I just have to know the story behind this Chrysler Executive, photographed by William Oliver in the London neighborhood of Belgravia. This is a part of London brimming with embassies and consulates but surely this downsized limousine couldn’t be an official vehicle of one of them. Surely! And yet, as peculiar as this Chrysler’s location may be, the story behind this foolhardy flagship is even stranger.
This Executive’s age alone likely precludes it from being in active diplomatic service. Nevertheless, it’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility a consular corps somewhere in the world might have thought an Executive would make for good diplomatic transport. Though the Executive seems comically narrow, being a stretched K-Car LeBaron, it’s no narrower than, for example, a Volvo 200-Series and those were used in official capacities.
An Executive might have seemed less puzzling on the streets of London but in the US, it was profoundly bizarre. It was introduced in 1983, entering the scene as the flagship Imperial was being shown the door. Though the rear-wheel-drive Fifth Avenue would remain until decade’s end, the switch from Imperial to Executive atop the range was symbolic of the transformative change Chrysler was undertaking. But for trucks, rear-wheel-drive was out. Front-wheel-drive was king and Chairman and CEO Lee Iacocca wanted to prove just how flexible Chrysler and its new K-Car could be in adjusting to an era prophesied to be plagued by high fuel prices.
The Executive came in two variants: a five-passenger sedan with a 124-inch wheelbase and a seven-passenger limousine with a 131.3-inch wheelbase. For comparison, a FWD New Yorker used a 103.3-inch wheelbase, while the LeBaron had a 100.3-inch span. All these K variants, however, had the exact same width – 68.4 inches, or 5.8 inches narrower than the RWD Fifth Avenue. The Fifth Avenue was based on the 1976 F-Body platform which, at launch, was considered a compact platform. Despite the elongated wheelbase, total length of the Executive was just 4.7 inches longer than the Fifth Avenue. To an American audience, this was some kind of funhouse mirror limousine.
Less amusing was the price. At their launch in 1983, the two Executives retailed for $18,900 and $21,900. In comparison, an ’83 Imperial cost $18,688, while a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham stickered for $19,182. Sure, a Cadillac Fleetwood Limousine cost a significant $8k more than an Executive Limousine but what titan of industry would want to be chauffeured in a stretched K-Car?
Another pertinent question: just who would want to drive an Executive limousine? The sole motivation for both Executives was a Mitsubishi-sourced 2.6 four, producing 101 hp at 4800 rpm and 140 ft-lbs at 2800 rpm. The only transmission was a three-speed automatic. Although the limousine weighed only 3250 pounds, that was still a lot of metal for a small four to haul.
ASC handled the conversion, using the front half of a LeBaron sedan and the rear of a LeBaron coupe and putting a lot of metal in between. They also employed bigger front brakes and tweaked the front suspension. The limousine’s cabin incorporated two fold-down, rear-facing jump seats sans seat belts. In comparison, the downsized Cadillac Fleetwood 75 used larger “auxiliary” seats that faced forward and doubled as foot rests. Most notably, the Executive had a power, sliding glass divider – just like a real limousine!
Executives came fully-loaded. That included power accessories, cruise control and a digital instrument cluster. The limousine even came with opera lamps, the ultimate in so-cringe-it’s-cool exterior gingerbread. The only options were an upgraded stereo and different 14-inch wheel designs. The color palette was quite limited – in 1986, for example, it was only available in black, white, silver and two different dark blues.
Just two limousines and nine sedans were produced for 1983, though production was only beginning. The following year, ASC produced 196 sedans and 594 limousines.
The Executive Sedan was cut for 1985 and ASC produced 759 limousines. Remarkably, Chrysler and ASC produced more than Cadillac did of the Fleetwood 75 in ’85. Though the downsized Cadillac was also criticized for looking dinky and being underpowered, it was three inches wider and its anemic V8 produced more power and torque (thankfully!) than the Executive’s four.
In its last year, the Executive was belatedly given the gift of power. The Mitsubishi 2.6 was replaced with Chrysler’s turbocharged 2.2, producing 146 hp at 5200 rpm and 170 ft-lbs at 3600 rpm. That was more horsepower than the Caddy’s 4.1 V8 but still 20 pound-feet shy. A three-speed automatic remained the only transmission. Alas, the Executive experiment was over after a small run of just 138 limousines in 1986.
It’s easy to make fun of the Executive for the hubris of its creators and for how much it pales in comparison to its ancestors, but perhaps there’s another way of looking at this. Think of the Executive as an experiment, a means by which Chrysler could prove the flexibility of its new FWD platform. Consider that, when it was conceived, industry analysts were predicting drastically higher gas prices. Weigh the price and features of the Executive against the downsized Fleetwood 75 which wasn’t dramatically larger but cost almost $10k more. If you still think the Executive was an utterly bone-headed idea, then just think about it as a collector’s car. Wouldn’t this get your attention if it rolled past you at a Cars & Coffee?
Note: a rerun of an older post.
Related Reading
Automotive History: The Curbside Classic Comprehensive Chronology of the Chrysler K-Car Family Tree
Curbside Classic: 1986 Chrysler New Yorker – Just A Little Off-Broadway Production
Curbside Classic: 1983 Chrysler E-Class – Not Passing for Luxury
Another example of when IACOCA went Loco with Kcars. Yes I know that Kcars helped Chrysler limp along a few more years. BUT at a sad ending for storied Chrysler names, New Yorker, Fifth Avenue, Imperial. IMO the last real Chryslers were the 83 through 88 RWD Fifth Avenues, I had 83 and 85. 👍 To even conceive of this as an Executive Limousine is beyond my comprehension.
I don’t recall which model (Exec or Limo), but I almost purchased one of these in white back in the early 2000’s. In fact, it was owned by a guy in our local car club, so I didn’t have to drive only 10 or so miles to see the car. However, after looking at it and realizing just how hard it would be to get trim parts, I passed. But it was cool.
Chrysler never really tried to compete with Caddy for the limo market. The last production limos in ’53 and ’54 sold only about 200 each. The super-custom Ghias in the late 50s sold less than 100. So these numbers around 700 are big by Chrysler standards.
Somebody must have wanted this, though I can’t imagine why! Perhaps for a clown car?
Was it really legal to have no seat belts on the jump seats? My 1986 Ford Ranger had side-facing jump seats (it was a SuperCab) but even those had lap belts.
Wow I guess being inside it was ok as a passenger but its hard to look at, 2.6 Mitsubishi engines work ok in a Galant wagon with 5 speed, no rocket ship but they get along ok at half that limos weight, rear leg room is impressive though with jump seats in use maybe not, I suspect other brands did better.
At least the Mitsu 2.6L had balance shafts, making it surprisingly smooth and refined for an inline-4, let alone one so large in displacement. The one in my Ram 50 delivers power in almost turbine-like whoosh, with little sense of individual cylinders firing or any other NVH..
Yes, it could have a “diplomatic” history. Stranger cars than this were utilized for that purpose. The US diplomats used Checker limos in several foreign locations.
I’m assuming the upgraded brakes and suspension came from the Rampage, making a brief side trip before going under millions of minivans.
With that I’m surprised Chrysler put precious, only contacted for a set number a year Mitsu engines in these – the only people who need power in a limo are the ones making car chase movies, and them not for long. Even the NA 2.2 would’ve been plenty for Manhattan traffic or a funeral procession.
In the early 80’s every car magazine was predicting the death of full sized cars and V8 engines. This car showed the world that Chrysler was poised to meet the challenges ahead. It Also got people talking about Chrysler who wouldn’t be otherwise. It was right for the times and the investment was minimal.
While it’s a unique ride, it’s way too shabby for the likes of Belgravia. It probably got wheel clamped within 10 minutes of this pic on the grounds of violating the London SW1 tatty code.
The same applies to the blue Corsa on the right in the background of the photo. Or are there exceptions for cars belonging to domestic staff?
Just one nit to pick. Only one car was sacrificed to make these stretched K’s. One LeBaron coupe was cut in half. The coupe doors were returned to the parts bin and exchanged for front sedan doors. The rear doors were fabricated for their application. Chrysler took their plan from Cadillac who did it the same way.
I always assumed these comedy items were some after-market jobbie. The limo Volvo 200 is an excellent comparison: those too looked idiotic.
The best bit is inside, with those alleged jump seats. Why, they’re surely kneelers from Our lady of The Velours? The cushion is very nearly below the level of the sill, and the backrest dead upright. Who was ever going to squat in such a lotus position (whilst staring up the trouser legs of the main passengers)? I know corporate executive types value flattery from those who’re down the chain, but this level of obeisance is too far.
They’re Jump-Out seats, these, which probably why they’re beltless.
My neighbor, now deceased, knew a physician in our county, Rockland County, NY, who bought one. He and his wife sat in the front seats. The children sat in the rear and Dad raised the partition so that he did not have to listen to them! Excellent application for this vehicle.
Definetly not a Diplomats car in London. A few years back I walked past Buckingham Palace when some Diplomatic event was on. A huge queue of limousines on CD plates were slowly crawling in to unload their glammed up contents. The usual German suspects and all painted black.
Certainly not for the diplomatic service. British diplomatic license plates are issued according to a 123 D 456 scheme.
I’m no expert. However, a quick internet search revealed that the license plate structure corresponds to the standard used from 1983 to 2001.
The prefix B would therefore stand for the registration period 1984/85, and the ending NO for the Chelmsford registration office. The characters in between are the individual vehicle identification.
According to my information, license plates in the UK generally remain assigned to a vehicle for its entire lifespan, even if the vehicle is relocated.
Back in the 90s when I worked in Traverse City, I used to see one of these running around. If it wasn’t bad enough to have your limo be a K car, this one also had a big dent in the door. It may have been used as an airport taxi, as that’s the vicinity I usually saw it.
As the ad says, “Chrysler Limousine …. a Limousine like No Other”.
Indeed.
What’s fascinating about the Executive and Limousine is that, today, there seem to be plenty of excellent condition, low-mile cars availabe at quite reasonable prices. And, why not? No one really bought these when new, and the few who did didn’t exactly rack up the miles.
Of course, the same applies today. Who would want to drive around in one of these as a daily driver, even if they got what seems like a terrific deal? As someone else mentioned, might be okay as a curiosity at the local carshow, but not much good for anything else.
More like, “Pardon me sir, do you have any Miracle Whip?”