(first posted 6/9/2022)
Full Disclosure: I completed this article on the Plymouth Sundance for CJCZ92’s Cohort photos, only to find this black cherry pearl 1990 Dodge Shadow I couldn’t pass up using. So while the article mainly covers the Sundance, my official “Curbside Classic” is a Shadow.
Throughout history, the names of related Dodge and Plymouth models generally shared little to no relation with one another, until this Dodge-Plymouth duo of compacts, which coincidently was the last not to share a common name. Although they aren’t exactly opposites, “Sundance” tends to evoke jovial images of light and cheeriness while “Shadow” tends to elicit a darker and gloomier state of mind. It’s also interesting to note that “Sundance” was the Plymouth version, as by the end of this car’s run it was the Plymouth brand in a very gloomy state, and Dodge was dancing closer to the sun with rising sales and popularity.
Sold for the 1987 through 1994 model years, the Sundance was Plymouth’s compact sedan and coupe, which would collectively replace the Horizon, Turismo, and Reliant, as these vehicles were phased out between 1987-1990. Riding on a shortened version of the K body, originally designated the “P-platform” (called the “AP” from 1989-onward), the Sundance coupe and sedan were actually 3- and 5-door hatchbacks (or “liftbacks”; the official marketing term varied by model year), cleverly disguised by the car’s notchback design.
Reportedly costing some $600 million to develop, the Sundance and nearly identical Dodge Shadow were Chrysler’s answer to cars such as the Ford Escort, GM J-cars, and less realistically, the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic. With a strong target market of both first-time new car and females buyers, the Sundance/Shadow sought to offer higher levels of content and refinement than the Mopars they replaced.
The P-bodies were also engineered to offer a more rewarding, “fun-to-drive” experience than previous compact Chryslers. Although no one would confuse the driving experience with that of a BMW or even Honda Civic, the Sundance featured a gas-charged dual path Iso-strut front suspension (beam axle with dual trailing arms in the rear) with gas-charged shock absorbers, front and rear anti-sway bars, and a tighter 14:1 steering ratio, all for improved handling and ride quality.
Chrysler predictably dipped into the growing K-car parts bin for many of the Sundance’s components. Some of the Daytona’s body stampings and suspension components were borrowed, and just about all of the switchgear and hardware, from the gear shift lever to door handles, could be found on other Mopars.
Engines and transmissions were also nothing new, with the 93 horsepower naturally-aspirated 2.2L Chrysler K engine available over the car’s entire production, and from 1988-on, the slightly more robust 2.5L K engine. Offering approximately fifty-percent greater horsepower and torque, the 2.2L Turbo I was also available from 1987-1988, replaced by the larger 2.5L Turbo I, producing 150 horsepower and 190 pound-feet torque.
Replacing the Turbo I as the top engine in 1992 was the equally familiar Mitsubishi-sourced 3.0L V6, producing only 141 horsepower and 171 pound-feet torque, but lacking any turbo lag. Original plans allegedly called for a 16-valve 2.5L inline-4 with Lotus cylinder heads, but this was ultimately cancelled, likely due to cost. Transmissions available over the Sundance’s run were the standard 5-speed manual, optional TorqueFlite 3-speed automatic, and later, the Ultradrive 4-speed auto.
Stylistically speaking, the Sundance and Shadow also shared similarities with other EEKs, though thankfully not the boxy upright appearance of the original Reliant/Aries. Versus the Reliant, the Sundance exhibited rounder sheetmetal and softer angles, and its profile was clearly more trapezoidal influenced, borrowing styling cues from sportier K-cars such as the H-body Dodge Lancer/Chrysler LeBaron GTS, J-body Chrysler LeBaron coupe, and G-body Dodge Daytona/Chrysler Laser.
Thankfully, interiors were also more modern by 1987 standards, with no tacked-on fake wood trim or front bench seats in sight. In their place were contoured front buckets with articulated headrests, a floor console with available center armrest, and a clearly-defined vertical center stack housing all radio and HVAC controls, and on RS models, a turbo boost gauge and fog light controls.
Base models featured the expected lowish-grade cloth seating surfaces with vinyl trim, while higher trim levels gained sports seats with thicker foam padding and some more expressive upholsteries, in typical late-1980s/early-1990s fashion.
Original promotional materials proudly advertised the Sundance’s “Forty-seven standard features”, though looking at the specs page in my 1987 brochure, the combined lists of standard exterior, interior, functional, and safety features adds up to more than forty-seven. With that in mind, some of the listed “standard features” are ones that any car buyer would expect, such as a set of four steel-belted radials. Others such rear coat hooks and a tinted hatch window are a little more vehicle-specific.
For 1988, the Sundance gained the range-topping RS (short for “Rallye Sport”) model, adding standard features such as the 2.5L I4 (with the optional turbo frequently equipped) with 125 mph speedometer, “performance-contoured” front sports seats with thicker bolstering and adjustable driver’s lumbar support, leather-wrapped sport steering wheel, 4-speaker AM/FM stereo with cassette player, electronic message center, power door locks, fog lights, full-length center console with armrest, and a decklid luggage rack.
Adding to its more powerful engines, with its attractive standard two-tone exterior paint treatment, upgraded oh-so-Eighties red-accent upholstered seats and door panels, and 14-inch cast aluminum wheels, the RS was clearly the most appealing Sundance, offering a reasonable mix of deluxe features, spirited performance, and visual flair. Unlike its Dodge sibling’s Shelby CSX, Plymouth never received a high-performance Sundance model, nor a convertible.
Although no major update ever occurred over the Sundance’s eight-year lifespan, Chrysler did make consistent improvements to the car. Apart from the aforementioned engine upgrades, the HVAC system was improved for 1988 for better air flow. 1989 brought a host of updates, including redesigned front and rear fascias with composite headlights and single-piece taillights, redesigned front seat backs for increased rear knee room, dual illuminated interior vanity mirrors, re-tuned suspension on RS models, as well as new features such as a six-way power driver’s seat.
1990 Sundances added a standard driver’s side airbag on all models, switched to a “three-plane” shift pattern on manual transmission cars, and offered new options such as a premium Infinity I sound system. 1991 brought suspension and steering revisions, new front buckets, and available four-wheel disc brakes, but the big news was the addition of the “stripper” Sundance America.
Similar to the America trim level offered during the Horizon and Reliant’s final years, the Sundance America was all about value. Retailing for $7,999 (excluding destination), the Sundance and Shadow America series were the least expensive cars on the market with a driver’s airbag, a fact Chrysler proudly advertised. Befitting of its stripped-down positioning, Sundance Americas came standard with cloth seats, unpainted bumpers, steel wheels, the 2.2L I4, 5-speed manual, and little else. Options included an AM/FM radio, air conditioning, rear defroster, and a passenger’s side remote mirror.
Changes for 1992 included standard four-wheel disc brakes, the addition of the Mitsubishi V6, an optional 4-speed automatic, and standard 15-inch wheels with the V6. 1992 also brought a number of exterior and interior trim, wheel, and color changes, and the third return of the Duster nameplate as a trim package after its 1970-1976 run as its own specific model line.
Taking the place of the RS as the Sundance’s “performance” model in 1992, the reincarnated Duster traded RS’s turbo, special upholstery patter, and Euro-esque exterior styling for a smoother and more reliable but less powerful V6, plain grey or beige upholstery, and a monochromatic, boy-racer exterior.
Preference of the RS versus the Duster is totally subjective, although I personally think the RS was a far more interesting and visually appealing model. The Duster just came across as cheap and bland versus the RS’s more upscale aspirations. The very cheap looking and out of place fake wood interior trim was also a negative. But hey, at least you could get gold alloy wheels if you wanted!
Despite the Sundance’s impending discontinuation with announcement of its all-new Neon successor, Chrysler invested a significant amount of upgrades for 1993, which would prove to be the P-body’s second-to-final model year. Chrysler redesigned both the intake manifold on the 2.2-liter and 2.5-liter four-cylinders for improved idling and fuel economy, as well as the timing cover for improved reliability concerning oil leaking. The V6’s idle speed was also reduced for improved fuel economy, and the 3-speed automatic received revisions for a quieter final drive.
The America series and the mid-level Highline trim were eliminated in favor of an un-named base model with available popular equipment packages and individual options, while the top-trim Duster remained. A new anti-lock braking system was now an available option on all Sundances, and an all-beige interior was added. A high-performance torque converter was also an option on four cylinder automatics, and the available Infinity stereos now received graphic equalizer bands as well as the option for a CD player.
With Neon production beginning in December 1993 and sales of 1995 model year vehicles starting quite early in 1994, there was a bit of overlap between sales of the Sundance/Shadow and Neon. Production of the P-bodies officially ended on March 11, 1994, with over 1.4 million Sundances and Shadows produced since 1986. Reportedly, over half the people who test drove Sundances bought one… at least that’s what Chrysler paid Tina Turner to say.
The P-bodies, of course, had their flaws. For starters, the very fact that they were based on the K-platform is enough to make some cringe and run. The fact of that matter is, the limitations of the K-car’s aging chassis was becoming all to obvious. No matter how much Chrysler nipped and tucked, the K-cars and its various derivatives could not match the refinement of newer competitors in areas such as ride quality, handling, and levels of NVH.
Especially by the 1990s, remaining K-car descendents were becoming noticeably elderly, with everything from interiors and hardware to powertrain and bodies projecting a very “recycled” essence. Adding to this, the P-bodies never earned a high reputation for reliability, and like most American small cars of their time, the Sundance/Shadow failed to turn a profit, with the automaker losing money on each unit sold.
In any event, the Sundance 2- and 4-doors did offer a large amount of standard and available equipment, not to mention their over 33 cubic feet of cargo space with the rear seats folded down, a benefit of their “hidden hatchback” design. Chrysler made an effort to keep the Sundance and Shadow appealing, with new features and minor refinements, even as the P-bodies were becoming outdated and outclassed by newer competitors. Even if they didn’t achieve the same cult status as their predecessors, the Sundance and Shadow were solid bargains right up until the end.
Related Reading:
How did they forget how to paint a car so the paint stays on.?
In the 90’s US manufacturers started to use low VOC paints for the benefit of the environment.
You weren’t supposed to keep it that long!
I never drove one of these, but always considered them as modern and attractive as anything of its class, at least among domestics.
You make a good point that today, these lack the charm and personality of either the prior L bodies or the Neon that followed.
It is interesting to think about what Chrysler thought in the design phase. By making the hatch so well hidden and offering such a high level of trim, Chrysler was going for a big price increase to make a subcompact viable. Understandable, but in the end probably destroyed the cars usefulness as a subcompact. With no engine offered below the 2.2 and a weight higher than a much roomier K car, there was no economy of operation advantage to the Sundance. So that left the Sundance trying to duke it out with a bigger Cavalier or Sunbird. Here the 2.2 started to show it’s age. When the Sundance debuted the Sundance had 93hp and the Cavalier 90hp. By 94 the Sundance still had 93hp, but the base Cavalier had 120hp, from a same size engine. The Cavalier also got better mileage.
Cavalier Man 1990 25/36 city/highway auto 25/33 1990 price$8202 inc dest
Sundance man 1990 24/31 city/highway auto 23/28 price $9485 inc dest
As soon as the Horizon went away, the America package went to the Sundance and there was little chance of profit. Brendan quoted a 600 million price on developing the Sundance. I wonder how many extra units of Horizon could have been had with a 100 million redo to get it through to the Neon.
Wasn’t the paint issue more related to cost-cutting primer that didn’t have UV protection? UV light broke the bond between the top coat and the primer, causing the paint to fall off. With the primer exposed and permeable, moisture then caused rust.
I liked the looks of these cars, the hidden hatchback idea should have been applied to the Dart to make it more practical. So many trunk openings on sedans or coupes are useless for cargo.
It was a water borne paint that all the manufacturers had to use to meet emissions standards and had not been perfected.
I’ve often thought that the Sundance/Shadow was a good economy car. The quasi-notchback styling and the relatively good-looking interior made it less punitive feeling than many other econocars, and I think the design aged well over the years.
I had to laugh, though, at the “baby BMW” ad. If there was a hall of fame for wishful-thinking ads, that one would make the cut!
This spring, Jason Shafer and I drove around for a few hours looking for interesting cars — this is one of our finds, which is a 1993 base-model Sundance. It’s unusual to see a low-end car so well preserved after 20+ years, but in my opinion this car did not look its best in white; the black cherry and red examples in your article, while both base models, look a whole lot more substantial than this white example.
Brendan- I applaud you for such a thorough treatment of such a modest little line of cars.
A friend of mine had a ’87 Sundance, turbo 2.2. Fun car to drive when it ran, which wasn’t often. I know, I was it’s mechanic.
That last commercial with Tina Turner (“over half of people who test drive the Sundance buy a Sundance”) reminds me of early 2000s Saab advertising with the claim that “people who test drive a Saab usually buy one”. Apparently it’s bad luck to advertise your car as such, since we know what happened to both Plymouth and Saab…
I’d be wondering “What made almost half the people who test drive one not buy it?”
All things considering, these really weren’t bad cars, especially when considering they were clearly built to a price. Most of the P-bodies are long gone, but the same can also be said for the other four-wheeled appliances within this segment, regardless of who made them.
But these cars did serve a valuable purpose, giving customers in this price bracket the option of a larger, more substantial car with acceptable refinement, if not quality. There’s something to be said for that….
I personally do not have much experience with the P-bodies, but in 1999, my (then) girlfriend’s father, who was a mechanic, bought a 1991 Shadow for the princely sum of $1000. After a good cleaning it looked like a new car, sans hubcaps. At the time my ladyfriend had a 1987 Jetta Wolfsubrg Edition, which handled well but was otherwise a dreadful car, especially on the highway with its low-geared three-speed automatic. But we did take the Shadow out a few times, and I was immediately struck by how much more livable it seemed. It rode nicely, was reasonably quiet so long as you didn’t cane the 2.2, and the seats and door panels were clad in a plush velour-type cloth. It was the complete antithesis of the somber, Germanic Jetta. It was a pleasant place to spend time.
Eventually my ex was given the choice between the Shadow or keeping the Jetta. Ruefully, she decided to retain the Jetta, but she eventually bought a ’94 Nissan Sentra XE – which was vastly superior to both the Jetta and Shadow in just about every conceivable measure.
Thanks for the write-up on these. I probably don’t have to even say it, but I like them. Aside from the rep they had as recycled K cars, same-old, same-old components, etc., they were a pretty novel for the class. I remember thinking that in spite of the cost of development Chrysler had been smart in making these hatchbacks and giving them such a wide range of content and option packages. As expensive as they were to bring out, I doubt very much that the Omnirizons could have been brought up to date in any way that would have given them the sales numbers these hit. Let’s give credit where it’s due: Chrysler managed to get almost a decade out of these, and sold them as stripper econoboxes, mid-level compact sport coupes, family cars, convertibles…and the sales numbers are pretty impressive for a company that was a dying also-ran just a few years before these came out. As for the cars themselves, well…they kind of were a rehash of a lot of components and drivetrain bits, but by the time these came out the 2.2 had been pretty well buttoned down, the 2.5 had been around for awhile and was not especially problematic, and the transmissions (excepting the Ultradrive, of course) were class competitive. In mid and higher level trims these were well-equipped and very competitive entries in the class, and the material quality was fairly up to par. I’ve always felt that Chrysler did a fantastic job on the quality of materials in their interiors particularly during this period. (Especially when measured against the legotastic crap GM was peddling at the time even on their higher end cars.) Discounting the not-so-well-baked turbo models, the Mitsu 3.0/Ultradrive combo and the peeling paint debacle that made many of these look like crap long before their time, these were a pretty decent entry.
These cars simply broke no new ground at Chrysler. The styling was very derivative of cars that came before them – particularly the LeBaron GTS and Lancer.
Probably halfway comfortable with the tall greenhouse, generally practical, and probably an okay value at some levels. As John C said above, they may have been smarter to heavily revise the L body until the Neon was ready – that was a small car that gave Chrysler some small car mojo.
Thanks for the trip back in time. Although these were serviceable enough, I could never muster any enthusiasm for them. The styling could look ok from the rear quarter, but from the side and front they looked like tall and stubby Lancers. The “hidden” hatchback was kinda’ dumb, in my opinion, and probably added extra cost and weight that didn’t help. Whatever.
There was just nothing other than perhaps their price that could make them recommendable over the much better cars from Japan, like the Corolla and Civic, which were in their golden years at the time. A Corolla with its 16 valve little four ran like a sewing machine in comparison, and had better performance and economy. Plus they turned out to be almost indestructible.
There were a fair number of these around just a few years ago, but they all seem to have hit their expiration date recently.
The Sundance/Shadow littered the Chicagoland area when I was growing up, I actually recall thinking they were good looking cars then and I must say I still do. K car roots aside, build quality and reliability aside, performance and handling aside, paint quality aside, terrible resale and a generally trashy image aside… Way better car than a Civic.
I preferred the Shadow to the Sundance though – the Shadow had a better name (Sundance is a name irritating people give their kids now a days), And way better taillights.
My then girlfriend (now wife) had one of these back in late 90s/early 2000s as a hand me down. I logged quite a few kms in it as a passenger or driver. Hers was a fairly base Dodge Shadow with the 2.5L and 5spd. It was pretty zippy compared to the Ford Tempos and such I was used to driving. Hers had blue paint that just fell off exposing the primer. It did well for a number of years before suffering from overheating issues.
My buddies main oil seals leaked why before the paint left home!. His was the base 2.2ltr, nippy and a lot of car for the money. Went on to a Cirrius. They never learn.. To day he drives a Buick Encoure .
Our family had the 1989 turbo Sundance RS model. Smallest full-size car I’ve ever driven. Low-slung seats, high cowl, and sloping hood that contributed to this effect.
I keep bringing this up in my comments, but this Chrysler (we had many) was also the only one that mimicked GM’s cruise-missile feel of the smooth, direct, composed freeway driving experience that our two larger late 70s M-body Caravelle’s (Canadian Gran Fury) and one Volare couldn’t create. The tight feeling 14:1 steering ratio mentioned also a contributor, no doubt. Our old K car Reliant definitely needed more turn to do a lane change on the highway as I recall.
Anyway, the Sundance was fun while it lasted. Powerful too. The only car I’ve ever done a smoke show in and not even realize what I was doing until I saw the smoke. That was completely without intent as I have a fundamental aversion towards tire abuse. The balance-shafted 2.5 Turbo I (one) blew up (thanks Dad–I thought you were an accountant and knew better than to take liberties with the turbo boost), was replaced by the less refined 2.2 Turbo, and that was when the fun stopped.
What a dog.
So depressing.
Welp, at least now my 2012 Ford Fusion has a 2.5 Mazda-designed (for reliability…hopefully, knock wood) engine with 175 hp, and so all is well again — and without turbo lag to boot. Sure it was the base engine of the CD3 line, but it also gets maybe 1.5 times the mileage of the old Sundance. Old memories die hard.
Typical early 90s mopar paint job, Chevy Corsicas often looked like this, as well.
I always liked the looks of these and the Lancers…never sat/drove in one though
We were a Toyota family until recently
BTW I cant tell you how giddy I feel when I see my pics used in these articles 😀
These were everywhere as used cars throughout the 1990s, but they sold exclusively on price. There was nothing else to recommend them. At the time, I had a ’87 Reliant and thought it a much better and roomier car. When the time came to replace the Reliant in the mid-1990s, the Shadows and Sundances weren’t even on my radar. The choice was between the Mazda 323, the Dodge (Mitsubishi) Colt, the Civic and the Corolla. I ended up with a ’90 Mazda, my mom bought an ’89 Colt wagon and my brother bought a ’90 Corolla. The Civics of that generation were too expensive as used cars until they got a bit older.
That photo of the red interior could be my brothers Sundance–faded corduroy and all.
You guys keep doing articles about cars I’ve had/been involved with. I love it!
When my daughter was in college, we bought her a used Shadow (don’t recall the year) from a retired Chrysler mechanic. It had the Mitsubishi V6/auto in it. Dark green with the gold graphics/rear deck spoiler (ES version?), 5-door hatch.
It served her well until a radiator house burst/leaked/somehow coolant escaped while she was on I-75 in Ohio. It wasn’t worth rebuilding the engine, so off to the boneyard it went.
I thought that these were cute little cars when they came out, especially the convertible. Chrysler turbo cars were pretty quick too. I remember how the paint on the roof of my 1990 Dodge Caravan suddenly “exploded off” at one point. The Mitsu V6 was great though.
Not a bad looking car objectively speaking, but the first time I saw one I thought it looked like a premie LeBaron. I’ve never been able to look at them without thinking this.
I wish they had made an 024 version, as I once posted elsewhere on CC:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/371545.jpg
I had a 1990 Sundance and mostly liked it. Quiet on Highway. Hatchback was useful. Back Seat was very shallow. Auto was in High at 20mph with a light foot. Piston Slap at idle was disturbing and not great in fuel. The Front Seat Belt Buckle was very low down near center console and was very difficult to unlatch. I used an block of wood to keep buckle away from console.
Nossir, that’s the AP-body (alongside the AA-body Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron sedan/Saratoga, the AC-body Die-Nasty, the AY-body Imperial, the AS-body Caravan/Voyager/Town & Country, the AJ-body LeBaron coupé and convertible, and the AG-body Daytona).
I think the first two years of the P-bodies were best, before they went to aero headlamps and took a lot of money out of other hardware on, in, and around the car. Those and the export units.
It’s probably just me but those door armrests on the Sundance/Shadow were of a horrible design and, to me, unusable. The problem was the pull handle was perpendicular to the armrest and, worse, it was so far back that it was simply impossible to comfortably rest one’s arm because the pull handle was exactly where one would lay their wrist.
Maybe those with extremely short arms would find it okay, but I can’t see anyone of normal proportions finding the design serviceable.
This is one of the cars that I find more attractive with sealed-beams as opposed to the later aero/composite lamp nose. There was a lot more visual interest with the deep inset lamps and the chrome trim contrasting the black grille.
The early ones seem to have a mini-LeBaron vibe that the later ones are missing also, probably because of decontenting and the higher proportion of stripper models that appear at the end of the generation of any compact.
Great article! My first new car was a 1989 Plymouth Sundance “Highline” 5 door in aqua-blue metallic. I added a pop-up sunroof at ASC, (in Ontario, Canada), and a chrome trunk rack. AND – white-walls! As a young man in his twenties, why did I choose the Sundance over the Dodge Shadow twin? because I LOVE MY CHROME! It was a great, comfortable car, and lasted me well for 9 years. Then I needed a new transmission, and decided to move on. The only quibble I had is that after a very short time, the paint started flaking off in patches. The dealer would only pay for half the repair. My Partner, who is in the auto industry all his life, tells me that this was an issue for that paint among many automakers, imports included. Still, I have fond memories of my Sundance! Here’s a photo I found of the exact same car as mine.
One of many 1980s designs that looks remarkably good with modern wheels and low profile tires.
.
There’s something to be said for cheap basic transportation, and these did at least seem less cheerless than the Ford Tempo (which, once the shock of its aerodynamic styling had worn off, seemed like the archetypal fleet car). On the other hand, selling the automotive equivalent of those cheap all-in-one audio systems you used to be able to get at any big box store didn’t do Chrysler’s image a lot of favors.
I found my Ford Tempos charming, durable and endearing. Also, quite enjoyable with the V-6, or the HSO + manual.
I enjoy perusing this site often and this is the second time your authors struck a sufficiently nostalgic chord to elicit a comment. My then fiancé, now wife, bought a brand new Sundance America 3-doorl lift back in 1992. It was her first new car out of undergrad…and she hated it. It’s 30 years hence and she resents that car to this very day. I really can’t explain why. If I mention it, the first thing she says, every time, is, “I hated that car!” Personally, I always found it serviceable and pretty comfortable (I was driving a very trendy and wildly uncomfortable Geo Storm at the time). The liftback was actually pretty convenient and though it was an “America” edition, it didn’t feel like a stripper. Ours had A/C, automatic and body-colored bumper covers. We only had that Sundance for a couple of years and 30k or so miles, so it still ran well, got good MPG, and had all of its paint intact when we traded it for a 1994 S-10 Blazer 4-door Tahoe/LT. it was huge compared to the Sundance. Today she drives a 2019 Fusion Titanium and I have a 2021 Mustang GT/CS for fun and a 2000 Grand Marquis LS for daily miles. This article sent my mind down a nostalgic path to a much simpler time and much simpler cars. Sometimes, I miss both.
I always tried to specify one of these as a rental on ski trips. You could count on a Shadow/Sundance to have a fold down rear seat to accommodate skis. Not so with many “upgrades”.
A good friend of mine had a 1987 Dodge Shadow ES turbo brand new. I was a little skeptical of the car when she showed it to me, but once I got to drive it, I really fell in love with it. I really considered buying one, but by that time my wife and I were talking about having children and I thought it would be too small for our future needs. I ended up with a Dodge Lancer ES turbo instead which served us well for 11 years. Between the H- and P-body Chryslers, I always appreciated the hidden hatchback; but I like hatchback cars anyway.
I drove a couple of base model P-bodies when I was selling cars for a while; they were pleasant enough for basic transportation, but once you’ve driven the top end models, it’s difficult to go back to the base ones. A few years later, when the kids were out of diapers, I considered getting a P-body Duster as a second car, but circumstances prevented that.
They were sandwiched between the OmniRizon and the Neon and were pretty good for the times. Chrysler sure got their mileage out of the K-body…