images posted at the Cohort by cjcz92
(first posted 1/19/2017) The downsized 1980 Continental Mk VI—which we looked at here the other day—is pretty universally seen as a botched styling job, what with its truncated body and way too boxy and upright greenhouse. Given how much the gen2 Cordoba looks like its beloved predecessor Mark V, you’d think its arrival in 1980 would have sparked some defection and consumption, especially given that it cost half as much (of course that’s not necessarily a positive). But no; the gen2 Cordoba was a genuine dud. We’ll, it’s first year (1980) wasn’t exactly a total disaster, as it sold some 53k units, down from 88k in 1979.
But that was its high water mark, and the ebb went unabated until it quietly slipped away after a dismal 13k units in 1983. Buyers had moved on to newer and more attractive coupes, and the Cordoba became just another relic from the 70s Chrysler RWD era to be swept away in the face of the new K cars, in this case the diminutive LeBaron. Out with old; in with the New Chrysler.
Ricardo Montalban may have exclaimed “I like what they’ve done to my car”, in this ad, but it didn’t really come off convincing. Folks wanted to hear him extol the virtues of “soft Corinthian leather“, not a geeky Chrysler engineer talking about how the Cordoba was redesigned for greater efficiency. Or maybe they were just tired of his shtick altogether.
Admittedly, the new Cordoba had a handsome profile, and did an excellent job of disguising its Volare underpinnings. Now called the J-Body, it still sat on the same 112.7″ wheelbase used by all the coupe versions of its various platform mates. Dodge shared the body shell for its Dodge stablemate, the Mirada, which was even more of a dud.
There was also an LS model of the Cordoba, which had been intended to be a Chrysler 300. It did poorly too, and was cancelled after two years. (CC here). Just as well, as a 300 with the strangled engines on tap would have been numerical sacrilege.
Under that long hood sat two of the most impotent Chrysler engines ever. The standard 225 (3.7 L) slant six was rated at 90 net hp in 1980, and then 85 net hp for 1981-1983. The optional 318 (5.2 L) started its run in 1980 with all of 120 net hp, but managed to get a bump to 130 for the remainder of the Cordoba’s run. The Cordoba Malaise. I can just hear Ricardo roll that off his tongue: The Cordoba Malaise edition, with soft Corinthian leather and limp engines…in Cordoba, I have what I can get, not what I want
Technically, the 185 hp E36 360 V8 was also optional in 1980, but apparently that was discontinued after only some 100 units were sold. This was of course in the depths of the second energy crisis that had everyone avoiding gas guzzlers like the plague. So folks tootled around in 85 hp slant six Cordobas, until the gas crisis was over; and then so was the Cordoba. it was now the eighties, and buyers had moved on to other toys.
This Cordoba is lacking the opera window that some sported. That is a good thing. As are the handsome alloy wheels.
GM’s E-platform coupes were dominant in this era, thanks to their better proportions and styling, which was just more sophisticated, as well as their more advanced FWD drive train, diesels and HT4100 excepted. The V6 and V8 powered Buick Riviera and Olds Toronado simply exuded more class, panache and prestige than the Chrysler coupes, even when old and sitting in a field.
The gen2 Cordoba has become a rare bird on the streets, and this is our first look at a non-LS version, thanks to the Cohort. Undoubtedly, the remaining ones have found their way into the hands of aficionados. They obviously like what they’d done to their car.
Related:
In-Motion Classic: 1981 Cordoba LS J. Dennis
1981 Cordoba LS: A Quick Nip-Tuck B. Saur
I actually like what they’ve done to the car. I find it more attractive than the earlier Cordoba. I’d buy one if I could find one in decent condition.
Gig Harbor, Washington
I agree, the execution is not that bad. The more you look at it the more you feel like it’s a nice little car. Especially for an early 80’s design which I don’t like all that much.
It’s a respectable, but not commanding design.
I agree. The least attractive part of the car (IMHO) were the taillamps.
I also find it more attractive than the Chrysler 300 of the same vintage.
The alloys certainly help, those Mopar fake wire wheel covers are one of the worst ever. I had no idea that Ricardo did commercials for these too, I can totally see time slipping in a sly zinger like that.
Interesting sidebar ads these days, no I’m not ready to date Chinese women and no I don’t think Hillary should be indicted. But then again I’m a furriner, what do I know of such things?
IMHO, the Dodge Mirada variant looks much better due to its integrated, body color grille. I’ll have to check sales figures, but I’m guessing the Cordoba outsold its cousin.
It baffles me that these downsized Cordobas sold so poorly. Nice proportions, clean styling, decent enough interiors. Certainly the right sized car for the times. Nothing ground breaking in terms of powertrain but that’s where they saved a few dollars of course.
Low production means they are hard to find now. I came across a one-owner Cordoba last year in a town northwest of me. Its an 82 model with plenty of options and a 318 2bbl engine that purrs. Only 50,000 kms.
I think these were a victim of the uncertainty lingering over Chrysler when they were introduced. We didn’t know that the government would grant Chrysler a loan, and with all of the bankruptcy rumors swirling and “Should Chrysler Be Saved” cover stories on Newsweek, buying a Chrysler in 1980 must have felt like buying a Studebaker in 1963. No amount of restyling or better gas mileage was going to convince people to buy it instead of a Cutlass.or Regal. That is if they even knew about it – Chrysler advertising around this period was scant, something that also hurt the launch of the R-body and Imperial. I find the looks attractive inside and out, but at first glance it may have looked to boxy compared to the curby first gen, and the limp engines and Volare suspension didn’t help matters, and the Slant 6 had no place in a Cordoba.
Totally agree with la673. I lived those times, and clearly remember the constant doom & gloom barrage of news about Chrysler, which probably sped up its path towards bankruptcy.
Both the Cordoba and the Mirada are better-looking than the Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Pontiac Grand Prix. (Their direct GM competitors – we viewed these as a step down from the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Toronado on the personal luxury coupe food chain.)
They were definitely much more handsome than the awkward, downsized 1980 Ford Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar XR-7. A Mirada with the alloy wheels and a vinyl roof that matches the body color is still a handsome car, in my opinion.
Their big handicaps were Chrysler’s terrible quality reputation, and the fact that by the fall of 1979 everyone knew that the corporation faced bankruptcy without some sort of government aid. Chrysler Corporation thus had a serious “loser” image that time. A severe recession that was just gathering steam in the fall of 1979 was the final blow.
It’s kind of amazing that 1980 was the high water mark, because that was the year that Chrysler’s future was most in doubt. But then 1981-82 was a nasty recession mated to high gas prices. The Cordoba was in a tough segment for that time. Also, Cordoba had always relied on a high proportion of conquest sales to people who didn’t traditionally buy Chryslers. The Chrysler Faithful didn’t really flock to these and those who liked style and image stuck with GM. All of Chrysler’s conquest sales were coming from the L and K body cars.
The recession got much worse in 1981 before bottoming out in late 1982, if I recall correctly. Analysts always seem to cite 1982 as the modern low point for new-vehicle sales.
Plus, personal luxury coupes were all about image, and these cars carried a ton of baggage due to their parent corporation’s dire condition. People buying a Plymouth Reliant were much less likely to be concerned about that factor.
There was also a distinct lack of advertising. Nearly all of Chrysler’s marketing efforts were going into the K-car and other FWD models.
Double digit interest rates also compounded the problem.
I think once GM facelifted the A-Special coupes in 1981 that they all had better looks than the 80 Cordoba/Mirada and certainly the oddball T-Bird and Cougar XR-7.
I was in love with these when they came out, and still find them extremely attractive (for the 1980-83 era, anyhow). I think that the styling did a wonderful job of making a compact look like a larger car.
We will of course never know, but I will always wonder if these got killed just as their market was poised to rebound. But without any more investment for a styling refresh and probably an OD for the automatic trans, they would have been badly outclassed by the competition by 1984-85.
I actually find these very attractive for the era, don’t just compare them to GM, compare them to the 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar XR7, tell me which looks better and has better proportions – granted they were sales duds too. The 75 -79 Córdoba was never a design I held in high regard, so I imagine someone who truly loved that neoclassical theme would see this as a too radical departure. However, I imagine Chrysler could have gotten some conquest buys from Ford’s poor efforts had there not been such a lingering stench of death hovering over the company, as well as the bad powertrains mentioned. The designs were much more forward thinking than they’re given credit for, it’s the missing link between boxy brougham and the 1983 Thunderbird
Back in the day I really wanted one of these, as I thought they were the nicest-looking Chryslers to come along in a long time.
I would’ve had some fun with one if you get my drift!
I’m obviously a minority, but I think Chrysler ruined the looks with this restyle. It is crisp, angular and has it’s own appeal – but a Cordoba it’s not. The round light treatment on the front end of the old model proclaimed Cordoba and just looked right. This one looks like a different car sporting the same name. The Dodge version was a more honest change and looked better to my eyes. However, I wouldn’t have bought either of them. Of course in fairness, I wouldn’t have bought the old Cordoba either. But it did look more distinctive.
Cordoba sales were at their best in the mid-70’s (76-77). Then sales were on a down trend that the 80 styling had no effect on. Clearly the Cordoba was doomed.
I can’t say that I like the styling of either the first or second generation. Chrysler’s reliability has always been dubious from my point of view, and now, with Fiat ownership, things are not looking better.
that the 80 styling had no effect on.
Well, sales did drop by over 40% from 1979 to 1980, so I would question that. It’s not uncommon to see sales for a model droop in its last year or so, but then see an upsurge when the new model comes out. Clearly that was not the case here.
Paul Niedermeyer
I agree with the final year production of a model, on the heels of a brand new model usually see sales drop dramatically.
I have a question for you. Why did the Ford Taurus & Mercury Sable (for 1989-1991) revamp their interior so drastically from it’s inception. The revamped updated dash boards, interior panels for 1989. Made the Taurus/Sable interiors look less bold, more conventional, bland even, too conservative. To me they captured the youth’s attention, only to pivot to appeal to conservative senior citizens. In other words they went backwards. The 1992 New models reflected this as well.
The Mercury Sable interior was a cool flawless design from 1986-1988. Especially with the cool circular vents. Then went down hill with the revised versions from 1989-1991.
There was no reason for Ford to mess with a formula that worked already. Both models sold well-extremely well, even in it’s final years. I know this is off topic from the car pictured above.
You’re pretty knowledgeable about these things what is you’re take on such a senseless change when a new model was right around the corner?
I don’t have a good answer. Undoubtedly Ford marketing executives felt a more conventional approach had benefits, such as wider acceptability. And maybe it was cheaper. Those are the two obvious reasons, but I can’t verify them.
Well I think the door panels were redesigned for a wider and more comfortable armrest. As to the dash, this is speculation, but maybe it was redesigned for the upcoming air bag regulations. Maybe they had to change some bracing or open up a space for the airbag. Or maybe people complained and wanted a change holder. But thats just speculation on my part.
Paul Neidermeyer
Thanks for the response
This has always confused me. I mean most car makers dream and spend millions and even billions trying to lure a young demographic into their show rooms. It often takes years to accomplish this feat, with a slim to low chance of the effort being successful (Think of the Lincoln failed efforts).
Yet Ford Taurus / Mercury Sable did the opposite. They went from revolutionary futuristic interior design. To a boring, bland, forgettable interior design that catered to senior citizens only. Every model after the 1986-1991 design the demographic age of the buyers of Ford Taurus just went up and up.
I preferred the new door panels (1989) and dashboards (1990) and think they improved both ergonomics and appearance. Specifically:
– the door pulls on the ’86=’88 were positioned too far rearward, and prevented my arm from stretching out as far as I’d like
– the ’90-’91 Sable added illuminated power window controls
– the new dashboard now had space for cup holders and coin trays, or an optional CD player. The cup holders fit into a standard DIN opening and were a popular transplant into other cars
– The optional digital instrument cluster had much better contrast and sharper graphics than the ’86-’88 version (the ’89 was subtly enhanced).
– The HVAC controls and clock on the earlier version were oddly angled downward toward your hips rather than being near-vertical
– The ’90=’91 dash had a lower panel that was shared between the Taurus and Sable unlike the previous version which saved Ford some money, as likely did the more similar upper shape.
That said, the new designs of both the door and dash were more conservative and less distinctive than the earlier designs. My slope of the new armrests make my arm want to fall off with no vertical handle at the end to grab onto, and the new horizontal grab handles were too shallow and hard plastic-y to be easy to grasp. In any case, I vastly prefer either first-gen Taurus/Sable interior to the Fisher-Price plasticy ’92 interior which cheapened just about everything (goodbye rear headrests, storage bin, separate door pulls, woodgrain or black trim panels, thick velour upholstery, etc.)
The ’88 Lincoln Continental based on the Taurus platform also got a completely redesigned dashboard and door panels after just one year on the market. Here again, the new design was more conservative, and again I much preferred the new design. The ’89 Continental had much nicer door panels than either the ’86 or ’90 Taurus/Sable, with a soft full-length armrest and separate door pull.
Sometimes senseless change happens for reasons that you wouldn’t expect. Problems in the manufacturing process, supplier problems and worn out or damaged tooling might all be very good reasons for a seemingly senseless change.
Hardboiled Eggs and Nuts
I can accept this response, it makes sense. We never know what automotive politics are in the works behind executive closed door decision.
In any case, Ford dropped the ball on the Taurus / Sable from being the design & class benchmark for the future back in 1986. Loved by all ages really. Now fast forward today and who thinks of a Taurus as anything but a rental fleet car, or senior citizen mobile.
Shame they lost such a golden opportunity. As a youngster the Taurus and Sable use to give people chills just to pull up next to them. They use to have that much of an impact on society when first released.
The Taurus was amazingly different-looking when it made its debut, indeed. Now it would be just another jelly-bean-styled vehicle.
This WEBSITE shows that sales are falling after 1977: 1978 a bit over 100,000; 1979 under 80,000; then 1980 a bit over 40,000. The trend is quite clear. I agree that the new 1980 model should have been better, but I don’t see a clear indication that the styling is too blame. What I see is that the Cordoba had a 3 year life span and then somehow it was over, much like the Edsel.
Actually, the 1980 sales are quite good relative to the 1981-1982 sales. So, if the 1981-1983 sales are where the new styling sales belong, then the 80 model is up.
From a styling standpoint, I think these were handsome with a late-1970s “crisp, tailored-in-Detroit” design. I think the two main culprits for the underwhelming sales of these were:
1) Chrysler’s “stench of death” and looming bankruptcy–a suave, attention-getting personal luxury car is dead-in-the-water for image conscious buyers if the parent company is seen as doomed.
2) These were launched after the second oil embargo, and the market shifted dramatically and quickly to smaller cars. Each U.S. maker was slammed as virtually all mid-sized and up cars took a tumble. Had this design appeared for 1978, it probably would have sold like hotcakes (and been nicely profitable) until the oil stopped flowing.
Yeah, these fell victim mostly to the all-too-typical poor Chrysler timing. Aside from the Omnirizion, John Riccardo and Gene Cafiaro simply couldn’t catch a break in the latter half of the seventies.
Plus, there were some styling gaffs that didn’t help. First and foremost were the dual rectangular headlights paired with turn signals right next to them. I’ve never liked this, with another good example being the first Ford Panthers where the low-line models had the same thing.
Then there was the roof, specifically the C-pillar. The best looking front end was actually the Cord-inspired Mirada, but if you went that route, you had to get take either the goofy, DLO C-pillar or a chintzy-looking fake convertible roof. You could get a non-vinyl top Cordoba with a much smoother, solid C-pillar, but then you had to take the luxury, chrome grille front end. The ersatz-300 LS front end was better but then you were back with the C-pillar window.
The Chrysler stylists could have come up with a much better rear end treatment, as well, instead of that bolt-upright, boxy thing with huge taillights.
The bottom line is, just like with a lot of other Chrysler products, the 2nd gen Cordoba/Mirada fall into the Maxwell Smart category of “missed it by that much”.
> John Riccardo and Gene Cafiaro simply couldn’t catch a break in the latter half of the seventies.
Or the earlier half – the redesigned full-size Chryslers, Dodges, Plymouths, and Imperials launched in late ’73 just in time for the oil embargo, and with their barely out of single digit MPG figures were almost impossible to clear from showrooms. The ’70 Challenger and Barracuda were late to the muscle-car party and didn’t sell well after the first year. Also notable is what they *didn’t* have – a proper subcompact to pitch against the Pinto, Vega, VW, and Japanese imports, instead trying to fill the hole with captive-import duds like the Plymouth Cricket.
> Plus, there were some styling gaffes that didn’t help. First and foremost were the dual rectangular headlights paired with turn signals right next to them
The ’80 Cordoba (in non-LS guise) also had horizontal slats over the turn signal/parking lights which seemed inappropriate for a luxury model and more inkeeping with what was considered sporty in the ’80s (like the late-’80s Mustang GT taillights). These were removed in 1981 I think; the featured car doesn’t have them so it’s an ’81 or later.
I also believe that by the time the Cordoba came out, Chrysler Corp had spent nearly a decade driving style and image-conscious people to GM and Ford, whether because of bad quality, bad (or conservative) styling or both. By 1975 there was not a deep well of personal luxury customers loyal to Chrysler. None of the longtime Chrysler people I knew bought a Cordoba. They were Newport and New Yorker people.
Cordoba grabbed buyers from GM and Ford because it was so good looking in 1975-77 and in perfect step with the tastes of the era. But from my experience, many of those buyers were burned by poor quality and scurried right back to GM and Ford when it was time to trade the Doba in.
I’m not sure that GM and Ford ‘conquest’ Cordoba sales would be a bad thing. Traditional Chrysler buyers sticking with the same models they always bought (or buying within the Chrysler family) would be okay in that sense. Whether it was a former Chrysler owner returning to buy another, or a new, prior GM or Ford owner, it was all good.
Of course, I have no doubt that those former GM and Ford personal luxury buyers did, in fact, quickly return to their respective makes after having a taste of mid-seventies Chrysler reliability. Chrysler got a very nice uptick in sales from the inaugural Cordoba, but I’m sure sales quickly fizzled and returned to pre-Cordoba levels after a couple of years.
I seem to recall reading that Chrysler had lost a good deal of their already meager market share (seems like it went down by half) by the time Iacocca came on board. I’m not sure Iacocca deserves all the credit for the turnaround (the K-car was already well on its way to production before he arrived) but he certainly did a superb job of marketing it. Given Chrysler’s miserable reputation by that stage, it’s unlikely they would have sold all that many if not for him.
When judging the success of the first Cordoba, we have to take into account the sales of the Dodge Charger, Dodge Coronet coupe and the new “small” Plymouth Fury coupe for 1975 and later.
I remember the 1971-74 Dodge Charger and Plymouth Satellite Sebring as being somewhat popular – although not wildly popular – during their run. But Charger sales declined drastically after 1974, and the new “small” Fury coupe, which was supposed to replace the Satellite Sebring coupe, wasn’t that popular, either. The Cordoba may have simply mopped up a fair number of people who would have otherwise bought Dodge or Plymouth intermediate coupes.
That’s an interesting take on sales of the 1975 Coronet and Fury 2-doors being cannibalized by the Cordoba. If it did, in fact, take place like that, Chrysler made out since the Cordoba almost certainly had a higher profit margin than the lesser cars. It’s the inverse of the Plymouth Duster’s ‘catastrophic success’ which killed sales of the new, more profitable 1970 E-body ponycars.
I was really rather surprised that the intermediate Fury 2-door made it all the way through 1978 as the Coronet 2-door only lasted for two years.
Dodge had an equivalent to the small Fury coupe every year from 75 to 78: 75 Coronet, 76 Charger, 77/78 Monaco.
I think its hard to overstate Iacocca’s role. By 1979, Chrysler had become a company that could foul up a lockwasher. They had competent engineers and line workers and sales people, but they were all in a system that was so hopelessly screwed up that everything they launched and most of what they built was a disaster.
Within about 2 years after Iacocca took over, there was not a single high level manager from Old Chrysler left. Iacocca was reported as really wanting to keep some good Chrysler managers, but they had all come up through a system that failed to give them the skills needed for their jobs. Very much like the way GM was in the 90s and 00s.
If I recall correctly, in his first book, Iacocca claimed that he was firing one high-level person a week during his early years at Chrysler.
It probably wouldn’t have made much difference, but Lynn Townsend’s goofy legacy of having Riccardo and Cafiaro (two guys that hated each other) as co-CEOs certainly didn’t help matters. Still, it’s one of those ‘what might have been’ questions if either Riccardo or Cafiaro had been the sole CEO during what was one of Chrysler’s worst periods.
It’s also worth mentioning that I recall that Iacocca in his book gave a lot of credit to Riccardo for telling Iacocca the unvarnished truth about Chrysler’s situation during the transition. Iacocca felt that Riccardo really wanted Chrysler to succeed, so he did everything he could to let Iacocca know the whole story, both good and (mostly) bad. Without Riccardo’s willingness to share his complete knowledge, Iacocca might not have been able to make the tough decisions that ultimately led to Chrysler becoming profitable again.
I don’t see the attraction of the original Cordoba, a blatant copy of the concurrent Chevy Monte Carlo (at least until the latter went to those silly stacked rectangular headlights). Why not get the original and have better handling and reliability to boot?
The Chrysler nameplate still had a fair amount of prestige among middle America in the mid-1970s. And the first-generation Cordoba did have nicer interiors than a contemporary Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
It would seem Cordoba hit a sweet spot in ’75-’77, when both the T-Bird and Cougar suffered from terminal bloat, and neither the Cutlass Supreme or Buick Regal coupes benefited from the extended hood of the Monte Carlo or Grand Prix, giving Chrysler a rare market advantage.
Could never warm to these cars, to be honest. They had better proportions than the ’80 T-Bird and Cougar, but the detailing was pretty crude as noted by others – and including my personal pet peeve, the oddly wrapped bumper treatment they shared with the R-Bodies. Would’ve looked better if they’d given them a full plastic cover, as GM would do with their coupes.
The Cordoba didn’t sell against the Riviera. It was a dollar for dollar match with the Buick Regal, and a bit upscale from the Cutlass Supreme. The E-bodies clearly were a class above.
hubba
What, come on man-you put this car above the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, & Buick Regal. No way I don;t think so.
I would.
XR7Matt
If you do not mind saying. Why would you take this car over the Olds Cutlass Supreme / Buick Regal. Which were modern day muscle cars from the glorious 60’s & 70’s models. When they where first introduced I think in 82 or 83 (Coupes). There were a major hit!
Keep in mind the Regal went on to become the Gran National GNX turbo. One of the most desired cars on the planet!
Even the Regal T-Type of 1983 was incredible. The Cutlass Supreme outsold the Cordoba by leaps and bounds. People do not even know about the Cordoba for the most part.
Because in 80-82, when they were actually competing with the Cordoba/Mirada, they were still tinsel laden puffy top PLCs that couldn’t be further removed from muscle cars. We’re not talking potential using the hindsight of what came later – any car no matter how mundane can be made desirable with the right support – yes, the A/G bodies obviously got quite a reprieve with the Turbo Buicks, with GNXs in particular reaching six figures at auctions today, but their potential took 5 years to realize, and had the Grand National between been a mere paint on performance scheme ala Monte Carlo SS or Cutlass 442/Hurst Olds, they’d be about as desirable, which is to say not very. The Chrysler was plain gone by this time, who knows what kind of improvements and refinements could have been made as GM made theirs?
Also I don’t judge cars by sales figures, just as I don’t listen to music just because it’s in the top 10. I’ve seen a few Miradas and Cordobas with engine swaps locally, a black Cordoba LS in particular, that look every bit as cool as a Grand National. It took the owner’s ambition to unleash those cars potential but the net effect were cars I find much more interesting and attractive than Regals and Cutlasses.
“If you do not mind saying. Why would you take this car over the Olds Cutlass Supreme / Buick Regal. Which were modern day muscle cars from the glorious 60’s & 70’s models. When they where first introduced I think in 82 or 83 (Coupes). There were a major hit!”
Have you actually driven a 1980’s non Gran National or turbo T- Type Buick Regal or any 1980’s A/G Body Cutlass Supreme?
Let me tell you driving one is night and day over the old muscle car. My brother has a 1972 Cutlass S coupe with the 455 V8. That car is quite quick. By contrast my 1985 Cutlass Supreme with the 3.8l V6 and my 1987 Cutlass Supreme with the 307 V8 were total dogs, they could not even get out of their own way.
XR7Matt
Thanks for the response, I see you’re POV.
I’m just perplexed that Chrysler thought this could go toe to toe with a Buick Rivera. Which at the time were the official choice of ride for many Dentist, Doctors etc (especially in touring convertible form). The Cordoba feels like one level above the Dodge Aries. That’s allot of ground to cover.
I guess any late 70’s to very early 90’s Chrysler cars makes me instantly think of the K car platform. Including the Cordoba above.
It’s like K-car madness. Literally everything Chrysler pumped out (minus their trucks-and joint ventures like the Colt/Conquest/Masarati etc) was built on the K-Car platform. I struggle with this often because I like some features & models Chrysler offered. I also get the K-Car saved the company, but for prestige and impressive driving dynamics. Chrysler needed something built away from the K-Car platform. At a glance I think of the Cordoba as a K-car frame regardless of it’s shell.
strike the Maserati from that list; even it sat upon a straight K platform with K steering gear, suspension, inner body, and switchgear.
Later models got a standard Mitsubishi V6 maded to the Ultradrive 4 speed automatic, just like you minivan or Plymouth Accliaim, along with a Dodge Caravan minivan steering wheel.
In terms of market position and pricing, that’s exactly where Chrysler put the Cordoba in 1980: even with the Buick Regal, and a few hundred more than the Cutlass. Whether it belongs in that position on merit is subjective.
The first Cordoba was significantly more expensive than the Cutlass and Regal, and Chrysler couldn’t build enough. However, it was significantly less expensive than Thunderbird, Riviera, etc.
hubba
That is a wacky formula, for Chrysler, and yet the consumer accepted it for some reason.
Very odd place car buyers were in back in the late 70’s early 80’s. So many decisions back then did not make sense. Rather it was zapping HP from cars due to the fuel crisis. The plain Jane boxy look.
I would have thought this car was just a step above a Dodge Aries.
There may be some confusion here. The Cordoba isn’t an E body. Those are.the GM FWD coupes: Riviera, etc.
Yup. Give me a 75-77 Cordoba. You can have these.
I actually got to see a 1978 Cordoba, only once. They weren’t a big seller, but I remember it being a very roomy and rather comfy looking car. The fact that it had a Ford bell housing bolt pattern on the transmission, a Ford starter/separate solenoid on the fender design, and a Delco-Remy generator on it, made me wonder how Chrysler called this vehicle a “Chrysler” product.
Maybe that is why many mechanics of the older times, used to call AMC(the predecessor to Chrysler): All Makes Cars
At least they put the 318 and 360 engine in them. Those were relatively rugged, torquey engines.
A shame these didn’t have more success than they did, especially considering their competitors didn’t face such a downturn in sales. Chrysler’s stench of death I guess had a lot to do with it.
Personally, I find the 1980-1983 Cordoba to be one of the most beautiful Chryslers of the 1980s (even better so than the original Cordoba) and definitely one of the cleanest designs in personal luxury coupes of the era, making the GM E-bodies look short and pudgy in comparison, and don’t even get me started on the 1980-1980 Cougar/T-Bird.
Anybody else notice the resemblance to the 1979-81 New Yorker? I mean in the formal roof line, the shape of the wheel openings, the body side creases and the front clip – I think Chrysler was going for a shared look between the two.
I like this gen Cordoba but think it looks way better in darker colours. There were quality issues and the economy was in deep recession, two good reasons it never gained traction. Ford faired just as badly with it’s Thunderbird/Cougar; I would have picked the Cordoba over these two any day.
This same platform was also used for the ’81-83 Imperial.
I fully agree on all the reasons why this car didn’t sell as well as it’s older counterpart. But there was another one I think, anyone walking into a Chrysler Plymouth dealership in 1980, could also choose from the refreshed LeBaron Coupe, which probably exuded more of the old Cordoba’s charisma then the 1980 Cordoba itself. It was smaller so people probably associated that with better gas mileage. Though I know the LeBaron coupes of this era didn’t sell all that well either, I wonder if you took the sales figures for the actual Cordoba and the sales figures for the LeBaron Coupes and combined the, if they don’t come closer to the 75-77 Cordoba sales figures.
I don’t pay a lot of attention to Chryslers. This car reminds me why. Rather than bemoan its near complete lack of identity I’d like ask if readers here can explain Chryslers prolonged inability to hire good stylists and let them design attractive cars. It costs as much to make a dull car as a good one.
Gimme a slick top Cordoba LS! Joe Dennis caught one in the wild some while back, it was either black or dark blue but pretty close to my ideal version of a J body coupe. Alloy wheels, RWL tires, no vinyl roof but it had a slant 6 if I remember right. Ive already seen a pristine Mirada stuffed with the guts of an LX Charger R/T so I know its feasible. These bodys are good looking enough to warrant an upgrade…if not THAT ambitious, at least a healthy 360 mated to either an O/D automatic or an A-833 4spd would make a nice ride.
Great memory, MoparRocker74! https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/in-motion-classic/in-motion-classic-1981-chrysler-cordoba-ls-all-dressed-up-with-nowhere-to-go/
It was a dark blue ’81 LS with the Slant Six and super-low miles. I also did a follow-up piece about two weeks later after a chance meeting with the car and it’s owner.
Yup it was blue…so dark it’s almost black. Made me jealous with that find!
The Mirada with the SRT8 guts was an amazing and ambitious project.. I’ve always liked the Mirada styling.. just without the carriage roof.. make mine a steel roof slick top!
Here’s an article about the Mirada and its modern transformation!
http://bangshift.com/general-news/car-features/srt-8-mirada-how-a-2007-dodge-charger-srt-8-wound-up-underneath-a-1980s-dodge/
I’d settle for a stock E58 360, maybe even with functioning (or at least visually correct) mission controls . My idea in old cars is to relive the authentic period, warts and all. IMHO, they weren’t too shabby for the era, anyway.
They are extremely rare and more commonly seen in Miradas.
That’s the one, Sonic. Ive seen the BangShift article and at least one other. The builder really did an amazing job. Can’t say I agree with the vinyl top or keeping the SRT8 wheels but the day I have the skills and money to pull off such a build, my opinion will matter a lot more.
I’m a big fan of this bodystyle…I rode in a first-series Cordoba once, and mainly remember the red velour and the proud owner telling me how he can feel when the 4bbl carb opens up…I was about 10 then and had no idea what he was talking about.
My cub scout leader’s husband had one in this style…ice blue metallic with dark blue top and interior. Beautiful car, great lines, and a lot nicer than the brown Duster his wife drove.
A “sheer” big-car body style by Chrysler. If Chrysler had the resources to put door pillars, and made a 4 door J body equivalent to replace the M and got rid of that ridiculous lean-burn computer that apparently never worked properly from day one (pay attention 1976 Chrysler!!), they’d likely have created a worthy competitor (imo) to GMs A/G bodies. If I were boss, that’s what I’d dictate (mwaha..)
I don’t like frameless window frames. In my opinion, they’re a smashed window waiting to happen due to possible alignment issues.
Anyway, given the J Cordobas actual length of 210″ and wheelbase of 112.7″ (Wikipedia, CurbsideClassic), this is in B body territory as the Caprice is only about 2 or 3 inches longer in terms of length or wheelbase. Of course, these J/M bodies had a narrower width of 72″ to the B’s 75-79 inches (sedan, wagon, respectively) and thick doors that no doubt contributed to their mid-sized interior dimensions (at least the Ms had thick doors from personal experience, I’m not sure about the J’s).
The J/M cars were definitely unique in sizing as they were like the Dakotas of the day. Intermediate to the intermediates and full-sizers.
If I were given a hand-me-down nice pristine gun-metal gray 1983 Cordoba (like the one shown above) with accompanying perfect vinyl top, I would definitely take it no problem. A truly beautiful car in my eyes.
+1. I, too, think these v2.0 Cordobas are beautiful, and that gunmetal grey example also really does it for me.
These cars and the 1980-82 T-Bird/Cougar always played second fiddle to the GM A/G body personal coupes in these years. I remember a Ford salesmen talking to my dad back in 1982 saying he wished he could sell at least 2 T-Birds to every 10 Cutlass/Regal sold and that he couldn’t wait for the aero redux coming out the following year for those twins. Those boxy 80-82 models just sat and languished, especially the ridiculous 85 HP 200 sixes and 255 V8 versions.
We sold a few of both of these cars during the 90’s that I distinctly remember. One being a cream colored 1981 Mirada that amazingly didn’t have a vinyl top. It was a bench seat slant six wonder in all of it’s 85 hp glory. It had A/C which we got working, was mostly rust free and ran fairly well when warmed up- a Chrysler hallmark in these years. With two of us in the car and the air blasting on a 90 degree day we drove the poor strangled Slant sixer around for an afternoon. Yes passing on a two lane highway was virtually non existent and flooring the pedal just created more noise and little more locomotion. It did okay in low speed driving at part throttle however but we looked at the 318 as a mandatory option for these cars.
We also had a dark blue 1981 T-Bird with a white vinyl rear top and deluxe interior decor group and wire hubcaps. It was fairly optioned out for the time with most power options and A/C CC and tilt wheel etc. It was also saddled with the woefully underpowered 200 six which performed quite lazily in my 2700 LB Fairmont sedan. The T-Bird was in the 3200 plus LB range which is a full 500 LBS more! Well with the A/C turned on this car was even slower than the Slant six Mirada if that is even possible which required foot to the floor action above about 30 MPG which created lots of racket and virtually no forward progress. Any 255 Ford, 265 Pontiac or 267 small block Chevy V8 would easily run circles around this lunatic setup and probably get better mileage too.
The ad reminds me of SCTV, Eugene Levy as Montalban, going on about how Chrysler is making him say the city name not as up the proper CORR-do-bah, but Cor-DOHH-bah.
I am just the age to have not heard the word until those TV ads. And that parody ad was more memorable than this iteration, but the name Mirada was itself awfully forgettable.
The back end tail lights of the Cordoba looks hideous. the front is OK-somewhat in the right color it can grow on you the more you look at it.
I think the condition and lighting are more unflattering than it actually is, I actually think the rear looks pretty cool on this one I took a picture of, but I’m a sucker for big wide taillights. Though I will concede the slatted design looks more appropriate on the sportier LS or the Mirada than on the more broughamy standard Cordoba.
XR7Matt
I guess I just struggle with early 80’s designs, and have a bias against Chrysler TBH.
It’s like there cars come off the assembly line all shiny and modern looking. Generally due to their over use of Chrome, which when new makes any car look clean and new. But if you notice, after you see Chrysler’s on the road like 4-5 years down the line, after purchased new. They always look dated, sloppy, the luster of them fades super fast. Think of the Chrysler PT Cruiser, 300M, 300, 1993 Concorde, Dodge Dynasty, (All of the early 80’s Chargers, Laser’s, Daytona’s) etc.
There are exceptions. I had a 1994 Dodge Intrepid ES (Black) with the 3.5 H.O and it had a Dodge Viper like wide front end. Cab forward cabins were super ROOMY. All the Jeep division vehicles are cool.
This may be the reason I’m being a bit harsh on this Cordoba. Which I have never seen in person.
I see what you’re saying but that’s definitely not reserved just for Chrysler products during this time period. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a early 80s GM or Ford that didn’t fit that description, you often to look back at brochure pictures to see their intended luster.
XR7Matt
That is true 100%, only the premium imports generally stand the test of time when it comes to design. As usually, it’s the Volvo’s, Saab’s, BMW’s, M-Benz, Jags etc that look timeless from the early 80’s. Even early 80’s Cadillac’s and Lincoln’s still look regal enough for praise even today.
I saw a rendering of a 1981 Cadillac Seville (Coupe) version instead of a sedan version. Let me tell you, if Cadillac would have offered the coupe version the Seville (1980-1985)-it would have been a monster hit. It looks odd-ish in sedan form, but looks like a Rolls-Royce-esk silhouette in two door coupe form (check it out on google).
Of course Caddy could not offer both the coupe Eldorado & Coupe Seville at the same time (conflict of interest to the consumer). But yes you are right bland design was the universal language in the early 80’s with most brands.
No doubt this one looks that good thanks to those burly rear meats. I hope he’s got a nasty surprise under the hood to back up that stance!
It does!
Olds/Buick owned this coupe market, and they had loyal customers. Also, many Impalas were traded in for ‘smaller’ Cutlasses during Oil crisis #2. Cordoba was as out of style as 1975-77 Disco songs in the early 1980’s
Chrysler had the ‘stench of death’ and upper middle buyers stayed away from J bodies in droves. Loyal Mopar folks got them, but then moved on to the 5th Ave sedan when the economy got better in ’83.
Was only when GM messed up with the W bodies, that their coupes faded.
I love these and the Mirada, both inside and out. They have so much more presence than GM’s admittedly handsome A-Body coupes, much better proportions than the Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7, and look much less stuff than GM’s E-Body coupes. Considering how easy it is to swap out whatever anemic engine is in one and chuck in a 360, these are very high on my list of desirable classic cars to buy.
I would like to take one of these Cordobas and turn it into a Pro-Touring car … give it an Art Morrison chassis, Hellcat motor and transmission, but retain the stock appearance so no one would have a clue as to it being a Pro-Touring car.
Not a Córdoba but the cousin car. https://m.facebook.com/SRT8Mirada/
I’d love to get a Mirada CMX sans vinyl top, or even the “letter” car version with the gunsight grille. This Cordoda never appealed to me! The SRT8 Mirada build is gorgeous, but again, I don’t care for the faux convertible top! 🙂
I liked the Cordoba’s hardtop-plus-extra-window look, sort of like the ’80-84 Subaru hardtop but without that car’s lingering ’70s roundness. Too bad the Cordobas, even with all windows, shipped too often with thick padded vinyl tops that ruined the roofline’s crispness.
My FIL had a slant six Mirada company car after having a slant six Dodge St. Regis company car. His then-employer was a Chrysler supplier. While the St. Regis was a POS (but a really nice one), the Mirada was a fair amount better. But for someone who was used to V8 power, the emissions strangled slant six cars were just frustrating.
20-25 years ago I ran across a nicely preserved Mirada while living in Atlanta. It had the 360 and was heavily optioned. I had no idea they were so rare, but I had little kids at the time (and a lousy job). No place for old cars, at that time.
But, if you were to ask me to choose between the 1980 Chrysler J-bodies, the early Fox body Thunderbird or the GM A-body coupes, I’d vote for the Mopars. At that time, all of those cars were pretty horrid, at least the Cordoba/Mirada was styled pretty decently.
Imagine going into your local Chrysler-Plymouth dealer excited to drive the all new Cordoba in the fall of 1979 and then punching the gas to pull out of the dealership driveway and feeling the awesome power (?) from the 90 horsepower slant six pushing 3500 pounds of Chrysler along with yourself and a Herb Tarlek looking salesman and what a let down that must have been. It didn’t get any better when you told Herb’s look-alike you were going to take it out on the freeway and open it up so you could really see what this little sweetheart could do. Right around this time you started thinking about how most of your neighbors drove Oldsmobile Cutlasses and you wondered how close you were to the Oldsmobile dealer.
These cars look to me like the Grand Theft Auto folks needed to put a Generic 80s Brougham model into the game. They’re not bad at all but just so nondescript.
(By the way, I’ve always been impressed on the various car models the GTA folks have done. It’s obvious they have some serious car guys or girls on the staff.)
That is my problem with this generation of Córdoba. It isn’t bad, but it wasn’t an improvement either. It’s nice enough, but kind of like ordering the PLC offered as offered at the Generic Dealership of Generic Motor Company LTD.
Get a rebuilt non-smog 360, torqueflite/Gear Vendors o/d instead of the hopeless early 80s drive-train, uprated bushes and shock absorbers and you have a car to cross a continent in. I wouldn’t say no.
A modern 4-speed auto would be simpler, cheaper and lighter. Trouble is, what?
I can’t help but wonder what might have happened if this very shape had a blue oval on the front and was called a T-Bird for 1980.
Probably the same thing that actually did happen to the new, eighth generation T Bird of this year – a sales disaster. I see little difference between the two. Personal coupe buyers just didn’t take to the awkward downsizing of both these cars. And then there was performance. A slant six in the Córdoba and the even worse 200 c.i. six in the T Bird did not bring the smooth, effortless performance buyers in this market segment expected.
I realize large V-8’s were non-starters during this economy minded period. Maybe they were just the wrong cars for the wrong times.
True, but if you had to worry about fuel economy you aren’t in the luxury market anyway.
I would agree with Roger, I think that had this been a Ford product, it would have sold better. In addition to double digit inflation and interest rates, CAFE was in effect also. All the domestic producers were scrambling to meet the standards back then.
Had domestic car companies adopted electronic fuel injection at the end of the 1970’s, they wouldn’t have foisted such pieces of garbage on us as Variable Venturi or eQuadrajet carburetors on us and the reputational hit they took would not have been as severe.
Instead, we got stuck with 98 HP, 200 ci one-barrel straight-six cylinder near luxury cars like the then-contemporary Thunderbird. There was little thunder in the Thunderbird, it wasn’t even a decent fart. At least the GM A-bodies and the Cordoba/Mirada were pretty decently styled for the times.
Regardless, it wasn’t just downsizing that turned people off. Had it been, the 1979 GM E-bodies would have been dead in the water, like the 1986 models were. The FWD E-bodies made very good sales, even with smaller bodies, engines and oddities such as diesel powertrains.
One cannou\t underestimate the effect of bad PR being slung about. Back then, no one wanted an orphan car, it’s not like today where you can get NOS parts for Russian cars over the internet. It was a serious and real problem, if you had one. You had no resale, possibly no support, you were tied to that car until it became totally worthless. Of course, back then it would only take about six years, but you get the idea.
I still believe these are better cars than their reputation suggests. The Chrysler J-car bones (once sorted out) are very good, but styling is up to one’s taste.
“[A]nd did an excellent job of disguising its Volare underpinnings [… it] sat on the same 112.7″ wheelbase used by all the coupe versions of its various platform mates.”
Well, if we wanna split hairs, the 112.7″ WB coupes were only on LeBarons and Diplomats from ’77-79. Aspen/Volare and ’80-82 LeBaron/Diplomat coupes had the 108.7″ WB.
Pricewise, the Cordoba was comparable to the Pontiac Grand Prix. The Buick Riviera was a good 35% higher priced. What Chrysler expected from the Cordoba is not clear. Wiki suggests mid-size cars. Chrysler brought out the LeBaron and Ford downsized the T-Bird around 1977-78 both of which were direct competition for the Cordoba.
On a different platform (which Chrysler did not have), with different styling, the 1980 Cordoba might have had a different story. I have no idea what might have worked though. The Chrysler New Yorker made a come back in the early 80’s. The Cordoba’s price tag was Newport range though.
I like the proportions of this era Cordoba, but the grille design and pattern don’t work so well for me with the lines. The more sloping front end treatment of the LS and the Mirada is, to me, a far more effective treatment.
Nonetheless an attractive car, and definitely a rare sight!
In agreement with you, Chris, and some others above, in regards to the Cordoba LS, virtually a non-letter 300, and the Dodge Mirada. All those cars seem to be pretty rare on the ground these days. I still find the second generation Cordoba a decent and handsome car; it’s just that I like the LS and Mirada far better – which is the same as I felt back in the day.
i love what the did to the car. yes,the downsize it and made it cleaner to look at. in my books,i wish patriotic ameericans in their day that were willing to buy gm and ford products give this new downsize cars a big chance. so,chrysler will get better quicker. wht’s more,chrysler products have the best leather interiors over gm and ford at the time. and the always did.
Hey, I know I’m late to this thread, but my parents bought me a NEW 1981 Cordoba loaded with everything including a factory sunroof …white paint with white leather interior. I actually asked for the slant 6 (I was a weird kid). This was a truly bizarre choice when kids my age lusted after fast sports cars. Anyway, the car had ludicrously slow acceleration, but the fuel economy was great for a car of its weight.
I am such as 1980 dawned, Iacocca and Co lit a fire under the folks at quality control, because my car arrived with almost zero defects and no rattles or leaks at all. Just two model years earlier, my parents 1979 New Yorker was plagued with insane amounts of factory defects. The improvement in quality control in just 2 years was astonishing. (The ’79 New Yorker ended up being a very decent car once the factory defects were cleaned up)
Hi Andrew,
Your post got me curious. If it had almost zero defects from the factory,
what defect did it have, if you remember?
My Uncle Bob’s last new car was a maroon-and-white gen 2 Cordoba – maroon padded vinyl top that kept the opera window, maroon velour seats. I think it had the V8. Obligatory mention that my current Honda Fit (one of the last) has 130hp from a 1.5L four.
I’ll make an unusual argument for the success of this car. 1980 was a dismal year for car sales, and virtually all car lines saw sales tank.
The “big” 1979 Thunderbird sold 284K, down to 156K for the downsized 1980 model. A loss of 46%
The “big” 1979 Cordoba sold 88K, down to 55K for the downsized 1980 model. A loss of 37%
This Cordoba’s biggest problem was being a Chrysler. The real damage to sales occurred in 1979 when Chrysler was making headlines for all the wrong reasons. The Cordoba had sold close to 170K a few year earlier.
I liked aspects of the styling of the 1980 Cordoba, and it was certainly better than the Thunderturd, but some of the execution fell short in quality compared to the first gen car. I was around a few of these Cordobas, and regret to report it was a rather crappy car, there were certainly better choices.
Among the many carps that can be crapped on the Cordoba, I’ll throw in weak use of the opportunity for product differentiation with the Dodge Charger/Magnum/Mirada/whatchamacallit. Chrysler and Dodge endlessly played in the parts bins for these cars, muddying their identity.
There were a couple of looks that jumped out for these cars, giving the Cordoba a clean luxury vibe, and making the Mirada relatively sporty.
As product manager, I’d have insisted on these looks being reserved for the Cordoba (top) and Mirada (bottom).
We’ve featured several cars here that sold poorly doe to the styling language showing up earlier on a less expensive car, making the aspirational ca seem plebian. The Lexus ES F36250 discussed a few days back illustrates this; open their intro many though the ES 250 looked like a gussied up Camry, which is what it was. It didn’t help that Camrys of that generation had be for sale for over two years by that point. For the next generation of those too cars, Toyota did a switcheroo: the ES 300 came first, followed by the similarly curved Camry. Not only did ES sales skyrocket, but the Camry was received warmly as well. This time around, the ES looked more elegant and more like the LS, but the Camry also looked like an ES that had gone back to basics. Both cars were strong sellers. ES shoppers benefitted from posh accommodations in Lexus showrooms, great service, and from a structure and mechanical fittings proven in a mainstream car. The Camry benefitted from a engine, transmission, and internal body structure shared with one of the most reliable cars eve built. It win-win for Toyota and Lexus
Chrysler was slower learning this. There were the attempts to sell ’62 Darts and ’62 Plymouths that looked like the two year old Valiant/Galant compacts, already controversally styled themselves, The Maserati’s TC by Chrysler, an attractive easygoing 2-seater coupe that attractive enough until the same styling showed up 2 years earlier on the Chrysler LeBaron, and those could seat four, for much less. Finally there was today’s subject car, a 1981 Chrysler Cordoba which actually was the first Chrysler with the deeply chissled bodywork, as shown earlier on the 77-78 Chrysler LeBaron coupes. Note the rear 7/8 view and the six square backlites, and the shaped bodyside crease surrounding them. The idea is that tyou’d see them fist on luxury cars, then a year or two later on the K cars. It didn’t work because the LeBaron/Mirada sold so poorly they didn’t leave any impression, whereas the K cars were everywhere. So they never helped the new smaller K cars which didn’t reference big PLCs, but rather just looked boxy on their own. /
The K cars looked boxy becasue the earlier cars that caried their new styling language flopped (2nd gen Cordoba, Mirada, R-Body full sizers) so veiwer of LK cars coudn’t have capitalized on the similarity.
The trunk on this version of the “Cordoba/Magnum” was basically a “large shoe box.The spare took it all up!!