Image from the Cohort by canadiancatgreen.

As R&T’s text says early on, the arrival of the “new” ’77 Dodge Colt seemed like a throwback. After all, by the late ’70s most new compact and subcompact offerings were quickly adopting the more space-efficient FWD transverse-engine layout. Instead, the Mitsubishi sourced ’77 Colt arrived with a purely traditionalist layout; a front-engine rear-wheel drive setup, with McPhersons upfront, and a live axle with leaf springs at the back.

But if the model seemed like a throwback, there was a good reason for it; the car was the American version of the Lancer (A70), a model launched in 1973 in its native Japan. Not that being a traditionalist was necessarily a drawback; the new Colt was a well-crafted and well-engineered machine.

Plus, the model didn’t refrain from offering new technology where it mattered. Mitsubishi’s Silent Shaft technology appeared as an option in the ’77 Colt, an innovative balance-shaft setup that greatly refined the driving experience on the model, taming significantly an inline-4’s shaky spirits.

So, the Colt, as created by Mitsubishi found much favor with reviewers: “If we were not exactly excited by the Colt Lancer we soon found out what an excellent car it is and had to admit that the classic rear-drove layout is by no means over the hill when solid engineering is applied in its behalf. As with a few other well-developed rear-drive cars, it’s not what you start with but how far you go that makes a good chassis… The chassis, though mundane in its specification… shows its refinement by putting the Colt through its pace nimbly and controllably…”

Road holding was considered “excellent”, while the steering was quick and light. Meanwhile, the 5-speed manual proved easy to shift, with ratios well matched to the car’s engine. Keeping with the praise, the car’s brakes were “excellent, among the very best systems on a car of this category -short stopping distances, very good control and no fade.”

Beyond the car’s dynamics, much praise belonged to the model’s 1.6 Silent Shaft version, a technology that first appeared stateside on the ’76 Plymouth Arrow. The new tech consisted of “two chain-driven contra-rotating balance shafts, which cancel the objectionable vibrations inherent in a 4-cyl engine… This is a fine achievement, much appreciated by those of us who have experienced all too many miles of buzzy 4-cyl. driving.”

Admittedly, the Colt’s performance specs sound modest today if we go by cold numbers. The 1.6 mill (in Silent and non-silent Shaft mode) provided 83bhp, making for a 0-60 time of 12.8 secs. In practice, those specs translated to a feeling of briskness.

Some of that fun had its downsides, as usual. The car’s compact nature and traditional layout meant limited room, with barely acceptable headroom, and minimal rear knee room. The older design also meant the car’s interior design felt mildly dated, though in all nicely laid out and optioned.

The Colt’s grippy handling and short 92.1 in. wheelbase, also gave the car the typical choppy ride of Japanese compacts of the mid-’70s. As soon as dips and undulating roads appeared, the Colt quickly became a “bucking bronco,” in the tester’s words.

As a late arrival “new” model, the Colt’s stay in the American market was a brief one, showing up only for ’77-’79. Curiously, a Galant-based Colt wagon was sold by its side at Dodge dealers. Meanwhile, Plymouth had been selling the Lancer-coupe since ’76 as the Arrow.

If it sounds confusing, it was. It’s all been told in previous CC installments (links below) and was product of the curious way Chrysler allocated its Japanese partner’s products around its divisions. That alongside the Colt nameplate, which was in perennial flux. Something that might explain R&T referring to this model as the “Colt Lancer”, a name that didn’t show up in advertising.

Image from the Cohort by canadiancatgreen.

In the long run, we know Mitsubishi would have a star-crossed fate. The company was a curious mix of highly capable engineering and erratic short-term management that failed to create a strong image for the maker. But if the products were lacking in marketing focus or distinctiveness, their craft was often lofty. On occasions, even bordered on engineering overkill (the ’90s 3000GT the clearest example).

When it worked, there was much to enjoy in the company’s products. So it’s perhaps no surprise that R&T’s reviewers found much admiration for the Colt “Lancer”. Regardless of its drawbacks, the car had “strong appeal as a brisk, driveable, nimble performer with road holding and braking unexpectedly high for its class… and it’s one of those cars that likes to be driven.”