(first posted 1/30/2015) The Chrysler 180 and 2-Litre saloons: Where do you start, and where did they go? After all, they could claim French and British ancestry and development, American influence, Spanish manufacture and an Australian connection. But most people will simply ask what it is. After all, these cars probably had the lowest profile of any car in its market segment at the time. Which is obviously not a good thing to be remembered for.
Place yourself in the shoes of Chrysler’s top product planners in 1967. You have purchased SIMCA of France, and the British Rootes group. SIMCA was very strong in France and southern Europe. There was an uncomplicated, coherent range, with the best-selling FWD Simca 1100 at the centre, the small, rear- engined 1000 doing well and the larger Simca 1300 and 1500 saloons selling strongly. Chrysler seemed to have made a sound investment.
Rootes, however, was almost exactly the opposite. There was a small, rear-engine car, the Hillman Imp, which although quite good to drive was not good to own. It sold at about one third of the rate of Simca 1000, and then there was a gap in the range between it and the Hillman Hunter (Sunbeam Arrow) and derivatives, the Humber Sceptre and Sunbeam Rapier. These were selling well enough, with perhaps 7% of the UK market in the late 1960s (this was a much less fragmented market of course) but were beginning to look like yesterday’s answer. There were also a range of larger Humber saloons, such as the Hawk and Super Snipe, which harked back to the 1950s and would be duly euthanized in 1967.
Waiting in the wings was the Hillman Avenger (Plymouth Cricket), due in 1969 – another conventional but fashionably styled Rootes saloon, in this case with a brand new engine and coil sprung rear suspension. But it would be so close to the Hunter in the market, the guys in Highland Park must have wondered was happening.
Chrysler, logically enough, wanted to bring the two model ranges into one, and at the same time compete with GM, Ford and other European manufacturers over a wider range. The mid-size was clear enough: A clear starting point was the Simca 1100, which was probably still valid as an entry-level car for a few years. It would later form the basis for a new mid-size Anglo-French product, later known as the Simca 1307, 1308 and Chrysler Alpine. The other immediate issue was the largest car in the new range, which would be above the Hunter but capable of replacing it, allowing the Avenger to take the entry-level Hunter’s business until the Alpine was ready, and also to extend Simca’s range upward.
Simca had not had a car larger than the 1501 since the Vedette (above) was retired in 1961, and now Rootes had lost its big car as well. Meanwhile, the Opel Rekord, Ford Zephyr, Peugeot 404 (and later 504), Volvo 144 and Triumph 2000 were all doing strong business across Europe. Whilst Rootes may have had a big car in the old Humber Hawk, a car that size (wheelbase 110”) was going to be competing in a small and now-declining market; in France, such a car would have been severely challenged by the taxation on cars with engines over two litres. The size of the new car can therefore be seen to have been relatively easy to define, with a wheelbase of around 105″ – a size bigger than the Hunter (just), and clearly a size larger than the Avenger or Simca 1501, but not too big to compete with its obvious competitors.
As it happened, both Rootes and Simca had cars in development that could have fitted the bill. The Simca proposal, known as Projet 929, was a rear-drive four door saloon with styling options from Chrysler US, Bertone and in-house in France, all of which looked 1960s rather than 1970s. Simca also planned a new four-cylinder OHC engine for the car. Rootes’ proposal, known as the C car, was styled by Roy Axe in Coventry, was capable of taking a V6 or V8 engine, and was expected to replace the Humber Hawk.
Stylewise, the C car was fully contemporary, with similarities to the Avenger and several other designs from that period. That is also a way of saying that it was not distinctive, of course. Technically, it too was a conventional rear-wheel drive design based on a four-door saloon, although a coupe version was also considered. In terms of market position, Rootes expected to offer a basic Hillman, a sporting Sunbeam 2000, and an upmarket Humber 2500, all using a range of V6 engines from 2000cc to 2500cc, which were being planned and for which tooling was being prepared.
Clearly, Chrysler was not going to go ahead with both. In early 1968-69, Chrysler looked at both proposals and selected a hybrid compromise. The Rootes-designed body was to be engineered to accept the new Simca engine; Simca would complete the interior and build the car in Poissy, in Paris. The Rootes V6 was cancelled, after £31m had been spent on design and tooling. Prototype engines had been installed in some Humber Hawks; the biggest issue had been understeer, but it was otherwise a smooth and powerful unit that promised reasonable economy as well.
In hindsight, this action could be seen as Chrysler realizing the true condition of the Rootes empire – a small car selling well below expectations, an all new mid-size car (the Avenger) selling OK, and a dated larger range. A second all new car might well not have been exactly what the company needed in 1970. Investing more money in an organisation like that often does not make business sense, especially if there is an option to integrate it into something much stronger. The final development phase was completed smoothly enough – the front of the car was restyled by Simca and the interior lost its Rootes “English” wood and leather flavour in favour of a more generic design. Some of the trim combinations were a bit strong visually, though.
Chrysler not only crossed off the V6 engine but also limited the car to 1.6, 1.8 and, later, 2.0 litre engines, with either a four-speed manual or three-speed Torqueflite automatic. Rootes had originally planned to offer a deDion rear suspension and a five-speed gearbox, but the French and the Americans trimmed these features out, opting for a coil sprung live axle and MacPherson struts at the front. The rear disc brakes (except on the 1.6 version) were unusual in this class in Europe at the time, but still made the cut.
The car finally launched in October, at the 1970 Paris Motor Show, as the Chrysler 160 and 180, for their 1.6 and 1.8-litre variants with 80 bhp and 97 bhp, respectively. The cars were expected to replace the Simca 1501, which initially was withdrawn from the French market only, but returned in 1974. Initial impressions were mixed. The engine got some good reviews, with its willingness to rev being praised, along with the cruising ability and comfort. However, the handling was severely panned, with excessive understeer and low-geared and heavy (unassisted) steering.
The car came to Britain, its other home market, in 1971, as the Chrysler 180 (the 160 was limited to mainland Europe, as it would have clashed more with the Hunter and Sceptre than it did with the Simca 1501). It was sold through the full network of Rootes, now Chrysler UK dealers, but in hindsight the unfamiliar Chrysler name was probably a mistake, as the car sank almost immediately, and without much trace.
Its contemporary but anonymous looks, unfamiliar name, rather brougham interior, and maybe even the French connection and the recollection of the cancellation of the C car all counted against it. More than anything, it offered little if anything established competitors didn’t. Few if any will transfer from an established respected brand to an unknown brand with little kudos or recognition. Advertising it as the “American from Paris” was probably not an award-winning campaign, either. This probably only emphasized the unfamiliar heritage of the car, and Chrysler had only clear American car connotations, which in Europe at that time meant “large”, “gas guzzler” and “style over substance”.
The feature car is a 1973 Chrysler 180, registered in the Czech Republic with an appropriate number, which was shown last July at the Simca-Talbot Club gathering in Beaulieu, England. Yes, there are so few of these cars in the UK now that the only example I have seen for many, many years is Czech-registered at a car show. Looks great in orange, too.
Chrysler dressed the car up a little, added a 2.0-litre version of the same engine, now with 107bhp, a three-speed Torquefilte automatic gearbox and a pair of auxiliary driving lamps in the grille, to create the Chrysler 2.0 litre with a vinyl roof as a finishing touch. In 1972, a range-topping car needed one, obviously. This debuted at the 1972 Amsterdam Motor Show, and was Chrysler’s largest car in Europe. Frankly, few noticed. Certainly, those counting visitors to dealerships were not troubled unduly.
In 1975, assembly was moved to Spain to free up Poissy for the Chrysler Alpine, and, from 1977, the Horizon. The Spanish plant actually came into Chrysler from the takeover of Barreiros, a manufacturer of diesel engines and local assembler of various Chrysler products. Spain was then, of course, only just beginning to emerge from dictatorship and preparing to join the European Common Market (now European Union), and the 180 was the largest car assembled there. Given that the labour costs were then relatively low, at least Chrysler could keep the costs low. Sales didn’t improve.
Barreiros also produced the diesel engine used in a version of the 180, which became the most successful variant. It was a typical diesel, with four cylinders, 2007cc and indirect fuel injection, developing 65 bhp and linked to a four-speed manual. This version became a popular taxi choice in Spain. The car was used also as the basis for many ambulance and hearse conversions in Spain. In 1977, the diesel engine was reduced in capacity to 1917cc to get under a Spanish taxation threshold.
In 1978, Chrysler sold the entire European operation to Peugeot and retreated to lick its wounds. This left the 180 an orphan – it had no role in the Peugeot lineup, there was no raw material in it that Peugeot wanted, and it had no sales base (outside the Spanish taxis). European sales continued until 1980 and, in Spain only, to 1982, as a diesel for the taxi market. UK sales were around 2000 a year in the mid 1970s and, over 12 years, around 280,000 were built. In 1982, it was superseded by the Talbot Tagora, which fared no better in the market–in fact, even worse.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to confess that the first car that moved fully under my control was my Dad’s 1975 beige with black-vinyl roof and red (I mean RED) interior 2-litre Automatic (the badge said Automatique and there was a window sticker marking Matra’s victory at Le Mans in 1974, so committed were Chrysler to us thinking it was a British car) in and out of the garage. Like many owners, he had issues with the rear brakes, as the pads never really released the discs and consequently the pads wore excessively and heated up the hubs. The rear axle, complete with the suspension and then rare disc brakes, led to many cars being cannibalized for hot rods and the like, further depleting the ranks.
In 1974, Chrysler adapted the 180 for the Australian market. The car was locally assembled using French pressed body shells shipped to Tonsley Park. This variant, in true Australian derivative form and known as the Chrysler Centura, was fitted with either the 2.0-litre Simca engine (the Centura 4) or a 140 bhp, 215 CID (3.5-litre) Australian “Hemi” inline six (the Centura 6), which outsold the lower powered car by 4 to 1. Later, the 245 CID (4.0-litre) version of the six was fitted to some cars.
The Centura 6 had a reputation for a good acceleration and reasonable handling, even with the heavier six cylinder engine up front and no power steering.
Stylewise, Chrysler added a lengthened bonnet to take the six, as well as a twin headlamp set up. Rumour has it that this was based on a proposal for the Sunbeam 2000 version – we’ll never know, and I suggest we shouldn’t accept it as a fact, even if it does look quite Rootes, which had used twin headlamps and grilles like this on the Arrow and larger Humbers for many years. At the rear, there were new rear lights and trim strip.
The Chrysler 180 can be seen in various ways – an ill-fated attempt to build a competitive car in a multinational environment; an example of what happens if incomplete outside guidance, even when seen remotely as logical, is applied to something as subjective as consumer car choices; a fundamentally decent contemporary car let down by bland styling and lack of identity; or even as a mobile metaphor for Chrysler’s European adventure.
Mostly, though it is not seen as anything – it is forgotten. And I consider that a shame.
Related reading:
The 245 and 265 Hemi 6s were fitted to these the 265 was the fastest accelerating car available in Aussie at the time, I had a 245 4 speed GXL vinyl top cloth interior it was a nice comfortable long distance cruiser at any speed you were game to drive it at, Shepparton to Cobram at a steady 175kmh not a problem it still had power to spare traffic light dragging it could leave 351Falcons a V8 Commodores in a cloud of blue rubber smoke, stand on the gas at 120kmh to overtake make sure you pull out first and be carefull of wheelspin, it was a very quick car good handling I dont know who told you that it wasnt great too much weight over the front wheels not enough traction at the back tail out was its normal style if I pushed it hard, I did take mine for a blast around Mt Panorama and I can see exactly why they were not raced there. They also rusted like billio mine had numerous welded patches in the boot/trunk it also had a large alloy bullbar out front and a huge towbar out back, A great fun car I do not miss it. Chrysler did experiment with fitting 318 V8 motors but the body integrity wasnt up to it one explanation of why the handling wasnt great the shells were weak light hence the performance but weak.
Rekords with 5.0 litre V8s, Granadas with 5.8 litre V8s, Cortinas with 4.1 litre inline 6s…
And now 180s with 3.5 or 4.0 litre inline 6s !
Wish we could have those in Europe… Aussies sure got all the fun !
And we got a 2.6 Litre 6 cyl version of the Morris/Leyland Marina too.
Strictly speaking, the Aussie Falcon has no mechanical relationship to any Grenada.
The XD Falcon of 1979 had similar styling but much cruder mechanicals.
Think of an underdash handbrake, leaf springs on the rear and
3 on the tree standard. You even had to pay extra for a laminated windscreen.
On the Centura topic, I haven’t seen one for years. I did drive a 245 version
after we did new tyres & a wheel alignment. Don’t ask me what the camber & castor were, but I remember it lit up its rear tyres well enough!
The 318 wouldn’t have been a performance upgrade anyway – just more weight burdening the front of the car. The sixes were more than enough power for any reasonable person.
I remember going for a ride in the back seat of a Chrysler Centura and being very unimpressed with the rockhard upholstery with no give so that my head was jammed against the roof
Interesting to read Roger and never knew the 160/180 range were made in Australia.
When I first saw the pics I thought “I had no idea Ford made a 4-door European Capri!”
Guess this car was faced with a few problems at birth, it was not French, neither English nor American, and nobody ‘had ‘anything with the Chrysler name in Europe.
You’d by a Simca and you knew what to expect, but this, and this did not have the famous French road holding nor the famous French seat, cars like Peugeots were loved for
Simca were actually very successfull in the Netherlands, we always loved cars that gave good value for money and the 1100 with all its models was the number 2 seller in Holland for many years. after the Opel Kadett.
.
What you said is true, but the main problem with all Simca cars, and I don’t know how they never realized it, nor tried to correct it, though they were a big factory, the problem was the OIL PUMP. No car can get 80.000 KM, before the oil pump start to fail, they were badly designed, you’ll see the oil lamp flashing when you remove your leg from the accelerator pedal, shortly the engine will smoke, then you have to get the engine out of the car and then renew it. Then in no time the same process will happen again. I owned a 180 and 1301 special. if any one wishes to share any information, I’d be glad to. They were nice, well designed and luxurious. I love them till today.
This is an excellently written in depth look of the Chrysler Europe story.
I think I was granted a ride in one of these 160s on a hitch hiking trip. the owner hailed from Hungary and was very proud of being able to buy a car with that many nice features for such a low price. I have no further memories of that model at all.
Fair warning: This is one of my “Coulda, shoulda, would’a” or “What if?” posts, so please bear with me…
You have to wonder how things would have turned out if Chrysler had possessed the funds to make a proper investment in its European products around, say, 1970 — or if they’d simply done an update on the full-size cars for 1974, and instead invested the money in Europe.
It obviously would have been seen as a crazy move at the time, the shareholders probably would have screamed, and those who called the shots in the U.S. auto industry simply didn’t see the European market as having anything in common. However, it makes you wonder how Chrysler would have fared with a well-developed line of smaller cars right after the first OPEC shock.
Back then, for an American car manufacturer to be successful in Europe required to be successful in West Germany. The power to be was the TuV (MOT) and the answer was corrosion protection. The car needed to last long enough to keep overall cost of ownership down.
GM and Ford had bases in the Federal Republic of Germany. They made their cars for Germany and succeeded in the other European countries as well. Chrysler did not, and Chrysler failed.
Makes sense. I’ll admit I’m not familiar with Chrysler’s European operations, beyond the fact that they were the source of the Omni/Horizon.
Agreed. German Fords and Opels were always better built and had a much better rust protection than their UK counterparts.
In the seventies you wanted a Ford made in Köln.
Ha! Here in Hong Kong, it was the launch of the Hillman Avengers that destroyed the reputation of any and all cars made in the United Kingdom. People here recognised this lemon from far, far away and their build quality, rust problems and generally poor performance led to British Leyland leaving the Asian region entirely by 1974.
Nor could Ford sell their Escorts here unless they were imported from Germany rather than the UK; local buyers demanded it.
By the 1980s, Japanese cars ruled the market except for a few Jags that the ‘old school’ crowd insisted on owning. Those cars generally went from 1st owner to the scrap yard in quick order, such was the disdain for the ‘Made in Britain’ label.
Wonderful article Roger. You are keeping my elderly brain alive with all these memories of my youth. Thank you.
I remember that a neighbor had one of those in the 70s and I remember thinking, that something about this cars´ design seemed slightly “off”. I cant really point my finger at what exactly it was that seemed so disturbing.
Was it the high waist line? The roof line? The read end that seemed to drop away? Nothing on this cars´design seemed harmonious.
I agree, a neighbour had one when I was a kid and it just doesn’t seem quite right. It’s not unappealing, but there is that indefinable ‘something’ wrong.
Might be the “curvy” front mated to the sharp-edged rear. It always struck me as kind of Art-Deco-meets-Bauhaus.
As an Ambulance in Spain
This is the CC I have been waiting to be posted. Thank you, Roger. Somehow, I’m almost more intrigued by marketplace failures than successes, and I’ve been a little obsessed with the Chrysler 160 / 180 / 2-Litre / Centura since reading about the Talbot Tagora (also on CC). Great, thorough writeup – I learned a lot. I actually everything about the looks of these cars, save for the slightly generic frontal styling of the 160 / 180 / 2L. I like the looks of the Centura.
I`m not really too familiar with any of these cars, but I do like thev Vendette and its American styling. Nice article. Learned something new today.
The Simca Vedette looks like a 3/4 scale 57 Chevy. I like it.
+1 count me as a Vedette fan
The Simca Vedette is really a Ford design, to be launched in 1954, as a substitute for their earlier 49-53 Vedette. Simca bought the French factory and inherited the project. It went through a few facelifts but never really caught on in France, due to its V8-60 flathead that was heavily taxed. Curiously, it had quite a successful career in car-hungry Brazil, from 1959 to 67. And don’t forget that the 1st Ford Vedette was just the small Ford, planned for the postwar US market, to compete against the Chevrolet Cadet. Talk about convoluted stories…
The Centura was severely hampered to start with by its French connection at a time when they were testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific (above ground from memory) which upset the union movement who refused to move the CKD kits from the docks and they sat for a long time leading to rust issues on the early cars.
I have seen a couple recently at car shows, they are a rare sight on the street though. Very popular with the drag racing crowd.
Back in the eighties I had a ride in a 4.3 litre running on LPG. I remember how in traffic the engine never needed to go above a fast idle. A lot of torque in a light body.
What, no love for the Plymouth Cricket?
I had one of those for a year or so in the early ’70s. I’ve spent the last 40-something years trying to forget, but I think it had a 1500cc engine, automatic, very little interior room and I could walk faster.
We’ve definitely come a long way with small cars. My wife’s ’14 Nissan Sentra is a limousine in comparison.
Plymouth Cricket or Hillman Avenger will come, when I find one.
It wasn’t that bad…..not really….
Check my photostream still several in daily use around here I found one parked outside my house.
Plymouth Cricket! That was my first thought upon seeing the orange car. The Cricket was sold here for, I think, the 1971 model year, and quickly developed a poor reputation.
Chrysler replaced it with a rebadged Mitsubishi Lancer after a year or so of the Hillman. The Lancer was sold in much greater quantities as the Dodge Colt.
It was interesting that GM, Ford, and AMC all developed small cars in-house for ’70 or ’71, but Chrysler depended on rebadged imports.
We lived in New Zealand in 2003/04, and the man I bought our lawnmower from had two old Hillmans (Hillmen?) as daily drivers. He insisted that they were excellent cars, and perhaps for that climate they were.
Thanks Roger for another great read about a car I’d forgotten about.It was too similar to the other cars Chrysler was selling and they were always a rare sight.A shame the V6 was dropped and the Aussie hemi never made it over here.
A neighbour had an attractive metallic blue one til he bought a caravan and part exchanged it for a Granada
Gem, I’m not surprised you haven’t seen one for ages. There are only 14 left in the UK, of which 11 are on SORN.
I can’t remember when I last saw an example on the road in Europe.
I’m guessing that neither Chrysler nor Peugeot has a pristine model tucked away in their corporate collections. Truly the car that everyone forgot.
The styling was SO bland – a Granada had some heft; Rovers and Triumphs had personality of their own, a Landcrab was unmistakable, but the 180/200 – no distinguishing characteristics at all!
By the bye, didn’t Chrysler themselves assemble cars in the UK before the war, or am I imagining it? Citroen certainly did.
That V6 certainly sounded like a good engine, and would have been ideal for this car. It’s hard to imagine it with only a 1.6 though.
I drove a mates wifes 2Litre fairly gutless really more like a Cortina in power than the 6 I had.
The parts supply was the issue Gem thats why all 70s Aussie Valiants sold in the UK were V8s the powertrain parts only had to come from the US but there are some Hemi Chargers in the UK privately brought in by expats, they’ve been seen and photographed.
I remember being pretty fascinated with these cars when I first saw them during a trip to Spain in 1982. The abundant chrome details evoked a 1970’s Japanese car to me; the front vaguely resembled a mid-1970’s Nissan Cedric. Upon closer inspection it had a pentastar logo in the grille, a “Talbot” badge on the hood and a “Chrysler” badge on the rear, which was real strange to me since I had never seen a Chrysler like this growing up in the U.S.
I am only slightly (very slightly) with these cars. I am fascinated with the story of their birth as told here. I was young in the late 60’s but I thought that Chrysler was on a roll (at least in th U.S.). The move into Europe seems like it should have been a great idea. I wonder how they managed to screw it up? Probably American arrogance from the sound of it… That or bad rustproofing….or both… Yeah probably both
As a fan of Chrysler products, and especially the 6 cylinder models, I would love to own or even just try a Centura. Imagine importing one of the big 6 models and showing up at your 1st Cars and Coffee?
And now that I know a bit more about the 160, 180s, and 2 liters….I am intrigued. I actually like the “pumpkin” colored sedan.
The Centura six had reasonable handling? I have to disagree. It’s not much fun to steer this car at any speed.
I always liked the looks of the Centura. The only gripe I have is with the instruments. Wheels magazine said “We think it must have been a cross-eyed stylist who designed the instrument layout – it’s insane.” The major gauges (speedo, fuel, temp) were way over to one side and the clock was in front of the driver’s eyes. The glass on the gauges also reflected the steering wheel and the windows, preventing the readouts from being seen clearly. /end rant.
Performance from the 245ci six was, of course, brilliant.
On the Australian market, Centuras were bought by young families who disdained the Valiant for its inefficient use of space and (supposedly) high fuel consumption. Then they went on to serve as second hand beaters that few people remembered or wanted.
+1 A lead tipped Arrow was one description I’ve heard.
My French teacher had on, about 35 years ago. The “2 Litre”. Red /copper metallic with a vinyl roof and a tan interior. It looked luxurious and special. Evidently it was special, since I never saw another one, let alone I knew somebody who ever had one.
By the way, how do you call a French teacher from France ? A French French teacher ?
The black and white photo of the Chrysler development car looks suspiciously like a Peugeot 604.
Running a tape measure over the doors from front front to rear rear I found the Centura doors longer than a VJ Valiant. A far more spacious vehicle for its size than the Val. Paper thin steel – proto sixes had mysterious dents around fuel flap due to excessive torque for body, my KA Centura had hairline cracks in floor around all seat mounting points – and lightweight suspension design gave a vehicle weight of around 1200kg with 245ci six. Until I bought new Toyo 225 tyres the rear end would light up for the first 50m after a right hand turn. Curious mismatch of fasteners – all driveline was SAE the rest metric. Steering was extremely heavy at low speed and still heavy at highway but extremely direct with rack and pinion. Handling was predictable understeer and reasonably chuckable. First proto had engine set back into firewall and was considered very good handling but unfortunately extended front solution went ahead. I don’t believe Chrysler Australia ever fitted the 265 as an option but it is a very common swap.
Well they did Ive seen several with 4.3 badging and they were original cars the 318 didnt go ahead the bodies werent up to it but the 265 did get built, I guess Chrysler just couldnt help them selves. I only saw KCs with 4.3s those like my 4.0 78 KC had disc brakes all round mine had factory optioned alloy wheels the buyer checklist was still with it when I bought it.
Yeah cos no ones ever swapped an engine and then glued on some matching badges. 245, in the Centura was as big they got from a he factory.
The door trims are really, really busy-looking. Mostly, the cabin looks about like you’d expect of a contemporary British car in this segment, but the door panels are all over the place in a way that’s distracting.
I’m sure it didn’t help the 180’s chances that it looked like a bigger Avenger.
http://www.racingsportscars.com/type/Chrysler/180.html
Oh dear…I remember those when I was a child, with that vinyl roof and brown interior they seemed old fashioned even back then. They were rugged and robust, very appropiated as rural taxis. Spanish back roads were very rough in the ´70s and ´80s.
Very good article, thanks.
My Centura was bought new by my family in May 1975. Learnt to drive in it and still have it. First engine lasted 300,000km before a blown radiator hose cooked the engine. Second engine still going after 150,000km and I am currently building the third engine, a 265 with 4bbl and Pacer headers. Great car with heaps of poke. Will never sell it.
Any further details on the V8 version of the Chrysler 180? Assuming it is some variation of the Chrysler LA V8 though it is the first that have read about such a proposed model.
Wonder how the Chrysler 180 would have fared on the US market compared to Europe or Australia?
My main memory of these is in primary school in the 1970s and the French ‘Majorette’ 1/76 toy cars hit the British shops… They did some good everyday cars and I have fond memories of my Chrysler 180 power-sliding round the school desk.
I bet more of those were sold in the UK than the real thing!
This car was a decent one, a lot of effort was done to offer a comfortable vehicle at a bargain price . But It was not attractive for European buyers. Apart from looking an ill fated Sunbeam Avenger, maybe American people won’t believe It but the name and pronounciation of the word ” chrysler ” do not appeals as a trade mark . Next time this company wanna try an industrial adventure like this,.there surely will be better chance if the car is rebadged as a Dodge or even as an extincted brand Plymouth .
Hi ALL.
I’m chasing some leads on were to get interior lights a centura 1975
Thanks
The 2.0-2.5-litre 60-degree V6 engine was said to be based off of the 1.3-1.6-litre Avenger engine with scope for capacities up to 3-litres via the 1.8-litre+ Brazilian block Avenger engine, cancelling it was one of a number of costly mistakes Chrysler made with their European division.
Especially when Chrysler themselves would have likely benefited from such an engine when they were downsizing their cars instead of having to wait until the late 1980s with the LA 3.9 V6 and 3.3/3.8 V6 engines.
Other mistakes include not approving the Simca 936 project to replace both the Simca 1000 and Hillman Imp, followed by an early C2-Short like successor .
The whole Chrysler- Rootes debacle is exactly the same as the Stellantis imbroglio. A big bunch of orphan brands with no central plan run by a finance company.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of automotive history knows how this will end.
Great post which sent me to my embarrassingly large collection of 1970s car brochures where I found this proof of the Chrysler’s lack of cachet. If you need to spell out the ‘features’ your product has which the opposition don’t, you probably have an image problem.. which a stretched Hillman Avenger certainly did
here’s another bit of the 4 sides of proof Chrysler printed to prove the the 180’s pre-eminence. It was a world where the really quite awful Ford Cortina sold double everything else as I remember
With the planned V6, the wood and leather interior, and badged as a Humber, this might have been a success. It could have been just the thing to take on Ford’s Granada (Euro, not US). Didn’t those big Humbers look ancient by the time they were discontinued? But as built, it never quite seemed to ‘fit’ any market segment.
In Australia, this car always seemed a rather strange fit. Back then Chrysler sold the Galant, this, and the Valiant. Three very different cars from three very different continents, with three very different styling motifs. Probably quite different in the engineering too, aside from the Centura sharing the Valiant’s six. The Centura was noticeably bigger and usefully roomier than the Torana or the Cortina it was sold against, and almost seemed more like a slightly smaller downsized Valiant-alternative than a medium-size car. Sort of a no-man’s land in the market, occupied by the Toyota Crown and Nissan 280C. As a Humber with up-specced trim, it could have sold at a premium price against those two. As a Chrysler though, it was sort of “Huh?”.
But a good ride and a treasured piece of Australian history.
One of those truly pointless cars, the Centura. Rather dreary in appearance, bulky to sit in, unspecial in dynamics, it fell between every crack there was. The four cylinder was hardly available (and mistrusted as French anyway), and the six was too thirsty for the times. I mean, if you really must have a nice six, not-great economy, and not-great handling or looks, then why not buy it by the pound in the Val and have done with it?
An odd acquaintance had a four in about ’87 (and I mean HE was odd, not it, btw). It’s the only four cylinder Centura I ever remember seeing. Perhaps a tad unfairly, I will forever associate the Simca-engined Centura with those who don’t have prior convictions when you meet them but almost certainly will go on to acquire them.
Still, the speedy sixes were later a hit with the smokin-bogan buyer, and given their bouncy handling of all that torque, “hit” was often the operative word and a tree the mechanism, but it did help keep their numbers down, I guess.
And currently two shown in a Paco Rabanne advert (one gold at 00:10, one blue at 00:19)).
Is this because it is so forgotten it is just a generic early ’70s car?