(first posted 3/1/2013) In the early 1980s, no auto company had to make more out of less than Chrysler. Sometimes, as with the minivans, the company was spectacularly successful. Other times, as with the re-imagined Town & Country convertible, the result was not so impressive.
If there is one thing Lee Iacocca learned during his years at the Ford Motor Company, it was how to mine the company’s heritage to burnish its current products. Lincoln had long struggled in its post-WWII role as a none-too-popular substitute for Cadillac. However, there was one nugget in Lincoln’s history that Cadillac could not match: the original Lincoln Continental. The 1969 Continental Mark III took many of the traditional cues of the original Continental and updated them for buyers of luxury cars in the 1970s. The result was a decade-long dominance in the high-end personal luxury segment in the United States.
When Iacocca signed on to buck up a badly foundering Chrysler Corporation, he quickly learned that things were going from bad to worse there. He determined that with Chrysler’s deteriorating finances, the company would not be in a position to field a competitor in most every segment of the market as it had traditionally done. What’s more, in a brave new world of fuel shortages and CAFE regulations, it made little sense to waste the company’s scarce resources on what was then widely believed to be the dying segment of large cars.
The history of the K platform has been well-documented. Initiated in the late 1970s, and nearing completion during the dark days of the loan guarantee negotiations, the platform would have to serve as the basis for most of the company’s products going forward, at least until their financial situation improved.
The original Reliant and Aries soon morphed into slightly larger (and much pricier) segments, including that of the storied Chrysler New Yorker (CC Here), which was based on a platform referred to as the Super K. Yet Iacocca knew that no matter how impressive its EPA fuel mileage ratings might be, and even with the Turbo power that would be along for 1984, the car would not make a proper flagship. It was time to dip into the dusty corners of the company archives for some inspiration.
Iacocca and his product team must have been a bit disappointed. Sure, there were some mighty impressive Imperials from the tail end of the classic era, but beautiful as they were, nothing about them was really unique to Chrysler. Even worse, ever since the 1934 Airflow Chrysler’s history had been one of solid but stolid cars made for old ladies, accountants and mechanical engineers: lots of steak, but not much in the way of sizzle. The 1955 C-300 (and its letter-series brothers) was certainly a legend, but one made legendary by brute power that would be difficult to transpose into the key of K. That left but a single model: the classic wood-bodied Town & Country.
The Town & Country’s story has been told before (here). To recap briefly, after its introduction as a wood-bodied sedan/wagon hybrid in 1941-42, the 1946-48 postwar Chrysler included a line of wood-bodied style leaders. The undisputed glamour-girl of the line was the Town & Country convertible. The woody ragtop sat atop the big New Yorker chassis and had eight-cylinder power. This planked and varnished cruiser had a decidedly nautical air about it that was accentuated by its smooth-but-laconic Fluid Drive system. It was the one (and only) Chrysler of its era that possessed genuine star power. Comedian Bob Hope and actress Barbara Stanwyk each owned one, and screen legend Clark Gable reportedly owned two. Leo Carillo (Pancho on the Cisco Kid television show) even owned one with a steer’s head affixed to the front. Here, the product planners surely thought, is the one old Chrysler family jewel that can translate to the 1980s.
The key was the return of the convertible body style, which had not been seen with a Chrysler nameplate since 1970. From the early 1970s, there had been widespread rumors of impending federal rollover standards that no normal convertible could hope to meet. Coupled with slowing sales in a world where air conditioning had become ordinary, car manufacturers began dropping convertibles, one by one, from their lineups. By 1976, the Cadillac Eldorado was the last ragtop standing, and when it went away at the end of the year (to much fanfare), there was widespread grieving among lovers of open-air motoring.
While everyone remembers Iacocca’s role in promoting the 1983 minivan, few remember that he was just as much behind the resurrection of the Chrysler convertible. The Super K coupe served as the basis for the car, which itself was strengthened in the rear quarter panels, cowling and A-pillars, and had a torque tube welded into the floor pan. Chrysler resisted the then-prevalent trend of farming out specialty models to such outside contractors as ASC, and instead kept the LeBaron convertible’s construction in-house; when the car debuted in 1982, it was the only factory-built American convertible. And while Chrysler got only about 3,000 out the door that year, sales would spike to nearly 17,000 the following year.
To create the Town & Country version of the drop top, the stylists (to their credit) went beyond the basic Di-noc look that had hobbled Chrysler’s short-lived 1968 imitation (the Newport Sport-Grain). Instead, the car featured extensive plastic trim pieces that mimicked the ash framing of the classic version. This same styling trick, which had been used previously on the LeBaron Town & Country wagon since 1977, was also adapted to the new Super K Town & Country station wagon. The car was also luxuriously trimmed, featuring Mark Cross leather and a wide assortment of power options and sound systems. The seats in the feature car make plain that the leathers Chrysler used in these cars would put many more expensive modern cars to shame.
And then? Although the LeBaron convertible would prove quite popular, the Town & Country version would not. Out of nearly 17,000 1983 LeBaron ragtops, only 1,520 of them were Town & Country convertibles–and that number that would only go downhill from there. In the T&C convertible’s entire four-year (1983-86) run, Chrysler sold (drum roll, please) 3,811, according to the folks at chryslerkcar.com. Even the 1941-42 genuine wooden station sedan/wagons managed over 1,000 units in a year-and-a-half. So, then, what was the problem? Was it that by 1983, the Town & Country name had become better known for station wagons than for luxury convertibles? Perhaps, but it’s more likely there was simply no way, even in 1983, that anyone was ready to mistake a four-cylinder short wheelbase convertible for a genuine luxury car, no matter how nice the leather may have been. The old timers may have liked the concept, but they bought Fifth Avenues and Town Cars instead. And to young, up-and-coming boomers, could anything look more ridiculous than the worst feature of their childhood station wagons slathered all over a tiny, brick-shaped convertible?
This is another car that I found and photographed very early in my CC career, and have since watched in vain for it to reappear. I caught this one under challenging lighting conditions, parked outside a tavern lunchtime, but the odds of finding another are slim. This one is a final model-year 1986 (as identified by the high-mounted rear stoplight and the “aero” treatment around the taillights). Chrysler sold nearly 20,000 1986 LeBaron convertibles before the J-body LeBaron replaced it in 1987. How many of those 20,000 were equipped with the Town & Country package? According to Allpar, the answer is 501. Adding in the fact that this one is equipped with the optional Turbo makes it a very rare car indeed.
We can chortle about Lee Iacocca’s poor record of flagship cars during his tenure at Chrysler. The 1981-83 Imperial had been an expensive flop, as would be the later TC by Maserati and the EEK platform Imperial after that. The Town & Country convertible fits squarely into this category–or does it? It was an inexpensive trim job that was certainly not popular. However, its raw material, the Super K convertible, would turn out to be both a solid hit for Chrysler and a flagship in its own unique way. After all, even over 30 years after the debut of the LeBaron ragtop, a convertible remains in the Chrysler lineup for 2013. That’s a longer run than the minivan, I might point out, and one that has consistently turned in far better sales numbers than pretty much any previous Chrysler convertible going all the way back to the beginning. As an updating of the classic Town & Country convertible, this car was clearly a failure; however, as the car that re-introduced America to the joys of open-air driving in a package fit for the ’80s, it remains a car that Lee Iacocca has every right to be proud of.
You overlooked mentioning the Chrysler T&C minivan that debuted for 1990 using similar design features that turned out to be a hit. I do not necessarily poo poo these cars as failures so much as curious oddities. Chrysler made money oin every one of them, even the few they made. As a current owner of a wood sided vehicle (albeit fake…) there was a certain cache imparted with the use of the materal then and it appeared on a lot of vehicles. The average income level of buiyers of these cars were much higher than average. The same went for the T&C minivan and the Jeep Grand Wagoneer the elder of wood trim icons of the 80s whose average income of buyers exceeded $100K.
While the car sold relatively few copies, it is hard for me to completely dismiss it as meaningless. Remember in Ferris Bueller, the movie of all 80s stereotypes, the mother drove a T&C wagon, and presumably would have a T&C minivan later.
John Hughes must have loved the T&C woodies, because John Candy and Steve Martin rented one in Planes, Trains & Automobiles.
The T&C minivan quickly lost its woodgrain, in favor of bold pinstripes.
Don’t forget about the Chrysler Town & Country GTO.
In this case “GTO” stood for “Good Taste Option” and was otherwise known as “woodgrain trim delete.”
This car reinforces my admiration for Lee Iacocca. If he had an idea, it appears he had a “damn the consequences” philosophy while marching forth.
I have seen one or two of these, but never had any idea they were so rare. They are thirty footers; from that distance, the look is intriguing – get closer, and you can start to see the 1/2″ thick plastic cladding stuck onto the sides of the body.
When I met my wife, her parent’s had an ’86 T/C wagon; this look did translate to the wagons much better.
Might this be the only ’80’s era turbo equipped Chrysler to not have a “TURBO” badge stuck to the front fender?
I’m not sure that this is a genuine Turbo car. It might just be a trick with the lighting, but the feature car only appears to have one grafted-on turbo vent on the hood. I think turbo-Ks of this generation had two symmetrical hood vents?
(Edit – On closer inspection I think I see the edge of the second vent.)
I’ve always been fascinated with Chrysler’s many attempts to gild the K-car lily in the 80s. The T&C convertible was a true rush job in that regard; one example is the Di-noc “wood” panels on the rear fenders. A combination of cost constraints and the rush to push this “premium” car to market forced Chrysler to use the same woodgrain side panels as on the T&C wagon, which is why there’s a vertical “wood” piece atop the rear wheel wells.
There were indeed two vents. There was a sign casting a shadow on one of them which sort of hid the other one in the pictures. I cropped the sunny one out for the clue shot.
I always kinda thought of these as automotive hamburger helper, add some wood and leather to a K-car, subtract the top, and…tah-dah!
Chrysler must have sold a large percentage of these verts in SoCal as they were not uncommon on the road back in the day, and you still see them today here and there. The trim pieces, etc. did not age well; most of these cars looked pretty raggedy within a few years. A colleague at work had one (truly trashy looking – pieces of the top flapping in the wind, “wood” trim faded and coming loose, center caps broken off the wire wheel covers that did not like city curb parking) that gave him quite a lot of trouble but he simply loved that little car, kept it running, and drove it top down most of the time.
Saludos, gracias por compartir la información tengo 2 chrysler Lebaron convertible uno color vino y otro blanco con la imitación a madera a los lados me gusta mucho, actualmente lo tengo en reparación del tubo,luego lo mismo al color vino, este lo tengo que restaurar el vino dice turbo a los lados el otro no.
These were so much a symbol for Chrysler’s resurgence, that the first editions of these – sans quarter windows – graced the cover of TIME magazine!
Adding the rear windows really improved the look and visibility of these.
The K-Car was as big a symbol as Lee Iacocca himself, and K-Cars were showcased on the old TV show “CHiPS”.
I was all Chrysler in those days.
FWIW, I incude a photo of our stripper 1981 Reliant – and I MEAN stripper, for the only “option” was an inside-controlled driver’s outside mirror – to prove we owned one for 7 years!
Love it. In my mind’s eye all early Reliants are that exact color! Aries were sometimes red.
You know what’s REALLY funny? Take a look at our Gemlin, in case you haven’t seen this photo from 1978 before! Same colors in and out!
Ha! I like that the neighbor’s house and driveway also features variations on the same color. And hey, I have a beard and wear plaid shirts, jeans and zip-up brown boots in 2013, Z-man. 🙂
I restored the color a little to your photo. I remember those days of being in college with my slant 6 Challenger.
And at last we see it!
Personally, I like it, for it’s simplistic elegance.
Now when are we going to see that Acclaim???
I restored the color a little bit to your new K-Car.
Iacocca may be a great CEO, but his automotive taste is a bit too… vintage, a step (or two) behind the public’s. Too bad, as he was the ‘dear leader’ at Chrysler back then, the company designers seem too eager to please him, and less about making cars that would resonate with the public. The picture of the 1981 Reliant shows just how much better the styling looked as a simple, no-nonsense vehicle.
This covertible looked pretty good without the tacked-on trim, especially in darker colors. Why spend more for a car that didn’t look as good?
I didn’t think we could talk about these without mentioning Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Like everyone else I saw the movie and thought the car was a cribbed together comedy prop, but no it was real !!!
“Four F_ _ _ ing wheels and a seat!!!”
I always thought that the car driven by the Griswalds when they went on vacation to Wallys World was a mockup. Looking at the LeBaron, now I am not so sure.
Has anybody here seen the Seinfeld episode about “Jon Voight’s car?” George had bought a LeBaron ragtop almost like the one shown here, and kept claiming to everyone that he had purchased a car that used to belong to the actor.
One of the best episodes.
Your comment (and DougD’s above) point out the sad but true fact that this car was not much more than a punch line for baby boomers.
I was at least familiar with the old T&C, so I knew what they were going for. Even then, I was never able to gin up a lot of enthusiasm for these. I might have found the package a little more appealing if they could have done it with the rwd Cordoba instead.
Oh my gosh, yes. It’s been said here before, but the second-generation Cordoba would have made for a stunning convertible. It might have pulled off the T&C look a lot more convincingly with it’s longer proportions.
Love the episode (“The Mom & Pop Store”) but I always cringe when George refers to it as an ’89 LeBaron. Such a simple thing for the writers to get right, and yet they didn’t.
Aww, you beat me to it.
‘Everybody’s talkin’ at me, can’t hear a word they’re sayin’… just drivin’ around in Jon Voight’s car…’
It may be just me, but I’ve got a thing for fake wood on cars, in the “so square it’s cool” vein of thinking. Maybe it’s the convert body style, but I find this version of the LeBaron far more attractive than my parents’ triple burgundy ’83 coupe, a car that I frankly loathed.
Oh, heavens, I’m on a roll, now! Here’s our 1984 E-Class I neglected to include on a thread a few weeks ago!
The classiest car we have ever owned, as far as looks are concerned – also the most comfortable, too, until our 1996 Intrepid.
We bought it in 1986 and owned it for 8 years.
A sharp looking car. I think that the E-Class was the best looking out of all the K-derived cars. The two tone treatment on yours worked really well.
Maybe you would like a PT Cruiser Woody?
I would have LOVED one of the “Dream Cruisers” at the time, if not for the 2004 Impala I owned at the time and loved dearly.
These were beautiful cars and right up my alley for driving something that stood out!
I discovered the true extent of love for the PT Cruiser when attending the Arthritis Shows in Dublin Ohio in June. There are about 1,500 to 2,000 cars over two days there. Among other things, there is a contingent of about 200 or so PT Cruisers, they even have a sponsor for their own trophies. I have never seen that many varieties of PT Cruiser in one spot in my life. I took many pics of some of the more interesting ones but are not online right now. I think the PT Cruiser ranks as one of the all time most customized cars.
Even with a reproduction cooler box!
They did have woody PT Cruiser convertibles no?
I think you could get That treatment aftermarket, but I dont think Chrysler offered it . Maybe as a Limited edition option package?
they might very well have.
im still thinking about all the times i could have bought parts to make my have made my gunmetal blue/grey 86, a town and country. it was a marc cross, though understated that fact if i remember correctly…i never read the medaliions.
it was showy.
2002 is when i gAve it away for 50 bucks as it needs 400 $ Brakes Etc. i got 2-3 good years out of bluelido, i loved the vroom from its turbo, never put too much acceleration as there is a turbo lag, a lag of 5-7 seconds before the turbo whirrrrls up it 2.4 or 2.2… 4 cylinder engine
A friend used to have one, dark blue with lighter blue flames and 20″ spinner wheels. Sold it and bought a new Miata!
JP, I have told this account before, but when I saw this on the lot on the corner near our house while walking the dog one Saturday afternoon, I told wifey about it and she wanted to take a look.
She did, and after we drove it, she stated: “We have GOT to find a way to buy this car”!
She figured it out, and we did!
Interesting tail-heavy stance on the ’84, due to a little-known factory option on these cars. While “E Class” suggested Mitteleuropan heritage, the “Tatra & Country” rear-engine version maybe took things too far.
Hey Zackman! That was a sharp car! I miss the old two toning that used to be done on cars.
Well, you’ve gone and done it and made me think of my dear old Lancer turbo…
We had that car 11 years and 160+K miles. Ran like a beast. It had a few “idiot-syncracies”, but really a fine car. Plus it was my favorite body style, mid size 4 door hatch.
I can’t find a pix of my Lancer from back in the day, so here’s a generic 1985 one. I had the “sawtooth” wheels on mine. And the offset hood louvers that were not on this year of Lancer. Mine was all black with a neat red pinstripe on the outside and a “whore’s drawers” red velour interior.
Traded the car 15 years ago, still want it back…
I thought these were kinda neat too, but they never really took off, and they have all vanished off the face of the earth since.
Its not a K car but one car along this vein I want to find from the 80s is an Omni GLH-S. Man a small black car with Turbo II Intercooler that car could scoot.
Well, if we’re going to talk about L-body Chryslers, let’s do this one instead… 😉
I think those offset hood louvres were for the turbo version(?) Dad had a first year GTS that he loved, and it was very reliable.
l love the picture of the Chrysler plant showing 3 cars. None of which are Chrysler products.
I believe that is the old Dodge Main plant in Hamtramck. Here is a picture from happier days (from allpar.com)
By the time that the plant had likely been sold to GM and probably was somewhere around 1981. Of course Dodge Main, along with a lot of the surrounding area, was razed and turned into the big GM Hamtramck plant. A lot of people affectionately refer to the area as “POLETOWN.” I rode on a bus from Dearborn to Lansing next to a guy that started out his career working at Dodge Main in 1976. One of the most interesting things he told me was that the first three important people he met was the “pimp, pusher, and numbers man.” The Aspen Volare was the last car line produced at Dodge Main. Dodge Main was terribly inefficient by the time it closed and Chrysler could not afford to renovate it for future production. Since the K cars were manufactured elsewhere and the remaining reardrive cars made in Windsor Ontario Chrysler cut it loose.
http://www.dodgemotorcar.com/factories/hamtramck/index.php
There is a good website for historical information of Dodge Main.
It was a really old plant. I believe that it was built by Dodge Bros. before Chrysler bought the company in the late 20s.
But those Albert Kahn-designed concrete factories would last forever, with roof repairs and maybe some upgraded windows. It’s a shame that we have torn down so many usable buildings – a lot of the automotive plants torn down (most recently, Ford’s Wixom, MI plant) were perfectly serviceable plants that could have been immediately used for other manufacturing or production.
I almost suspect that the powers that be wanted them gone, in order to ensure that the jobs went elsewhere. But I suspect that the real reason is much less conspiratorial, having to do with property taxes, liabilities, and the like.
Even David Halberstam in his book, The Reckoning, pointed to the K-car convertible as illustrating Chrysler’s resurgence.
Too bad they didn’t “finish” the job, such as by properly designing the base of the B- and C-pillars to accommodate a quarter window. It looks tacky, particularly for an in-house convertible.
As for the wood grain, given the failure of the woody boomlet in 1968 (remember the Chrysler and Mercury two doors with the wagon treatment?) surely Chrysler didn’t think they’d get many sales out of this car.
Is that the Jon Voit Lebaron?
Having been a proud owner of an 85 (without the wood) for exactly a year, I can vouch that they are nice little cars. Not luxury by any comparisons, but a cheap fun classic.
Last fall, I replaced the Hall Effect sensor and the coil. Performance is substantially better. My battery was dead (after about a month) this week, but the car kicked right over with a portable jump start/tire compressor. Those tools are worth their weight in gold to old car guys.
Have not seen another first generation Lebaron in the year I’ve owned the car. I get about 21-22 mpg, just town driving.
PS. While getting coffee today with a golf buddy, I saw a Sundance coupe, badged as a Suzuki or Suburu?
Be nice to the windshield in that…My wife works for a very large auto glass company and cannot get a windshield for that generation convertible. Couldn’t even locate one in a junk yard for the customer…
Boy, I hope my windshield doesn’t break!
That pickup plate on various Chrysler products in the 1980s and 1990s before they went DIS are a bugger. The Dodge Spirit I obtained free in a swap died one day on the side of the road and it turned out to be that piece. I tell people, partly jokingly, since they are so cheap to carry one of those in their glove box if the car ever quits and its not fuel related.
I was downright lucky. It wouldn’t start at the mall. Repeated attempts failed to start, but just as I was about to call a tow, it kicked over and I drove home about three miles. After getting it in the garage, I tried to restart in vain. Replaced the sensor and the coil (for good luck), a $ 45 easy do it yourself job.
Got to get another Hall Effect to keep in car as a spare. I do the same thing with the Ballust resistor for my 76, although I’ve only replaced one in 37 years.
Ah, the humble ballast resistor. A very sensitive little beast. If you have one in the glovebox, the one underhood is content. But without a companion, it tends to die of loneliness. 🙂
Priceless !
Our Acclaim developed this oddity after I turned the car over to my daughter with 103K on it. Always kept a spare in the trunk in case I got the distress call!
I don’t recall this problem with our 1992 LeBaron 2.5L convertible, though, but a lot of others!
Hi Dave.
Nice car. Join the Chrysler K-Car Club at http://www.chryslerkcar.com.
Guy
818-219-2587
“From the early 1970s, there had been widespread rumors of impending federal rollover standards that no normal convertible could hope to meet. Coupled with slowing sales in a world where air conditioning had become ordinary, car manufacturers began dropping convertibles, one by one, from their lineups. By 1976, the Cadillac Eldorado was the last ragtop standing, and when it went away at the end of the year (to much fanfare), there was widespread grieving among lovers of open-air motoring.”
A thumbnail guide to the last year of convertible production in various Big Three lines, before the great drought:
GENERAL MOTORS
1976: Eldorado
1975: B-bodies, Corvette
1972: A-bodies
1970: C-bodies
1969: F-bodies, Corvair
Notes:
1. When the C-body convertibles were dropped after 1970, this would have left Cadillac with no convertibles, so an Eldorado convertible was introduced for 1971 as a replacement. The E-body Eldo had not come as a convertible before this, and the Olds and Buick E-bodies never came as convertibles in the pre-1976 era.
2. Although the Corvair was introduced in 1960 and the B-O-P “senior compacts” in 1961, these car lines did not get convertibles until 1962. The B-O-Ps kept their convertibles when they transitioned into A-body intermediates in 1964, while the Corvair kept its convertible until the end of Corvair production in 1969.
3. A Chevy II Nova convertible was built in 1962 and 1963 only. It was introduced at the same time as the Corvair/B-O-P senior compacts, but was dropped when the Chevelle convertible was introduced. Chevrolet apparently felt there was insufficient demand to justify building three “less than full-size” convertibles (Nova, Corvair, Chevelle), and the Nova probably had the least sales potential of the three.
FORD
1973: Mustang and Cougar
1972: Ford full-size
1971: Ford intermediate
1970: Mercury intermediate and full-size
1968: Lincoln
1966: Thunderbird
Note that Ford continued producing intermediate and full-size convertibles for a year or two after Mercury had dropped them. After 1970, the Cougar was the only remaining Mercury convertible.
Notes:
1. Although the Cougar was introduced in 1967, it did not come as a convertible until 1969.
2. Ford’s intermediate line originated with the downsized 1962 Fairlane, but the Fairlane did not come as a convertible until 1966.
3. There was a Falcon convertible from 1963 to 1965. It was dropped when the Fairlane convertible was introduced. Similar to Chevy, Ford apparently felt there was insufficient demand to justify building three “less than full-size” convertibles (Falcon, Mustang, Fairlane), and the Falcon probably had the least sales potential of the three.
4. The Mercury Comet, which was originally based on the Falcon but was closer to an intermediate in size, got a convertible at the same time as the Falcon, in 1963. It kept its convertible when it switched to the Fairlane body in 1966. Like its Ford counterpart, the Fairlane-based 1962-63 Mercury Meteor did not come as a convertible.
CHRYSLER
1972: Barracuda and Challenger
1970: intermediates (B-body) and full-sizes (C-body)
1968: Imperial
Notes:
1. The Barracuda was introduced in 1964 but did not come as a convertible until 1967. The Challenger got a convertible when it was introduced in 1970.
2. There were convertibles in the Valiant and Dart lines for several years beginning in 1963. Each was dropped when its brand got a ponycar convertible, the Valiant after 1966, the Dart after 1969. Similar to GM and Ford, it was apparently felt that there was insufficient demand to justify building three “less than full-size” convertibles (compact, ponycar, intermediate), and the compact probably had the least sales potential of the three.
Nice summary. Just add pictures and this comment could just about be a CC article itself. 🙂
I would add that the safety standard (which was technically roof crush, not rollover, which is a separate kettle of fish) was not a rumor — it passed, but Chrysler challenged it in court before the rule took effect and won. A federal judge told the NHTSA it did not have the authority to outlaw specific types of vehicles, so the rule was revised to exempt convertibles. (In fact, even the much more stringent roof crush standard that’s being phased in now still retains that exemption.)
Even so, a lot of automakers had already decided to throw in the towel. I think some people didn’t realize that the rule had indeed changed (I recall some Chrysler people mentioning that in the press when the new convertibles arrived in ’82) and those who did might have assumed, not unreasonably, that the injunction was only a stay of execution. Convertible sales had fallen so much that it didn’t seem like a great loss, particularly once the American public belatedly embraced the sunroof (which of course had been popular on British and European cars for years).
1967 for Lincoln no? I dont think the 4 door Continental made it to 1968.
I think Carmine is right. I wrote that post from memory; looking over it after I sent it, I was thinking that I wasn’t sure about the year for Lincoln.
I had Lincoln convertibles from every year but 1956 (had a Mark II instead), up to the 67 which was the last 4 door convert. A friend sent a new 1969 Continental coupe to a conversion company that used 66-67 mechanicals to convert his 69 to a convertible. It was triple black and gorgeous, he had the suspension re-done to corner also. He was the original owner of my 63 Electra convertible and enough money to build cars to his specs.
Also, I believe the last Challenger convertible was a 71.
Might as well add the AMC and Studebaker last ragtops:
Studebaker: 1964, with the end of that model year, some even assembled in Canada.
AMC:
American: 1967
Rebel: 1968
Ambassador: 1967
Yes, Last for Lincoln: 1967, 2276 cars.
Imperial: 1968, 474 cars.
Studebaker actually ended convertible production in 1952, but resumed making them again in 1960 (second year of the Lark).
One of these lives next to my parents’ house. It’s immaculate, with a lovely metallic burgundy paint job under the fresh-looking plastiwood. Every time I see it, my mind whiplashes between admiration for the owner’s care and bafflement about why he picked one of these.
What a horrible car it has all the worst bits of crap glued to it the ten cent wheel covers craptastic plastic wood why would anyone confuse this POS for a luxury car.
Drop the fake wood, and this car is the essence of automotive beauty through sheer simplicity. I’d still like to own one.
Sorry, but that’s how I feel.
I call these cars the “Kleenex box with an attitude”.
Same basic styling as the T&C, but no gingerbread. It had a real “butch” feeling to it.
I’d still like to have one, but I think if forced to choose, I’d go with one of the Shelby Chargers….
Wow, thats almost a decent looking one of these, I forgot they made a Dodge 600 version, the wheels help too.
Kudos to Chrysler for seeing the opportunity in reviving the convertible, but wood-bodied or wood-trimmed cars are a hard sell for me. The real thing can be pretty, I suppose, but not enough to balance the obnoxious maintenance requirements and inevitable squeaks and rattles. The fake woodies always look fake, often egregiously so. Yesterday, for example, I saw a late-model Buick Roadmaster wagon on the road and winced at the wood applique. Even if it had been mistaken for real wood (not likely unless you had eyesight like Mr. Magoo), it would have looked like the cheap assemble-it-yourself cart that supports my TV — not exactly the opulent look.
You couldn’t beat cool into a K-car or a PT Cruiser with a hammer.
~ O’ Pinion Ated ~ 😉
When I bought my LeBaron, I jokingly asked the wife if I could pick up chicks in the car. She said no chicks would look at the car or me for that matter.
The truth never hurts.
Let some time play out and that evaluation will change. Older people tend to be more nostalgic especially with cars. I used to own a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, it was from 1988 but of course was the RWD classic design so could pass for 77 from a distance. One day my MIL was in the passenger seat after the drive she commented on how all the older men were looking at her. She was trying to figure out if they were looking at her or the car.
Time to play out? It’s already been 32 years!!! I think that gives it plenty of a chance. I see zero redeaming value what-so-ever. Just my opinion, I don’t mean to be insulting to anyone! 😉
I got some pics of an as-new 1986 T&C Convertible at the Walter P. Chrysler Museum back in December. As a “new” car, it looked really nice. The interior was very nicely done, the only exception being the Omni-derived gear shift lever.
This a 1986 Marc Cross Turbo Automatic Convertible was my 2;nd open top.
love it ,much better than the cavalier, not as loud as the mustang to come.
it was styling, loved the crystal hood ornament.
Can’t believe I never thought of Making it a Faux Town and Country
That stuff was leftover from the Imperial experience. Not the actually parts but the ideas. Chrysler teamed up with Mark Cross to do the leather interior on the Imperial and started with the crystals and all the bit. Then when the convertibles came out they continued the license all the way until maybe 93 or so when I last saw Mark Cross specifically named in literature.
I almost bought a non-wood non-turbo 86, boy did that thing have some cowl shake going over railroad tracks, and I always felt uneasy about the way the power top motor could make the A-pillars flex if you tried to lower the top while it was still locked to the header. It was bright red, but it had been white, with a burgandy leather interior….so it was bright red over burgandy….vomit……I passed.
These are the floppiest, sloppiest cars ever made. A couple made it to my bodyshop.
If you shake one corner of the rear bumper, you can actually watch as the top flutters and undulates like a blanket in the wind.
Pretty sad when a little electric top motor can flex the entire car…wow…
I don’t believe that these B ragtops we have been discussing were all that stiff either. I once watched one drive over some railroad tracks. The door and the quarter panel each did a little dance for me.
Someones always there to apoligize……
A B-body covertible is like Cheyenne Mountain compared to a chop top K-car.
How about the doors, a-pillars, seats, steering column and dash all doing a dance?
Maybe I missed that disussion. Are you talking about ’60s B body Dodge/Plyms?
No 1971-1975 GM full size B.
Ah yes, right.
Had one in my bodyshop. A ’74 Buick.
Pretty flop-tacular. Seems those B bodys are a little more so than other ’75 and earlier US rag-tops.
But you’re absolutely correct, no where near as bad as a K.
Got to admitt my ’68 Sport Fury was better than either of those, but it wasn’t great on a rough surface. Springy like a buck board.
Boy those seats were hot!….I feel like big Whopper!
I wonder if my ass has griddle marks!
It looks better with the “wood” burned off.
Commenters at the “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” IMCDb page put up some great shots and tell quite a story. They had change all the brand names on the car because of what happens. There’s a frame where a badge says “Farm & Country”.
PS: That’s a great portrait of John Candy. What was it about that guy? He could play a total nightmare who you still somehow had to love.
He was great, underated to as an actor, if you never seen it, you should see his brief part in JFK, where he plays crooked New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews, Candy really nails the role.
Ever see SCTV? It was like a Canadian SNL.
John Candy got his start there from what I gather.
Oh Yeah, I remember SCTV well.
Yes, my favorite skit of his from SCTV was where he played an exercise coach on a TV show – he does one situp (or pushup, can’t remember), is completely pooped out, and then has a beer!
I took a look at the site, never put the 2 together that the 600/LeBaron in Planes , Trains and Automobiles is the same color and wood combo as the Family Truckster in Vacation. But they are, its like they were made by the same crappy fictional car company.
Here is my little survivor car that I take to shows….I got 2 other K’s as well, great vehicles and people who talk crap generally about these know nothing about automobiles and their mechanics… X cars were completely garbage as well as others at the time…
my 1981 Reliant K sporting the competition…
Its kinda neat, the 80’s equivalent of grandmas Valiant.
Don’t be insulted/insulting. Like what you like and let yer freak flag fly.
Clean mo-sheen you got there K-Man!
I am the Chrysler K-Car Club. I am the president. I love these cars and we are based
in LA. We still have these convertibles in LA. Check out my webpage at http://www.chryslerkcar.com.
I knew the car from “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles” was painted green as an homage to the Wagon Queen Family Truckster from “Vacation”, so I always assumed that the producers added all that wood paneling for the movie for the same reason. I had no idea Chrysler actually offered the car with that ridiculous amount of fake wood!
It would have looked better if the woodgrain had flowed straight from front to rear without the vertical breaks around the panels – that poor K-car needed all the help it could get to look longer and more impressive. As they were looking to grand designs of the past, they should have chromed the bumpers too. Just for this model.
I quickly scanned all the replies before so maybe I missed it, no one addresses the (possible) main reason why the K-based Town and Country convertible sold so poorly. According to The Encyclopedia of American Cars the T&C cost over $15,000 compared to only $13,000 for the non wood bodied convertible.
Customers for Chrysler products have always been a bit more…frugal than those for GM and Ford products. Certainly, a 15% bump in price for leather and Di-Noc was too much for folks who thought the Reliant/Aries were fairly decent looking driver’s cars.
My aunt and uncle, who had been long time Ford owners, bought a Town and Country wagon to replace their old car when the engine died on a trip between Florida and Vermont.
Most likely. People knew that the K-Car was an economy car and a basic mode of transportation, so an upscale K (much like selling a Cadillac Cimarron) would have been a difficult sell to people.
Interesting to note that between the time this was originally posted and today the minivan has finally outlived the Chrysler convertible streak.. unless the rolltop Fiat counts as a spiritual successor?
I recall groaning is disgust when I first saw these, knowing what the classic ’41-’50 Town & Country cars were and what poor imitations these were. Whenever I saw one, I’d note who was driving, without exception it was a gentlemen well along in years trying to pretend it he was well-off, could drive such a distinctive ‘luxury’ car. It just looked sad. Oddly enough, none ever had the top down.
Maybe the wrong time frame but I’m reminded of “rich Corinthan leather”
That four-year production total of 3811 caught my eye. I’m used to minuscule American Motors production numbers for certain models, and when I finally scored my 1965 Ambassador convertible I was surprised to see that year’s production only was 3960, give or take. Fewer than 4000, anyhow.
3811 for four years is virtually nothing. Then again, so was the car. One could dress up a Fau-Vay Beetle with leather seats and a wood dash…and one would have a Beetle with leather seats and a wood dash.
Virtually nothing for a car with a notable film career as George Costanza’s Jon Voight’s (the dentist) car, and the total destruction of one in Planes Trains and Automobiles…
No one mentioned the talking cars. I’m not sure what years were covered but do remember a New Yorker Turbo that talked,sort of. It had 348,000 miles, in for a detail, it was still a clean car, but the voice had seen better days. With the door open it announced, “The door is aaaaaaaaaaaaaa!, and the trunk was existential with “The trunk is, the trunk is.” A Chrysler salesman told me the most popular option in the second year of talking car production was an off switch for it.
Cellphone cameras certainly have improved a lot since 2013!
Yes, my early photos for CC are truly cringe-inducing. There were several cars I shot with very poor results. I held onto several, expecting to get better pictures or maybe a better example of the car – but it was not to be. I don’t think I have ever seen another of these in the years since.
Peak kitsch, glue as much crap as possible on a cheap car and sell it as luxury, the fake wood just ruins it, of course it could only be from Mr style over substance himself.