Just when you think you’ve seen it all, this materializes on a cool day. I don’t mean “seen it all” as in every type of car of course, but I thought at least that I had the Viewt subspecies of the Mitsuoka marque pretty much documented, done and dusted. But the smallest Japanese carmaker’s greatest hit will just not be pinned down by a lowly CContributor such as myself. It’s a hard lesson to learn, but learn it we must.
Behold, the Viewt Convertible’s august rear end, wholly handmade by Mitsuoka’s skilled craftsmen. Not sure how any of this bears even a passing resemblance to a Jag’s rump, but that’s not necessarily the point.
So what is the point? Exclusivity and trying to get a semi-balanced shape out of a very strangely-proportioned design. Mitsuoka’s front end treatment, long and bulbous, called for a similar rear end, lest the Viewt Convertible look like an automotive Jimmy Durante.
Just like the standard-issue Viewt (which is sort of a contradiction in terms, but whatever) saloon, the Convertible is based on the Nissan March – in the present case, the rare March Cabriolet. I’ll include a few photos of the March version here for contrast.
Nissan presented their March Cabriolet at the 1995 Tokyo Motor Show, but it took them over a year and a half to get production going, which took place at Takada Kogyo, one of Nissan’s top subcontractors. Production only lasted just over a year, from May 1997 to August 1998; I could not find how many were made exactly, but it’s safe to say well under 10,000 units.
The great thing about the March Cabriolet was that it combined the K11’s bulletproof underpinnings with a very decent four-seater cabin under an electric soft top. The hefty price was the only downside, it seems, as well as Nissan’s ailing health at the time.
Mitsuoka saw the Cabriolet and immediately adapted the new body variant for the Viewt. The front end did not require anything too novel, but the rear was completely new. I’m not sure when Nissan were done selling March Cabriolets, but it is said Mitsuoka kept turning them into Viewt Convertibles until about 2005, or even later.
The Mitsuoka treatment being 100% à la carte, there is no hard and fast rule as to the interior. Some Cabriolets have more wood than this one, including on the centre stack and the steering wheel. This one only went with the instrument binnacle appliqué – remarkable restraint. Leather upholstery, which this one has, may seem like a no-brainer in a convertible, but folks here are not usually keen on cowhide.
The strange thing about this car is how the sticky-out rear, with its massive chrome bumpers, coupled that with the beige colour of the body and the brown fabric top, makes this purported Jaguar pastiche look far more like a 7/8th scale model of a ‘40s American convertible than a ‘60s British saloon. Especially from this angle.
I have no idea how many of these were made exactly, but they’re rare. This is the only one I’ve ever seen in three years – and Mitsuokas have a disturbing tendency to find me.
Not that this one is flawless, despite its scarcity. There is evidence of a pretty major fender-bender on the left rear, plus a torn soft top. Fixing these issues would probably require spending more than the car is worth at this point. Straightening or replacing the damaged body panels would have to be undertaken either by Mitsuoka themselves or by a highly qualified restoration outfit. The soft top is another challenge, as NOS ones do not exist. That’d be a lot of coin to drop on a 25-year-old March. As always, the price of individuality is steep.
Related posts (by T87):
Curbside Classic: 1993-2002 Mitsuoka Viewt (K11) – Jaguar Mock One
Curbside Classic: The Japanese Retro Trial (2nd Witness) – Mitsuoka Viewt K12
I suppose if I REALLY had to drive a small/economy car, and this didn’t cost an arm and a leg…
Somehow this manages to look better AND worse than the car it’s based on.
Mitsuoka’s recent products (the Corvette based on a Miata, the Blazer based on a RAV4) are so cool, this? Not so much.
There’s something XK150-ish about the rear end. Definitely the rear bumper, which is what probably gave me my initial reaction.
I like it, but the March looks good to me, too. Especially the front end. I don’t know if I would have buyer’s remorse after acquiring a Viewt. Paradoxically, I enjoy being seen in one of my collector cars, but not being stared at. And, one has to allow time in any trip to talk about them, and accept stories about how someone’s uncle’s grandmother had “the exact same car” no matter how unlikely that is. But I am still attracted to the K12, second gen Viewt that had all the right curves. If only there was room in the wheel wells for a set of properly proportioned Borrani wires…
Viewty being in the eye of the beholder, I kinda like like… Even with that color (or perhaps because of that color?), it still works as long as one doesn’t take oneself too seriously and just goes with the flow while of course the beat being marched to is that of a different drum. I’m really interested in how a buyer of a Viewt or a Mitsuoaka in general differs from a buyer of cars priced similarly to it – obviously they cost far more than whatever vehicle they are based on, so the style is obviously far more important (and deemed that way) than whatever dynamics or attributes the original possessed.
Quoting my observant and eloquent Father, when looking at another “project car” that I had dragged home: “Son, you just cannot polish a turd!”.
Sure you can, Mark. You can’t transform a turd into a chunk of gold, but you can certainly polish one. If you are passionate about a turd, you might want to make it the sharpest looking turd around!
The windshield is still a little tall but this has to be one the better proportioned Mitsuoka. Certainly much better than the four door with the same front end.
It would not be economical but here is a low roof version.
Just what it needed, though since some of us are tall I have to wonder about headroom with the top up.
I’d also paint the panel under the front bumper black, so as to make it hide in the shadows. That bit of body colour showing under the bumper’s wrap-around just doesn’t look right.
A convertible made just for me: tall, short, narrow., and with some classic styling elements; what’s not to like?
All convertibles have unlimited headroom… 🙂
It’s interesting how some would say all new cars look the same but obviously don’t to those that are familiar with them. And others would say all old cars look the same but again obviously aren’t to those that are familiar with them. And then you have cars like this where it uses literally unidentifiable bits that clearly are meant to harken back to some other era or particular car but not readily identifiable as any one exact particular car while also very much obscuring the origin of the original more or less modern base car used for this transformation. While being completely unoriginal in both respects, perhaps this is though at the same time also an actual original car unlike any other…
The rear end is highly identifiable to me: Austin Atlantic. Not exactly a dead-ringer, but some strong similarities, especially the shape, bumper and tail lights.
They couldn’t have reused the chrome strips as those were also used on the Austin’s hood.
That rear end has quite a passing resemblance to its Nissan Pike cousin, the Figaro.
Yikes, thought I knew all the Mitsuoka models, but this is a new one on me… Thanks T87, I think…
Like all the Mitsuokas it looks sort of ridiculous, but this one seems the fun sort of ridiculous, so I like it. I assume that is a fixed roll bar at the B pillar which I’m not a fan of, but otherwise it just needs white wall tires.
Columbo would Love it
Is the Mitsuoka’s roof at the same height as the March?
With the Mitsuoka’s length I think my eye is being quite fooled.
My Jag threatened to eat the first one he sees!
I suspect it looks much better with the top-down. I suspect a lot of things.