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?
Hatchbacks not popular? Why the hell not? The Volkswagen Rabbit (Golf) seemed to be the only car in the USA and Canada to be offered in 4 door hatchback form. Everyone else only had two door hatchback models. The Honda Civic, available in most markets with a 4 door hatchback was only available in two door style. The Dodge (Mitsubishi) Colt was only available in the USA in two door hatchback style. Why was that? I would think that if you had a small family, or you had a couple of friends, it’d be easier to get into the back seat if you had two extra doors.
Did you read what I wrote? I said five-doors weren’t that popular, outside the Golf and Omni/Horizon. Three-doors were everywhere.
Hatchbacks were just not popular in the US as family transportation. If you wanted 4 doors for a family, you wanted (or at least were pretty much forced to buy) a sedan with a trunk. Witness the popularity of the Jetta vs. the Golf. The Jetta is/was an also-ran in virtually every market except the US compared to the Golf (China has always preferred the Jetta as well). The first two generations of Jetta did offer a 2door version as well, which is interesting as many of the larger American cars had versions with 2-doors and a trunk as well, and lots of people used them as family transportation (Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo etc).
North America is one of the few places in the world that really seems to prefer the sedan bodystyle or at least had become so used to it based on what its dominant manufacurers produced that hatchbacks were always only a minor part of the market. Of course, nobody will admit that CUV’s are effectively hatchbacks with a higher seating position. Weirdly enough (or perhaps not), as CUV/SUV’s became more and more popular, all the 2door versions were eventually replaced by 4door versions.
Hatchbacks were extremely popular in the US in the early 70’s and even into the 80’s. There is a reason that GM came out with the hatchback Nova, and that was because at that time hatchbacks were the fastest growing segment. It is also the reason that the Citation came in 5dr form.
Some other 5drs from the 70’s-80’s
Toyota; Camry, Tercel, Corolla
GM; Nova/Prism, Chevette, Sprint/Metro
Nissan; Stanza
Mazda; 323, 626
Ford; Escort, Tracer (the Aussie import verison), Aspire
The problem was that as time wore on the 5dr became less and less popular while the 4dr took over.
As Paul mentioned for many the hatchback makes people think of penalty boxes and once people had enough of skimping on their automobiles they didn’t want to be reminded of when they “had” to drive an econobox.
Of those the only ones that are truly American would be the Citation, Nova (the 70’s one, not the NUMMI one), the Chevette, and the Escort. Even the Chevette, Escort and Omni are debatable given their shared history with Kadett, Euro-Escort, and Talbot, leaving the Citation and the Nova (which really was more of a curiosity and not often seen).
Every other one is either an import or a captive import.
I do not believe that the 5door outsold the equivalent 4door or 3door if there was one in ANY of these cases. In many if not most other parts of the world I would venture it would be exactly the other way around. 5door, then 3door then 4door.
Liftbacks. This is the Corolla five-door hatch we never got:
I sure remember hatchbacks/liftbacks as being quite popular in SoCal during this era. Paul previously wrote about the Camry version. A friend purchased one new in 84. I thought it was rather ugly but as a new homeowner, it was a practical choice for her. They seemed to lose popularity quite rapidly as time went on.
@ Jim, regardless of their origin all of those cars were sold in the US in 5dr form for at least a while. The mfgs brought them to market in the US because there were at least some models that were at least somewhat successful and they obviously decided that they couldn’t afford not to offer them. True some of them never sold very well and were discontinued sooner or later when they were redesigned. Either way there were some 5dr cars that sold reasonably well in the US when the hatchback body style was in vogue.
At least around here from my recollection the Citation 5dr was its best selling version or at least sold in similar numbers to the 4dr. The Escort 5dr in the early years was the best seller based on my recollection and area. Of course, at the time, in both of those cases there were not 4dr sedan versions available. The Focus initially sold pretty well in 5dr form too.
The reality is that the premise that 5drs did not sell well in the US in the past is bunk. Sure they may not have been as popular as they were in other countries but they did sell in significant numbers for awhile. Of course history is littered with segments that once sold in great numbers but faded away or disappeared almost overnight. Large and mid size 2drs (heck pretty much anything 2dr), Pony cars, personal luxury cars, convertibles, mini pickups, 2dr pickups, the original sport utilities (think CJ, Scout or early Bronco), station wagons and minivans all had their heyday but are gone or only sell a fraction of what they once did. Pretty much the only segment that has soldiered on fairly consistently for 50 or more years is the simple 4dr sedan.
Actually, I don’t believe the five door Mazda GLC (1981-85 generation) was sold as a five door on the mainland U.S. – but – you could get one in Hawaii and Guam (U.S. EPA specs, U.S. standards). Much like the Toyota Corona in the 1960s . . . . Hawaii/Guam had the 2 door Corona wagon and the utility pickup . . . .
Actually, I don’t believe the five door Mazda GLC (1981-85 generation) was sold as a five door on the mainland U.S
It was, probably 81 only. I saw them on the street in Michigan, and I probably have an 81 GLC brochure around here with pix of one. My mom bought one of probably the first shipment of 81 sedans to hit Kalamazoo, in Dec 80. The sedan was such an afterthought that year that it had extra pages glued into the owner’s manual about folding the back seat. and operating the trunk.
All the CUV/SUV terms just mean taller station wagons to me. A hatchback if you desire. See someone will admit it.
Now that I think about it I wish my 4Runner had a hatch instead of that tailgate. Much handier.
I also wonder if hatchbacks are suffering the same kind of backlash as there was with diesels after the GM V8 diesel fiasco. It could be that the Citation and, to lesser extent, 1st edition Escorts putting a bad taste in people’s mouths.
Sort of, and in any case I’d say “suffering” in the past tense – peak Hatchback Hate was sometime in the mid/late ’90s when gas was cheap and Boomers a supermajority of new-car buyers.
The fact that Escorts, Omnis and Chevettes were all hatchbacks while BMWs and Mercedes were all non-hatch set the ball in motion; the VW line was a microcosm of this since the Rabbit and early Mk2 Golf were all Oldsmobilized Westmoreland cars by the early ’80s (even GTIs, at least stylistically) while the Jetta was real, full-fat German.
Well, the Citation and Omni-Horizon sold well with their five-door lhatchback body style. But it came to have an association with cheaper/entry level/sporty cars, and not for family sedans. The same thing is the case in eastern Europe, where trunked sedans have the same perceived higher status as hatchs, and of course China and some other markets.
In Europe, the dominant Golf was/is seen as a “classless” car, hence similar cars are not perceived to have less status. And of course, parking is tighter in Western Europe, which makes hatches more practical.
Maybe this will explain it further: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1980-vw-jetta-slap-a-big-butt-on-the-back-for-those-damn-amerikaner/
Don’t forget the Escort it sold very well in 5dr form and the Escort was the best selling car in the US for a number of years before the Taurus took that position.
I consider the Escort to be more in the liftback mold, but it was a rare and notable success.
Well it all depends on what you think determines a car being called a liftback instead of a hatchback. For those that try to define a liftback as somehow being different than a hatchback it is usually that the liftback has more of a slope than a hatchback which puts the Escort in the hatchback category. Others insist that a liftback is a coupe version of a hatchback, so again the 5dr Escort fails to fit into the liftback category. For those of use that were around during the rise and fall of the hatchback segment many of us believe that the only liftback is a car produced by Toyota as that is what they called their hatchback versions. Note spell check does not recognize liftback but it does hatchback.
The Citation 5dr was also very successful at the beginning, at least until people figured out just how crappy the X cars were. As I posted elsewhere there were lots of 5drs in this era, almost every mainstream mfg felt they had to have at least one in their line up and that was because hatchbacks were a hot segment, at least for awhile and for many the 5dr version sold well.
Did the Colt and other captive import Mitsubishis sold as Chryslers/Dodges/Plymouths actually sell that well? I don’t remember seeing hardly any, even a long time ago.
I’ll say they never really mattered. I think the idea of captive imports is like badge engineering times 10. At least as a car person, I never would’ve considered buying one, even if it was more technologically advanced and higher quality than Chrysler’s own products. Especially in the later years when Chrysler didn’t even shell out a few dollars for badging. Captive imports are the mystery meat of cars.
I think it helped both parties – Mitsubishi got more incremental sales volume while having a relatively small dealer network and Dodge got something else to offer in their showrooms that was pretty much guaranteed to be profitable on some (small) level. On the West Coast a lot of people wanted imports but not everyone was near an import dealership. Look at it like this: Generally every small town or suburb had a Dodge dealer but there were only a few Mitsu dealers. You might like to buy a Mitsubishi but wouldn’t want to drive fifty miles for service. So you buy the Dodge equivalent instead. Or you came in to look at the Omni but for whatever reason like the Colt better, it works either way.
Detroit pretty much admitted it was unable to produce a small car at a profit. But if they could buy one for X-$10 from Mitsubishi, slap a $2 badge on it and sell it for X, they just made a guaranteed $8. (example numbers are obviously made up)
You really only saw this with smaller manufacturers (Mitsu, Isuzu, Mazda to some extent, Suzuki, Daewoo), you generally would not see rebadged Toyota’s or Nissan’s (except for the NUMMI Nova of course but that was more of a joint venture).
It helped both parties, especially in the case of these two. Don’t forget, Mitsubish didn’t begin to set up its own dealerships in the US until 1982! From 1971 until then, Dodge dealers were the only place to buy these cars. And this was during the great import boom of the 70s.
And even when Mitsubishi started its own distribution, initially they could only sell cars not sold by Chrysler, meaning the Tredia, Cordia and Starion. And it took years before Mitsubishi had a decent dealer network, and a full stable of cars to sell in them.
It was a marriage of great convenience to both Mitsu and Chrysler. And they both benefited enormously. But like many marriages of convenience, there wasn’t much love, and things started to go sour. As Chrysler expanded its range of small FWD cars, it needed Mitsu less and less. And Mitsu chafed at being stuck in Chrysler dealers. So they began their split.
Nothing mysterious. And it was a similar story for the other captive imports. Suzuki got its toe hold in the US thanks to the Chevy Sprint (Metro). GM was desperate for really small cars, especially built in Japan. But as gas prices moderated, in the 90s those marriages all became largely irrelevant.
The Mazda story is a bit different, since Mazda had its own dealers from early on, but both Ford and Mazda benefited from selling the Mazda pickup as the Ford Courier. Same story: eventually Ford built the Ranger, making the courier irrelevant. But in its day, it was an important vehicle to have for Ford during the great mini-pickup boom.
Same with Isuzu: Chevy got the LUV pickup, which they desperate needed. And thta gave Isuzu a toe hold in the US market.
The marketplace is always changing and evolving, and during the 70s, these tie-ups with Japanese partners were seen to be utterly essential. There are other examples too.
Thank you both for all the info. I think I see the bigger picture now. 🙂
I think it’s possible, though, that Mitsu wanted to split off earlier. Even if that weren’t the case, they got a raw deal, and were unable to sell some of their more popular or otherwise better-equipped cars at the same time Dodge/Plymouth did.
…and I just began wondering because I began to wonder what Chrysler would’ve looked like by the late ’80s had there been a situation with only K-car and L-body technology, sans Mitsubishi.
Hmm. Then you’d be taking the 2.6 four and 3 litre V6 out of the equation for Chrysler in the eighties. Could Chrysler possibly have brought their 2.5 and turbo derivatives of the 2.2 to the market any quicker? I think that would have nasty ramifications for their FWD product line.
This is exactly what I’m wondering. Would those omissions have radically changed what Chrysler was able to accomplish?
The 2.6 with its problematic carb, timing chain/silent shaft and tendency to burn oil and the early 3.0’s tendency to burn even larger amounts of oil weren’t really that good for Chrysler”s reputation. I’d certainly take the lower power of a 2.5 over the more problematic 2.6. I think they could have brought the 2.5 version to market quicker but with the 2.6 there wasn’t any rush, ditto for the 3.3 with the 3.0 available. So while the Mitsu marriage definitely helped Chrysler in the early days, it also probably hurt them in the long run by giving them an easy out and making them lazy.
I remember seeing LOTS of these captive Mitsubishis (Plymouth Champs/Dodge Colts – five door hatches, but mostly 3 door and four-door notchbacks) back in the day . . . . usually the “L” stripper models . . . . and this was when I was living in Virginia . . . . seemed in the papers, the Tidewater Dodge dealers would advertise the 3 door and 5 door models are their price leaders to get people into the showrooms.
The other thing that’s important to consider is why Chrysler and Mitsubishi originally got into their relationship.
Throughout the ’60s and ’70s, there were several rounds of serious talks in Japan about market liberalization. MITI (the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry) was very uneasy about that idea for obvious reasons: There was a serious risk (especially in the early ’60s) that the native industry would just be steamrolled. However, at various points, there was political pressure to do it; Japan’s protectionist import laws didn’t make a lot of friends outside Japan.
Around 1970, that idea came up again in a serious way. Nobody was quite sure exactly what direction any liberalization would go — during the previous debate in the early ’60s, there was talk about requiring foreign companies to have a joint venture with a Japanese company to be allowed to set up factories on Japanese soil, for instance. As a result, both foreign and domestic automakers started nosing around for potential partnerships; for the Japanese companies, I think the incentive was to make sure they’d still at least get a piece if the gaijin started selling and/or building cars in Japan in a serious way. So, for Chrysler, the Mitsubishi deal represented both a short-term response to rival subcompacts without having to develop one in-house and also a potential foot in the door to a possibly opening Japanese market.
Nothing really came of the liberalization talk — I think there was some capital investment liberalization, but that was about it — and Japanese vehicle tax laws would have required most foreign automakers to stick to their smaller European models anyway, but Chrysler undoubtedly saw an opportunity.
Liftback is nothing really different than a hatchback, it was just Toyota’s cheezy marketing name to try and make their hatchbacks seem somewhat sporty vs the multitude of other hatchbacks on the market at the time.
The captive imports, at least at the Mopar dealers, were very important the Colt sold very well and had a strong following at least in the original 2dr form. It only makes sense for them to add a 4dr to attempt to increase its market share. Ford did pretty well with the 4dr hatchback Escort in the first generation, so they probably felt pressured to offer one since the Escort was the best selling car in the US.
Actually, a liftback usually has a longer rear overhand than a hatchback. A hatchback is significantly shorter than a sedan or wagon built on the same platform:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Three_body_styles_with_pillars_and_boxes.png
– …while a liftback has the same overall length and rear overhang. The terminology is still very confusing, though, and often serves purely marketing purpose, indeed. Toyota didn’t invent the term, it had been used long before. Currently, Skoda is producing several liftbacks, all of which have the visual appearance of a sedan (3-box styling) – and a hatch in the back. Much like the Kaiser Traveller from the 1950s. These are not hatchbacks or fastbacks.
Here’s a good example of marketing silliness with terminology: In the years 2004-2007, Chevrolet sold their Malibu MAXX 5-door model as an “Extended Sedan”. Oh my, it is NOT a “hatchback….! “A rose is a rose by any other name”…. (part of the famous quote by Gertrude Stein’s, 1913 poem).
Like many automotive body style terms like “coupe” “sedan” etc, the term “liftback” cannot be clearly delineate as having certain hard differences from a “hatchback”. Ultimately, they’re interchangeable, and were used as such on a wide variety of cars, from ones with little or no rear overhang (Tercel Liftback), to others with a longer tail. It’s a marketing term that came to be used generically, mainly in the US.
To be fair, the sedans had the same huge quarter windows.
I had an ’87 Colt three-door in the mid ’90s, it was the first car I ever owned that wasn’t a completely worn-out clunker. Good car, replaced before it was due because of meeting its’ end on a suddenly snow-slickened road. And just after a new clutch – aargh!
A very loose two minute Photoshop job, combining the front body structure of the Mitsubishi Tredia and Paul’s photo of the Nissan Pulsar 5 door hatch, creates a reasonable facsimile of the Colt 5 door…
What are all the “crossovers” but overgrown 4 door hatchbacks. I don’t get why Americans will buy an ungainly crossover but not a true hatchback.
Hatches have always been more popular in Canada, where there’s been more desire for practicality in a car rather than status.
Would you agree that purchasing power was lower in Canada? i.e. if the equivalent dollar only stretches so far and the same car is more expensive across the border as certainly was the case in the 80’s and 90’s, then practicality tends to move to the forefront.
Not anymore, Jim. I’d say the average family is better off in Canada than in the USA due to some of our tax credits (earned income and children being examples) and social programs.
Hatchbacks are popular here due to their utility and low running costs. This is really true in the eastern sections of the country with their brutal winters. Cars are bought as disposable winter transportation. Often there is more than one car in the family. My cousin in Quebec as a 2010 Passat he drives in summer, but in winter for his 45 min commute to work he drives a 2008 Accent hatchback he bought new.
Most crossovers are fully stretched out wagon bodies. Ford Flex is the ultimate crossover big box on wheels, as a result, there is simply a lot more room in the vehicle for third row seating and cargo. Redesigning vehicles as hatches makes them smaller, probably a bit lighter, and therefore slightly thriftier with fuel. Crossovers and hatches serve different buyers.
I agree that crossovers are station wagons, not hatchbacks.
Would the BMW X6, the Acura ZDX, and the Honda Crosstour be liftback, hatchback, wagon or just abominations 🙂 They are certainly considered crossovers by the market.
Abominations.
Some quirky cars work for me. The Crosstour is one. The ZDX isn’t on my radar (or anybody else’s). The X6 is just huge, strange and expensive in one convenient package. Reminds me of the Mercedes crossover thing that was very expensive, and while different, also never found a buyer base. Can’t recall its name and can’t figure a Google search that will find it. Now that is an obscure car!
Strange Mercedes Crossover Thing…do you mean the R-class?
To me at least, that was a minivan with a longish nose and without sliding doors. Or, to rephrase, a minivan with exceptionally bad packaging and several handicaps but able to be called a crossover.
Saw one of these once, as a security car at my brother’s college 20+ years ago. Those turn signals are huge, btw
There used to be oodles of 5 door hatches.
The first gen front drive Colt was available as a 5 door, I have seen one impersonating a cab on Magnum PI.
The Renault R5 was available in the US as a 5 door for it’s last couple years.
The Kenosha built Renault Encore was available as a 5 door.
The first gen front drive Mazda GLC was available as a 5 door, though it was dropped when the GLC sedan came out.
The late 80s NUMMI built Nova, and the early Prizm were both available as 5 doors.
Hatchs just aren’t fashionable in the US anymore. The VW Golf and Ford Focus are the only two real players in 5 doordom now.
Actually, it seems they’re popular again; the Honda fit, for instance, is a money maker. And Mazda didn’t bring its 3-door Mazda2; same with the Fiesta.
Mazda also makes a 2 sedan but never bothered to offer it in the US.
Generally speaking, where there’s a choice within a line now the hatch is an upgrade which burnishes their image not so much in itself (being “only” $500-1000 extra) but in terms of who’s seen driving them.
If the new (sub)compact’s a single’s personal or only family car, or the other car’s an older paid-off small one (likely to be a sedan from the era when that was all that’s available) it makes financial sense to pop for the hatch. If there’s a pickup/SUV/crossover in the household and the new car’s mainly a commuter, not so much. So, hatch buyers tend to be younger and more urban, thus “hipper”, than small-sedan buyers.
I’ve always disliked the fact that the more useful body style is now considered an “upgrade”, as with the Focus and Fiesta.
Not to mention certain cars which look fine as hatches look exceptionally ugly with a trunk tacked on. I’m looking at you, Fiesta.
Has Ford now dumped the Fiesta four-door? I don’t know that I’ve seen one with the recent facelift.
Do captive imports matter? Opels mattered in the ’70s, I think. I had a ’73 Manta that was life altering (of course I was young and impressionable). The dealer experience (Buick) was sometimes good, sometimes bad, always a little creepy–at best you were the red-headed stepchild.
The Opel Manta was later replaced by the Opel Kadett based Buick Opel Isuzu/Isuzu Gemini/I-Mark.
Here in Malaysia, this generation of the Mitsubishi was built locally and sold as the Proton Saga – Malaysia’s first “national car”. It was launched only as a 4 door sedan, the hatchback and estate were never assembled. However after a couple of years they launched the 5 door with a “bustle boot” similar to the Ford Escort of the same era. Why Proton felt the need to create a whole different body style when they would have had access to the 5 door hatchback model from Mitsubishi is a bit of a mystery to me.
There are still thousands of these on the roads here.
These look better, and they were long lived. When did they go out of production again? When I was there in 2000, they were all over the place. Are Malaysia’s imported car tariffs still in place?
Perry, believe it or not these were produced until 2008, with slight cosmetic tweaks along the way. So that is something like 24 years in production….
Yes, the tax is still in place – new cars are incredibly expensive – maybe twice the price of the USA. And they seem to be de-contented to keep the price low, but that could be something done for the whole of SE Asia, as the purchasing power is not there yet.
@ Dave B: believe you’re thinking of the Mercedes R-class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_R-Class
No longer sold in North America or Europe, but did relatively well in China. Seems Communist Party officials liked being chauffeured around in them.
I love hatchbacks. I still to this day miss my 2008 Fit, which was a perfect city car. Loads of space, incredible utility, cheap and really fun to drive. I am seriously tempted to buy a 2015 I liked it so much.
Chrysler was more into the captive import thing than the other car makers. At first, it was to plug the huge hole in their line, when they had no small car to sell. When the Omnirizon came along there were still lots of customers who loved their Mitsubishi cars and why not? Compared to anything made in the USA at the time they were very well made, reliable cars that were cheap to buy and run.
Up until the Yen revaluation of 1985, there was money to be made on these cars for Chrysler. Here in Canada at least the Japanese stuff was spun off to Eagle and then quietly killed circa 1993 I think.
I drive a 5door hatch excellent utility it swallows an amazing amount of stuff roomy comfortable easy as to park, great car I’ll get another if this one dies.
As interesting a question as it is, I wonder what the import car “landscape” would look like today if the “Big 3” had not bothered with captive imports. Remember, Ford and GM sold import models from Europe as far back as the early-mid 60s.
Mitsubishi in a few other countries had an “independent” distributor and for better or worse the Japanese company’s future was determined by people not directly under it’s control.
As far as the 5 door hatch or lift back…Ford’s largest car in Europe, the Granada (Scorpio) was available in the 80s as a 5 door hatch and wagon before Ford bowed to sales pressure and added the 4 door sedan which eventually edged out the hatch then the wagon.
Why do car companies offer a 5 door hatch and a wagon? They are basically the same car.
The hatch of a wagon is in a more vertical position, that means more cargo space. If you make that hatchback with the hatch in a more vertical position taller then you’ve got a CUV. Which makes me wonder when we see the first CUV-hearse. Much easier to load and unload, better for your back. Good ergonomics, that’s important.
There already are “CUV” hearses being made based on the Lincoln MKT.
Trying the picture again, note these are the versions from just one company, there are others out there with a more traditional raised roof.
Mrs. JPC’s first new car was a 1983 Plymouth Colt (yes, Plymouth Colt) 4 door hatchback. She sold it to her brother in 1988 and then I bought it back from him around 1990 or 91. It was the Colt that was the generation before this one.
Having driven both a Horizon (my mother’s 1980) and the Colt, there was a definite difference. The Horizon was a bigger car, and felt like a bigger car. The Colt had that hard-to-define quality of a Japanese car of the time. It was simple and everything worked smoothly. My mother would never have bought a Colt, but she was happy with the larger, broughamier Horizon.
I liked the Colt quite a bit. The Twin Stick 4 speed was fun to drive. Sadly, it was totalled when a guy in a Tempo pulled out in front of me on my way to work one fall morning.
A very long time since I saw one of these.The rust monster and UK climate killed most of them by now I suspect.
I remember being so puzzled as a kid when I found a Colt Vista, that someone felt the need to bring back from the US Into Chile. It just was like nothing I found here, and this was years before I had internet. And on the hatchback thing, Chile also used to be mostly a sedan market, they being seen as serious family cars. But sales of hatchbacks are growing, as seems to be the worldwide trend.
The Colt Vista was the bigger wagon version, correct? IE Chariot?
The 1983 Dodge Colt 5 Door Hatchback and 1983 Dodge Omni 5 Door Hatchback might be similar in size and style, but that is where both the similarities end especially since the Dodge Colt was based from Mitsubishi technology and the Dodge Omni was actually based from Chrysler’s former French affiliate aka Talbot/Simca Horizon so the Omni and Horizon 5 Door Hatchbacks were actually from French origins.
Your picture shows almost exactly the two cars I compared by my experience.
YES when I saw your comments, I was actually going to post those side by side photos since it was reminiscent of those era and may have brought you back good memories in having to experienced driving both cars.
Shown here were the 4 Door Sedan versions of Mitsubishi Cars related to the Mitsubishi Colt shown here before and during this Colt’s generation.