(first posted 7/9/2014) The Chrysler LHS has always been one of those cars that’s baffled me, as I’ve never known quite what to make of it. Sure Chrysler marketed it as a large import sports sedan rival, but its main competitors were domestics like the Oldsmobile LSS, Buick Park Avenue Ultra, and Lincoln Continental. Regardless, its formal roofline and long overhangs always said more Lincoln Town Car to me than Acura Legend, or even Cadillac STS. As I certainly know, marketing types can put a positive spin on just about anything.
Introduced a year after the first three LH sedans (Chrysler Concorde, Dodge Intrepid, Eagle Vision), the LHS and identical Chrysler New Yorker hit the scene with added length, more formal styling, and a greater amount of standard equipment. The New Yorker and LHS differed only in trim, suspension tuning, and equipment levels. Other than that, they were just two different names for the exact same Chrysler sedan.
While three heavily-related Chrysler-branded full-sizers may sound a bit excessive, this was nothing new. For decades, Chrysler’s full-size lineup had been well-represented with the trifecta of Newport/New Yorker/Imperial, New Yorker/Fifth Avenue/Imperial, and now Concorde/New Yorker/LHS. Still, if the LHS was targeted at individuals looking for a sports sedan, then having an identical New Yorker (and all the stodginess the nameplate carried) next to it in showrooms didn’t help its cause.
Despite sharing all sheet metal with the New Yorker, the monochromatic LHS was clearly the more formidable brother, with its glove-soft leather sport buckets, Spiralcast alloy wheels, and a more liberal use of wood-tone interior trim.
What made the LHS different from top-line Chrysler sedans of recent memory was that it was aimed at performance buyers. Not since the famed Chrysler 300 had Chrysler even attempted to create a large, luxurious sports sedan.
In fact, the LHS could have very well been called “300”. Only one year earlier, the production LHS was previewed as the 1993 Chrysler 300C concept. Using the 1994 LHS/New Yorker body shell, this fully working prototype included a panoramic glass roof, two-toned interior, and unique front and rear fascias which ultimately did not make it to the production vehicle.
But alas, a production Chrysler 300 was not to be (fans would have to wait another five years for the name to return, and eleven years for a RWD V8 Chrysler 300), and it was probably for the better. While its naturally-aspirated 3.5L V6 made sufficient power, it was no Hemi V8. And to make matters worse for the LHS, that 3.5L V6 could also be found in all of its LH platform siblings.
The same can be said for its performance-tuned suspension, which was identical to that found in the Dodge Intrepid ES and Eagle Vision TSi. So if the LHS wasn’t a worthy 300 successor, or even the sportiest LH sedan, what exactly did it have going for it?
Well, for one thing, it was easily the most stylish Chrysler sedan in over a decade. Even if it did share its sheet metal with the New Yorker, the LHS’s small styling tweaks easily made it a much better looking car. And then there’s those seats. Those coddling buckets covered soft, supple, and rich-looking gathered leather have to be among the most inviting seats of their time. Even rear passengers received the special treatment with equally satisfying seats and limousine amounts of legroom. The Chrysler LHS can really be summed up in one word: “Imperial.”
Yes, the LHS was large, stylish, luxurious, and comfortable–all hallmarks of Mopar’s once prestigious flagship. Although the Imperial name was muddled somewhat over the preceding two decades, the LHS was the most worthy Chrysler product in years to have been called Imperial. Despite its own incompetencies and shortcomings, the LHS was a much more credentialed vehicle than the puny, obnoxiously tarted-up K-car Imperial it replaced.
But like the 300, a 1994 Imperial was not meant to be. The LHS was all about showcasing Chrysler’s latest styling and technologies. The name “Imperial” probably would’ve drawn memories of Broughams and Iacocca–two things Chrysler was trying hard to distance itself from.
Regardless of what it was called, a name alone would not have drastically changed the LHS’s course of fate. While it received initial praise and posted respectable sales figures among domestic competitors, the LHS was soon forgotten. Chrysler failed to give the car any updates, performance upgrades, or the proper media exposure to keep the car fresh in the minds of consumers. Its wishy-washy personality and the presence of several related LH models were also detriments to the car’s success.
A second generation LHS would appear in 1999, although it would be little more than a Concorde with an uglier grille and upgraded interior. No one seemed to notice though, as the big news at Chrysler was the new 1999 300M. Sharing the LHS interior, but wearing sportier, less bloated styling, the 300M improved on the performance path set by the 1994 car. Much like the New Yorker, the LHS was soon eclipsed by the 300M.
Although it never really nailed the whole sports sedan thing, and remains but a distant memory in Chrysler’s history, the LHS deserves credit for being the car that started Chrysler’s return to full-size performance sedans – a tradition very much alive with the current 300.
Related Reading : Curbside Classic: 1994 Chrysler LHS Curbside Classic: 1995 Dodge Intrepid Curbside Classic: 1993 Eagle Vision
After a decade of K-based Chrysler branded cars, these were a blast of fresh air. Once seemingly thick on the ground, it appears most have been used up and discarded.
Anecdotally, it always seemed like the LHS outnumbered the New Yorker about 4 or 5 to 1. Sales figures may reflect otherwise.
These were indeed cars worthy of the Chrysler name.
Yeah I want to say Chrysler sold under 5,000 New Yorkers in 1996, while they sold something like 35,000 LHSs.
I was one of those 5,000. A black NY with Quartz cloth interior. Loved that car! Also had one of the 1st NY (1994) in my zip code (Metallic Red). Then a green 1995 LHS for the Mrs. . After my ’96 NY, I bought a new 1997 Eagle Vision Tsi (also black). At one point, my garage and driveway housed 3 LH cars. My Mom had a new 1996 red Intrepid. Aunt and Uncle had a Platinum ’95 Concorde (upper end model). Other Aunt… ’93 Grand Cherokee Laredo (bright red), Grandparents… 1994 NY (Emerald Green)(traded ’90 Imperial (white)). Did I mention we were Chrysler people?!
and it spelled the end of New Yorker nameplate. i owned a $700 ’93 New Yorker 5th Ave though
The LHS, Intrepid, 300 and the Eagle Vision were and still are popular in Europe. That’s what about the marketing. The Austrian made Chrysler policy and tradition were taking quite big part in it. Now we’ll see what kind of future shall face the Lancia/Fiat rebadged Chrysler models here…
That depends on where in Europe. In North Western Europe, only the Vision and 300 were briefly sold, badged as Chryslers, but by no means succesfully so. The LHS was offered as New Yorker, but in Rolls Royce -quantities. Luxury buyers opted for the Germans, not for an unproven American value brand.
Of all LH models, only Eagle Vision (labelled as Chrysler Vision) and Chrysler LHS are officially sold by Chrylser Europe. The other variations are often sold by the private importers.
I recalled that LHS were available as special order only. You cannot just walk in and buy LHS off the forecourt.
The grille on that 300C concept appears to have been stolen from an early-’90s Maxima…
I was also thinking it looked very Nissan-like.
+1. I don’t like the projectors either–they make it look kind of beady-eyed. Glad that one didn’t make it to production.
Even the Badge looks Datsun/Nissan esque. What made it to market definitely looked better.
Nice article, but have to disagree with you on your assessment of the 99 and later LHS. I think the second generation LHS is one of the best styled sedans to ever come out of the Big Three. It was amazingly sleek – for its time and even today.
After shunning US models due to a very bad experience with an 86 Ford Escort GT, I fled to Toyotas for 13 years until seeing a review of the 1999 LHS in an issue of Motor Trend – purchased one and had very few problems with it during four years of ownership – would have kept it longer but had an overseas military assignment and couldn’t take it with me.
My take on the LHS was that it was a sportier Town Car – large, very roomy inside, but with much better handling. The 3.5 V6 was a good engine, 250 hp and had very strong mid-range power.
One criticism I would agree with is that they have too much overhang; front and rear.
Those overhangs were what made it a luxury car in those days. A long hood meant power and prestige and long deck lids covered trunks that would actually haul a few golf bags or a week’s luggage. Or a big baby stroller I had at the time. I say bring on the overhang! Nothing wrong with a little practicality that makes a car actually useful. Now we are all forced to buy “crossovers”.
I, too, had a 99 LHS. Great car. Rode and drove well, could dance when you wanted it to. Roomy, with plenty of glass area. Great mileage–once got 30 mpg at 75 on a long trip. The seats were much improved over it’s predecessor, and were quite supportive. And I liked the styling, too. Fond memories of that car.
Part of the appeal for the car was that pretty much everything was standard. You selected color (inside and out), which sound system you wanted (single CD standard, multi-disc changer optional), sunroof, and a couple of minor options, and that was that. Leather and heated front seats were standard. It was actually something of a value proposition compare to the way most manufacturers nicked and dimed ya on options.
Although the 300M was on the same chasis, and equipment/trim levels were the same, it was smaller inside, having obviously less rear legroom. I read somewhere later that was caused by the 300’s folding rear seatback, which required the engineers to use 4+” of legroom. The body of the 300M was also smaller because Chrysler wanted to sell it in Europe as a “6 (or 5?) Meter” car, since (apparently) car taxation was based partially on the car’s size. The 300M was limited to be less than 200″, while the LHS was perhaps a foot longer.
That would be 5 metre. 6 metres would 236 inches, even longer than a LWB S-class.
Thanks for doing the math for me, Pete! Was fuzzy brained when i posted this!
I think the reqirement to be under 5 metres was a marketing requirement to be able to fit the standard German (and EU?) parking spaces which are shorter than US ones, being generally around 5m (minimum is 4.88m). Garages are also smaller and anything over 5m is considered to be a very large car in Europe. Most manufactures like to keep their cars under this dimension and you will see that the 5 Series/A6/MB EClass are all around 4.9m. S Class, etc. are just over 5m at around 5.2m in standard versions.
But one doesn’t park an S Class, does one? Surely the chauffeur is there to do that, or just sit in it waiting for you?
personally, I like overhang. long hoods and big trunks are nice..not everything has to be styled as a lowered expectations minicar, you know…:)
Overhang sucks, especially front overhang. It drags on the ground when entering and leaving driveways, resulting in an awful grinding sound. No prestige there!
There is an art to driving large cars, and I’ve driven overhang that puts the LHS in the minor league. You have to approach drives and ramps a little differently. I never had a problem with my ’95 LH Concorde. On the other hand, I can tell many tales about dragging tails in my ’65 Riviera, ’67 Galaxie, ’72 Grandville,……………..
Amen to that. I love looking out over the expanse of a back yard sized hood, especially when some prestigious bit of gingerbread is staring back at you from way out on the end of that hood.
As to dragging, just need to know how to handle it.
As the owner of a 2002 Concorde Lxi (LHS body style) I agree with Lincolnman that the second generation LHS cars were some of the best styled sedans of their time and still look very good today. I find my car often mistaken for something newer. These cars are still very popular in the Central Kentucky area and I see them many times daily. I don’t think think they have too much overhang especially in the rear as it gives me a trunk large enough to haul my paintings to exhibits, parts I stripped off my deceased ’67 Sport Fury, etc.
Of the 1st generation LH cars, I thought the styling of the LHS aged better than its siblings. When I went looking for a good used LH car, I looked at a few of these before settling on a 1999 Concorde Lxi from which many happy miles were had before some idiot T-boned me on my way to work a couple of years ago.
Nice looking car then. Nice looking car now. I’m sure designers love having a nice, long car to work with. The LHS definitely uses its length to its advantage: Long, low, lean, sleek. The long overhangs work, because they add length to an already big car rather than seeking to make a small car look big.
I’m not sure Chrysler was really going after the imports with this one. I see this more as Chrysler building a better Cadillac than Cadillac was building at that time. It lacked V8 power, and it lacked reliability. But other than that it was hard to top for someone seeking a stylish, big, comfortable car.
Although nice, I fail to see how this would be a “better Cadillac” than the comparable era Fleetwood.
and Fleetwood is the only good big Cadillac at that time. i always dislike how squeezed it looks on DeVille before ’97.
I was (and still am) a big fan of the styling on the LH cars, including the more formal versions. I think this LHS is a great looking 1990s version of the Big American Sedan. However, the market had moved, hence the car getting caught in limbo. Like you, I am glad they didn’t produce the “300” version of this car (really enjoyed seeing those photos–great find!)–the front looks especially cobbled together.
I had the chance to drive one of these years ago as a rental. I remember the driving characteristics being thoroughly competent though not inspiring. The seats were great, and it was very roomy. Fantastic to rent, a little harder to covet.
Kudos to Chrysler for sticking with the (shrinking) segment, and actually bringing to market some pretty interesting cars, both then and now
Even if they never came to Europe, I’ve long had a soft spot for this generation of big Chrysler. Not sure why, may be the style, may be the underdog thing but most likely it was different to anything we got here and seemingly to the mainstream Ford or GM alternates.
Nice find Brendan
I remember the Chrysler Vision (the Eagle Vision in the US), the New Yorker and the 300M from the nineties. All of them were officially imported. Back then Mother Mopar had an adequate number of Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealerships throughout the country.
The later 300C did pretty well, mainly because it was available with a 3.0 liter Mercedes diesel. The 300C and Grand Cherokee already had a 3.0 V6 diesel way before VM Motori joined the party.
It is claimed that LHS was marketed against Lincoln Town Car. If so, that is absurd. To market a front drive/v6 car against a rear drive/v8 car is ludicrous.
To enthusiasts, yes. To the average buyer, not necessarily so. It’s easy to be swayed by the roomy interior of a FWD car, and the supposedly better economy.
In this case, there is such a radical difference in styling – the Lincoln looks to the past, the Chrysler looks futuristic – that I find it hard to imagine anyone cross-shopping the two!
I’m guessing these vehicles competed with that mid-90s Taurus-based Lincoln Continental (the one with the “InTech” dual-cam V8).
This is the car that Jeremy Clarkson declared was good enough to sell in the UK, even as he was here to make fun of other American cars for one of his side project videos. It seems as though a lot of them were this car’s appealing plum over grey color scheme, or the also appealing BRG over tan. Still gorgeous today.
Chrysler’s ’90s renaissance was doomed from the get-go, and cars like this LHS show exactly why. Yes, the cars were built on very talented platforms, with good dynamics, and underwent very cost-effective development. But there positives end right about there.
I love the Neon and four-cyl versions of the JA cars, but in anything else, the Wal-Mart ambience was very noticeable. And while it didn’t matter in the Grand Cherokee and the minivans, which defined their segments, in cars like the LHS, it was impossible to ignore.
Those “inviting” seats were incredibly unsupportive and surrounded by materials which wouldn’t pass muster in a Tercel. I was surprised anyone bought these cars at all when a Park Ave or Bonneville was available.
There was a lot of hoopla about the styling of Mopars during this era, too, but the huge panel gaps and vaguely defined plastic castings on the outside really gave these a kit car look. It was just so obvious it was all done for bottom dollar.
Feel free to disagree, but Paul describes it all very well here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/chryslers-bi-polar-history-crashes-6-9/
I will say that it’s best that the investment was minimal, since cars like the 95 Continental, 96 Taurus, and the Aurora showed that the few people who wanted a large American sedan wanted something conservative rather than progressive (hence the contemporary success of the big Buicks and Pontiacs). Not only was the LHS poorly made, it was just the wrong product for the time. While it may have seemed fresh in 1994, by the time the second act debuted in the late ’90s, it was almost embarrassing to behold.
I hate to be such a spoilsport, but that big, purple sedan was depressing to me even when new. The perfect car for Danny Devito’s character to drive in Junior.
I’ll second that, I had a customer that bought one of these when they first came out, in love with the futuristic looks and wrinkly leather seats, by 1996, he was ready to ditch the troublesome LHS for a brand new SSEi Bonneville. I’ll always remember the deal because about 30 minutes after he left with the Bonneville, he called back to let me know he accidentally forgot his gun in the center console of the LHS, sure enough I went back to the dog pound where the trade ins went and there in the console of the LHS was little Beretta pistol.
I was a Chrysler service advisor during the heyday of these cars. The LH precisely gave truth to the axiom of the great Frank Zappa:
“All of our stuff is American made, it’s a little bit cheesy, but it’s nicely displayed.”
These cars were not well made.
Mopar fans still talk as if the LH cars were ‘best cars ever built’, but were just hastily made concept cars. They showed that the K car was finally over, but still were cheaply built. Most were beater-ville after 8-10 years, and hardly see any now. Just like the Eagle Premiers they were based from.
By no means do I disagree that these cars weren’t very reliable or well-built. Between various people in my family, at least seven 1990s and early 2000s Chryslers have been owned. None of them exhibited even marginal material or build quality, nor problem free ownership. I considered taking a route maligning the quality of the LHS, but didn’t want to turn it into a bash Chrysler fest. Because in reality, when has there ever really been a Chrysler of highest quality in recent memory?
In that case it’s fair to point out that they were so sorely off point, poorly built, etc that Chrysler really hasn’t marched a coherent path, dependent on outside market forces or not since perhaps 1955. But in the case of something marketed (tarted up) as Near Luxury, the original LHS is pretty laughable for the money it cost.
Considering even the domestic competition produced better efforts at the time (on relatively old architecture. The C/H body bones were nearly 10 years old when the LHS debuted, the Taurus based Continental nearly as old), it just shows Chrysler not having a true path: After a full decade of appliance like K-Cars they went balls out in the other direction, but really had no clue how to back up the dare with substance.
Actually one could say these wild swings are basically the history of Highland Park in a nutshell.
I just.. disagree. I owned a `96 LHS for a few years, and it was a great highway cruiser. The seats, while obviously not recaros, were light years ahead of the paltry thrones festooned in my aunt’s `97 LeSabre. Sure, some of the interior bits were a bit plasticy, but I think you’re giving the GM twins WAY too much credit for their mid-90s refreshes. I bought mine with 220k on it, and it showed. The subframe bushings in the front were shot. the struts blown, the a/c warm, and the fan relay shot. I invested a bit of money ( shockingly, it only needed freeon for the A/C to blow cold) getting it back to stage zero, and was rewarded with a soundly competent car that could certainly hold its own on any freeway or stoplight drag.
Maybe this car didn’t make sense new, but then, who cares?
I agree with Jordan. I owned a 96 intrepid. Bought used from a company I worked for…it was a year old. This was a well driving machine. Usual maintenance things…Got me hooked on the 3.3, so much, we latter bought the 05 mini van. Any way, this car had a transmission that you could throttle in/up the shifts with your right foot…a lot of fun! Excellent hwy cruiser! One time we backed up and damaged the exhaust, after taking it off for repair, we started it up for fun…wow, what noise, let’s take it for a spin around the block….I believe the horsepower output went up 30%! So we removed the cat converter (I know not nice to environment), put the muffler back on and the thing would smoke the tires at will! What a power house! I throughly enjoyed this machine including all the gang that would pile in. I was so saddened when a moron ran a stop sign and t-boned our car, passenger side. It was wrote off…including his stupid 96 Taurus. Luckily no one was seriously hurt, as I was the only occupant. Man, I really loved that rig!
> A second generation LHS would appear in 1999, although it would be little more than a Concorde with an uglier grille and upgraded interior.
I think the front of the 2nd gen Concorde looks even uglier; I could never see one without thinking “fish face”.
The more formal roof and longer overhangs work for the LHS/NYer. Long ago, someone (Steven Fowler, I think) photoshopped longer overhangs on a RWD 300 and proposed it as a new New Yorker. I can’t find the source right now, but I thought it looked good.
I’ve never seen that 300 prototype…. very interesting. Can the LH sedans, being completely different from all other sedans at the time, be a reflection of the new CC website as it now appears on my smartphone?
“Those coddling buckets covered soft, supple, and rich-looking gathered leather have to be among the most inviting seats of their time.”
Just, nope. As a former owner of an inherited ’95 LHS, I have to say that those were the most fraudulent imitations of comfort on so many levels. I guess they technically could pass for “leather” seats, but whatever Chrysler treated their leather with gave them an unyielding plastic quality that never yielded, yet cracked and faded with wear and tear. They never got broken in, and just looked and felt horrible. As Perry said, I don’t get why my uncle thought I would want such a car, as I’d be more please with any General Motors C/H body more than that car.
Let’s also remember that the LHS wasn’t cheap, as it was on par with the base version of the Ninety Eight and Park Avenue in MSRP, and more expensive than a loaded out LSS. Beyond the woefully econo car grade material, it’s worth noting that the LH cars had remarkable Noise, Vibration and Harshness.
The grainy quality of the 3.5 V6 shuddered through the steering column, and for a more modern design, felt crude for what it was. I guess GM did a better job at isolation with 3800 equipped cars, because it would weird to think a basic Pushrod 90 degree V6 design massaged since the 60’s was an inherently smoother engine.
The LHs cars were acceptable, even decent rivals in their original form, but Chrysler did a rather piss poor job at turning them into near luxury/luxury sedans. At the price point and competitors that surrounded them (which by the mid 90’s included the Toyota Avalon) show exactly how, since the Forward Look, it was more about the splashy impact and not the viability of the vehicle with big product introductions from Highland Park.
Maybe it was the rigidity of the block? Perhaps an engine expert can shed some light on the grainy quality of the engine operation.
My guess is that a lot of it just came down to engine mount design and overall attention to NVH (which as others have mentioned was not an LH strong point in general). It may also have been a matter of allowable bottom-end tolerances.
I imagine GM also had a certain advantage in that the 3800 V-6 was very much a known quantity by the early ’90s. The engineers knew exactly what sort of noise and what sort of vibration patterns it produced and there was a pretty extensive body of experience with what measures would help and which didn’t work out as well in practice.
I have to disagree with the comfort assessment. I traded an ’89 Continental Signature (which was the best Ford I’d ever owned) for a ’95 LHS. It was easily as comfortable as the Lincoln and could actually get out of its own way.
Much as I liked the car, it proved axiomatic of other Chrysler products that had floated through our stables: One either gets one that is indestructible or it is a terminal nightmare! Unfortunately, this one proved to be among the latter. Three Ultra (doesn’t) Drives, 2 A/C compressors, and a timing belt later (in less than 60k!), I traded on a Cadillac SLS in ’97. That was its own unique horror show, but WHEN IT RAN I really liked my LHS.
There is a very big reason the LHS outsold the New Yorker; the LHS came with a center console and bucket seats, whereas the New Yorker was column shift and bench-seat only.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I don’t know why anyone wants a center console/bucket seats. Buckets can be nice, but I’ve always liked a split bench. Way more room to lounge.
Can’t argue with that. I suspect that the fact that seating a third person in the middle would be almost impossible in most modern cars killed even the split bench.
The only volume selling benches these days are in low to mid trim full-size pick ups. The F-150 XLT is probably the most prolific bench in the land, and the center armrest is quite versatile when not used as a third seat position.
Jason Shafer’s comment that these were a blast of fresh air is really an understatement. Some people were actually quite excited about the NY / LHS general styling, and it did indeed sell reasonably well.
At first I was a bit defensive about Lost Hopeless Soul (LHS) as I really liked these cars, but I will concede that the naming conventions and slightly confusing packaging of the New Yorker and LHS didn’t help it in the long run. I would have blended some features of the cars and left it as a single luxury model with a handful of options. New Yorker is such a storied name, I would have probably stuck with it. But, I would have likely put the chrome grill on the LHS package and kept most of its other sporting features as standard.
The LH cars, while similar as you would expect from cars sharing a platform, were among the most highly differentiated cars on a common platform from Chrysler probably since the introduction of the 1974 full size cars. Chrysler spent 20 years being broke and by default the king of badge engineering. A lot of unique sheet metal, even three different dash styles.
I bought the Concorde version in 1995, in the same color as the subject. Some people didn’t like it, but I recognized it as sort of a classic car color from the ’30s and liked that it was something different. I did check out the New Yorker / LHS and really liked their big trunks and roomy back seats, but price was beyond what I wanted to spend. My Concorde had the 3.5 and it ran circles around darn near any family / luxury sedan produced since about 1980. That was also a breath of fresh air. I did get to drive an LHS on a business trip one time, and really liked it.
The 300 prototype is quite interesting, I’ve never seen it.
The day my Concorde came home……..
Great photo! It oozes ’90s prosperity. Job, new house, new car…
I love the two-tone and wheels too!
There was prosperity at the time. The subdivision was successfully built out by the early 2000’s. The builder / developer went to to new subdivisions and committed suicide in 2008 as the financial walls closed in. I would never have thought that 13 years after this photo things would be so different. Things are improved again, but not where they were in 1995.
Great photo indeed. It’s got a surrealistic Salvador Dali atmosphere.
Yes, but the dumpster should be melting, and the blank side of the house should have a large, tormented face struggling to break through the wall.
I had a ’95. Great car but reliability was a problem. Transmission, overheating, water pump and various gremlins, all before 85,000 mile at which time I got rid of it and kept our ’93 Nissan Quest – very reliable
The LH was designed to self – destruct at 140 000 km. They did it right on schedule, too. No amount of money would stop this.
“Despite its own incompetencies and shortcomings, the LHS was a much more credentialed vehicle than the puny, obnoxiously tarted-up K-car Imperial it replaced”
I actually think the K car derived Imperial was a handsome and stately looking car and the seats were very comfy. The LHS(or at least the one I drove years ago) had some of the most uncomfortable seats I ever sat in. Heck the seats in my Chevette were more comfy.
I think my favorite of the LH sedans was the first generation Dodge Intrepid. It was a stylish and good looking car and i would not mind owning a nice looking example of one.
I worked for a Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge/Jeep dealer back in the early 90s when these were new. The “LH” cars were much better styled than the Dodge Monaco/Eagle Premier cars that preceded it. The “LH” platform cars drove well when they weren’t broken down. I remember having the whole service lot full of these things. From Transmissions, A/C Evaporators, Compresssors, Head Gaskets, noise, Rubber fenders being warped, (forgot about those didn’t you!) and electrical problems among other things. As a parts guy back then we stocked 20+ trannys. I know the poor sales guys must of had a hard time selling these with a lot full of broken down new ones for customers to see.
We used to have 604’s delivered by the five ton load. Awful cars .
Pardon me, But what does that mean? Was 604 a transmission? I think if a Peugeot. Please clarify, you’re all smarter than I.
Yes, the A604 (more commonly, and infamously, known as Ultradrive) was Chrysler’s first 4-speed FWD transmission and also their first electronically-controlled gearbox. It was underdeveloped upon its introduction in 1989 and, despite ongoing improvements, remained extremely problematic well into the 2000s.
My experience with my ’95 Concorde was pretty good. Being the 3rd model year probably helped. The AC was a problem area, and the second repair was a wholesale replacement of all the components, all under warranty. I never had a problem with the AC after that. Chrysler recognized that the AC was a problem spot and bumped the warranty coverage up retroactively – to probably 5 years. The car had the first Auto Temp Control of any brand that I’ve ever owned that actually worked well, and was dependable over the life of the car – one of my favorite features. I had a good experience with the car over a 10 year 100,000 mile span. My family simply outgrew the car, and the lack of a middle rear shoulder belt became an issue.
The plastic front fenders did warp inward ever so slightly at the tips where they met the hood. They slightly rubbed the hood ever after, but they gave me no real trouble or concern. IIRC, they did move to steel fenders for the ’96 model year.
My experience was good enough that I returned for a ’99 T&C and a 2002 Durango. I never would have thought I’d be a Mopar guy growing up in a GM world in the ’70s and ’80s.
That 300 prototype is rather unfortunate looking, at first glance I thought it was some sort of horrible 3rd world version of this car that was in production somewhere else as the HongChi ZD3457@& LX.
The LHS cars have all of the typical Bob Lutz hallmarks: swoopy, bold, and expressive styling, better than average handling, but a lack of proper full development, worse than average fit and finish, and iffy reliability. And like so many of his cars, they tend not to be long-lived ones. Another classic Lutz-mobile.
Didn’t Lutz say that “quality was overrated” during his tenure at Chrysler?
Yes he did. No wonder he ended up at GM; must have felt right at home.
I notice he’s been keeping an exceptionally low profile these days….
Lutz also was about all new names for new models, as if to forget the old ones, which were called ‘all new’ earlier. Etc…
New names, new looks, new grilles, but old hard points, and cheap, cheap parts. The LH cars were essentially warmed over Renault Premiers.
Sorry but that is a myth these cars have nothing to do with the Renault other than the longitudinal engine layout which was done because the original intention was to offer them in FWD, AWD and RWD versions so they actually stole the engine and trans layout idea from Audi and Subaru before they got mixed up with the remnants of the AMC/Renault mess when picking up Jeep.
Weren’t ex-Chrysler engineers saying afterwards that both the LH and Neon had suffered from a last-minute campaign to slash per-car costs despite the fact that both models had already been designed with decent profit margins?
I’ve read that some people have blamed the problems with the first Neon on last-minute cost-cutting demands from Bob Eaton.
It wasn’t last minute cost cutting that caused the woes with the Neon it was bean counted to death from the get go. I read an article just after they had come out that was written by one of the engineers that worked on it before making the jump into auto magazine journalism. He said that from the beginning they were told that they had to cut the number and types of fasteners 25% from the amount used on it’s predecessor. Not sure exactly what the predecessor they were bench marking it against was since he didn’t share that part. Note they did not say cut the bolt count w/o causing a problem the edict was to cut bolt count regardless of the effect. He also didn’t indicate if he met the target with the parts he was working on or not.
I always liked these for some reason. Oh, look at that Eagle Vision, too. I haven’t seen one of those in years. Btw is that your TSX V6 in the background. WANT.
Yeah it is. She’s my baby!
I’ve always loved the styling on these. As a fan of big old Detroit iron I’m probably less allergic to overhangs than most, and maybe that’s part of it. But I liked the long-low-and-wide vibe, liked the smooth and slim lamps and grille treatment, the snowflake-y wheels, and the way the C-pillar treatment was both formal and modern at the same time. Some really great 90’s slick styling IMO, only let down by a generic tail panel. The parents of a guy I knew in high school had one in champagne, and I always admired that car.
As to the merits of the rest of the car…I find the comments about the interior all too easy to believe. Sure looks like a nice place to spend time but not shocked if the materials let it all down. And it seems like the drivetrains on the LH cars are very variable…some blew up early and some are still rolling well north of 250K miles. Typical 90’s Chrysler, alas.
The C pillar and curved backlight on these is pure class. Great looking cars, so much more modern than what Chrysler had been turning out. Too bad it was just another brief peak in the long history of Mopar boom and busts.
Concur. That C-pillar MADE this car…
Wasn’t the LHS meant to be the New Yorker’s top trim level? But, they wanted ‘younger’ buyers, so they marketed it as a separate model? Maybe should have brought out the 300 name instead?
If I recall correctly, some people dubbed these “Oldsguars” because the styling looked like a combination of Oldsmobile and Jaguar themes. These did create quite a splash when new, and got good initial reviews.
Car and Driver tested one of the LH cars and compared them to the 1957 Chryslers for their fresh, unique styling. Unfortunately, that particular comparison would turn out to be appropriate in more ways than one.
Definitely right about the similarities to the 1957 Chryslers. I’ve never heard them called “Oldsguars”, but now that you mention it, I do see a lot of Olds/Jag styling fusion.
There was a Jaguar Kensington concept by Italdesign from 1990 that has lots of cues from the LHS too.
http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1990_jaguar_kensington/
Which curiously became the Lexus GS300 after Jaguar passed on it.
Also the Daewoo Leganza was based on the Kensington styling!
Dat front overhang I doubt it would get in my driveway without damage.
I dislike having to worry about the front spoiler scraping on even benign parking abutments, curbs, or driveways. Yet the punters seem to have no fear of this, & lower their cars or add all that boy-racer aero kit.
My Civic’s rubber front spoiler is a reasonable compromise.
The LHS and New Yorker were the best looking of the windshield forward cars but they still look kind of goofy and ill-proportioned.
You really have to wonder just what they were thinking having 5 different name plates on these cars. I understand soldiering on the Premier because of the contract to buy a minimum number of engines from Renault but the Eagle brand should have died after they gave up on selling the Premier and instead decided just to stock pile the engines. Having the unique pieces however few they were, and two names carrying the Chrysler badge was also a less than stellar idea, more money thrown away on a vehicle who went over their development and tooling budget to the point that they weren’t able to afford to even offer the AWD version let alone the RWD version that dictated so many things about this platform’s design.
I thought that Chrysler kept the Eagle brand to give Jeep dealers a line of passenger cars to sell. In those days, the corporation hadn’t completely consolidated its dealer network, so there were still a lot of independent Jeep dealers that had been AMC/Renault-Jeep dealers.
Part of the idea was that, Chrysler also hoped that creating Eagle would give it a mid-market import fighting brand, even though the majority of Eagle cars were some sort of re-baged import, except for the Vision, interestingly enough, Plymouth was excluded from the LH party, even though they did mock up a Plymouth LH concept.
I would agree with your thought on the purpose of Eagle, but I always found the idea of an import fighting brand to be silly. As did the public, and Eagle, Merkur, Saturn and Oldsmobile are no more.
Build good appealing product, and they will come. The relatively sporty Dodge Intrepid would have seemed the car that might grab some potential Camry or Accord buyers.
You’d think, but as I’ve said before, Detroit managed to sour a whole swath of the Baby Boom generation so badly that there were a substantial number of people who would not consider an American nameplate no matter how superficially appealing the product. It didn’t help that a lot of the early reviews of Detroit’s more disastrous “import-fighting” offerings had been full of lavish praise that was later recanted or swept under the rug. There are only so many times you can hear, “We swear, this time we’ve really got it right” before you just stop listening.
The lack of a Plymouth version never made sense to me. I’d love to know how the product planners justified that with the Plymouth dealers.
At that time there really weren’t many stand alone Plymouth dealers, they were usually at least a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer.
I don’t know if there ever were standalone Plymouth dealers to speak of. During the Depression, Plymouth had been paired with all three of the other brands to help keep dealers afloat, and even in 1960, when Plymouth was no longer paired with Dodge, it was still paired with Chrysler. Doing that gave Chrysler dealers more to sell, but I think it kind of torpedoed any chance of Plymouth developing much of an independent identity.
From that standpoint, the reason they didn’t offer a Plymouth LH and offered the JA only in stripper four-cylinder form was pretty obvious: If they had, those cars would have stolen sales from the Concord and Cirrus, which were more expensive and more profitable.
There were a few articles that claimed there were exactly 3 stand alone Plymouth dealers at the time they cancelled the brand. That they existed was astonishing in light of decades of marketing plans that paired Plymouth with other brands.
I grew up with the “Chrysler-Plymouth, Coming Through” jingle. The pairing was pretty much the way God and Ma Mopar intended. I read a very interesting history somewhere, maybe Allpar.com, that said there may have been a push to break Plymouth out as stand alone in the ’50s to better position the brand against Ford and Chevy. Various market position fights between Mopar brands, lead by the early short wheelbase full size Dodge Dart, and the disastrous loss of Plymouth market share with the weird early ’60s styling, fully killed that conversation.
I wonder how those children of the divorce and remaraige felt about these new cars. The Jeep only dealers had to be happy with the success of the new Cherokee and I’m betting that the ones that also carried cars were deriving most of their profit from the Jeep side of the balance sheet.
However I do understand that they wanted to sell those engines in something and the trend at the time to have an “import fighting brand”. The Talon made some sense as it was an “import” car at heart but import buyers at the time weren’t buying large cars in this price class.
Personally I would have made a Plymouth Concord and Dodge Intrepid for the initial year and then once they could afford it bring in the Chrysler New Yorker/LHS. I would have marketed those as one model. New Yorker for the base but well equipped model and New Yorker LHS or something similar for the sportier version.Could have trimmed the parts count and marketing budget and you wouldn’t confuse the buyers in the Chrysler-Plymouth showroom nearly as much. It would have also not hastened the cheapening out of the Chrysler brand like the Concorde did. The CP dealers would still have had a swb version for the price buyer and if the person wanted to spend Chrysler money they would get the exclusivity of the lwb version and unique styling. Could have saved Plymouth, OK maybe not as they were too busy taking the Dodge brand down market, to be under the Chrysler that was also moving down market.
Much more sensible, Eric. Have a promotion!
I’m not saying 5 heavily-related full-size sedans was a good idea, but Chrysler was largely in part doing it for the past several decades with a Plymouth, Dodge, Imperial, and multiple Chrysler full-sizers.
A handsome car indeed, tempered by indifferent quality of some of its interior bits. The plastic parts on the console and instrument cluster weren’t much better than the ones on my Neon.
I was fine with the interior in my Concorde. They most obvious cheap out was the top of the console where the transmission settings were just painted right on the plastic surface. No night time back lighting.
The dash seemed fine, had some neat details, and some soft touch padded surfaces. There was a weak spot in how a dash cut line appeared around the passenger air bag, but that was the only defect I saw.
The doors panels were mainly soft touch surface, along with cloth, carpet, and fake wood inserts, with some decent styling. They held up pretty well for 10 years. A tiny bit of the soft surface pulled up on deep convex curves and floated above the surface. My first ever light indicated pwr window and lock buttons. The seat fabric was a champ and cleaned up well even after three kids.
The Infinity CD stereo was a delight, the best factory system I had owned up to that time. The car was fairly quiet and tight on the highway, so the stereo was easy to enjoy.
I never had a problem with anything like a broken door handle, faulty power anything, etc. Every feature was in working order when I traded it off after 10 years and 100K miles.
As long as I have been alive, Chrysler has competed on price. Often costing hundreds or thousands less than comparable Ford and GM products. It worked well during the K-car era, as the engineering was sound, and paid for. Chrysler offered excellent value for the money. But the Chrysler styling ‘renaissance’ of the 90s seemed to mark the turning point, when the quality of parts and engineering dropped significantly. Where I would recommend a Chrysler from the 80s. I would not generally recommend them since that time. They seem to be built to underprice segment competitors, more than anything. It’s a shame, as Chrysler appeared to be shedding their stale, third place imagine for a brief period in the mid 90s.
I recall thinking that these were a breath of fresh air after so many years with K car variants that were simply not competitive in upper price classes. These had the basics but were done in by durability issues. High market appeal anf high quality have been a rare combination out of Ma Mopar lo these many years.
Thankfully with Chrysler’s inconsistent quality standards, I got one of the accidental good ones!
I think those “Spirograph” wheels are some of the prettiest ever to come on a domestic car.
+1
Similar designs were offered on most Chryslers of the time as well as the Grand Cherokee. They looked especially sharp in gold.
I always admired Chrysler’s effort on these cars. Spent time in a 3.5L Dodge Intrepid ES when it was new and thought it drove great for something so big. Noisy as heck though.
The problem with these cars, aside from the poor durability which would come later, was that the styling got old overnight. It was like the Forward Look all over again.
I remember looking at the LHS at the LA auto show and thinking wow it’s almost as advanced as a concept car. After seeing the car on the road it became clear that the front box was too small and out of proportion with the rest of the body. Like a big overweight guy with a silly nose job that is too small for his face. Say what? Remember I live in LA…
The best looking one of the bunch, by far, was the 300M. It looked very well planted because the overall length was slightly short for the overall width, kind of like the first Audi A4. The 300M had a beautiful profile, face and interior as well.
I drove an Intrepid and eventually picked up a Concorde. I believe all the Intrepid exhausts were tuned for a “sporty” sound, and I also found it quite loud.
I thought the second generation LHS was gorgeous (still is) and I certainly noticed because I bought one in 2001 to replace my equally gorgeous 98 Concorde.
Well, this story and thread is a real pick-me-down. Reminds me of the ’96 Intrepid which cured me of Moparitis forever.
I remember the launch articles in the car magazines, and a Chrysler spokesman pointing out that the compound-curved C pillars were designed to “defy the application of vinyl”.
I help arrange for my brother the purchase of the second generation of the LHS from the University I work for. It was the former presidents car with 20000 miles on it in 2003. It had replaced a 1995 LHS which I believe had around 120000 miles when traded. When I was checking out the car I asked the Alumni Director, who had put many of those miles on it how it was. She had a 2001 Deville at the time and told me it really drove better than it. Anyway, 11 years later it now has 218000 miles on it with very few problems. I felt it drove better than any GM front driver of the time. A few months ago we took a 250 mile trip in it. Got 28 or so MPG and was still solid and comfortable. Here is a picture of it with my Impala SS in the background to prove I am no Mopar nut.
The father of a good friend owned a Chrysler Concorde, I think maybe a 2001 (after the LHS name was discontinued and they added this grille to the Concorde.) He had it for perhaps 3 years, but he drives a *lot* so easily put over 100K miles on the car. I think he was quite happy with it; he’s owned some higher-end cars too and the Chrysler compared well. When it came time to trade he went a different way and ended up with a first-year C6 Corvette (which ended up being kind of a POS; first-year gremlins maybe?)
As an interesting sidenote, he’s currently on his second Hyundai Equus. Liked the first one enough to replace it with a nearly identical car. Those things are *very* nice.
A picture of the interior at 208000 miles. And yes the transmission and fluid in it are what ma mopar put in at the factory.
Lost Hopeless Soul? Wash your mouth out with soap Brendan! Lovely Handsome Sedan!
Don’t get me wrong, without a doubt it was a Lovely Handsome Sedan. Much better looking than anything from Ford or GM in the mid-90s.
Actually these cars were junk.
Does anyone remember the pics of a RWD prototype Chrysler that was mooted as an alternative to these? Or did I just imagine it?
Chrysler had several large RWD concept cars in the 1990s, including the 1991 300, 1993 Thunderbolt, 1995 Atlantic, 1997 Phaeton, and 1998 Chronos. You’re probably thinking of the 300 or Chronos.
Here’s more details all of them:
http://www.carstyling.ru/en/manufacturer/Chrysler/
The Phaeton was one of my favorite prototypes, ever. If they had put that into production I would have worked overtime for as many years as needed to own one…LOVED that car. A modern four-door dual cowl convertible with art deco-inspired styling and a V12?
Yes, please!
Yep, Chrysler was churning out the concept/prototypes in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, and most of them looked to be pretty complete.
I liked the 1999 Citadel wagon. I really liked the name too. Apparently so did Chrysler, as it’s recently turned up as a trim level name on the Durango.
I also liked the 2000 300 Hemi C. A large 4-seater convertible, RWD with Hemi power and good looks. If they had built it, I bet it would’ve sold more than Cadillac sales of the XLR.
This had to be at least partial inspiration for the Fisker Karma. The overall shape, profile and proportions are very similar:
Since the LH cars had longitudinal engines, Chrysler did discuss early on the possibility of AWD or even RWD variations sharing the same platform. I don’t know if they ever officially said, “We’re considering a RWD version” — looking at the contemporary press on them, it seems more like some of the engineers hinted at that, winked, and said, “Oh, but don’t quote me on that.”
Over at allpar one of the engineers who was with them up until the LX cars hit the showroom indicated that they were to the point where all they needed to do was tool up to produce either the AWD or RWD version when due to cost and time overruns they were told that those versions were put on hold and tooling was not ordered. He claimed that they had it figured out that they could switch the production line between the different versions in less than 15 minutes.
He also claimed that for the LX they had dusted off those designs and were ready to start tooling when the “merger” occurred. They were then forced to go back to the drawing board and incorporate the Mercedes sourced parts instead, pushing back the intro of the LX cars.
If you ever poke around under a first gen LH you’ll see where they made it so it would accommodate a driven rear axle. Super tall tunnel through the passenger compartment, 3 or 4 times as big as you would need to run an exhaust pipe through there. You’ll also find a huge hole where a differential could hang under the trunk yet the muffler and exhaust pipe are tucked way off to the side. You poke around under the hood and you’ll find that indeed there is enough room for a V8. The engine/bellhousing parting line on the V6 is about 8″ in front of the firewall. They couldn’t have done a AWD V8 though at least not with that trans configuration. With the V6 that they used it would have been quick and simple to do the AWD version. Thanks to the windshield forward design the V8 would have had to been a bottom load configuration but then again that is the way it is for many FWD cars now.
I should point out that the LH cars with the V6 were bottom load as has become the norm. The difference is that the LH V6 is replaceable by taking it out the top, but just barely. Though I don’t see how you would have got the V8 out the top with a chunk of it under the windshield.
My assumption was always that an AWD version would have been a lot more likely than a RWD version. Obviously, if you have a platform with a longitudinal engine and a floorpan with provision for a rear driveshaft and diff, you could also do a RWD version — at that point, it’s not so much a technical issue as one of marketing intent. An AWD family sedan has an obvious market (aside from Audi, a surprising number of Japanese sedans of that era had provision for AWD and were offered that way at home), but the family car market wasn’t necessarily going to see RWD as a plus.
In retrospect, a RWD V-8 New Yorker or LHS on the same platform would have been a neat trick, although in the early ’90s, the impetus for making a big luxury sedan RWD wasn’t so strong as it is now. (Really, there’s even less compelling technical reason to do so now except that BMW and Mercedes do it, and even they’re now going to FWD for their smaller models, but that’s another matter.)
I’ve been waiting for a place to post this. This Sebring looks a little lost & hopeless as well.
Here’s my version:
That’s a second generation Dodge Intrepid. The tranny is likely dead as well as a myriad of other issues. You don’t see too many of these cars on the road anymore, even though Dodge sold a plethora of Intrepids, they just didn’t age well at all. I see a good number of old Camrys and Accords still serving their owners faithfully, though:)
The 2.7 V6 was the reason why so many second generation Intrepids and Concordes died early.
I love the CC effect-I saw two of these things on the drive home today as well as a second generation LHS.
If I had never seen one and someone described the LHS’ styling to me, I’d assume they’d look disgusting… but I actually like it quite a bit! Detroit struggled for so long to come up with something that evoked 70s land barge vibes in a modern, FWD package and I think this is one of the only instances where it actually worked. Normally I hate all kinds of formality, especially when it comes to roofs.
I have to admit that these LH cars were unusually good looking for vehicles that were on the drawing boards back in the dark, dark, dark ’80s. Sadly, the LH cars suffered numerous quality control, electrical and mechanical woes. My mother purchased a brand new ’99 Chrysler Concorde that was the second LH design incarnation. It was a very pretty car that had vintage Chrysler Imperial interior dimensions. It was huge inside as well as a gigantic trunk. As pretty as the Concorde was it unfortunately suffered from so many quality issues that my mother sold it after two years. She didn’t feel safe in it. The transmission died at 5,000 miles. Luckily my mother wasn’t stranded anywhere as the transmission died in her driveway. All four power window motors had to be replaced, HVAC issues, mold growing in the AC system, the interior lights would come on and go off on their own volition, the leather wrap on the steering had all of its tanning peeling off, the leather on top of the back seat hardened and discolored, the 2.7 liter V6 (under powered) pinged even with premium fuel, steering wheel was off center from factory (dealer said was normal!), all of the rubber weather seal trim was falling off around each door frame, the headlight welting shrank and pulled out of the housings and the clear coat on the black applique on the hood cowl delaminated. All this on a ONE year old car! I’m well aware that Chrysler is well known for building cars of a lesser quality. The LHS cars were definitely much better looking than the ugly, blocky, rear drive Daimler LXI replacements in ’05. My mother ended up trading her Concorde with only 21,000 miles for an ’02 Toyota Avalon which was completely trouble free with rolex watch build quality. I, for one, would never own a Chrysler or Jeep product. i know of other people who’ve had very unhappy experiences with these vehicles. I drive a ’00 Subaru Outback that’s racked up 300,000 miles on the original motor and transmission. There is certainly monumental merit regarding the superior engineering, quality and durability of the majority of Japanese and German vehicles.
Those seats look as welcoming as the Italian leather sofas of thirty years ago. Time has told nasty tales about the mechanical integrity of these cars, but that seat looks so decadent that I would have feared somnolence while driving.
I need the spiral torsion springs that attach to the trunk hinges. If anyone knows where I can get them , please let me know. If you see one in a junk yard, please leave me their contact info. Thank you ! I have a ’96 New Yorker with 107,000 miles, and the original transmission. Regular fluid and filter changes , as well as changing the differential oil make all the difference.
Help ! I have a ’96 New Yorker and I need the spiral torsion springs that attach to the trunk hinges. If anyone knows where I can get them, please let me know. If you see one of these in a junk yard, please leave me their contact info. I’m pretty sure all the 1993-97 LHS’s and New Yorkers used the same trunk hinges. Thank you !
https://www.car-part.com/ is a search engine for salvage yards. Find one with a trunk lid and ask if they have the springs. Or do a web search for a pick a part yard or self service yard in your area and pull them yourself.
Sometimes parts pop up on eBay. There are also generic kits available, but not all of them work well. If you are feeling adventurous you could go to your local hardware store and try and see if you can get some garage door springs to work.
Thanks. My first posting seemed not to load, so I did another, which apparently was unnecessary. These cars have disappeared from the junk yards I’ve been to, but I’ll keep looking. The spring is shaped like a disk, about the size of a hockey puck. From what I’ve seen in the junk yards, all the other LH cars used the more common torsion rods .
The LH cars had everything going for them except for the way they were poorly executed in assembly, electronics and mechanicals. In typical cheap, poor quality Chrysler manner, these cars were stricken with numerous problems. My parents purchased a new 1995 Chrysler LHS and never did they own such a problem plagued automobile as that Chrysler in the 40 years they’ve owned automobiles. My father cursed that Chrylser until he traded it in, (at a huge loss) two years later, for a new 1997 Toyota Avalon which was a trouble free car for many years. The Avalon was my parents first time ownership of a Japanese car and they loved it so much they bought another Avalon in 2008. It was their last car until they became too old to drive.
I fell in automotive lust with this generation, esp in the gunmetal gray/silver metallic exterior color……until I drove one.
Far too much rumbling and lack of proper sound deadening inside, harsh shifting automatic transmission, a strange combination of bouncing over bumps and crashing thru the pot holed streets of New Orleans, not really all that much bottom end power.
Even when just a couple of years old terrible horror stories of unreliability and cheaply made parts started circulating about these Chryslers. Even for bipolar Mopar these cars sounded like bad news.
I still love the way they look; but not in my driveway.
There were well-made LH sedans, too. Perhaps I was lucky. My 1995 Dodge Intrepid still shares daily-driver duties with two other cars in the “fleet,” both of those others much newer. It still rides well, with comfortable seating and handles with an agility that belies its outside dimensions. At one point, I considered buying a second-generation LH but the 2.7 liter engine in most Intrepids and Concordes gave me pause…and that turned out to be well-founded.