(first posted 2/18/2015) As a company, Chrysler doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to logical decisions. One of their more puzzling decisions was the 1993-1997 Eagle Vision and, for that matter, the whole short-lived Eagle brand. Born out of the AMC buyout from Renault in the late-1980s, Eagle was something that no one knew what to make of, including those within the Chrysler Corporation. Making things up as it went along and without a clear purpose or strategy, one could say that Chrysler lacked a clear vision for Eagle. Ironic, considering the brand’s last new model was named “Vision”.
Eagle’s very existence came as a result of the terms under which Renault agreed to divest its stake in AMC to Chrysler. Renault had invested an astronomical amount into a car it would now not even get to sell, and to compensate for this, the contract terms obligated Chrysler to produce at least 300,000 examples of the Renault-designed Premier for five years and to purchase 260,000 of the Premier’s available PRV V6 engines from Renault. Rather than badging the Premier as a Chrysler, Dodge (which it ultimately did), or Plymouth, Chrysler chose to sell it through the some 1,200 newly acquired AMC/Jeep dealers under a newly created marque. Looking to the past, the brand was called “Eagle”, a name whose lineage could be traced through AMC and Kaiser all the way back to the 1952 Willys Aero-Eagle.
Eagle, as a brand, officially debuted for the 1988 model year, with its lineup including the full-size Premier and the smaller Medallion, which was another Renault design. Judging from these two vehicles, it would appear that Chrysler was trying to market Eagle as something along the lines of an American Acura, which itself was introduced as an alternative to upscale European import brands. On paper, selling a line of upscale “import fighting” cars alongside Jeeps didn’t sound like a bad idea, as Jeep buyers typically were of a high-income demographic and were already owners of luxury import cars.
While it’s true that higher-end models of the Premier competed with cars like the Acura Legend, Audi 5000, and Volvo 700-Series, lower-end models were aimed at domestics like the Taurus/Sable, GM W-bodies, and Chrysler’s own EEKs. The Medallion faced a similar situation in its size class.
Then, to make matters more confusing, Eagle continued selling the all-wheel drive AMC Eagle for one more year, reincarnating it as the “Eagle Wagon”. Canadians also received the Eagle Vista, which was a rebadged Mitsubishi Mirage subcompact econobox. Neither of these cars would appeal to a well-heeled import buyer.
Over the next couple of years, the Eagle Wagon and Medallion were hastily dropped, and three more badge-engineered Mitsubishi compacts arrived: the Mirage-based Summit, the Galant-based 2000GTX (which was only sold in Canada), and the Eclipse-based Talon. The Talon was the only one of these that Chrysler had a hand in building, via its Diamond-Star Motors joint-venture with Mitsubishi. It would appear that Eagle was now just an outlet for Chrysler to sell more Mitsubishi captive imports.
The unloved Premier never lived up to its expectation of 300,000 sales, and was quietly discontinued in 1992. With just shy of 140,000 Premiers and their rebadged Dodge Monaco siblings produced over five years, Chrysler was forced to pay some $200 million in penalties to Renault for failing to meet the agreed upon quota. The Premier and Medallion weren’t perfect by any means, but they still offered more potential which, unfortunately, was never utilized.
Although the Premier was an unfortunate failure, costing Chrysler far more than it ever made from sales of the car, the Premier did as least serve some purpose to Chrysler, as its engineering would serve as a basis for the LH cars. With Chrysler now free of all obligations to Renault, no one would’ve been surprised had Chrysler sent Eagle to the guillotine then and there, in 1992.
But in an unexpected display of faith, Chrysler seemed to recommit itself to the brand when it chose to make the third variant of the LH platform an Eagle, calling this new car the Vision. The 1993 Vision would be the first and only Eagle based on a Chrysler product, as well as the last new car introduced under the Eagle marque.
Why the Vision went to Eagle instead of Plymouth remains a mystery. Maybe Chrysler intended to produce a large cab-forward Eagle sedan all along. After all, the 1990 Optima (pictured above), which was the final of three concept cars to preview the LH, was badged as an Eagle. Yet by 1992, there was really no reason for continued investment in Eagle. In addition, most of the Jeep-Eagle dealers were being incorporated into Chrysler-Plymouth franchises, voiding any claims that the car was made an Eagle to avoid competing with the LH Concorde in the same showrooms.
There’s no denying that this car would have done better as a Plymouth, given Plymouth’s better name recognition and successful history of selling economical transportation. Paul even did a photoshop of an LH “Plymouth Accolade” a few years back. A Plymouth LH obviously would’ve passed on the “import touring sedan” image, in favor of the more realistic “stylish and affordable family sedan”, which was truer to the LH’s actual mission. From an accountant’s standpoint, a Plymouth LH also would’ve presented a big opportunity for fleet sales. With the LH’s critical acclaim, increased fleet sales of it wouldn’t have been an image killer in the way that the W-body Impala and 4th generation Taurus were.
As was the case in many other instances over the years, Plymouth was consistently denied the same wealth of products as other Mopar brands, making it a far cry from the high-volume brand it once was. While Eagle was no favorite child either, at least Eagle received an LH and was allowed to keep the Talon sport coupe, whereas the similar Plymouth Laser was axed in 1994.
In any event, the LH sedans debuted in late 1992 with much fanfare and praise. Heralded as the torch bearers of Chrysler’s renaissance, the LH cars were praised for their advanced design, space efficiency, and innovative features. They drew buyers into dealer showrooms, and were an instant success, collectively outselling the cars they replaced.
Yet through all this positive attention, Eagle and the Vision largely took a back-seat role. As in previous years, Eagle received little in the way of marketing and media exposure, with the Vision becoming sort of a stealth car, flying under the radar of mostly everyone who was otherwise familiar with its siblings. With Eagle still lacking a sufficient presence and identity in the minds of consumers, it came as no shock that Vision sales were substantially lower than Concorde and Intrepid.
While one would have to have had good vision to spot the differences between the Vision and Concorde (Intrepids had a few more unique body panels and different shaped lights), the Vision did sport a few distinctive touches. Its aggressive front end included a large Eagle logo flanked by rather Oldsmobile-like twin grilles. Along the side, unique wheel designs and available matte gray lower body trim gave it some extra sporting flair.
Around back, the Vision eschewed the Concorde’s full-width taillights in favor of more European-looking taillight clusters that included amber turn signals. All Visions also came with stiffer suspension tuning and standard bucket seats.
An enhanced Vision was shown as a concept in 1994, featuring a more distinctive and aggressive front end, along with further aero enhancements. Appropriately called the Vision Aerie (not to be confused with the ladies’ undergarment store), it was an attractive vision of a possible facelift, although it’s unlikely it would’ve generated more buzz for a brand many people had never heard of.
Over the course of its run, the Vision was available in two models whose names were borrowed from the Talon: ESi and TSi. The more basic ESi, like our featured car, was powered by Chrysler’s 3.3L pushrod V6 (inherited from the Dynasty), making 161 horsepower and 181 pound-ft of torque, and came equipped with power windows and locks, air conditioning, rear heat/AC outlets, premium cloth upholstery, and 16-inch polycast wheels.
The better-equipped TSi was also more performance-oriented, and featured the new SOHC 3.5L V6, making 214 horsepower and 221 pound-ft of torque. Beginning in 1996, the TSi also gained Chrysler’s Autostick semi-automatic transmission, the first such application in an American car. The TSi also boasted a higher level of standard equipment that including anti-lock brakes, speed-sensitive power steering, traction control, chrome plated alloy wheels, full overhead console, automatic climate control, 8-way power adjustable front seats, and a leather-wrapped steering wheel. Leather upholstery and performance tires were also available.
That was all fine and good, but in truth, the Vision didn’t offer anything that couldn’t be found in its siblings, and as a result, only competed with them. In its best year, 1995, Vision production topped out at 31,271 – roughly half that of the Concorde, and only a fraction of the Intrepid. What’s more, when it came to external competition, the Vision faced the same problem as its predecessor in that it faced a broad range of cars, ranging from mainstream domestics to luxury imports. The 1996 brochure alone compares the Vision TSi to a number of very different cars including the BMW 325i, BMW 740i, Infiniti I30, Infiniti J30, Lexus ES 300, and Mercedes-Benz E-Class. Rather ironically, one year after the Vision ended production, Oldsmobile released the Intrigue, a similar-sized and quite similar-looking car with the same “import fighter” pretensions as the Vision.
The first-generation LH cars saw few changes over their five-year run, and the Vision was no exception. By looking at the VIN number, I was able to peg this as one of only 5,874 Visions that were produced for 1997, its final year.
Lacking a clear identity, effective marketing, and an overall presence, Eagle never had much of a chance for success. Whatever vision Chrysler may have once had for the brand never panned out. After a dismal decade of operation, in September 1997, Chrysler finally announced it would be dropping the brand within the next year – a decision that came as a shock to no one, had they actually even heard of Eagle. The Vision and Talon quietly ended production and any trace of Eagle was removed from dealerships.
Chrysler already had too many brands selling the same cars and dumping Eagle was probably the most logical move they ever made concerning the brand. Today, just a handful of cars, like this ’97 Vision, are but all that is left to remind us of Eagle, a brand that could never quite get its wings off the ground.
Related Reading:
great looking car though
AMC discovered the sales possibilities of 4WD when they offered the first AMC Eagles. When AMC sold to Chrysler, someone forgot to tell the new owners their discovery. So, instead of creating more 4WD vehicles called Eagles as a new Chrysler division, the folks at Chrysler just saw an old AMC Hornet on 4WD and believed the new Eagle division needed new vehicles just like the vehicles offered by Renault, Diamond-Star, Mitsubishi, and Chrysler – rebadged.
No one needed any of that. All Chrysler needed to do was put out 4WD vehicles called Eagles. AMC proved that this didn’t even have to be done with a new car. That Eagle Wagon was a nearly two decade old design. All Chrysler needed to do is give the old Hornet a new body, put it on 4WD, and sell them.
All Chrysler needed to do was take their line of cars, rebadge them as Eagles – BUT put 4WD under them. How easy was that?
But NOOOOO – the goofballs getting paid the big bucks imagined Eagles as clones with sporty touches. Ridiculous. As we all know with our 20/20 hindsight, 4WD was the door to profitability, market success and a new auto niche. AMC knew that too – so what happened? Did the guys with the keys to the 4WD future for Eagle get canned? How did Chrysler get a hot ticket to auto success dropped onto their laps when they bought AMC, and lose it immediately?
Good thing those dummies didn’t jack Jeep up like they did with the Eagle.
1000% ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, I OWNED AN 1982 EAGLE WAGON LIMITED. VEHICLE WAS A LIFE SAVER AND BULLETPROOF ENGINE.
The demise of Plymouth was glimpsed in F-Body. Even though they didn’t make two variants of bodies, but the front clip was different at the beginning, however after ’78 the only difference is the badge and pattern of grill if looking from ahead.
If they build a Plymouth version of LH, I suspect it would have a different front clip at first but maybe after a while the only thing distinctive to Plymouth would be the egg-crate grill ( what else did Plymouth have then except something inherent from a ’78 facelift of Volare ) and if they would build a ’98 Plymouth LH sedan, the relationship between the LH Dodge could be similar to M-Body Gran Fury and Diplomat. I still think Diplomat is more of a Plymouth than Dodge, but Plymouth was far too weakened already, and it could happen to Plymouth in the ’90s too.
With Eagle, it only eroded Plymouth’s lifespan faster, and Oldsmobile became GM’s Plymouth. I always hear my professor saying “When I was working in Oldsmobile. well, when there was still an Oldsmobile”
This article didn’t mention one important fact: Chrysler Vision for the export market, namely Europe.
Why Chrysler didn’t use better-looking Dodge Intrepid as its export version is beyond me. Or plush Chrysler Concorde and even more plush LHS (the latter was sold in Europe by special order only). I surmised Chrysler was aware of low sales forecast for its Eagle Vision in the domestic market and wanted to maximise the engineering and development investment by selecting Eagle version as export model.
The visual difference between Eagle and Chrysler versions is very minor other than headlamps with separate low and high beams (domestic version had a single reflector for both low and high beams), compulsory side turn signal repeaters, and different ‘herald’ design on the front.
http://srv2.betterparts.org/images/chrysler-vision-07.jpg
I suspect they also exported the Vision to Europe as it was the most “European” of the trio, with firmer suspension tuning, standard bucket seats, and styling.
I’ve always found it funny that they kept the Eagle-shaped badge, but placed a small Pentastar and the words “Chrysler” inside of it.
Yep, it was relatively popular here for a while. Have to say it does have a bit of class. It stood out significantly against a BMW.
It got a rep for being notoriously unreliable though: the engine wasn’t bad but the electronics were horrendous, leading to complete circuit failures – while doing 130kph on the motorway. Scary.
I dont think it can really be said that the Dodge was “better-looking”, but anyway, I think like the others, if the Vision was the European-looking LH, then it’s logical that it had to be the export model.
And maybe with assuming the export market, Eagle had enough (projected) volume to justify their specific parts needed.
By the way, the Chrysler Vision was also sold here in Chile.
At first, I was wondering whether I had misspoke about Dodge Intrepid as better looking than Eagle Vision. I realised I was thinking of the second generation (1998-2004), not the first generation (1993-1997).
My bad…
Very nice article. Agree with your assessment of the Eagle Brand – have to say though that it reinforces for me what a superb, breathtaking design the original LH cars were.
Of all the things that most impressed me, it was the 3.3L engine that I remember most – not because it was a particularly good engine – I just remember that it was the most tidy, clean and hose free engine compartment I had seen since the late 60s. You could actually see the engine; both valve covers, the intake manifold, etc.
After opening the hood on the 70s and 80s cars I owned and seeing nothing but hoses, black taped wiring, not being able to tell if it was V8, V6 or 4 cylinder down there, I was impressed……
Not to mention it’s mounted in the right direction!
The LH with the 3.3L was the only car in my recent memory where I could change all the spark plugs in 15 minutes; there is SO MUCH ROOM next to the engine!
The queen of Norway(Sonja) had one of these as her peronal car mid 90. Badged as a Chrysler. Just fun fact
I think the nose of the Vision looks exactly, like the nose on a 1992-96 Honda Prelude…. Same ovals near lights and long snout.
Seems, like one company was looking into another’s backyard for styling cues to steal… Sounds about right… Since both cars were produced around the same time, 1992/93.
There it is, the best-looking LH car.
I always assumed Eagle persisted because of dealer contracts, not because it was best for Chrysler.
I remember seeing these as a kid, I never knew quite what to make of them until they were gone. I was pretty aware of the Intrepid due to it’s Viper like nose and tail and even the Concord since I could generally recognize the bones of all these cars at the time, the vision intrigued me because it did look different enough to seem like a different model, but even with the emblems I could never quite figure out what it actually was supposed to be. I mean there were ZERO ads for them, lack of marketing is an understatement, there were none! I do have vague memories of TV commercials saying “visit your Jeep and Eagle dealer” for a Cherokee or Wrangler or something, but I had no idea Eagles were a car line, I just thought it was a Jeep model I never heard of, they never actually showed anything but Jeeps in the commercials either from what I recall.
When I was little, I used to see a teal Vision in the driveway of a house around the corner from mine, and I used to think it was a non-Chrysler because there were no Pentastar emblems like all other Chryslers, Plymouths, and most Dodges (Dodge had just started putting the ram logo on its cars). My mom (who owned a Jeep at that time) actually told me that it was an “Eagle” and that Chrysler owned them, as she was familiar from seeing them at the dealer. Pre-Internet days!
Suddenly without crystal emblems here and there, Chrysler immediately looked different.
I agree, Jim.
Brendan, I know what they look like, I owned a 1995 green LHS, loved the car till the tranny started acting squirrelly. Lol
IIRC, the transmissions were the Achiles Heel of these cab-forward cars. Didn’t Chrsyler have to fix a bunch of them under recall, effectively ruining demand?
Eagle always seemed to be nothing more than a sop to former AMC/Renault/Jeep dealers — just a way to give them more cars for their showrooms until the dealer body could be rationalized after the merger.
If that was the intention from the start, that would explain the fuzzy brand positioning, derivative styling and lack of marketing.
We think we are the manufacturers’ customers and, therefore, the ones they must please. But the dealers are really their primary customers. If the dealers don’t have product to sell (hello Lincoln!), they’re going to be unhappy customers, and the automaker will ultimately pay a price for that.
I believe the 3.5L SOHC V6 produced 214 hp in the first-gen LH cars, not 181.
Yup, this is correct.
What I meant to say…
“Just because you OWN the pool, doesn’t mean YOU swim tthe best. lol 😉
That is helpful; thanks for the clarification.
It appeared that you were about to clarify yourself further by stating the 1993 New Yorker was Dynasty based and while you knew there was a lag time in the official introduction of the LHS and (new) New Yorker after the LH sedans, you knew both were produced during calendar year 93.
It also appeared that you have invented a new word to remember – never have I seen “the” with two t’s, especially when used in front of the word “best”. 🙂
I happened to have a ’93 New Yorker Fifth Ave.. A $700 winter car only lasted three months.
It was miserable to the interstate traffic when I was driving at 65 in that car passing a ’79-’81 New Yorker Fifth Avenue cruising around 60.
Sarcasmo-
You might want to use different emails if you’re planning on trolling, or should I call you Ryoni777?
Too funny 🙂
As I recall, this family was touted as the first cars ever designed completely by computer.
I remember the tiny former AMC dealer in Nyack, NY having a couple of LHS Eagles in its showroom. I thought them exotic if not as flash as their striking Dodge siblings, one of which graced my Dad’s driveway in Pennsylvania. They did seem to have a more interesting nose than the Chrysler, but might have suffered in the market from residual association with the Renault based predecessors. Renaults had iffy reputations with American buyers based less on fact, perhaps than on an emotional consensus that French cars were strange, expensive to service and might have their dealer network shuttered at any time, leaving owners with orphaned cars.
My brother had a teal Concorde about 10 years ago. It was roomy and comfortable, and as with Dad’s Intrepid, drove smaller than it was. It suffered from the infamous dull headlamp disease that infected the whole family.
Not mentioned in the comments, unless I missed it, was the Chrysler 300M. Was that a derivative of this platform? There’s a nice one running around these parts that still exudes some class, with its little puckered mouth and aggressive stance.
The Chrysler 300M was a second generation LH car, introduced in 1999. Many call it the successor to the Vision, as it came following the Vision’s discontinuation and occupied the “Euro fighter” position.
There is a photo floating around on the Internet (Allpar, maybe?) of a prototype of what became the Chrysler 300M, but with an EAGLE logo.
ALSO it was the second-generation LH cars that was claimed to be the first that was almost totally designed by computer. Dodge made a big deal out of that in its commercials for the 1998 Intrepid: “This changes everything…AGAIN,” in the deep, sonorous voice of the late Edward Herrmann.
FOUND that photo…Eagle Vision logo on what became the Chrysler 300M…too bad it is so tiny.
That looks like a rendering, doesn’t it? And that it was pasted onto an European scene.
Brendan, this was a very good article.
Why Chrysler gave the amount of product to Eagle, and continued to overlook Plymouth, has always been baffling. There was so much more name recognition with Plymouth, which would ultimately die a death from a thousand paper cuts.
Of the three, the Eagle Vision was always my favorite in appearance.
Thanks Jason. I’ve always found the Vision the most attractive too. Its elusiveness makes it more intriguing as well.
I still think there was hope for Plymouth at this time, but if it had not been for the Voyager, Chrysler likely would’ve let it die sooner. They did attempt to bring new life to it with a number of concepts in the mid to late ’90s that ultimately led to the PT Cruiser, but it was too late, and the Daimer takeover forced them to trim the fat, thus sealing Plymouth’s fate.
On that note though, I wonder if the Premier would’ve fared better had they made it exclusively a Plymouth from the start?
Plymouth Premier? Or Gran Fury perhaps?
At the time Chrysler acquired AMC, Jeep buyers were among the highest income demographic in the country. I have always understood that Eagle was there to 1) give dealers something to sell besides Jeeps and 2) to get Jeep buyers to spend more of their money on Chrysler-built cars, folks who would never be caught dead in a Chry-Ply or a Dodge dealer.
The Eagle Vision was in my eye the very best looking of the LHs, and it was also the only one that never came with a column gearshift.
What’s wrong with a column gearshift?
(I can see it can be cumbersome to operate if you have manual transmission, but in an automatic, I see no problem)
Nothing really wrong with it, but it’s a style thing. Floor shifts have always (at least since the 50s) been more sporty. Column shifts have become mostly an “American large sedan” thing and I don’t think that was the demographic that Eagle was going for. Other than in trucks, the column shift has mostly disappeared, and for this reason.
Floor shift automatics in modern cars are just dumb. Nobody is going to think that you are driving a stick. They take up a lot of space. Women carry handbags. Stowing them in the front seat is always an issue. I’d much rather have a woman with a handbag in my car than a stupid floor shifted automatic.
The column gearshift on the LH was rather awkward to operate. Instead of sliding in a straight line (viewed from the side), it also rotated in a partial arc. It’s OK once you get used to it but feels funny. I still think it does, after owning one for nearly twenty years in my Dodge Intrepid.
The console shifter worked normally.
Wasn’t similar used on the minivans from this time period? Or perhaps the newer ones? At some point I have driven a Chrysler minivan that did exactly what you describe.
You’re making me feel like an old man (or more so, anyway). In my book, the combination of a column shifter and a split bench seat with a fold-down armrest was the pinnacle of front-seat automotive design.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with column shifters for automatics, at least automatics that lack any sort of manual shift override. But in the Giant Center Console Era we live in, they were deemed to be outdated.
But now that mechanical linkages are no longer necessary and automakers are experimenting with buttons and dials, maybe console shifters will follow column shifters in to the grave. I know won’t miss them.
Eagle was the short-run Desoto of its time: ginned-up to fill a gap or fit a purpose that didn’t really exist, placating a dealer body with another ‘make’ to sell, muddying the image of the volume brands on which its based, starved for development funds and unique models and then finally given an unceremonious demise…..yup, Desoto.
Curbside Classic: 1993 Eagle Vision – DeSoto 2.0
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1993-eagle-vision-desoto-2-0/
Yup. And like DeSoto, it had nowhere to go. Luxury car? Nope, that’s Chrysler’s niche. Sports car? But then what is Dodge? Family car kitted out better than a penalty box Plymouth? That’s definitely Dodge’s niche.
“In addition, most of the Jeep-Eagle dealers were being incorporated into Chrysler-Plymouth franchises…”
At this point, Chrysler was starting to give Jeep-Eagle franchises to Chrysler-Plymouth dealers, which made sense in light of rising Jeep sales, but there were still quite a few standalone Jeep-Eagle dealers, at least in my area. Chrysler seemed to make a concerted effort to get rid of standalone Jeep dealers around the middle of the first decade of this century, with larger dealers expanding to take on more Chrysler brands, and the smaller ones just going away.
In addition to fulfilling the terms of the Renualt deal, the creation of Eagle also gave former American Motors dealers a line of cars to sell alongside Jeeps, replacing their former AMC and Renualt offerings. Without a car line to replace AMC/Renault, those dealers would be losing some level of sales volume, at least in theory (in practice, that level of sales volume had been very inconsistent over the preceding several years). By the late 1990s, the SUV boom had pushed Jeep sales high enough that they probably exceeded what combined Jeep/AMC/Renault sales had been a decade or two earlier. Against that backdrop, trying to maintain a car brand that had never really gotten established in the marketplace as a supplement to the Jeep SUVs probably no longer made sense.
I know almost nothing about these cars. I’ve seen a few around. It’s all very confusing. First of all, Eagle was a name AMC used on it’s 4WD cars. Then it became a Chrysler name. I’m not sure how Renault fits in. I remember the Renault Le Car from the late ’70s, and then the Alliance, a product of Renault and AMC. Both junk. I used to know a guy who drove a second generation Eagle Talon for several years. This was one of the Diamond-Star cars that came from the relationship between Chrysler and Mitsubitshi. I guess I need to do a little more research on this, though I will never find myself working on one, if any still exist, as I don’t work on FWD cars anymore.
Any idea if the Eagle Medallion or Premiere, we’re designed by Italian design houses like Pininfarina, Guigaro or Ital Design?…
The Premier credited “design Giugiaro” with a badge on the early ones.
Thanks, that bodystyle does look to be Italian design produced… Reminiscent of the 80s- early 90’s Alfas.
Always loved the monochromatic versions of the Dodge Monaco, with the optional BBS styled, mesh alloys.
I wonder if Eagle hadn’t had so much money wasted on it would Plymouth have held out a bit longer or better yet still be here today.
Probably not, no.
I think the ultimate, inevitable downfall of Plymouth is that in the modern corporate marketing world, everyone wants their brand to be aspirational, even if they don’t know how to spell it.
I will be the contrarian and argue that Plymouth should not have gotten an LH model. Chrysler was the only company in the 90s that used its low-priced brand the way it should have been used – to sell basic, low priced cars. Neon, Breeze and Voyager were natural Plymouths. You want a nicer car, step up to another brand.
Plymouth only looked starved for product if you compare it to Ford (which had become active in all but the highest price classes) and Chevrolet (which had always been the 800 pound gorilla at GM).
Killing Plymouth was another of Daimler’s ideas. “Let’s make cheap Chryslers instead, and everyone will think they’re getting a great bargain!” Remember that the PT Cruiser was supposed to be a Plymouth. And it would have been a perfect Plymouth, too.
You make a very intriguing argument. I’m going to run with it for a few seconds.
With the Chrysler name going somewhat down market, and Dodge arguably staying put, what might the trajectory look like ten, fifteen, twenty years from now? Might Dodge be the upper tier brand? Might Chrysler have Newport-ed themselves into a corner? Or will Chrysler have too broad a range of low-end and high-end product (perhaps another Newport vs. New Yorker analogy?)?
No doubt Ford smothered Mercury and Chevrolet was King Kong. I am now delightfully sidetracked! 🙂
I think moving Chrysler downmarket (both in the early 2000s and again these days) is a mistake. When all of the company’s cars are in the same showroom, why not offer different brands. Dodge=sport, I get that. But you also need popular price and high end names, and I don’t think it ever works to make them the same brand.
Thinking about it, maybe “Chrysler” just can’t pull off high-end. They have tried, but failed several times. Still, I think that a division between Plymouth = small and cute and Chrysler = larger/better trimmed/more important would have been a good plan.
Chrysler has indeed struggled to pull off high-end. It’s been that way since, when, the 1940s?
Perhaps this has happened at another manufacturer, but I’m at a loss to recall one. But my thought is this: Plymouth has your small and mid-sized – the Valiant and Satellite. Dodge has the better trimmed full-size and lower trimmed full-size – the Coronet and Monaco. Chrysler has the mid- and high-trimmed full-size – the Newport and New Yorker. Or, thinking of this another way, Plymouth has the A- and B-Body; Dodge has the B- and plainer C-body; Chrysler has the C- and enhanced C-body.
Three makes, two to three trims, stick the pickup where ever – or just call it a Ram.
Has anyone done this? It gives three distinct series on three platforms and eliminates the messes that have happened in years past.
I have gotten the feeling for a while that Dodge’s days are numbered. Changing the name of the trucks certainly gave that impression. It’s been a while since the Chrysler brand seemed meaningfully more upscale than Dodge, so at this point, other than the Challenger, it seems like the main distinction is which styling iteration you prefer. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see Dodge phased out.
Valid points all. Not allowing Chrysler to have the very smallest cars, and not allowing Plymouth to have the largest cars was one of the easiest ways to start a foundation of brand differentiation and to minimize badge engineering.
As Brendan pointed out, (nice write-up, btw) the Concorde and Vision were the least differentiated LH cars, the Vision having only the hood as unique sheet metal. While things were consolidating fast, Eagle and Jeep were in theory not always in the same showroom. Vision sold as a Plymouth Fury would have been way too close to a Concorde.
I purchased new a 1995 Chrysler Concorde and had it for 10 years. It was a very nice car in most respects, and really brought Chrysler forward and out of its gingerbreaded = luxury era.
I thought the Eagle Vision was probably the best looking of basic LH cars, but still being in the mindset that Chrysler carried a bit of mid-price prestige and who knew what an Eagle was helped me make my decision in favor of the Chrysler.
The problem with classifying a brand as the purveyor of low-priced, basic vehicles is that even the people who can only afford low-priced, basic vehicles quickly don’t want anything to do with it.
Most people don’t want their friends and neighbors to think, after seeing their spiffy brand-new vehicle, “Is that all you could afford to buy?”
What to do with Plymouth had vexed Chrysler Corporation since the 1950s. In the early 1950s, one could say that the corporation hewed more closely to the idea of Plymouth as a plain, low-priced vehicle than GM and Ford did with Chevrolet and Ford, respectively.
Plymouths looked shorter, dumpier and plainer than Chevrolets and Fords (let alone Dodges, DeSotos and Chryslers). If there ever was a low-priced car that encouraged people to buy something better as soon as they could afford to do so, it was the 1953-54 Plymouth.
While Ford and Chevrolet were selling well in this era, Plymouth was promptly clobbered in the sales race when the end of the postwar sellers’ market finally came about in 1953. The corporation’s market share went into a tailspin, falling from about 20 percent in 1953 to about 13 percent in 1954!
Chrysler Corporation’s success was heavily dependent on the success or failure of the Plymouth brand, and by 1954 it was painfully evident that treating Plymouth as the purveyor of simple, inexpensive transportation and not much else wasn’t making the grade.
Unfortunately, what followed was another 20+ years of corporate indecision as to whether Plymouth or Dodge was the corporation’s big gun. Eventually, Dodge won that battle.
The Vision really wouldn’t have made much difference in the ultimate fate of Plymouth, in my opinion. Chrysler Corporation simply needed to recognize that it could effectively cover the market with three brands. Dodge would be the “mass-market brand” that competed with Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota by offering a full line of passenger cars, SUVs and pickups. (Combining the sales of Dodge and Ram for 2014 adds up to a little over 1 million units, which would have been sufficient to make it the sixth most popular brand that year.)
Chrysler would be the slightly upscale brand, with Jeep exploiting the market for SUVs and crossovers (while selling the iconic Wrangler).
Fiat has separated the full-size pickups from Dodge, and cast Dodge as a high-performance brand, while making Chrysler the mass-market brand. Whether this will work remains to be seen, but it appears to me that the Italians are going to continue the tradition of the Germans, Lee Iacocca, Lynn Townsend and Tex Colbert of not effectively positioning the corporation’s portfolio of brands.
Well said, but I don’t agree with your conclusion (about Chrysler being the slightly upscale brand). That’s a niche that doesn’t really exist anymore, at least not properly. Which of course explains the demise of Mercury, as well as Pontiac and Olds. Buick defies my point, but then GM has reasons to do so (China), as well as the scale. And Buicks are decidedly enough different from Cadillacs to be viable, more or less.
But That’s not a strategy Chrysler can or should pursue, because branding has changed so much. Increasingly, buyers want premium features on mass market cars/brands, and distinguishing between a mass market brand and a slightly-upscale brand just doesn’t really work anymore.
I think FCA’s branding approach is right, with the various brand connoting more precisely what the brand stands for, and FCA has plenty of brands to do that with.
Given that the company name includes “Chrysler”, it makes sense that Chryslers are the equivalent of Fords and Toyotas. That’s worked for those companies.
Whether Chrysler’s strategy will work is of course dependent on the actual products and execution. But the world has changed, and the traditional structures don’t really work so well anymore. Just like it didn’t work to have a “poverty brand” like Plymouth, so also it would have been hard to slot in both Dodge and Chrysler. Dodge’s brand was bound to suffer the same fate as Plymouth did. Budget brands just don’t seem to work anymore; KIA and Hyundai have shown that very clearly. The expensive KIAs and Hyundais may not sell all that well, but they certainly have delivered the brands from budget-car hell.
It will be interesting to see how Fiat’s brand strategy ultimately works in the coming years. I still call the trucks “Dodge Rams,” much as people for years referred to the Imperial as the “Chrysler Imperial,” even though it was technically it’s own brand.
It ultimately does make sense to position Chrysler as the main brand, given that it’s also the name of the corporation, and Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota have proven that it’s possible for a brand to sell vehicles in a wide range of price classes.
The only people I can imagine insists buying entry level luxury car are seniors. Buick is comfortable and luxurious enough without catching the premium, Lincoln is not far away from that ( price tag of MKZ ) and probably Lexus ( but it plays better for staying upscale, for the moment ) it’s the market shifting away from entry level luxury cars, or upscale luxury cars sink to entry level is a doubt. But plenty of brand new $35k German luxury cars don’t have interior as nice as well optioned LeSabre with less accessories ( manual seats, manual AC ) is a problem.
Just a thought, Paul: Wouldn’t they be better off pitching Dodge against Fords and Toyotas and pushing Chrysler into a Lexus/Acura/Infiniti slot? Last I heard those brands still sold in the US. Or is the Chrysler brand so tarnished that it couldn’t pull that off?
Not so much tarnished as not nearly enough polished. Lexus and Acura established themselves with genuinely unique and premium products: the LS and Legend. And that was back when it when the market was more clearly stratified. And don’t forget that the dealer experience with Lexus and Acura is an essential part of the deal.
There’s no realistic way Chrysler can and should try to pull that off, after building all the low-end stuff they have over the last few decades, never mind building stand-alone dealers. Impossible.
Their best hope is with Alfa Romeo and Maserati; those brands still have some genuine cachet.
You make a good point about the people who can only afford a budget brand not wanting the stigma that it carries. That was one of the failures of the Tata Nano–while it was a perfectly viable, if crude, car that sold for dirt cheap brand new, the people it was targeted toward didn’t want to be seen driving it. It clearly proclaimed “I am poor and this is the only car I can afford”. Much better to be seen in a used car, even if it costs more in repairs and fuel bills.
The other consideration here, as far as the ’40s and ’50s went, was that a lot of senior Chrysler managers had been past heads of Dodge, in large part because Dodge controlled a big chunk of Chrysler’s total manufacturing capacity. When Chrysler took over Dodge in the late ’20s, there was some incredulity because I think at that point Dodge was bigger than Chrysler or the old Maxwell-Chalmers had ever been. So, it wasn’t simply a matter of brand management, but of actual size and power of the organization. (I don’t remember offhand how many dealers Dodge had in the ’50s and early ’60s, so I won’t try to speak to that part or I’ll probably put my foot in my mouth.)
Dodge was also a fully established, well-respected brand for fourteen years when upstart Chrysler scored a real coup with its purchase. Concurrent to that action was the recycling of the Maxwell four-cum-Chrysler F-58, Series 50 & 52 fours into the 1928 Chrysler-Plymouth Model Q, slipping a low-priced line in under Dodge to do battle with Ford and Chevrolet. Plymouth admirably fulfilled its role as long as the “Low-Priced Three” structure remained the bedrock of the market.
But things would change as the late 1950’s arrived with upmarket versions of low-priced cars never before available, Plymouth’s position became shaky. As has been pointed out, many of the top management positions were fill by men who proved themselves at Dodge. From 1960 on, Plymouth continually glanced uncomfortably over its shoulder, put on notice by the new 1960 Dodge Dart selling for only $50 more than the Plymouth. Dodge management had Plymouth’s volume in its cross-hairs……with upper management’s blessing.
Dodge was the preferred brand to promote for volume; Plymouth, like Desoto was an expendable entity when conditions allowed. Just like Desoto, Plymouth was powerless to stop the inevitable, as it had watching upmarket Dodges and cut-rate Chryslers do their job on their stable mate sitting duck.
A-Body Dart/Valiant were still distinctive enough for Dodge/Plymouth, but when coming to F-Body… they became too alike
You and Jason make some good sense here. Chrysler Corporation is the only one of the ‘Big 3’ that named their top of the line car after the Corporation name. That is of course because Chrysler Corporation began with the Chrysler car named after the man himself. Ford Motor Company has their Lincoln, GM has their Cadillac, but Chrysler is their top brand. Sure the Imperial was, from time to time, but it didn’t seem to stick.
The discussion about the Eagle ‘Cab Forward’ platform seems to have gotten a little heated. The platform is what is really being discussed here, it seems to me. In the 50s and 60s there were basically 3 at Chrysler, the best known being the A, B, & C bodies. Valiant/Dart, Belvedere/Coronet and the Polara/DeSoto/Chrysler platform of the late 60s probably being the most familiar.
When Chrysler bought AMC, to get the Jeep line and that was really it. The JEEP! Chrysler was stuck with the remnants of the AMC line as well.
I remember well that we who were ‘real’ Chrysler product mechanics, despised the AMC orphans. Lots of odd hardware on those cars including that miserable v6 Renault engine! However, as written in the above story, Chrysler was contractually obligated to continue the AMC Eagle brand for so many years as a payback to Renault, and to continue their obligation to the owners of previous models of the AMC line, still under warranty. They therefore continued with a car line using their most current ‘platform’ even though it was totally a Chrysler automobile that they could handle the warranty on even after the Eagle name was discontinued.
Interestingly, the Willys Aero-Eagle, mentioned earlier, was the little car that appeared in the rain at the end of ‘Back to the Future ll’ as Marty had just seen the DeLorian struck by lightning.
My 8th grade school teacher had one of them. She bragged that it ‘had fins’. Yes, that was back in 1953-54.
Gem, you can tell Chrysler was going to axe Plymouth, in a matter of 10 years or lil more, when they would use the same model for BOTH divisions, like Dodge/Plymouth Colt and Dodge/Plymouth Neon… Instead of giving Plymouth’s version, it’s own unique name.
You can tell, Plymouth was only excess luggage for Chrysler, at that point.
A shame it ended like that.There were some great Plymouths which I’d like to have if I had the money
I know what you mean… In the 60s- early 70’s, Plymouth , along with Dodge, was Chryslers performance division.
It produced memorable Mopar favorites like Valiant, Cuda, Road Runner, GTX, Belvedere, Satellite, Savoy and Superbird.
Fast forward 20 plus years, and Plymouth had NO performance models, except the Prowler(a 6 cylinder… But still not boring) in a few years.
The same could be said for, Pontiac… A performance leader who created the musclecar genre… but 30 years, had no new US made performance prospects on the horizon.
Instead, they rely on foreign GM division, Holden… To make their latest sporty offerings(G8 and latest GTO).
Sad to see, TWO kings of the muscle car era, no longer with us. I am a Pontiac fan as well, but I digress… If money were no object, I would love to make room for a 70 Superbird or 70 Hemi Cuda. :p
Even before then, Chrysler effectively eliminated its divisions by using the same pentastar logo and not even attempting to differentiate the styling.
During the Iacocca years, they even shared the advertising, e.g. it was the “Chrysler’s revolutionary new minivan, available at your Dodge or Plymouth dealer”, with the actual model names below the fold.
In the world of car design, the Vision looks like a typical 1990s product, while at the same time one of the better examples IMO. While that isn’t saying much, it still looks kinda good today. (perhaps even cool, but I guess that would be a stretch)
As for the fact that it “received little in the way of marketing and media exposure” – I doubt if it would make much difference, with stupid ads like the one shown in the article (“…carefully engineered to be WRONG for the mass market…. not intended for the general public”) – while some marketing wiseguys who came up with this crap undoubtedly thought how smart they were, this exactly the kind of thing that usually backfires with target audiences. This ad style perhaps makes more sense nowadays and for certain products, but in early 90s and for an unestablished car brand – probably not so much…
“…Chrysler had THREE models, just by itself… And Plymouth got zilch.”
Translation – Chrysler-Plymouth dealers had three LH models, all bearing the more prestigious, higher profit Chrysler brand.
Plymouth got shafted, over and over again, because it was only a name without a Plymouth-only dealer body to advocate for product. Likewise, Eagle was a hedge against running a dealership channel with SUVs only, something that became less of a concern as time went on but that nobody was sure was even possible long-term in 1988.
Also, if you already have a more content-rich (and likely more profitable) Chrysler-badged version, there’s not much incentive for a dealer to add a cheaper downmarket edition unless the pricier car is just not selling.
They should have just kept selling the Eagle Wagon, updating its interior and adding modern fuel injection and integrating it more with the Jeep brand. Period. Instead we got all this nonsense. The Renault-designed cars were butt ugly.
Frank, it would have been cool and interesting, to see an American AWD wagon offering like an updated AMC Eagle as an alternative to the Subaru Outback, Volvo Cross Country, and Audi Avant Quattro.
Sign me up. 🙂
It looks like the 3.3 and 3.5 have reversed numbers in the article. The 3.3 made 161 HP and 181 Torque and the 3.5 gave 214 horses and 221 torque. The LH cars starting in 1993 made a fairly big splash on the automotive scene kind of like the Taurus did in 1986 and were well received by the automotive media at the time. It was a shame they wasted money and resources on the Eagle line and instead could have spent the dough on making better quality control, better transmissions and easier access to work on the 3.5 engines.
I like the suggestion that the Eagle wagon could have lasted longer with updated 4 liter FI L6 and interior/exterior updates such as flush headlights and a driver’s airbag lifted from the M-bodies etc.
Thanks for pointing that out. It’s fixed.
I think this article touches on what happened to Eagle AND Plymouth in that there was no clear vision (no pun intended) of where the various Chrysler brands were in the market and where they were headed 10, 15, 20 years down the road. Plymouth, at one time, was the 3rd best selling brand of car but “the powers that be” decided at some point (the mid 70s?) that Plymouth’s role in the company was as a loss-leader/budget brand car. That could have worked if Plymouth wasn’t starved of product and the products they did get weren’t cheapened versions instead of less expensive versions of cars available at Dodge or Chrysler dealers.
These Visions are good looking cars and the Tsi is supposed to be a great handler, too. It’s unfortunate that the marketing push was not there or for that matter it didn’t look noticeably different from the other LH sedans. It’s hard to believe the numbers sold were so tiny. Chrysler’s EDSEL?
It’s a shame Iacocca couldn’t have figured out a way to launch Eagle and still save Plymouth at the same time. The Eagle division might not have been the death-knell for Plymouth, but it certainly was a big nail in the coffin.
OTOH, Chrysler really didn’t have a lot of choice. The just-acquired Jeep division was a big money-maker and it made perfect sense to give them a car-line they could sell alongside the four-wheel-drive products in the Jeep showrooms. It bought them time until Jeep could merge with the existing Chrysler and Dodge dealerships. So here comes Eagle and Plymouth loses even more relevance. By the time Jeep was merged with the other Chrysler dealerships and Eagle was no longer needed, Plymouth was all but gone, too.
Maybe if Plymouth had been spun-off into the Jeep dealerships. Of course, that would have been real tough for the Chrysler dealerships to swallow, not to mention that it was the lowest-tier Chrysler product in the highest-income Jeep demographic.
A sharp looking car. I always liked the Eagle logo, too bad Chrysler didn’t find a model to recycle it on.
My mother had two Intrepids but I always thought the Vision was much better looking, and wished she’d had one of those instead. And as a fellow Massachusetts resident, it’s clear you took these photos before winter set in…
Yes indeed! I took these last July. Summer is a nice memory, I don’t know if we’ll ever see it again.
Brendan,
This is a nice piece that makes some interesting points I hadn’t really considered. The comparison to Acura I think is on point, particularly considering Acura’s remarkably quick ascendancy at the point Eagle was created. In that light, pairing cars like the Vision with the Talon makes more sense (given Acura’s Legend/Integra split), and wanting to offer an “import intender” brand to catch affluent Jeep buyers also seems logical. Obviously, it didn’t work out that way, but you’ve done a great job of deciphering what they were probably thinking.
The downfall of all the “import fighter” brands of that period was that they didn’t look at everything the Japanese had initially done right in establishing their new brands. One of the key points was creating a strong signature product; another was not having that signature product duplicated elsewhere. (Obviously, Acura, Infiniti, and Toyota all offered products that were more or less badge-engineered, but having flagships that clearly weren’t helped to paper over the credibility gap.) Had Chrysler been able to launch Eagle with the Vision and Talon and if the LH cars hadn’t also been available from every Dodge and Chrysler Plymouth store (at least not in such obviously similar form), it might have had a better shot of being a contender in that regard.
Thanks! I’m glad someone caught that paragraph. Having the other LH cars of course is the elephant in the room, but if Chrysler was able to differentiate the Vision bit more, and take it further upmarket they may have been able to better market Eagle. I’m not saying it would’ve made Eagle more successful, but it’s something to think about.
The other consideration, which in this light might have been a missed opportunity, is that the LH cars suffered from last-minute cost-cutting to try to fatten the margins while maintaining a pretty aggressive price point. Those cuts had a lot to do with taking the LH cars from home run to almost-but-not-quite. A Vision with corners unsnipped (with an adequate HVAC system, for instance) and maybe slightly more upscale interior materials would have been a hell of a car; it would probably have cost about as much as a Legend, but it also would have also been competitive with cars like that. And of course a RWD LHS-type flagship would not have been out of the question either.
+1 Great job, Brendan. This is something I never, ever considered, but it makes perfect sense. If Chrysler could have gotten people to actually see “Eagle” that way, maybe they would have been more successful. Like the article suggests, I don’t think people saw Eagle as anything in particular. FWIW, I liked the details on the Vision the best of all the LH cars.
They even used the same exact font as Honda in the ad for the Premier:
I never noticed the same fonts in those ads. Great find!
Speaking of LHs… Just seen a mint 1st gen Chrysler LHS at Dunkin’ Donuts, today… The teal paint and body looked pretty good for a car driving around New England.
Like others, I always found the Vision to be the most attractive of the LH cars. Never a fan of the Eagle badge, however. Something about the line drawing of an Eagle head with open mouth. Just not the greatest.
To me Plymouth was no different than Buick, Olds Pontiac, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Saturn, Lincoln, Mercury, etc. Chrysler was the parent company of Dodge, Plymouth, DeSoto, and all the other brands that used to exist, just like Ford was the parent company of Lincoln and Mercury, and GM was the parent company of Buick, Olds Pontiac, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Saturn, etc. I definitely see a place for Plymouth, it’s probably gone because Fiat wanted to simplify things. For me one of the most desirable cars in the world, of any age, is the 1970 Plymouth Hemi Roadrunner. Not only is it a gorgeous car, but the first one to really get the muscle car concept right. Big power in a stripped down car. It didn’t have much of anything that didn’t make it go fast. Today’s Challenger, while an attractive car by today’s standards, doesn’t come close to the original in looks or thrills. Tons of power, but much to well controlled. Those early muscle cars were downright scary. They didn’t have as much power as a modern one, but felt like they had more. That’s where the fun came from. I would love to see Plymouth and Pontiac come back. I don’t miss Mercury, and wouldn’t mind seeing Buick gone. Automakers need to inject more excitement into their cars and back off on the safety, mpg, and utility aspects a bit. They need to build something fun, with 2 doors, RWD, and at an affordable price.
I’m a big fan of the LH platform. For the first-gen, I like the Concorde and the Vision the best.
Sadly, while I see the very occasional 1st-gen Concorde, I very rarely see a Vision. Several months–sometimes almost a year–will go by before I spot one. I know, they’re very identical and the body and components are mostly the exact same thing, but it’s just the idea.
I was traveling to a family outing with my girlfriend about a month ago. On the freeway, a Vision on certain life support mustered enough power to pass its baby cousin, my Chrysler 200.
I could tell its days were numbered: junkyard bumper and trunklid with a different color than the body, rough paint with no clearcoat, grimy windows, no hubcaps. Last oil change was probably two years ago. No pride in the vehicle whatsoever. But it overcame its reality and kept going.
Because it’s been so long that I’ve seen a Vision on the road, I made a big deal about it and got a little too excited, and broke the silence of the mostly quiet trip. My girlfriend spilled her coffee drink and elbowed me for breaking the silence and couldn’t figure out what the big deal was.
It was this car or the Concorde that I aspired to own as my first car. That was over seven years ago, and even then, an Eagle Vision in good condition was hard to find. Luckily, I found a mint 1997 Chrysler Concorde LXi.
I have owned a few cars like that. They may have looked like junk, but they were nearly perfect mechanically. They were transportation cars, daily drivers, of an older model that was easy to work on, and I didn’t care about their looks, because they sat outside in the AZ sun all day, they got banged into in parking lots, and they didn’t look like anything a thief would be interested in. I used to call them rat cars, but that was before the “rat rod” craze. I never did anything to intentionally make them look bad.
I usually break the silence when seeing a car like Eagle Vision, or Eagle Premier, maybe a V6 Lincoln Continental too, but that’s usually the time when my passengers get confused what to look for.
The first generation Concordes were pretty nice looking too, especially the 1996-1997s with the monotone paint, Spiralcast alloy wheels, and gold trim. Way more attractive than the second generation IMO.
I actually like the ’93-’95 body cladding, even though my ’97 didn’t have it; my favorite was the very common white body color with the gray plastic cladding. Normally it isn’t a good fit for a premium car, but the Concorde wore it well.
However, I imagine a lot of otherwise good cars with this cladding have succumbed to major rust issues, especially in the salt states.
The second generation Concorde had a bulbous rear end. I really feel it should have taken the rear-end outline of the second-gen Intrepid or 300m.
I don’t know why, but the 2002 refresh where the design merged with the LHS looks better than the ’98-01 design. The bulbous rear end is subdued, even though the sheet metal stayed the same.
Eagle might have had a fighting chance had they gone the Subaru route and eventually went all 4wd/AWD. They had the AWD set up for the Talon and the LH was designed to be able to be built in AWD versions but those designs were left on the shelf when they couldn’t afford to tool up for it. Let the other versions have the AWD optional on the top spec if needed to amortize the tooling but make the AWD standard in the Eagle versions. It probably would have be too much too early, but that was the claim to fame for Jeeps and the Eagle model.
However I don’t think that Chrysler really had its heart in the Eagle brand and only saw it as a place and engine holder. They had all those engines that they needed to sell somehow and didn’t want to spend the money to make it fit any of their own cars on a temporary basis. Put just enough effort in to avoid looking like they are starving out the AMC/Renault dealers to avoid having to buy out their franchise.
That’s a good point. I forgot about the AWD Talon. Had the LH cars been produced 15-20 years later, there would certainly have been AWD versions, as just about every sedan today seems to offer it. AWD-only would’ve been another selling point, and maybe something to create more buzz for Eagle.
Eagle did exist in the original AWD car boom, just about everyone had a AWD/4wd sedan at the time. The engine lay out of the LH cars was so that AWD (and RWD) were all easily produced, all on the same line at the same time, but Chrysler either chickened out or ran of out money to make it happen. The initial design for the LX cars was just a refresh of the LH that did include dusting off the AWD and RWD plans buy Daimler said no you must redesign to use Mercedes components rather than tool for your existing designs.
In addition to the Talon and LH there were other Mitsubishi cars available with AWD or 4wd that they could have rounded out the Ealgle offerings with.
Upon looking at that photoshop, my reaction was “that Plymouth Breeze looks a bit odd” I assume Plymouth didn’t get one of these because they had no full-size car at the time.
Looking back at the comments from a 2021 perspective, it’s interesting to note that FCA/Stellantis now is starting to allow franchisees to have dealerships that only sell the Jeep brand. In fact, the dealer in Las Vegas is called “Jeep Only”.
The local AMC dealer in my area was called Courtesy AMC, which became Courtesy Jeep/Eagle. When Eagle was dropped, they were just Courtesy Jeep for several years, and Jeeps alone were clearly enough for them to subsist. They now are a big-chain-owned Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Ram dealership. There are still a few local dealers that carry just some of those four brands.
Not many of the opinions I held as a 13 year old stand the test of time, but in this case, it holds: the LH sedans were handsome then and they’re handsome now.
What happened to Brendan? He disappeared about 2 years ago?
I lump Eagle in with Geo and Scion – all were new brands from old companies trying to reach a new market, all failed at doing so, and all wound up selling a hodgepodge of castoffs before being terminated. And all wound up being absorbed back into their respective companies’ better-known brands (the Chrysler 300M was originally intended to be the second-generation Eagle Vision).
The LH cars always impressed me and they certainly resonated with buyers up here as like the Taurus, they were everywhere. I have an aunt in another city who still has an LH model. Can’t remember which one though. Last I saw the car it was in very good shape.
I also think its unfortunate the Vision Aerie concept was never produced. I like that one a lot!
I know there’s a lot of nostalgia for Plymouth but y’all are remembering the 1970 Superbirds, not the 1976 Volare, or the 1981 Horizon, or the 1986 Reliant . . . Chrysler had pretty much killed off anything resembling a brand identity for Plymouth in the early 70s. Was there really any difference between a Fury and a Monaco? There certainly was no difference between an Aries and a Reliant or a Shadow and a Sundance and the Chrysler versions like the New Yorker just seemed like the Plymouth/Dodge versions dressed up in a nice suit, more like brougham/limited versions of the Polara/Monaco/Fury whatever than a separate brand.
At least GM offered the different brands in different showrooms and some of them had different drivetrains and trim packages and dealer experiences. You can argue the rationality of it, but people who bought Oldsmobiles would not buy Buicks and people who bought Saturns wouldn’t buy anything else GM.
Superbird notwithstanding, what was the 90’s reason for Plymouth’s existence? Saturn, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac offered a unique (varyingly so) product line and different dealer experiences. Even Mercury had more options than the equivalent Ford, a few unique products, and a different dealer experience. Wow! It’s a couple hunnet dollas cheaper than a Dodge isn’t really much of a selling point.
Eagle was a better idea. There are PLENTY of people who would NEVER consider, as mentioned, a Chrysler product, something along the lines of “I remember Mom had a Volare and it was junk” or “Dad had a 1963 Dart in 1983 and it had 250000 miles and was full of rust” but would consider an “imported” car. Like Saturn, which . . it sold well! And Geo, which I think did better than what we think in retrospect. I knew people who bought Geo Storms because they weren’t American. Even if the lineup was rather a dog’s breakfast of various captive imports, individually the cars weren’t bad and there was some coherence. Perhaps had Chrysler given Eagle more marketing it would have done better.
Also the Medallion and Premier had their highest and best use and potential as weights to tie dead bodies to or artificial reefs. They were typically French with complicated engineering and electronics, and typically French fragile. The Alliance was also generally a terrible car but can you imagine the poor AMC mechanic, used to hammering on Hornets and Pacers which are basically the same technology as dirt, being confronted by something with Starship Enterprise engineering. That probably had something to do with their failure.
I never understood Chrysler using different brands with the same Pentastar and changing only bumpers and tail lights to distinguish the same product from one brand to another, GM had been doing it since 70’s, but with more substantial changes between its bud models but Chrysler brought it to another level it should have confused people more than widen its market sharing. And the Honda Prelude nose in an austere sedan body is kinda paradoxical.