage in… beating its competitors’ prices.
Our featured car is well equipped with leather interior, automatic climate control, the optional Infinity stereo system, and electronic instruments. It does not, however, contain the optional turbocharged engine, instead making do with the standard 2.5-liter four to power the 3,000-lb convertible.
A car like this would have listed for about $18,000 when new… not an insubstantial price, but for customers looking for a svelte 4-seater convertible, this car would have been high on anyone’s list.
Climbing aboard, one sees that the interior didn’t get the same level of design attention as the exterior. Cheap plastics abounded, the fake burled walnut trim didn’t fool anyone, and the squarish dashboard appeared incongruous when compared to the graceful exterior styling. Many components came straight from Chrysler’s parts bin, like that boxy dash assembly sourced from the LeBaron’s showroom predecessor, the Laser. This interior wasn’t exactly a selling point for a “premium” Chrysler. 1990 LeBarons received an updated interior, the likes of which should have come with this car three years earlier.
Front seat accommodations were generally roomy enough for comfort, and while the rear seat certainly wouldn’t win any enjoyability awards, it was certainly acceptable by 1980s standards.
Not that anyone cared about the rear seat in a convertible. In fact, the phrase “not that anyone cared” explains why the LeBaron wasn’t a complete flop. Convertibles are awesome – doubly so in the 1980s when the auto industry was emerging from the Convertible Dark Ages. Putting the top down on a beautiful day makes about 70% of life’s problems disappear, and also obscures all sorts of faults that would be untenable in an ordinary car. The LeBaron was average from a mechanical standpoint, very good from an appearance standpoint, and splendid as a convertible.
Chrysler hoped the car’s charm would work in the European market as well. When the company relaunched its Chrysler-branded vehicles in Europe, LeBaron was the company’s image-leader. Predictably, European sales of this New World convertible were less than outstanding, though it did develop a small, loyal following.
At some point, Chrysler management must have realized that the carbuying public was fatigued over regurgitated K-cars. Had that realization come earlier, the LeBaron could have had a much more impactful legacy. As it is, the LeBaron left many observers scratching their heads… it’s easy to envision this as a great car: Why was Chrysler seemingly satisfied with it being average?
Given this averageness, the LeBaron lasted a mighty long time – 6 model years with no significant design changes, and another 3 years after a facelift (which replaced the concealed headlights with flush-mounted lights). After 1995, LeBaron was replaced with the Sebring – a similar vehicle with good looks, average engineering, and with a convertible handily outselling its coupe counterpart.
In retrospect, LeBaron joins the legion of cars that made it halfway to success. It looked the part, but undoubtedly many test-drives ended with disappointment. Like a job-seeker at an interview, one needs to look the part and act the part. Dressing for success is a good start, but not quite a complete strategy.
Photographed in Fairfax, Virginia in December 2018.
Related Reading:
1992 Chrysler LeBaron Convertible: Take Your Top Off, Sweetie Jason Shafer
Whatever the faults of the 1996 Sebrings, the coupe’s market faceplant can’t be blamed on the underpinnings of the convertible. The coupe is a Mitsubishi based design that was given the same name as the convertible for marketing reasons. The convertible was based on the same platform as the Cirrus/Stratus sedan. The market advanced from the Cirrus, but it was fully competitive in the mid 90s.
If Chrysler made its personal coupes the absolute lowest priority of development and investment, history says that was a smart decision. From 88 til 96, Chrysler introduced hit SUVs, trucks, minivans, and sedans. Even if Chrysler had doubled its coupe sales with a new product, it would have been a net loss compared to any of those new products in popular or expanding segments.
This is my car…Fairfax, VA . I think pics are from in front of City Hall in Fairfax. Elon class of 1974
Just found it on-line by accident…
Also, note “Redskin” floor mats-
Still have the car.
Nice! You have a great LeBaron!
And since you’re a Redskins fan, watch this website over the next week or two for an article on a good Redskins-themed vehicle I spotted at the Fairfax car show a few weeks ago.
Outstanding article about one of my favorite cars of the ’80s. I never knew there was originally supposed to be a “Lancer coupe” based on this design. I am so glad that never came to be.
The J-Baron was one ’80s Chrysler that seemed to signal the turnaround from badge-engineering as a foregone conclusion at the Pentastar brand.
As for the featured example: want, want, WANT. I’m aware these cars developed an association with middle aged ladies (and that’s not a bad thing), but I’ve always found them drop-dead gorgeous (before the restyle).
And you’re right: they might have called this one “Cordoba”.
Thanks Joseph!
I really wanted to find some information on buyer demographics — age, male/female, income, etc. — but to no avail. I likewise associated these cars with middle aged ladies (divorcees, in particular)… more so than other convertibles of its era such as Mustangs, Sunbirds, etc., but I have no information to back that up. I’d love to know how valid that impression is.
That’s exactly the association I had growing up. It might have had to with the attitude towards convertibles at that time: They were impractical for families, and a symbol of newfound fun and freedom for the recently single. At that time, coupes were rapidly falling out of fashion, SUVs and minivans were coming in for young families, and convertibles screamed “divorcee” when the driver was middle aged, which seemed to always be the case with these. Because these Lebarons were very affordable by the 90s, they probably made a good budget alternative to a flashy 911 or a ‘Vette that the driver truly would like to have had. I don’t know who was buying these brand new, but by the late 90s and onward, the owner always seemed to be middle-aged. The same seemed to be true with the later Sebring convertibles, or even the Toyota Solara, but especially with these Lebarons, particularly in red, like the featured car.
Again, like the El Dorado from yesterday, one is left wondering if the change in name might have affected sales positively or not. I really think Cordoba would have been a better fit, and resonated better towards the intended demographic.
Add in the TC fiasco, as styling for this was cribbed from the TC but came to market at the same time, and for less money, and it only made the issues affecting Chrysler showrooms. Here are 17 variants of the same car, all with wildly different pricing. When that happens, the cheap one sells, the others do not.
But, ah, a convertible. “Putting the top down on a beautiful day makes about 70% of life’s problems disappear, and also obscures all sorts of faults that would be untenable in an ordinary car.” No truer words ever written.
“Putting the top down on a beautiful day makes about 70% of life’s problems disappear, and also obscures all sorts of faults that would be untenable in an ordinary car.”
True dat. Even my Chevy Tracker with the front half of the soft top folded back (it was way too much of a pain to take the whole top down on a whim) suddenly made life worth living after work.
Excellent read Eric! This car has been the subject of many shorter posts over the years, but I can confidently say that you’ve now finally given it justice!
Count me in as a fan of these LeBarons, particularly this pre-facelift version. I’ve always felt its K-car roots and powertrains were the J-body’s significant Achilles’ heel to an otherwise beautiful design.
I knew these LeBarons were relatively affordable, but I had no idea they were priced quite so reasonable, especially when compared to other competitors. Chrysler clearly caught on to this, as the tone in marketing and advertising in later years changed from luxury to high value fun.
I may be wrong but I would think that these cars were as popular as they were because so many wound up in fleets. As you point out, what a great car for dropping the top and spending the day in the sunshine.
When I worked for Pizza Hut, a co-worker had one of these, a terrific looking dark green with caramel colored top and interior. As often happened as these got older, his developed transmission problems.
I often thought that if Ford had made the 83-97 Thunderbirds this size, I might have bought one as I always felt the Thunderbird was too big and this car almost perfectly sized.
Definitely — especially later in its model run. I’m sure that’s the reason the car was able to sell well in those last 2-3 models years. It seems about 50% of the 1994-95 convertible production wound up as Thrifty Car Rentals in Florida.
Here’s a 1995 Thrifty ad that didn’t make the cut into this article:
It was the same role that the Sebring filled later. And plenty of V-6 Mustangs over the years.
The LeBaron was (and still is) a great looking car. You had me thinking of scouring eBay for one. Just for kicks.
Then I remembered driving my bosses’ 3 year old LeBaron convertible. It felt and looked old after 3 years. Longevity wasn’t in the cards for a lot of domestic vehicles in this time period.
These were the darlings of the rental car fleets in Florida and other sunny climes. Easy to identify: bright red, gray cloth interior, tan top, base engine and automatic. As they came out of the fleets, they were shipped north by the thousands, small used car dealers always seem to have at least one displayed prominently with the top down on the first sunny Spring day. It was typically sold before the end of the week. As little summer runabouts, these filled the bill for cheap, open-air fun and got passed around through three or four more owners before junking. Unexceptional but ‘Cheap and Cheerful’ summer fun as the English say.
“…average from a mechanical standpoint, very good from an appearance standpoint, and splendid as a convertible.”
This nicely sums up our featured LeBaron. The example seen here is fascinating as it’s relatively well equipped and from the early days of the run before these became nearly synonymous with being a rental.
The ’92 I wrote about (linked above) belongs to my father-in-law and he still has it. In fact, I drove it again just a few weeks ago. His has the 3.0 V6 that is adequate; it will do what is asked but don’t ask it for any miraculous burst of mind-blowing acceleration. One of these with the 2.5 four would make for an interesting contrast.
Howard Kerr mentions how the contemporary Thunderbird should have been similarly sized. Interesting thought as the profile shot of the silver coupe within the text of the article has an uncanny similarity to the ’87-’88 Thunderbird’s profile.
I agree that this was one of the best styled cars of the 80s. We must not forget that the styling was cribbed from the TC (the Maserati joint venture) that had been intended to beat these cars to market by a year. Oops. This LeBaron came only a year behind the Taurus and was far more attractive than anything coming from GM in 1987. The prior LeBaron droptop was decent looking but had its awkward angles. This one was just right. And considering the abysmal sales of Mopar convertibles over many decades, sales numbers for these were astonishing.
As you note, “if only . . . ” Had this platform been just a bit bigger and had the 3.3 V6 and an OD automatic been available this could have been a first rate car. But what it did better than anyone was to offer a decently sized 4 place convertible at a reasonable price.
A relative owned one of these for several years. I was put off by the windshield’s extreme rake which put its top uncomfortably close to my head. Admittedly I was used to bigger cars at the time. Also her car suffered problems at a slightly higher than normal rate and repair costs seemed oddly expensive (I seem to recall a $300 alternator or starter). I like the 96+ Sebring better for its size and looks but would choose this one to avoid the brittle 2.7 V6 found in most of those. But I would choose the much more robust Mustang over either of them (and the market says I am not alone).
I have become curious – was this car (and the TC before it) an early product of the Pacifica Design Studio that Chrysler opened in California in the early 1980s? That is a hard facility to find much about, and a little quick noodling has failed to turn up whether these cars got their beginnings in Italy, California or Detroit.
I have no answers to this one.
We loved the 1992 Lebaron we owned for almost 8+1/2 years, but when the engine finally gave up, so did we.
Parts of that car were built like a tank, such as the body, but other parts like window lifts in the rear quarter windows might as well have been made of butterfly wings!
Overall, we loved the car and enjoyed many years out of it.
Awesome – your was a looker!
Fortunately, Chrysler had the minivans to bring their ATP up. It’s almost surprising these didn’t get the GTS’ exposed lights to cut costs once they started selling on price.
I guess it’s a case of Iacocca’s sell-the-sizzle-not-the-steak philosophy being taken a step too far; a little more development work on tuning common chassis components would’ve helped this car immensely and cascaded its’ benefits down the rest of the line. That wouldn’t solve the engine problem, but that required a V6 which was already happening and certainly shouldn’t have been rushed any more than it was.
It’s a good thing Lido didn’t ruin the coupe’s looks with padded landau tops and other broughamification. I’ve seen a few with fake-wire wheel covers back in the day but that’s about it.
I don”t know why I never thought of it before but the “Miser Motors” comment immediately made me think of Rambler during the George Romney era. It’s like a vindication of those who believe Rambler should have stayed true to its small car ethos instead of when Roy Abernethy expanded AMC to compete model-to-model with the Big 3, i.e., Iacocca’s eighties success when everything built by Chrysler was a K-car derivative could have been AMC through the sixties.
Of course, all of that success went down the tubes when GM bean-counter Bob Eaton replaced Iacocca and quickly engineered the ‘merger of equals’ with Daimler.
Someone should have gone to prison for that.
Never drove a LeBaron coupe or convertible, but I did own it’s 1992 Dodge platform mate Daytona. Deliberately got myself a low-buck version (2.5, five speed, A/C, stereo, whatever suspension option was available, heated rear window and that’s about it). And in retrospect, have rather fond memories of it.
Hardly a sports car, I called it a “blue collar GT” which really fit the mechanics rather well. It handled well enough that I could play with it on the back roads, comfortable enough for the periodic long trips, and picked me up my first ever LIDAR-generated speeding ticket in MD on spring weekend.
Unfortunately, it was the unluckiest car I ever owned: In a year and a half, it was hit three times. First I hit a deer, six weeks after that repair I get clipped in a parking lot while the car was unattended (hit and run, of course), and then four months later I get hit in an intersection by an intoxicated driver.
At this point, I figured the car was jinxed, so it got traded. Pity. It was a nice car, and I certainly had no complaints about it.
You don’t mess around with deer. One of my friends had her ’12 Focus totaled after hitting one last weekend. I put in brighter headlight bulbs for $35 and they do help tremendously.
One of the motor magazines did an article on the LeBaron. The lead photo had the Lebaron parked in front of a Burger King. You could have the LeBaron in any confirgeration you wanted (Have It Your Way!!), but it was still a K-car underneath the leather seats and hidden headlights. Yet, it sold well!!
You have to give Lee credit where credit was due.
He knew how to pull multiple rabbits out of the same hat!!🚗🚗🚗🚗
Unlike other 1980s Big Three convertibles, LeBaron was designed completely in-house, rather than being a coupe with its top cut off by an aftermarket company.
I don’t think that applies to the Fox Mustang. Or have I forgotten something?
Very thorough article on a car that had very little appeal to me at the time.
According to C&D the Mustang convertible project was initially conceived as a farm-out job, but by September of 81 the decision had been made to do the conversion in-house. Ford did the conversion which involved turning a coupe into a convertible, then sent the car to Cars & Concepts for finishing. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15142531/1983-ford-mustang-convertible-review/
I suspect that this process changed once demand increased after the 1983 introductory model.
I think cars and concepts were responsible all the way to 1993, the 94-current convertibles were done in house
But did the bare body shells all start out as notchback coupes? Or did Ford invest in some convertible-specific stampings along the way for welding up the bodies?
I’d love to find out the answer to this. In doing some quick research, I’m coming up with conflicting stories about just how much work Cars & Concepts did over which years.
It looks to me that C&C did all of the work on the original ’83s, but after that Ford assumed more responsibility. By the early 1990s, Ford seems to have sent actual convertible bodies to C&C for finishing (like installing the soft top mechanism), but I’m not sure the about the stages in this process, or whether C&C’s role was decreased gradually over time or not.
It was my understanding that Cars and Concepts installed the convertible top and some of the trim and finishing details on the Mustang until 1993. Ford supplied the cars sans roof, they weren’t cut off. Cars and Concepts were also responsible for the feature car convertibles of 1992 and 93, which featured some additional modifications performed by Cars and Concepts.
When these came out I thought they were a clean and fresh design – sure they were K-cars underneath but they looked much more modern. I always thought the chrome around the wheel arches seemed just a bit too thick – the monochromatic LeBaron GTC looked even sharper.
Certainly a good looking car, but as was so often the case with American cars back they worked so hard to trick the consumer into thinking he or she was getting something special instead of just actually making something special.
It ended up selling for cheap because it is cheap. It took US companies until the 90s to instill some actual quality into the product and by then it took time to displace their reputations. Then as soon as you’re not looking they cheapen out again.
Rinse and repeat. A shell game. In other words, more BS.
Like Robert Redford said in Three Days Of The Condor, “You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?”
Yes. Yes they do.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I think these make good project cars for someone desiring a nice cruiser and a project that won’t break the bank. While the original owner of a lot of these were rental companies, a lot of second owners were probably older and seem to have kept them in good shape. I have to imagine a lot of the private owner original owners took reasonable care of them as well.
I say this because I can find these and even the earlier K bodied versions in the northeast rust belt in reasonably rust free condition. The mechanicals may be tired, the interiors worn, but parts are cheap and relatively easy to come by. It’s a good opportunity for someone so inclined to have an older car and take on a restoration project on a budget. I think a person could easily avoid the spend $30,000 on a $5000 dollar car trap and have something fun to drive and be proud of.
I wanted to try out a LeBaron coupe as a rental on a trip I was taking to Los Angeles, and reserved one at Chrysler’s subsidiary Thrifty Rent-A-Car. But by then the coupe had tanked and all I was offered at the rental counter was a LeBaron sedan, which at the time was a gussied-up Reliant with Iacocca-approved dress-up (the convertible cost more).
Thrifty “made up for it” later when in Dallas, I had reserved a plain Jane 4-door, expecting a Plymouth Acclaim or Dodge Spirit with a four-cylinder. Instead, I got a Chrysler LeBaron, even an uplevel LX with the Mitsubishi V6.
Out here in northern California there are still plenty of these second-generation LeBaron convertibles around. They’re still nice-looking cars and the ones seen are mostly well-cared for. They are probably not daily-drivers, but special-occasion or weekend-afternoon cars still loved by their owners.
I liked these much better than the first edition. I had a 3.0 Mitsu V6 in my Caravan and it preformed quite well. You may not agree, but I see this car as a kind of continuation of the Avanti. The production model, not the specialty built continuation model. Chrysler had a 16 valve, turbo and intercooled version of their four that was a real ripper. It was used in a few Daytona and small sedans. Carroll Shelby consulted on the development of those cars. His involvement was more than licensing them to use his name. Chrysler brought a lot of good turbos to a market that wasn’t ready for them. Buyers of American Pony cars wanted good solid muscle, like the Camaro and V8 Mustangs. Too bad. Too early for the Eco Boost era.
Maybe?
These seem to still have some staying power in Germany. My guess: They still defend their spot as the cheapest, yet driveable drop top 4seaters you can find, since all contemporaries started their rise in value (VW, Audi, BMW) or are done going extinct (Opel, Ford, Italians and French).
Just steer clear from turbos and automatics, neither care about gas mileage nor performance or ratty appearance (though garaged, low miles, cared for cars seem to pop up more often than they had the right to), just let the sun shine in and go.
Sebring covertibles also had their share of popularity in their hey days but apparently lacked the LeBarons’ longievety, never mind the attractive styling.
Excellent article Eric. When these were introduced, their design reminded of a cross between the ’83 Thunderbird and the 2-door Dodge Shadow.
Great write-up! You’ve nailed the highs and lows of a car that had promise but wasn’t nearly as good as it should have been. However, there’s no doubt this LeBaron managed to effectively take advantage of a niche in vintage Chrysler fashion.
I drove one of these exactly once, back in 1989 or so. The LeBaron was a rental convertible, black with red inside, with the raspy base 4-cylinder and automatic. But it was in California, and the top went down, and nothing else really mattered to 22-year-old me. So there’s no question they nailed the “affordable” convertible market with good looking product. I had no desire to buy one personally, but I could definitely see the appeal.
As for naming, I agree that LeBaron was a strange choice for a car intended to be a style leader, as most folks at the time would have associated the name with either the M-Body or “Super K” variants that Chrysler had been hawking, neither of which remotely resembled lust objects. However, I wonder if the Cordoba name would still have resonated, as to me it would have seemed like a dated 1970s throwback at a time when that wasn’t cool. I’d have gone for another evocative name from Chrysler’s more distant past: Nassau. It was used in the 1950s to denote a hardtop coupe variant of the Windsor, and has nice association with the Bahamas. Perfect for a convertible!
Excellent write-up as always Eric. You truly did this car justice in this article. I would agree with most of the others here that these LeBarons were very good designs for their time, perhaps the best of Chrysler in the 1980s. However, for me, there were better American designs than this car. I much preferred the Thunderbird and even the dated G-Body GM coupes when it came to PLCs of the late 80s.
I also think that Chrysler wouldn’t have considered the Cordoba name too seriously during this time. That name was too entrenched in old Chrysler, and I think that Chrysler was trying to move away from what it was in the 70s to a modern company with efficient FWD cars.
I personally didn’t give these cars much more than cursory interest when they were around. I knew of their pedestrian underpinnings and my experience with the K-car platform meant I didn’t expect much. A friend of mine drove an ’88 Coupe for several years and it pretty much lived up to what I expected. His had the 2.5L and it was slow and not enjoyable to drive. I do recall one night of socializing with friends, I did goad my friend into drag racing his LeBaron against another friend in a ’89 Mazda 323 in several street light to street light races. That was the slowest racing I have ever experienced! FWIW, the Mazda won, but just barely. It was slow too being an automatic car.
Those were great looking cars and when they came out, I wanted them to be RWD so bad!
Why Chrysler, why could you not have put that on the F/M/J platform???!!! I could have stood up to my friends that were bragging on their Grand Nationals, Monte Carlo SS’s and Thunderbird TCs! It could have been a great 1980s driver’s car with a TBI’d 318 (or 360) from the trucks of the time on the M-Body frame, which was a pretty decent platform despite its 1970s design roots.
From an enthusiast’s perspective, its a shame that beautiful bodywork-and I like the coupes better since Im not much of a convertible fan-was stuck on a crappy K-car frame.
Perhaps if they introduced this design in 1982/83 as a replacement for the Mirada/Cordoba. The Lancer/Lebaron GTS, Shadow/Sundance, Spirit/Acclaim, and this design, were all introduced 2-4 years too late IMO.
I always considered the ’83 Thunderbird as a younger enthusiast’s car. From day one, I saw this Lebaron as more a middle-aged guy’s personal luxury car. A Gran Torino for the 80s.
Brings back memories. Best childhood friend’s mom suffered all sorts of abuse from her husband for years. Once the divorce papers were final, out went the all black ’76 Mark IV, and she got a ’90 LeBarron drop top; smoke silver. I rode in it twice. Crude. I only say twice because upon returning from second ride, with my friend, her mother quickly locked us out of the house. Coming in from the back, because it was never locked, her mother was in the kitchen, snorting the largest line of cocaine I’ve yet to see someone attempt to consume. This is coming from a reformed addict. Clearly I was both unwilling and unwelcome in that home after that. Her Dad wasn’t what Mom portrayed, whatsoever. He picked up the piceces of that eventual wreck, gave my friend the world. And has a ’68 Camaro, lol. I have no idea of what happened to Janice.
These were nice looking cars at the time, although the resemblance to Sundances and Shadows was too strong.. At the stage of my life at the time, I was in much more need of K cars and minivans than a two door personal coupe. I take nothing away from these though, but I’m glad they didn’t call them Cordobas. Recycling the chassis was bad enough, reusing that name would have been out of place on a small car like this. As it was, Le Baron is itself a reused name from much earlier origins including Imperial. They could have done worse, had they reused a name such as Aspen or Volare I suppose. (Yes I know there was an Aspen SUV of sorts in the 00’s.)
Nice enough looking car but it has the Iaccoca style over substance vibe, he was pretty good at picking what would sell until that gift left him.
I can’t resist the temptation to show off the ’95 I owned for five basically trouble-free years. Seven years ago, I swapped it for a 2004 Sebring, which I have driven for nearly 100,000 miles and still runs great (although the Iowa rust is starting to eat away at the rocker panels.
When I got to L.A. in the early ’90s, these cars were all over the place. How many of them were privately owned and how many were rental fleet cars is an open question, but there were a lot. They seemed to go to people over 30; college girls who could swing a convertible still seemed to prefer the Volkswagen Rabbit convertible (which was still available for a remarkably long time).
The coupe always struck me as pointless; if you wanted a sporty four-cylinder two-door, there were various Japanese rivals that were better to drive and often better built, although by this time they also tended to cost more.
The convertible’s virtues were pretty much inextricably linked to its price. Even a late model with the 6G7 V-6 (which had a four-speed automatic and four-wheel discs) and every available option felt like a budget special: cheap plastic trim, indifferent fit and finish, econobox switchgear. On the other hand, if it had been built and trimmed to the standard of the contemporary Honda Prelude I used to own, it would have cost over $30,000 and nobody would have bought it.
I don’t know about the coupe, but I got the feeling the convertible’s suspension was tuned to not highlight the flexibility of the body shell. It wasn’t nearly as willowy as some cheap convertibles of the time, but if you hit an expansion seam on an L.A. freeway at 55 mph, it would send a disconcerting shudder through the cowl. Stiffening up the suspension would have transmitted more harshness into the structure and exacerbated that problem.
I had no trouble the Sophmore class,,,of K Platform. Dodge Lancer. I used to read Car Craft in the HS Library. In the Very early 1980’s. They were fun houses,,etc. conversion vans, I heard it all too. Its a smaller car. My friend said something ,the difference between a compact Sub compact car? To drive a midsize car back & forth to work everyday was $12.00 a week. That was in the 1980’s cheers
My spouse bought an ’88 black LeBaron Turbo convertible that had been a demonstrator. I drove it occasionally, enough to fall in love with the thing. A year later it was traded for a Corvette (without me knowing about it). Upon finding out, I drove to that dealership and traded in the car I was driving to get the LeBaron back! I liked everything about the car. Everything. Two years later, I had the water pump changed as the timing belt was being replaced (recommended). Unfortunately, the new water pump was defective, the engine overheated and warped the head. The mechanic wasn’t sure of future reliability so I traded the car. I still miss it.
I absolutely LOVE my 1989 GTC. Factory intercooled turbo, 5 speed, big disc brakes all around, 16″ wheels, heavy duty suspension etc. The GTC was the “sports” model in 1989. 1 of 906 intercooled 5 speed convertibles built that year. To me, this was the cream of the crop for Lebarons.
I bought the 1988 turbo conv. with Maroon color. This car gets a NICE CAR where ever I go with it. Mine is very fast and in showroom condition. I had to put some money in it due to just sitting for years but it has style thats for sure.
NICE CAR
AL