In the past week or so, we’ve looked in-depth at the 1968 Barracuda, as well as reminiscing on the Back To The Future movies, getting us all thinking about how right, wrong or mistimed products can be. So was the 1968 Barracuda just misunderstood and ahead of its time? Or was the Malaise Era such a terrible period for cars that only the most mundane features could make a sale? In their March 1981 issue, Motor Trend took a look at two very different generations of Mopar sporty coupes–a ’68 Barracuda 340 and an ’81 TC3–in a rather unusual comparison test. “They don’t build ‘em like they used to” was the lead in, but what did that mean in 1981?
Initial impressions of “what were they thinking” aside, the comparison actually made some sense. Beginning in 1964, Barracuda was derived from Plymouth’s most basic compact offering, enhanced with 2-door fastback style and load carrying versatility. Ditto the Plymouth TC3 starting in 1979. Why not look at how Plymouth’s approach to transforming a basic economy car into a sporty car had evolved through the years?
Hindsight being 20/20, Motor Trend notes that the Barracuda missed the mark as a Pony Car. Simply put, practicality combined with credible performance capabilities were not valued as much as the high style look of performance offered by the competition. Motor Trend went on to comment that, in contrast to the Barracuda’s conversion from the functional Valiant, Plymouth addressed those style shortcomings with the TC3’s aerodynamic looks and more extensive modifications to the Horizon platform. For the priorities of the time, I’d actually agree that the TC3 was in fact pretty stylish.
Motor Trend was also correct in their assertion that the 2nd Generation Barracuda couldn’t really be considered a success. Total sales for its 3 models years from ’67 through ’69 amounted to 139,983 units, weak for the then-booming segment. Looking at sales for the TC3 from its launch in ’79 through ’81 show that 150,088 cars were sold, fairly decent for a sporty/economy coupe at that time. Even more impressive is the fact that those sales came during the depths of Chrysler’s financial crisis, government bailout and market share collapse of the late ‘70s/early ‘80s. Add in the units from the TC3’s twin, the 024, sold at Dodge dealers, and these hatchbacks pulled in a non-too-shabby combined sales volume of 284,583 over the first three years of production.
Left basically unsaid in the text of the article, however, were the most severe—and depressing—differences between the cars. Thanks to government regulations, soaring insurance rates and two oil shocks, the automotive landscape had changed dramatically from the glory days of the late 1960s to the Malaise days of the early 1980s.
Performance took the biggest hit. The TC3 clocked 0 – 60 acceleration times of 12.19 seconds, basically twice as slow as the 340-equipped Barracuda (6.3 seconds). Sure, mileage was significantly better with the 2.2 liter 4-cylinder in the TC3 compared to the 340 cubic inch V8, and that really mattered to buyers in 1981. But that efficiency came with a tremendous cost in acceleration. Even the lighter weight of the TC3 couldn’t help, as the Barracuda trounced the newer car in the power-to-weight ratio.
Pricing of the TC3 also came up for criticism when compared to the 1968 Barracuda–though Motor Trend simply looked at sticker price comparisons without taking into account the inflationary impact of the intervening years. Today of course a few quick keystrokes will bring up an online CPI calculator to view inflation-adjusted prices, a benefit unavailable to the Motor Trend editors in 1981. So adjusting for inflation, in actuality that ’68 Barracuda would have cost $9,507 in 1981, a full $1,097 more than the $8,410 sticker price for the loaded TC3 that was blasted as being shockingly high.
While there is no question as to which car I’d rather have today (or which one is worth far more), I must grudgingly admit that the TC3 did indeed accomplish its mission. The little FWD Plymouth was unquestionably a better fit for the reduced expectations of its time than the fish-out-of-water Barracuda was for the Pony Car Wars of 1968.
The both of them now need to be compared to a Plymouth Tourismo Turbo with 5speed.
and then compare all three to a 1992/93 Plymouth Duster.
Both were basically economy cars (of their respective times) with added fancy styling. It might have been a more valid comparison, with regards to price and performance, if they had used a Slant Six Barracuda for comparison.
The 2.2 was the high performance option. Either a 1.7 VW-Audi or a 1.6 liter Peugeot was the base engine.
Neither car was right for their times as they both failed in the marketplace. They were both compelling in one similar way. The 60s Valiant and the 80s Horizon were both fantastically sensible and durable cars. However if one was to spend a lot of time with one, they both may seem a tad austere and utilitarian. This is where the added flash and better interior of the TC3 and Barracuda make it easier to spend the time and enjoy the virtues.
The 2.2 engine quickly went from the 84hp of this one to the 96hp my 86 had. The 5 speed quickly replaced the 4sp on the 2.2 and brought 0-60 times to the 9 second range.
The 225 slant 6 and four speed would have also brought out the best in this sporty Valiant while preserving the operating economy that the Valiant was famous for.
Mopar or no car!
I wouldn’t call the L-body coupes’ sales numbers “failing in the marketplace”, especially when you add in that they sold well enough to hang around until 1987.
You couldn’t get a 4 speed with a /6 on a Barracuda in 1968, just a 3 speed manual or a 904 Torqueflite. I also have no doubt that a 68 340 Barracuda would have no problem outrunning a GLHS anything.
I remember that article when it first came out. I was 7 and made me depressed to be growing up in the 80s with loser cars from Chrysler since I was such a huge fan of 60s Mopar musclecars and the market agrees. There is pretty much zero collector interest in a Turismo but a 340 Barracuda is a sought-after classic.
I agree with others here, they should have tested the Barracuda with a slant 6 instead of a quasi-high performance power train. Wonder how that 340 compares to a Omni GLHS?
I also think they might have chosen a 66 Barracuda instead of a 68, as it would have allowed a nice “round” 25 year separation.
When the TC3 first appeared, I thought “nice idea”. But then I realized, longer, lower, and HEAVIER than the regular Omni….not entirely my idea of a “sporty” car.
The TC3 was one of the first cars that made me aware of POS cars, one of my few under age 5 memories was a dilapidated non running TC3 our neighbors across the street had at our old house, it got replaced just before we moved with a yellow Chevette… Oh dear.
The article is pretty humorous in hindsight, not that it was wrong in saying what it did about the Barracuda “packaging” being ahead of it’s time for cars like the TC3, as well as the Mustang II/79-93s, the Monza, even the third gen F bodies to come, and that the dismissive quip that the 70 Barracudas aren’t REAL Barracudas. It’s just funny to see the overcorrection these cars were, and ironically what made the E cars so desirable by the end of the 80s and beyond was that the alternatives of the era, especially TC3, couldn’t possibly be less appealing to people who’d want a sporty car, ultimately exactly what made the first and second gen ‘cudas such failures in their time.
In retrospect I never thought of the similarities between these two. I always liked the TC3/Turismo. My ex-wife had a 1984 Turismo. I was always amazed at the amount of stuff that could be stuffed in the back after folding the seat down. Ironically-I remember reading an article not too long ago about a ‘cuda’ version of the Turismo-similar to the Shelby Charger. Probably due to some ‘political’ forces (and inevitible duplication of efforts) it didn’t get greenlighted for production. Too bad-it was more in the spirit of the original Barracuda than the L-body Charger was with the original.
The authors consider the Barracuda’s fold-down seat to be new. It wasn’t even new at Chrysler! Airflow, ’41 Town and Country, ’46-’48 DeSoto Suburban. And of course it was common among Euro cars in the ’50s.
The L-Body 2-door hatch was a great American alternative to a Sirocco. The Trenton I4 could make decent power for relatively little money, especially its later iterations.
I’d love to find a clean TC3 or Charger with a 5 speed.
A friend of a friend had a Charger 2.2 in 1986, probably an ’82 model. It could out handle anything it couldn’t outrun, and sixty mph in ten seconds was enough for it to outrun all the beater pony cars and four cylinder imports. It ran rings around my slant 6 Scamp.
The Barracuda offered the 4sp with a no emissions 145 hp 225 and the suspension/tire upgrades in a package that would probably be less than 3000 pounds. A good, economical equivalent of the 2.2 in the Turismo.
Keep in mind that the 145 hp of the Barracuda were gross, and they fell to something like 110 hp or 105 hp when ratings went to net for 1972. The power to weight ratios of the TC3 and Charger with the 2.2 were a little better.
Remember also the somewhat confusing offerings of the L body coupes. In 86 you could have a 4sp 64hp Simca engine base model that was very economical but little else. There was the most common 96hp 2.2, 5sp or auto, that I was comparing to the no pollution control 225 slant 6. There was then a Turismo/Charger 2.2 model, with a HO 2.2 with 110hp, 5sp only and short gearing. Near the top, the Dodge Shelby Charger version had the 146hp turbo, 5sp only. At the tip top for 87 only was the Shelby Charger GLHS with the intercooled 175hp 2,2 turbo that was 5sp only. Only 1000 of those made.
Imagine 5 engine options, only one of which could have automatic, on a fairly slow selling American car. With the exception of Honda not putting together turbo options, it sounds a lot like the CRX engine line up in 86, with Simca providing the HF equivalent, the 96hp 2.2 offering auto like the 76hp 1.5 and the 110hp acting like the 91hp Si engine.
The comparison test with the DeLorean has most of the sports cars doing 0-60 in about 8 seconds. The DeLorean was about 10 seconds. The TC3 really is not that bad.
A motorweek test of an 84 Eldorado with 4.1 took 13 seconds to 60 MPH and a quarter mile to reach 70.
The early 80’s are still the malaise era for US automakers.
That was actually an improvement over the 125hp 82 Eldo that took 15,2 to 60 according to C/D. The 4.1 went to 135hp in 83 and gearing got less tall.
I was trying to point out that performance was generally down. The 1970 Eldorado would do 0-60 in about 9 seconds with a 400 HP 500 cubic inch engine. My CTS (AWD) V6 does 0-60 in about 6 seconds depending on which magazine you read. Turbo V6’s are faster yet. I get around 27-28 MPG on the highway vs the 1970 Eldorado’s probable 13.
I’m probably one of the few crazies who’d take the TC3 over the Barracuda. I have quite fond memories of those little cars. My mother bought a snazzy new ’79 TC3 when they were released, and recalls it to date as one of her favorite cars of her lifetime. It replaced a cumbersome and ungainly ’77 Monte Carlo, and with its front wheel drive and 4 speed it was a revelation during northern new Jersey winters. Later on an electric blue 1982 Dodge Charger 2.2 became the second car I ever owned. (Same car, tackier package). They were fun, economical and actually fairly reliable little runabouts. My fondness is probably connected to their association with my teen years, but oddly enough I’d be more than happy to have one of those little cars as my daily driver even today. But then again I’m probably nuts.
I can still distinctly recall throwing this ad in the faces of friends who derided my little plastic spoilered tin can back in ’84. I’m not quite sure the ad is entirely accurate, but it made me feel better.
So it takes 6 seconds to get from 50 to 60? That ad makes no sense. I assumed it was a turbo, but there’s no mention of that.
The Charger 2.2 was an upgrade over the TC3 with an optional 2.2. The Charger had a much shorter final drive ratio and a free flowing exhaust system with a resonator instead of a muffler. The changes were enough to let it beat the weak sauce 305 powered F-cars of the day.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1981-dodge-omni-024-charger-22-archived-instrumented-test
Hmm, hindsight does vary depending on whether you have 20/20 vision or need rose-tinted glasses. OK, bad metaphor, but I was a precocious 10 year old car fanatic when the Barracuda shed its distinctive glass, and a car-owning adult when the Omnirizon and Turismo/TC3 etc were in showrooms. The ‘Cuda may no longer have had glass to put a Hemi under, but I think we kids considered it a legitimate Camaro/Mustang competitor, even if it didn’t match their sales. By contrast, the fwd Mopar coupes weren’t taken seriously by any of my peers, unless in rare Turbo or Shelby trim. And even then they paled against a Scirocco or (slightly later) a GTI or 16v Corolla.
My wife and I still miss the 80 Omni 024 we bought with about 8k miles on it from a Buick dealer. The woman who traded it in missed it, too. She bought a new Riviera and had nothing but trouble with it. The 024 was nimble and felt like a tight, well put together car. We went camping in it and it could hold a good amount of stuff, with great access under the huge hatch. Of course, we bought aftermarket louvers for the rear hatch window. Truly a product of the times-wish I could have that car again.
Bought a new TC3 in 1981, 2.2L and auto. This car is memorable as the absolute worst vehicle I ever owned. The list of problems is just unbelievable, and includes numerous design, assembly and durability issues. Had there been lemon laws in those days the TC3 would have easily qualified. Kept it for five miserable years, and the experience has totally eliminated the chance that I will ever consider another Chrysler product.
I replaced a total POS 75 Buick Special V6 with a 1980 Dodge Omni 024. Compared to the Buick, it was a terrific car, in retrospect, it was pretty average. The 024 never had any major problems, was easy to work on with basic tools, It mainly suffered from minor components that could not stand the test of time, like hatch struts, door handles, interior trim, etc.
Interesting one. The fuel consumption difference is much greater than I was expecting, 32.2 mpg for the TC3 versus 12.9 mpg from the Barracuda! I can only imagine the test regime changed a little to achieve that.
Good point on the inflation too, it is strange that they left that unsaid because the statement “times have certainly changed” is pretty banal. I suppose that people didn’t need reminding of the stagflation period, just like the drop in performance. On that note I wonder why they did a 0-45 mph test in ’68?
My wife’s first new car was an 86 Charger 2.2 and we have a lot of fond memories of it–not that I would want another one, we’ve moved on. I’ve been trying to remember if anything went wrong with the car but other than brakes, shocks and stuff that wears out it never had a problem. One time it had a flat and the chrome caps on the wheel nuts got rust in them expanding the nut so the factory wheel wrench wouldn’t fit–same thing happens on newer cars too.
We owned the car still in 1989 when we bought a house and I remember bringing lots of furnishings and stuff home in that hatchback–good times, pre-kids.
I visited Shelby Automobiles in Vegas earlier this year and sitting on the floor with Cobras and Shelby Mustangs was a Shelby Charger turbo.
I always thought the TC3 and 024 were good-looking cars in the 80’s angular idiom, with the rear quarter glass area visually divided by the C-pillar.
Also–245k produced and I don’t think I’ve seen one on the road in 10 years or more. That is one low survival rate! I see the occasionaly Turismo or Charger with the facelift sheetmetal, and I’ve seen a couple of Rampages, but these little guys? All gone, it seems.