I may be among the minority here, but I find the second generation Chrysler Cordoba to be a beautiful car, even more so than the original. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, the 1980-1983 Cordoba never matched the success of its predecessor.
Regardless, some toying around (extending the wheelbase and length slightly and reducing the length of the front doors) resulted in a rather appealing four-door package, much more so than the very generic looking LeBaron/New Yorker/New Yorker Fifth Avenue/Fifth Avenue M-body sedans. Given its usage today for a car of this type, I’ve decided to call it the Cordoba “Gran Coupé”. Yet the style of the vinyl roof is actually reminiscent of the 1960 Imperial LeBaron roofline, so had Chrysler produced this car, it’s plausible they would have called it the Cordoba LeBaron, just to confuse us all even more.
Related Reading:
I would buy it!
Love this, Brendan!! It gives off an “Imperial” vibe, even…
It does. Now for comparison’s sake we need a rendition of the ’80 Imperial as a Gran Coupe (though that might be pretty similar to the Seville…)
Wow! Gives a lightness the R-Bodies never achieved.
1980 was an awful year. Our economy tanked, we had hostages in Iran, gas prices were frightening, our president seemed broken and inflation was wildly out of control. It just wasn’t a good year to sell the auto buying market anything that looked like it was larger than an economy car. Folks weren’t in a buying mood unless they needed to replace a car. If they did, they went with a purchase that indicated that they were ready to buckle down for a serious storm.
So Ford, Chrysler and AMC were severely impacted for the next four years. GM succeeded, as did the Japanese, but the other auto makers were hit hard. Ford survived on the Escort and anything they could put on their Fox body cars, Chrysler survived with their Omnirizon and K Car, and AMC ran on vapors and Renault.
So, although your car is a handsome one, I don’t believe it would have succeeded. The second generation Cordoba was a good looking ride, but customers weren’t in a mood for it. The Brougham Years are coming to an end as a marketing phenomena during these years and were being replaced by serious box cars that looked like they were rolling Swiss army knives, capable of doing anything without fuss, frills or fun.
If this was available during the 1970s, it would be a classic today.
The second problem was that Chrysler was giving off a horrible death-odor in 1980. The Omni and Horizon were selling but not much else were. Mopar dealer showrooms were lonely places in 1980.
It’s interesting, though, that these cars didn’t bounce back in the greatly improved new-car market of 1983.
By mid-1982, we knew that Chrysler was going to survive, and the new-car market began recovering in late 1982. The Buick and Oldsmobile rear-wheel-drive intermediates were largely unchanged from 1981, but scored higher sales as the market recovered. The Chrysler Cordoba and Dodge Mirada simply limped along until the end. Even though, in retrospect, these cars (particularly the Dodge Mirada) are more handsome than their GM counterparts.
Nice!, I too liked this body, Perhaps as an Imperial, this would even better, It would have exclusivity as a four door, and with bustle, would have had better proportions than the second generation Cadillac Seville, Spending the extra money on tooling for it MAY have been better than spending on the Gee Whiz experimental electronics the actual Imp had.
Two things. First, I am right there with you Brendan on the 1980 Cordoba. I thought it was a stunningly beautiful car in 1980. This car would have made a beautiful Continental Mark VI. It might have sold as a Lincoln, or even as a 1980 Thunderbird. But coming out as a Chrysler in 1980, it was toast. Still, I think this was one of the most beautiful large U.S. cars made in 1980.
Second, I am normally not a fan of these photoshop-style restylings. But this one is fabulous. A beautiful car. The line that divides the doors could still move a bit forward, but this would have been a knockout. The 4 door Continental Mark VI should have looked so nice.
But to build it would have required spending money that Chrysler did not have. I have long argued that it was a mistake to kill this and the R body just as the market for large cars was starting to wake up again, but I was not the guy running Chrysler at the time and having to make the hard decisions on how to spread resources around without killing the company.
I’m pretty sure both the Lincoln Mark V & VI and the Cordoba were styled by Don De La Rossa, who followed Iacocca over to Chrysler. Completely agree that the 1980 Cordoba was stunning, and purely on an aesthetic basis, it outclassed the Mark VI.
I guess that explains why I first thought I was looking at a Lincoln. Nice looking barge, just needs a little more length in the rear door.
Nice idea but the rear side window would need a divider to wind down into the door. I agree that the second-gen Cordoba was nicer looking than the first, and this four-door would have made for a better-looking Fifth Avenue than the actual M-body version. It certainly wouldn’t have stylistically gone out of date so quickly.
Or, with suicide doors, and update it by name to LeBron.
This concept serves almost as a counterpoint to the R Body coupe idea presented not long ago, which I loved too.
I agree, both the R Body sedans and the Cordoba/Mirada/Magnum of the period were great designs. As has been noted though, the only things selling at a Mopar dealer in those days had front-wheel-drive and 4 cylinders.
I recall being in the showroom in late ’79 while my mother closed the deal on her Horizon TC3 and sitting in a ’79 New Yorker Fifth Avenue. It was big, it was ostentatious, it was pretty, but even as a 12 year old I could almost smell the cheapness of the plastics and switchgear. My father’s 1980 Toronado had a solid “put together” feel to it that was lacking in the Chryslers of this era. That’s not saying much when one considers GM’s own build quality at the time. Of course the cost-cutting was necessary to stave off the grim reaper, but the writing was on the wall: The big Chrysler had seen its better day.
In retrospect it almost looks like a preordained fact that Chrysler pretty much HAD to completely dismantle its large car product line, scale it down to K-based models and start rebuilding that old-school Detroit Iron image back up from ground zero. The M Body New Yorkers and LeBarons were just place card holders for an aging customer base, many of whom had become disenchanted already by this time.
The “M” body Fifth Avenue did become a modest (and perhaps surprising) “hit”, So there were MoPar loyalists who wanted an RWD luxo car, (or else they could have all jumped to Mercury and Buick). Perhaps further differentiation from Plymouth and Dodge would have sold even better.
In Chrysler’s defense, the whole world thought that the big cars were goners. It was undoubtedly well known that the Panther was dead at Ford and that the Fox platform would be the basis for the LTD/Marquis moving forward. Ditto at GM where the B/C body was known to be terminated. Chrysler’s M body was the closest they had for what everyone just knew would be a “big traditional car” moving into the future. But Iacocca turned out to be the only one who actually killed his company’s big platform, while Ford and GM had capacity to spare and kept building them as long as they were selling.
But even GM ultimately fumbled. The Smith regime treated the remaining rear-wheel-drive B-bodies and C-bodies as afterthoughts throughout the remainder of the 1980s. Those cars sold in spite of GM’s efforts to pretend that they didn’t exist.
Ford initially kept the Panther cars because it couldn’t afford to remake them at the same time it was bringing out the Escort, Tempo/Topaz and Taurus/Sable. But Ford did make key improvements to the Panther cars during the 1980s. A 1986 Ford Crown Victoria and Lincoln Town Car were considerably improved over their 1980 counterparts. Can’t say the same about, say, a Chevrolet Caprice or Cadillac Brougham.
I agree, loved these when they came out. I prefer the Dodge Mirada, but both versions were nice. Too bad Chrysler didn’t beef them up a bit for the prices they asked at the time, inflation was rapid.
I also like the second generation Chrysler Cordoba, probably more so than that of the first gen Cordoba.
Yes!
This would make a great “downsized Imperial,” a smallish-yet-premium car (like the Seville was supposed to be).
I was thinking the same thing. Always liked these 2nd gen Cordobas and the 4-dr version would have made a great Imperial, instead of that monstrosity foisted upon carbuyers in 1981. Not even Frank Sinatra could move that overstyled POS.
I thought I was the only 1 who liked the 2nd generation cordobas……and Dodge Mirada……
Great exterior and interior design!
The above rendering would need a B-pillar, although the frameless windows could stay.
The problem here is that with the wheelbase stretch, you are at R-body size, or near to it.
And R-body styling too. No room for the 2 of them in the market.
Chrysler never did mid-size 4-door hardtops, unlike Ford and GM. Gee I wonder why. Could it be that they would have twisted like pretzels without a center post?
As stated above, you’d have a hard time selling this in the economy of the time. Also, you’d have a hard time getting my dad to look at this after our ’78 LeBaron fell apart in the driveway. It even flung a front wheel. (That didn’t happen in the driveway, he was actually driving it)
The funny thing is, they could easily have beat both Ford and GM with an intermediate 4dr hardtop in ’65 – they already had the body on hand from the shrunken “full size” ’64 B-bodies they used for the Coronet and Belvedere. I’ve often wondered why they didn’t, and what the ’66 and ’68 refreshes would have looked like. But Chrysler had a hard time seeing its intermediates as little more than “value” transportation, at least until the muscle car boom. Even then, it’s biggest sales success, the Road Runner, was a stripped down offering.
You know I’d forgotten about those. I guess they wouldn’t have twisted like pretzels after all.
That four door hardtop is rather stunning. I see a lot of Lincoln in it. Both the Mark V and the ’80 Town Car.
For as poorly as the second generation Cordoba sold, there were two in my sphere while the first generation never made an appearance.
One was a beautiful all black car with the formal vinyl cap like the subject car. The other was that cream color that was popular at Chrysler and had the big window in the sail panel. I had quite a few rides in the cream color car.
There was a lot to like about the design, in particular the nod to traditional hardtop styling. But, the bumper integration was poor, it had a very generic rear end with taillights shared with the Dodge, and the interior had too much plastic, including a problem door sill design that was crack prone. The car may also have been another brougham too many in a market that would soon embrace the 1983 Thunderbird.
I do think this car missed the market and you can’t put all the blame on this car’s failure on Chrysler’s general woes or all the crappy economic, political, and energy cost issues of the time.
Here’s my case: The final year for this car was 1983. The economy and car sales, particularly large car sales were surging. The ’83 Cordoba sold more poorly than the ’82, both years around the 10,000 unit mark. Meanwhile, Chrysler’s related M Body Fifth Avenue saw sales of about 50,000 in 1982 and that rocketed to over 80,000 in 1983. The market for broughams was moving fast to four door models.
In the best of markets, I’m not sure the ’80 – ’83 Cordoba would have done very well. It’s performance in the market was so poor that it made sales of the ’80 – ’82 Thunderbird look good.
The ’83 Cordoba sales may have dropped while the Fifth Avenue sales went up, but consider that these cars were essentially on the same platform, shows a preference toward 4Dr cars, hence, this styling exercise might have hit the mark.
Great job on showing the potential of this–beautifully done! And like many others here, I always thought this generation was far better done than the previous version.
Chrysler was in so much trouble at this time–I was in the market, and went to look at the M-body 5th Avenue in ’81. Loved the appearance, but, coming out of a 1977 Ninety Eight, the fit and finish of the big car wasn’t wonderful. The dealer had a Cordoba in “black walnut” (a special edition?) and remarkably, it was actually far better put together/finished than the 5th Avenue.
One artist at the time did a sketch of the original version of the Cordoba, using a clip of the front end on a Coronet body with a Jag XJ6 roof on it. I like your concept better–far more modern–and if only Chrysler had the money to do their cars “right” during this time….
Agreed. Loved that generation Cordoba/Mirada. And — wow — it makes a beautiful gran coupé!
Another Chrysler product cursed by bad timing.
Today I worry that FCA doesn’t know what to do with Chrysler (or Dodge). The (lamentable) trend to CUV’s seems to passed Chrysler by. Why can’t Sergio build a CUV off the 200 platform? They seem to be putting all their eggs in the Jeep/Ram basket.
I don’t think its a bad idea, per se, making Jeep the SUV/CUV maker, Chrysler the near luxury/family car maker, Dodge the sporty car, and Ram the truck maker. Its pretty much one company with multiple divisions all pretty much sold out of the same dealers. If someone wants a nice Mopar SUV, they’ll get a jeep (now that the Durango is being discontinued). I don’t see any point in having Dodge and Chrysler make an SUV as well, they probably just end up fighting with Jeep for sales.
I say this as opposed to GM back in the day when they seemed to think that Chevy, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Saturn all needed to have their own badge engineered van plus their own badge engineered econoboxes and whatever else that should have just been Chevy’s and maybe Pontiacs.
Hmm, except without Durango Dodge is down to Dart and Grand Caravan, both to be discontinued. So their offer going forward is just Charger and Challenger and the ancient Journey? Sounds like Sergio is going to euthanize the Dodge Division.
Chrysler was pushing the K-car hard in the early 80s, so the rest of the line was forgotten, and or ignored by the press and their own advertising.
Nice, Brendan! The padded rear quarter roof suddenly transforms into a traditional cap over some wealthy rear seat passengers who now have their own doors. A logical step further would be to add a chauffeur divider and make it true town car convertible, so they could be seen in their finery as they pulled into the drive at the debut ball…
I want one!
Brendan, excellent work on this. I definitely see what you see in this…its a fantastic looking 4-door hardtop. That said…we HAVE to stop with the ‘4 door coupe’, ‘Gran coupe’, etc. I hate that term. As a hardcore dyed in the wool sporty coupe guy who likes his ‘cars’ with a long hood, short deck and 2 openings in the sides, calling something with 4 doors (doors being defined as forward hinged, having a rolldown window and obviously exposed handles), that term infuriates me the same way I bristled whenever southeasterners would call any carbonated soft drink a ‘Coke’. You didn’t invent the term, youre just applying it retroactively, I know that. But still. *rant over*
I liked the J body coupes too…still do. But 4 distinct coupes, concentrated in 2 divisions, with 3 as Chryslers? WTF? After seeing this, I think the ‘regular’ ‘Doba coupe should have been a 4 door hardtop just like this. The Cordoba LS was my favorite. Even better looking than the Mirada. Those always seemed misplaced to me. The Mirada came off as a Plymouth that wandered off, and the Cordoba LS in every way SHOULD have been the 2nd gen Magnum. The Imperial was fine where it was, it definitely looked the part of the Chrysler flagship…bummer about that half baked FI setup though…
I was waiting for someone to say it! 4 doors – not coupe, period.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand and respect your aggravation with cars being called coupes that have more than two doors. But the “four dour coupe” designation a common practice marketing term these days and likely here to stay for a while. “Four door coupe” is nothing new either, having its origins in the 1962 Rover P5.
Of course 2-doors is the first characteristic I think of when I here “coupe”, but when a vehicle shares the lowered roofline, long hood, and short deck profile associated with coupes versus the more upright sedan counterpart, I have no problem using the coupe term, regardless of doors. I mean, Ford commonly called its station wagons “sedans”, and in fact, “sedan” dates back centuries to the sedan chair, which commonly had only one or at most two “doors”. Terms change with the times.
Nooooooope. Sorry but a footnote in history isn’t trumping establishment here, automakers today make nothing but 4 doors, marketers know 4 doors are milquetoast and are desperate to find any way to spice it up for people. Currently Mercedes is running TV ads for their CUV claiming “coupe like handling” WHAT????
As far as the definition of coupes, if one must to go back centuries to rationalize it, people either aren’t going to care or they’ll just roll their eyes, as I’m doing now. The automobile refined the definition of coupe, it was justified, as the impact and rapid growth of the conveince required some rigid terms to make design distinctions. Nothing has changed in the last 10 years however that somehow makes 4 door coupe acceptable, other than 4 doors outnumbering 2 doors more and more. If rooflines are it well I guess we’ll have to call many late 50s-mid 60s GM 4 door hardtops coupes now too, they often had unique rooflines from their “sedan” counterpart afterall!
I agree, I don’t even call all 2Dr cars coupes! If it shares a roof with a sedan, it’s a 2Dr sedan. If it has a shorter or at least a different roof (or like a Riviera,Corvette ETC lacks a sedan counterpart) it’s a coupe. But 2Drs Only! Calling a wagon a “sedan” bugs me less, But then, I call Suburbans & Cherokees, ETC wagons, mainly because that’s what they were called before the term “SUV” became a thing.
Saturn had a 3 door coupe which could have been a 4 door coupe. I wonder if the 95-99 Riviera would not have been more successful as a 4 door coupe like the Saturn.
I think Mercedes started the 4 door coupe idea, but I don’t think the terminology is right.
“automakers today make nothing but 4 doors, marketers know 4 doors are milquetoast and are desperate to find any way to spice it up for people.”
Right there, buddy! Put the dart in the bullseye. I hear what Brendan is saying. Basically that ‘this is what everyone’s doing these days’. But that doesn’t mean people have to accept it. I call B.S. on the whole practice of marketing over substance. The unfortunate reality is the more and more people are complacent and will accept marketing buzzwords over real innovation.
I wholeheartedly agree that sedans are generally the ‘white bread’ of the industry…been beating that drum most of my life. But as the Chrysler LX cars, the ’60s era Continentals, and Brendan’s photochop proves they don’t HAVE to suck. It just takes some effort and imagination to make an interesting product. Any corporate tool can coin a new term to repackage the same old dreck.
The beauty of conversation is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion 🙂
My first purchase on eBay in 2002 was a 1982 Dodge Mirada, white over red velour interior with a slant six for $1250.00…I got caught up in the flurry of bidding at the end, then suddenly realized I had purchased a 20 year old vehicle in Florida and I lived in Wisconsin! Found one-way tickets to Tampa and headed south…the car was decent (not as nice as it appeared in the eBay photos, though) and driveable. It made it back to Wisconsin with the only issue being the windshield wipers that were very sluggish. I sold it in 2007 when I decided I wanted a convertible.
Sounds like a steal for that price. Good looking car, and if the body/chassis are sound then that’d be a GREAT home for a worked up 360 and some cop car bits.
Your Mirada (the Mirada, in general) was such a sharp-looking car.
Mirada’s were sweet. Somehow they flew under most people’s radar.
Nice Mirada! I always loved these, better than the (admittedly similar) Cordoba. I really liked the more sharply pointed fenders, the Cord-esque grille, and the C-pillar window (it doesn’t strike me as an opera window so I won’t call it one.) Shame they didn’t sell better, but I’d love to find one in good shape someday.
Nice work! Look like what the Imperial or a New Yorker on that platform should have. With all their corporate difficulties and a recession economy, if it had succeeded, it would have been a miracle.