Once again, Chrysler paves the way!:
That was instantly what came to mind. I find the Chrysler guinea pigs much cuter than the irritating urban hamsters though.
The Kia commercial was attention-grabbing and perfectly conveyed the message that for the same money you could drive something that stands out, rather than being seen in an “appliance”.
It should be case study material for college advertising majors (if the major still exists).
Do you think they were making fun of Paul’s Scion XB at the 21 second mark?
I believe that the Kia Soul was a direct competitor of the X-Box…
Yes, from what i’ve gathered. Toaster=xB and the washing machine=Nissan Cube. (think of the window shape).
Ok, that makes sense about the Cube=Washer.
Now what was the cardboard box supposed to represent? 😂
Cute way of illustrating an all-too-common malady. Even after all the years I’ve been driving, I’m still inclined to avoid most first-year anythings unless I know the bugs have been fixed.
Great find, Brendan! I…wow, I don’t remember that Concorde ad. I’m not sure what adjectives best apply to it. “Daring”, maybe, if I’m being diplomatic.
I guess those folks alleged* to have been o’er the moon about their new ’93 Concordes didn’t drive at night. Or, um, have any particular preference on whether or not the seatbelts would stay latched in a crash.
*-in the “C.A.R., Inc Early Quality Study”, says the fine print, which implies the existence of a study even more bogus than those from JD Power…
I believe “C.A.R Inc” was Chrysler Advertising Research, a wholly owned subsidiary of Chrysler Corporation.
Huh! And this illustrious Chrysler Advertising Research brigade found people were just absolutely tickled with their new Chryslers, eh? Just try to imagine all of my shock and surprise.
I do recall that inadequate illumination of the original LH headlights supplied by Sylvania were among the cars’ biggest complaint, and were subsequently made brighter in following years.
“Brighter” is giving vastly more credit than is due. The TSB/later-production headlamps were marginally less inadequate if evaluated in conjuction with a big dollop of wishful thinking. These lamps were much too small for the job they were asked to do, especially at the low level of technology and money in them.
The “”improved” headlights for the Dodge Intrepid were on the 1995-1997 cars. Actually they were “less bad.”. Some eBay sellers with new old stock headlights are offering the esrlier, “more bad” 1993-84 version as “1995-97.’
E-Code headlights were on Euro-Soec Chrysler Concordes and you could order the parts, if you knew how to look them up in the Chrysler psrts book. Eagle Vision owners vould use them.too, but they did not fit on thr Intrepid.
I recently replaced the headlights in my 1995 Dodge Intrepid…got tired of polishing them. They were original, and not made by Sylvania, but Wagner. Off all surprises, the Chinese knockoffs for $39/pair are better than the originals ever were but they required re-aiming.
That Intrepid. Incidentally, has ben the mist reliable car in my garage. Its ride is excellent and it handles with more agility thsn anything that lsrge has a right to…better than a lot of smaller cars.
Unless I miss my guess, you know how to immediately visually discern the ’93-’94 lamps from the ’95-’97 items, right? 😉
There was more money in the Europe and Japan(!) headlamps, but they did not have the window-clear lens insisted on by some dillweed in Chrysler’s styling studio. They were still too small, but the lens optics and dual bulbs did a whole lot better job than the US clear lenses and single bulb. And as you say, the export headlamps could only be used on the Vision and Concorde, not on the Intrepid. Ordering them took more than just finding the part numbers in the cattledog (which were right there to see)—you had to get a cooperative dealer parts staffer onside, and in most cases you had to give ’em an export car’s VIN to put in with the order or it would be cancelled because non-US-spec parts. Once in hand, though, there was a chuckle to be had at the label on the box reading “Contents conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards”.
More light can be wrung from the US setup with relays and good wiring, a pair of the best available bulbs, and a very carefully done optical aim job—shine-on-the-wall methods are a very, very distant second preference.
…as Daniel Stern mentioned, there is an easily visible way to tell the “more bad” 1993-1994 Dodge Intrepid headlights from the “less bad” 1995-1997 ones. The 1993-1994 have horizontal lines moulded into the plastic lens. The 1995-1997 do not. The parking/directional lights differ in the same way, lines/no lines; they are supposed to match the headlights.
Sorry about the typos in the prior comment…typing on a phone is problematic with fat fingers!
those hamsters from the hood were way cool!!!
I had the first year of the second generation in a very similar color as the commercial car. It was trouble free. Fantastic and beautiful car.
The Chrysler commercial from that era that I found the most memorable (and impressive) was the 1994 Dodge Ram commercial that was answering the Lexus ‘champagne glasses’ ad. Featuring the Dodge Intrepid sitting in the bed of the Ram pickup on rollers. The Ram apparently going 100 mph. Clever marketing, highlighting a more refined pickup.
That’s pretty good, but my favorite response ad is still the old Land Rover “The loudest sound is the roar of the engine ” parody of Rolls’ “Loudest sound is the ticking of the clock.”
My favorite is the Saturday Night Live parody of the LTD diamond cutting commercials, with the rabbi (Dan Ackroyd?) performing a circumcision. But I can’t find it on YouTube. NBC copyright protection?
The Royal Deluxe II (actually a ’77 or ’78 Mercury Cougar). Dan was the announcer. Not sure who played the rabbi.
I bought one the dealer received in their first shipment. I kept it three months and went back to Buick. I could care less about Chrysler products after my experience with the Concorde.
Whenever I see a Concord mentioned, my gut heaves, for I was a lowly Chrysler service advisor when these cars were just coming out of warranty, or were low milers owned by old guys. They were designed to go five years and no longer. At exactly 130,000 km, everything in the car would break. And I mean everything. Evap coils, compressors, alternators, water pumps and everything electrical in the car.
Worthy of special mention is the upper front suspension. The LH was basically a Renault 21 in drag. The front suspension was never designed to used with a V-6, which in turn cooked it in no time at all. We were doing them under warranty they melted so quickly.
The electrical system was unlike anything else in the Mopar inventory. Much of it was Renault, which is why in failed all the time, and it was hard to diag, since the techs didn’t know much about it, and the Renault crap wouldn’t communicate with old DRB units.
The air intake was, get this, in the left front fender well, facing, no foolin’, downwards. I sold two engines that I can remember from this problem. The battery was in the same fender, making home replacement impossible for most people, who simply couldn’t be bothered.
I try to not come across as negative, but man-o-man did I make a lot of money off of these cars. The brakes were totally inadequate for our mountainous roads and were toast in 20,000 km in West Vancouver because of the hills. At the same time, the cars actually drove quite nicely and were no cheap new, so it was easy to get the owners to spend money on them. Not that they had much choice in the matter.
The second generation was slightly better, but the 2.7 engine was a total dog. If you went 5001 km between oil changes instead of the required 5000, the thing would sludge up and blow up. The larger 3.2 did the same thing. The tolerances were too close for American driving habits, as it was a DB effort mostly. They wanted to use full synthetic, buy the Americans balked at the cost of the factory fill!! Smooth move, eh? Sure saved you in warranty claims.
I could write a book on the stuff I saw Chrysler and GM do.
So that probably explains why, on my third day of ownership, the car basically went haywire. I pulled up to my office door, got out to take something in, and came back to find the wipers on, none of the dashboard gauges or lights working, and the radio inoperative. Basically, if it was off when I got out, it was now on, and if it was working before, it wasn’t now. I pulled into my parking space, tried cutting it off, but it wouldn’t shut off. I got out, kicked the door, and left it doing all of these crazy things. I told the security guard who came over to scope things out, if it caught fire, to let it burn. Long story short, my salesman, when I got through with him, came within 45 minutes to get the car. I was told it was a bad body computer for which a replacement would have to be ordered. After I got through with the service advisor, he changed his tune and said he would take the one from the showroom model and pull that car from being sold until a replacement was received.
Other issues were a knocking motor at times upon start up (base V6) a noisy ride, and a stuck tilt column that suddenly started working after it sat in the summer heat on a June day.
An absolutely miserable car… I traded it after about three months for a Regal Gran Sport four door which was a wonderful car. I drove Buicks almost exclusively before the Concorde, and have continued with Buick to this day. I currently drive a 2018 LaCrosse.
Yeah, my good friends bought a ’94 Concorde, and kept it for a miserable year. They traded it in for a ’95 Maxima and were much happier.
And then there were Ford’s advertisements for the SportKa
Our family had two Concordes, and both were generally good cars. We first had a 94 that we purchased in 97 when our Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser wasn’t safe to drive anymore. It was a fairly basic model with the 3.3 in cobalt blue with matching blue cloth interior. In 2002, it was still going strong, but we got an opportunity to purchase a 96 LXi with the 3.5 and very low mileage. That car eventually became my sister’s and my car. There were a few electrical issues with the 96 that seemed to only rear their heads when my sister drove it. She hated it, and the car knew.
I loved these first generation cars, and we got several hundred thousand miles from them between the two. The 96 drove much better than it should have for its size, and those leather seats were so comfortable. I still miss that car. I do realize that it would’ve completely fallen apart by now, or if I had gotten that car and still had it, it would have several hundred thousand miles. Probably best to have the good memories and call that good!
Such a contrast to the “Brotherhood Of Muscle” ads. I saw one where women can be members now too. Marketing just realized that girls can be douchebags just like men. ‘Merica! Too bad about the hit or miss quality because it sure is a good looking car. Even filled up with rabbits, hamsters in hoodies, or tribbles. I don’t care for the advice of “Hurry! Buy a first year Chrysler model. You’d be crazy NOT too!”
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Copyright 2011 - 2021 Curbside Classics. All Rights Reserved.