When I saw this Mitsubishi Sapporo that RiveraNotario posted at the Cohort, it reminded my of the Plymouth Sapporo I shot early in my CC career, although that car was a gen1 version and a lot more dolled up than this rather stark version. Apparently this gen2 version (1980-1983) was still sold here, but sales had really dropped off, along with its kissing cousin, the Dodge Challenger.
After these ended in 1983, the platform was recycled for the Mitsubishi Starion/Dodge Conquest.
It’s got those distinctive slanting front and rear ends. But other than that and the bent rear window, it’s pretty generic.
Interesting. I don’t believe I was aware there were 2 generations offered in the US. Then I followed the link to your first-gen post, and got more confused. I absolutely believe that this is a newer car and a different generation, but I’m not sure that at the time I would have noticed a difference between the two.
This is one of those cars where I can barely tell two generations apart, making me wonder how different they really were. The main indicator for me is that the first gen had almost a fastback profile, whereas the second gen is distinctly notched. There’s also the first-year-only (1978) brougham-ification, which included a shiny targa band, opera lights, color-keyed wheel covers, woodgrained dash, and crumpled velour, all of which were ditched for 1979.
I remembering thinking how unusual and modern the Plymouth Sapporo and Dodge Challenger looked when they debuted for the fall of 1977. I also remember that the Plymouth was trimmed to look like a mini-Cordoba, while the Challenger was trying to evoke the sportier image of the “real” Challengers.
I’ll jump on this one, as it warms my heart to see it this morning. My driving career started in a car nearly identical to this one. An ’82 Challenger, in white. The US version had body-colored bumper covers with black trim continuing the lines of the side moldings, as well as body colored power remote side mirrors. The interior was very nicely done, if not with the best quality materials, and the standard equipment list was pretty extensive for the segment. Mine had the same base wheels as the subject, but with trim rings and plasti-chrome center caps they looked a bit more upscale. It was a nice driving car with a smooth shifting 5-speed, but the light rear end got very squirrely very quickly on wet roads or loose gravel (a trait that ultimately caused its demise). The 2.6 had good power for the time, but it wrote checks the rest of the car couldn’t always cash. This was also one of the last true hardtops on the market. Those rear windows roll down almost completely, with just a small crescent of glass remaining visible, in similar fashion to GM’s ’68-72 A bodies. It was a pretty nice little car for its time, but even by ’86 mine was starting to show some rust after 3 Winters. It died an early death.
I didn’t know there were two generations of these. The pictured Challenger was a sharp-looking car, and though rare by me I did see an occasional one growing up. I wonder if anyone takes the Challenger version to car shows and parks next to the classic and modern versions and if there is any snobbery. Same for the Omni-based Chargers of the early 80s.
Funny you should ask. I came across the attached pic of one, apparently at a show, although not next to a ’70. Ironically after my high-school buddy totaled mine its replacement was an ’82 Charger 2.2. And yeah, both of those cars got plenty of snide comments from old-school gearheads at the time, but they were of their moment. FWIW, the 2.2 was a nominally more convincing carrier of the name, in spite of the plastic-fantastic tacky plumage, than the Mitsu was. But yeah, emphasis on “Nominally”.
I recall there being a maroon one of these at the assisted living facility my mom worked at back around 2000-2001, haven’t seen one since then.
I like the look of these enough, the first Gen looks a bit bloated and slug like from the rear that this subtly crisper Gen 2 more than fixes, it looks perfectly contemporary next to a Mustang coupe of the time, with a few superior aspects even(true hardtop with frameless glass) and a few awkward aspects(cowl looks really tall).
I like white cars so it’s not plain to me and I find the Ferrarish star shaped wheels sporty and interesting. Wheel designs go a long way on these folded paper late 70s-mid 80s bodyshapes – a 70 Challenger looks good on poverty caps, wheel covers or rallys, but if this had covers like the plymouth I’d be singing another tune – yuck
The Challenger version is a dirty little secret amongst musclecar mopar diehards but really the name fit this body far better than the Charger name fit the Omni 024
These “Captive Imports” (Chrysler Corp’s term, not mine) from Mitsubishi were nice looking cars. My orange 1978 Challenger had electric powered door mirrors, alloys, and the plaid interior.
I bought mine used off a car lot in Bothell Washington in 1989. It looked and drove well but it didn’t last long as the 2.6 “Silent Shaft” MCA-Jet (chain-driven balance shaft and 3-valve per cylinder head) was at the end of its life with 150k on the odometer.
I had the complex array of timing chains and tensioners professionally replaced but the engine seized while driving home from work on night on the interstate. No drama…just lost speed and stopped running. The engine was locked-up tight as a drum! Sold it for scrap for $250.
If you have to have steels wheels….those are pretty good
In my opinion, the “2nd gen” was just a refresh, not much new, other than tail lights.
If this is the case, then each annual styling change of domestic cars in the 50s/60s is a ‘new gen’, 😉 Even if just adding side marker lights.
The wheelbase and width of the car was increased; it went beyond what appeared to be minor styling revisions.
Mitsubishi even made a gen3 from ’87 till ’89 (at least for Europe). That one evolved to a 4door saloon, but still carries the distinct features of the older ones. I still love that one, hence me still owning it 😉
* The thing I most liked about this unique little coupe was the fact that they were a genuine 2 door pillarless hardtops at time where real pillarless 2 and 4 door hardtops were rarely offered.
* The thing I hated most about this stunning 2 door pillarless hardtop, was the fact that the rear seat side glass did not fully retract. In the fully lowered position a good 3rd of the side glass was still visible above the window sill line. This upset the fact that the car was a pillarless hardtop.
I had a co-worker who had a Dodge Challenger (one of these generations) while I knew him, but previously (before I knew him) also had a Plymouth Sapporo..this wasn’t a common car but knowing someone who had two of them back to back has got to be even more unusual.
Never drove it, but rode in it many times. Back in the early 80’s we were all young, and all had 2 door cars…mine was a Scirocco (Mk1). I even carpooled (in another company) with the Scirocco…and my fellow carpoolers also had 2 door cars, with back seats even smaller than mine…one had a ’78 Ford Fiesta, a tiny car. But the Challenger had a decently large back seat…for a 2 door car, not at all tight . It seemed to be a rather large compact car.
It developed a tire cupping problem on the rear, and shortly later he traded it (for an ’88 Mercury Tracer hatch). He’d made a bunch of short-term money in Asian stocks, and used some of his gains to buy the Tracer. Liked the Tracer too (maybe even more, I’m a confirmed hatchback fan) though I have to say the seats were pretty stiff…almost the opposite of the Challenger, which was pretty plush, especially for a compact car.