I didn’t even know this generation Colt was sold here in five-door form; with the Omnirizon having that base covered, I wonder why they bothered. And barring the Chrysler L-body and the Golf, five door hatchbacks (not liftbacks/fastbacks) were unpopular in the US, with many companies choosing not to import theirs. Easy to forget given their popularity in the B and C segments today, with three-doors underrepresented. To be fair, this Colt shows why we used to prefer our hatches without rear doors; no-thanks to that gigantic quarter window, these weren’t especially attractive cars outside three-door and wagon form. But that doesn’t mean this silver car hasn’t earned love from its owners; actually from this angle, it looks like it’s even earned some protection from the Ram parked in front of it. Maybe that Dodge knows it wouldn’t exist if the Colt didn’t help keep its parents alive a decade prior.
Or does it? Chrysler’s relationship with Mitsubishi was abusive compared to that which existed between, say, Ford and Mazda. They didn’t seem particularly grateful for the technology they got. It begs the question: did Chrysler need Mitsubisi? Could they have gotten by with just the Omni and without the 2.6 four, the 3.0 V6 or the Dodge Ram 50? And what sort of profit margins were involved? With Detroit famously unable to profit from its small cars at the same level, did a Dodge dealer make more on a Colt than on an Omni? What insight does this ’80s relic hold into the period’s Chrysler family secrets?