Confession: I really had the hots for these LeBaron’s when they were introduced during my sophomore year of high school. They looked great in most every color and it was obvious it had been designed to be a convertible. I really wanted to drive one.
The wish came to fruition sometime between ages 35 and 40. Who says dreams can’t come true?
This LeBaron belongs to my father-in-law. Several years ago I wrote a CC on it (here) and I’ve driven it several times since. In early May I was granted temporary possession of this LeBaron. Frankly, I’ve enjoyed it immensely.
Just don’t interpret my enjoyment as a grand exultation of perfection. It’s twenty-three years old, stored outside, and still driven albeit irregularly. Nothing fitting that description is going to be perfect.
That is precisely what makes this car so darned enjoyable.
This LeBaron is powered by the Mitsubishi 3.0 liter V6, or as I’ve heard many mangle it, a Mits-a-bitchy V6. This was the V6 found throughout the entire Chrysler line in the late 1980s and early 1990s, prior to the Mopar brewed 3.3 coming online for minivans, Dynasty’s, and New Yorker’s. Hooked to a Chrysler Ultradrive automatic, some of you may be thinking “Mitsubishi V6; Ultradrive; Chrysler. That’s three strikes against it.”
The only strike against it would be the narrow, 14″ wheels. More on that later.
Perhaps the most memorable element of the Mitsubishi V6 is many of them smoking like Cheech and Chong after it gets a few miles under its belt. Such is not the case with this LeBaron despite it having around 100,000 miles. Nor are there any transmission woes. Maybe there were issues prior to my father-in-law purchasing it, but the Ultradrive now under its hood works flawlessly and shifts as smooth as silk.
This Chrysler is deceptively small. While driving it, I have had to look up to see the tail end of a Nissan Versa. Much of the size can be attributed to its K-Car underpinnings, but it does not drive anything like I remember a K-Car behaving. It has a comparatively more solid and substantial feeling to it, like the C-bodies of the time; while not of the same stability as the 1960s era Chrysler branded cars, it is reassuringly well planted to the ground.
Part of this well-plantedness could be the ride height, which is much lower than any K-car I have experienced. To plop one’s derriere into the drivers seat requires some free-fall. Yet once in, the accommodations are ample and any feelings of scraping your hide on the pavement evaporate. Chrysler built this as a two-passenger front seat (or more likely as a two passenger car) so the width is nicely split between the passengers.
Perhaps you have noticed there is a console. Unlike today’s cars, most of whom have a console that is as considerate to the desires and maneuverability of the user as a neck cone on a post-spayed dog, this console was designed with respect to the needs and anatomy of the passengers.
The console works seamlessly with the occupants, with the gear selector at a wonderfully natural proximity and height with storage areas of deceptively large volume. This Chrysler is proof it is possible to construct a usable console that isn’t the size of some of the states in New England.
The convertible top, while not in optimum exterior condition, does not convey air leaks at any speed.
The only air leak is from around this rear window. Age has had its deleterious affect on some mechanisms, and the power window motor has succumbed to it. My father-in-law has employed electrical tape and I drafted the wooden shim into use. A periodic adjustment is all that is needed and an air leak is the signal for adjustment. Sure the motor could be replaced, but my father-in-law is a practical man and doesn’t foresee any real gain from the expenditure of time and effort to fix it.
Driving the car is where it all comes together. Hitting the starter motor reveals a fast-paced variation of the time honored Highland Park Hummingbird. The engine fires quite eagerly and rapidly, with the cherry bomb muffler in the back giving a sudden bark of activity. Finding the gear selector in a truly intuitive location nets the driver the familiar whine of the Ultradrive. The throttle is touchy at low speeds, as a goose of the happy pedal makes the front end attempt to point skyward.
The steering is a tad on the heavy side, but that’s not an unwelcome trait. Acceleration is best described as brisk; while you won’t win too many drag races, you can easily keep up with traffic at any speed. It seems many of the cars and pickups I have driven all have their sweet spot of speed. This Chrysler, however, doesn’t have one; it’s as happy as a doodlebug in a sugar bowl at whatever speed you drive it. I’ve cruised at 45 mph and at 85 mph – it has never complained.
I will offer up two downsides, one intrinsic and one age related.
This LeBaron rests on 14″ wheels with narrow tires. The vast majority of the time that is not an issue. However, for those occasional brisk drives on curvy two-lane roads, their petite size can make their limitations quickly known. The LeBaron seems to enjoy such blasts on rural roads and wider 15″ tires would be beneficial. I’m just not sure how much space there is in the wheel well to accommodate them.
As I said earlier, age has set in and the electronic components seem to be the most affected. The speedometer has taken bouts of sitting on zero while going down the road. It works about 95% of the time, but that other 5% can make for an interesting experience. The cluster has been replaced multiple times but it continues. Maybe the real culprit lurks deeper within the wiring harness.
So for anybody seeking a convertible to blast about in, these are great. Unfortunately, these are nowhere near as plentiful as they once were and I’m starting to see it catch people’s attention as I zoom by. However, I would still recommend it. It has netted me nearly 26 mpg and my father-in-law says it works great in the winter for plowing out his 0.2 mile long driveway.
Dream maker, fuel efficient, open topped, and snow plow. How many cars can claim such a wide range of competencies?
Great write-up, Jason. I have always liked these cars. I remember seeing a lot of them with the “Turbo” engine. My Uncle had one for many years. I only rode in it a few times and remember it felt solid and well-built, especially for an American made convertible.
somehow, in my recollection, these were always white. white paint, white interior, white rag top.
My neighbors had a white one with a black ragrop back in the 90s
I used to like these cars (and their related sedans) when I was younger, even though they were about a decade out of production. My favorite was the 93/4 refresh with the composite headlights and body skirts. Now that I’m older and have become used to Japanese cars (and their interiors) these have fallen to the back of my memory but nice to see that they are still kicking. These are the direct predecessor the the ubiquitous Sebring convertible that too were once so common around LA; they even shared the same GTC trim levels.
Very nice. An inlaw had one of these quite a number of years ago. She liked it, but it started requiring cash injections from time to time as it aged, in amounts higher than we were used to. That said, I have always considered these to be attractive little convertibles.
You have the perfect setup in this – you get to enjoy it, and your father in law keeps the risks of expensive pieces going south. 🙂 Seriously, you could do a lot worse when borrowing a car from a family member. You might recall that I wrote about this recently. My mother’s Buick is the anti-Lebaron – a durable car that is as good as new, but is absolutely zero fun or enjoyment.
For a borrowed car I couldn’t ask for anything better. Not even a red, low mileage Buick!
My father in laws driveway is often a big mud pit. When I got the car to my house I could not in good conscience not clean it up. Laying on my stomach I washed about 20 lbs of mud off the front axle. The old girl seemed pretty happy about it.
We owned a 1992 LeBaron convertible for many years until the 2.4L engine gave up at 148K miles in 2007.
The back window is easily fixed. Find a motor that works, or go to Florida Window Lift or some other supplier and buy one. If the cable anchor breaks, you can fix that, too – I did. Windows worked perfectly all the years I had it. Overall, these cars were built like tanks, however some components were ill-designed and broke easily.
These cars are very comfortable and I almost decided to restore the car – I already had it painted – but considering its age, the cost of another engine and seat repairs, it just was no longer worth it.
We had 8½ years out of it, though.
Hope your doesn’t have the 43-48 mph “Chrysler wobble”! If it does, you’ll find out soon enough. We never could get completely rid of that little annoyance!
I’ve always been perplexed by convertible drivers who don’t want to take a few seconds to turn around and roll down their rear quarter windows, thus ruining the clean look of their cars. So yes, fix the windows! The lines of your car are too nice to have glass ear flaps sticking up into the wind. 🙂
+1
A co-worker had one of these, his being a very attractive dark green with a tan top and interior with gold “accented” wheel covers. Unfortunately, the automatic transmission developed “problems” and he felt it made better financial sense to replace the car instead of the engine. It didn’t help that where he lived a convertible was a bit of a liability.
Another co-worker, at another job, had one of these as a coupe….in red. To me, the coupes somehow border on anonymous looking. I would like to own a coupe and paint it in a 2 tone paint scheme.
An ex GF had one of these. The only problem I recall was that the motor for the headlight doors kept failing, necessitating manual override with a screwdriver; not to pry them open but to manually crank something under the hood. That wasn’t fun, so they stayed open until the car went to heaven.
Would be interesting to compare the sales stats between the LeBaron convertibles and their coupe counterparts, as this is one of the few modern convertibles that seems to widely outnumber the closed model. Even here in the snow belt Lebaron Verts were common sights.
The convertibles strongly outsold the coupes, sometimes my huge margins. I think there may be more on this in my K car family tree article.
Quite phenomenal that the convertibles outsold the coupes. I can’t say I’m a big fan of the later ‘aerodynamic’ Lebaron convertibles (I like the original squared-off versions) but there’s no denying that the Lebaron convertible went a long way to keeping the soft-top a viable purchase for many. While there isn’t really a ‘practical’ convertible, the Lebaron comes pretty close.
It’s a real shame that Daimler buggered-up the Lebaron’s replacement, the Sebring convertible, so badly in the most recent years. Those cars just look like hell in comparison to what went before and the availability of a retractable hardtop is small compensation.
Agreed. Chrysler OWNED the convertible cruiser market. Let Ford and Chevy duke it out for the racers with the Mustang and Camaro, Chrysler had things sewn up for the middle age + crowd who wanted a comfy, smooth decently sized ragtop.
The Sebring convertible was a disaster. Not. Attractive. At. All.
Well, the first generation Sebring convertible wasn’t too bad (except for those small headlights that Chrysler seemed to use on everything at the time). The second generation was okay, too, and got larger headlights, as well.
It was that third/final generation 2008-2014 Sebring/200 convertible that really sucked. Like I said, that gargantuan ass that I guess was necessary for the soft or hard top option simply looked like hell. It was sad that such a nice-looking, comfortable convertible cruiser from 1983 got screwed up so badly 25 years later by Daimler in their efforts to incorporate the Crossfire’s styling into the Chrysler lineup.
Yes, I thought about that later, and the last generation of Sebring was the one I was thinking about. Problem with the first and second Sebrings was that weak 2.7 engine that seemed to be in so many of them, but that only showed up to be a problem later. I thought that the first Sebring convertible was a looker. The last one was a pig that didn’t look good with the top either up or down.
Buick is catching it now!
I’ve always loved these LeBaron convertibles. They are definitely the best-looking K-car, and one of the best-looking cars of the 1980s. I’ve always wanted to get a cheap convertible for the summer, and this car is always a prime candidate.
A note about the tires… I know the Sebring was completely unrelated to this car, but my mom’s best friend owned a 1999 Sebring LXi coupe and was always getting flat tires. I don’t know the cause of the issue, but it was a constant headache.
My light blue ’94 Dodge Spirit also had this Mitsubishi 3.0 V6. It even looked the same as the one in this LeBaron. Redundancy aside, the transmission caused more problems than the 3.0 V6 in my Spirit. Replaced a transmission and it never ran right after that. Gave up because couldn’t find any good second-hand trannies in junkyards.
Nice writeup, will the Lebaron figure in the victorious rescue of the Galaxie as well?
Top of the injector housing looks like a griddle, but probably doesn’t get hot enough to cook on there. I used to have a book about that, but never tried it…
Yes, it will figure in there. The story is about to (hopefully) conclude in the next week or so.
There was a squint eye one of these in the same color and the v6 for sale near my house last week. So tempting at $1500
There it is!!!! My #1 pet peeve of convertible owners…everything is down except for the small quarter windows. Why do people do this? There is no way that all the cars I notice have windows up are broken, especially since it is across the board in terms of car brands. I would give anything for quarter windows that roll down in modern (non ‘vert) two door cars!!! Challenger/Camaro/Mustang all should have functional (and larger) quarter windows.
Interestingly, when the Mustang convertible made its re-appearance in 1983, Ford made a selling point in their advertising about rolling ALL the windows down in a jab to Chrysler’s first edition K-Car ragtop, which did not have quarter glass at all!
The first two years of the Lebaron convertible didn’t have rear quarter windows because it was an ASC rush job that Iacocca insisted be done ASAP. They used the regular K-car front windows. It should be noted that his finance guys said the Lebaron convertible would be too costly to build and they’d lose money on the cars. But Iacocca’s instincts proved them wrong when the convertible turned out to be a smash success.
All Lebaron convertibles thereafter had integrated rear quarter windows. Unfortunately, they also gained a CHMSL tacked onto the trunk lid, as well as one of those ‘soft-touch’, A-frame steering wheels (the earlier cars were among the last to use the classic, shiny, color-coordinated, hard-plastic steering wheels that had been around for decades).
I heard some say that they are ‘saving’ the rear window motors’ wear and tear. Sort of like hidden headlight covers being put into the open position.
Great article on a sweet car and parts of your review of this Chrysler remind me of my experiences with Sandy the 1995 Voyager whom was in the family from 1995-2013. The top of Sandy’s 3 Liter V6 never developed a speckled appearance like the LeBaron’s, I think her 710/OIL cap was yellow, the oil dip stick was slightly different, and unlike Sandy the 3 Liter looks a bit snug inside the LeBaron. I also think the cap for the Radiator Reservoir was yellow. Based on the length of the Tranny dipstick housing and the shape of the dipstick’s nesting base I am going to assume the LeBaron has Overdrive.
The 6G72 aka the 3 Liter V6 in Sandy never burned oil during its 174K miles of service and a number of components lasted a lot longer than I was expecting. Do you have to turn off the AC to climb hills or accelerate quickly in the Lebaron? Are you able to go up hills at the 55 MPH limit or do you have to slow down? I agree the engine does like to cruise at a variety of speeds, but Sandy topped out at around 85ish because beyond that she sounded like she was working too hard. The acceleration from 50ish to 75ish was impressive, at least for me unless driving an 05 Sedona which accelerated quicker. There is a certain grade of descending road where the engine will keep the vehicle at about 55-60 without having to brake which is better than vehicles that like to run away, but I do not know if you have experienced that. I do like how the engine will also slow the vehicle down just right on flat roads when you let off the accelerator. The horn buttons on the steering wheel are just right since you only have to use your thumb. From my experience the Cruise Control will rev the engine to death on hills trying to keep the preset speed, have you experienced that?
Hills don’t phase it very much if at all. Not having used either the a/c or cruise, I can’t answer that question. However, I have driven a boat load of Dynasty’s with the 3.0 and there was nothing more than a simple downshift – if that – going up hills with the cruise.
This LeBaron droptop would most likely be a rental car in Florida. Snowbirds and vacationers seemed to love these things.
I’ve always liked these. Thought they looked clean and sleek, and the waterfall-suggestion grille worked so well with the hidden lamps. I lost interest when they went to the exposed composite lamps–it just didn’t work with the body style. A co-worker of my Dad’s bought one of these in red, back in 1990 or so. Very nice car to ride in with the top down, and at age 10 I fit in the back seat, something that didn’t work anywhere near as well when I was forced into back-seat passengerhood again in a different Lebaron at age 17. Rich’s car, though, always suffered from one demerit–its predecessor. His trade-in when he bought the LeBaron was an absolutely immaculate ’85 Daytona Turbo Z. Burgundy with silver rockers, “bullet hole” wheels, T-tops, louvers, the works. As nice as the LeBaron was, it seemed like a step down in cool factor from that Daytona, even at 5 years old.
I owned one of these for five years — a 1995 LeBaron GTC. Bought it used in 2007 for less than 4k, with 61,000 miles. The left rear window didn’t work, and I wouldn’t buy it until the seller fixed the thing.
I drove that car about 70,000 miles, and I have few complaints — mostly nitpicks. I found it interesting that your family’s unit does snowplow duty. Mine would catch snow in the engine compartment and throw a belt — my trusty mechanic said that was a problem with Chryslers of this vintage. This happened to me a couple of times in my first Iowa winter, and, from then on, I drove the wife’s car when we got the big snows.
My biggest problem with this car was the transmission. It jerked and slipped when cold — sometimes wouldn’t upshift out of first unless I pulled over, stopped the engine and started it up again.
You mentioned the console. I had to find a replacement at a salvage yard because the original broke. And, the rubber/plastic strip connected to the shifter was brittle and broke.
The motor on the top seemed to struggle toward the end. The car was going to need some major upgrades soon, so it was time to trade it off at around 135k.
All in all, I have no major complaints.
I do prefer the looks of the original Kcar convertible. The lines on the Jcar never really appealed to me that much. I far prefer the Sebring. A 2004 has been my daily driver for three years. It has a couple of bugs (needs some new sensors to fix a couple of electrical glitches), but I really like that car, too.
Great article, Jason. So glad you have the chance to enjoy driving your father-in-law’s car. I liked these J-Body LeBaron convertibles from the first time I saw them at the 1987 Detroit Auto Show – Chrysler seemed unstoppable at that time. The hidden-headlamp models are my favorite. My aunt had one in Claret Red with a black top. I used to want to buy one second-hand in the 90’s, and my friends teased me mercilessly about wanting what they considered a “chick car”. They obviously didn’t know what they were talking about. 😉 Great to read an article (and comments) with such love for these. I’d roll in one today.
I had a 1989 4 cyl. Turbo for several years. Had the rear quarter window problems as well. Here’s a tip. If the headlight doors do not close all the way, it means the bumper has hit something (not hard, mind you) and pushed the bumper in to block the doors from closing. The redneck way of fixing it, which I employed, was to take a reciprocating saw and cut a small piece out of the fiberglass that is protruding into the headlight well.
Loved loved loved my LeBaron. It was a money pit, but I loved every minute of owning it. Talk about a chick car? Mine was white with the maroon interior. My girlfriend called it the “lipstick edition…”
Here’s mine. I used it in a parade in Bellingham, Washington one year when I was riding in the parade.
I’ve always said, “what good is a car you can’t ride in parade-style?”
If you have a convertible, just keep the top down and all of life is a parade.
I just looked at the numbers for the coupe and convertible, the convertible consistently out sold the coupe by a 4 or 5 to 1 margin.
As at least one poster here noticed, the convertible was a hot item with rent a car fleets, which probably accounted for half the sales.
Strangely….or not, when the Sebring took over for the LeBaron the sales gap got smaller. For every 5 convertibles sold, about 3 coupes were sold. AND….total Sebring( ‘vert and coupe) sales went UP compared to Le Baron, nearly doubling the numbers of the older car.
“the convertible consistently out sold the coupe by a 4 or 5 to 1 margin”
That may be true toward the end of the coupe’s production run in 1993, but that certainly is not the case initially. First year coupe sales: 75,415 versus 8,025 convertibles. Production of the convertible never surpassed the coupe in the 1980’s.
The three people I knew who owned these were women: two middle aged “financial professionals” (financial advisor and accountant, each owning red and beige convertibles of this generation), and a gym teacher, who owned a teal green convertible of the next generation with the amber taillights. I remember riding in the beige one with the accountant’s son in high school, it was a bit buzzy but very comfortable.
For those that want roll down rear windows!
Cheap topless motoring this side of the “Pond”. Always one on”BAY” for around £500 starting bid ,with engine problems!. Get a Miata instead.
> this console was designed with respect to the needs and anatomy of the passengers.
But alas, no cup holder armrest.
After reading your statement earlier, I realized there is indeed no cup holder. However, a very short time later, I discovered the bottom of a 32 oz styrofoam cup can fit into the ashtray.
I’m not sure I would want to risk placing a full container of tea in the ashtray, but it was a pleasant surprise.
Maybe that was only an option on the white ones?
Glad to see somebody got the reference. 🙂 The song got stuck in my head after I read MonzamanGermany’s comment that you always saw these cars in white.
No cupholers: one of my nitpicks.
Have to love the personalized license plate ma tuber
Has held up well in and out for being parked outside. I wonder if the top is original. It does appear to be pretty worn.. Looks to have been pretty well taken care of. It’s been a while since I saw one of these cars, not that long ago they were quite common.
Interesting counterpoint on an overlooked(?) car.
That interior looks, although very much of its time, pretty decent, and with an reasonably ergonomic looking sliding wiper delay or headlamp dimmer on the cowling.
And you’re quite right to return it clean and tidy.
You are correct on the interior being very 1992, which isn’t always a terrible thing.
In addition to washing it, I even changed the oil in it a few weeks ago, aired up the tires, and removed a bunch of acorns from various crevices.
Good for you, Jason, for giving honest praise to a much underrated car. I’ve always liked the 1987-95 Le Barons… A lot better than the garbage Sebring JXI, that replaced it.
A CC bargain, and one of the last cars, if not THE last car, to wear the hidden hideaway lights… The Corvette, the last to probably wear the flip up lights.
Very sad, that the hardtop coupe version, of this Le Baron, is very very rare, and probably went extinct, around the later 90’s.
Very good contribution to convertible week, Jason.
Thank you.
There is simply something so carefree about this LeBaron, a feeling I’ve not experienced very often.
The coupes were always rare, though I thought that the styling worked well as a “tin top” also. This is the last coupe I remember seeing, sometime in 2011:
The entire K line is grossly underrated, even by many of the Mopar faithful. By default, Im a fan of big V8s, rwd and muscle car bodies but for the times, the Ks were really good cars. And even the fwd/boosted 4cyl averse types have to admit (grudgingly) that when properly set up, a turbo K car gave up little to nothing to the Fox Mustangs and GM F bodies of the day. If the good Mr Shelby had blessed your turbo Mopar, well then you could show those Mustangs and TransMaros your tail lites in a hurry.
Good story! The 3.0 was a good engine. The main problem early on was, I believe, in the intake valley where the crossover tube for the coolant wanted to corrode and leak quickly.
Typically, the 3.0 (and its other interation, a 2.5 in a ’99 Cirrus LXI I have) seem more potent than they are due to quick throttle tip-in. They are, however, very responsive engines.
The Ultradrive? Best left unsaid. They lunched all over the place when they came out, due to some type spindle not being strong enough. I had an ’89 Dynasty and it went sour at 17,000 miles. Chrysler fixed it under the $100 deductible warranty, then sent me the hundred bucks as a “good will” gesture — in other words, trying to avoid recalls and lawsuits….
The valve guides were too soft. Theyd slip out of place and next thing you know, you were SMMMMMOKIN!!!! But its a relatively simple fix, and the 3.0 is an ok motor for what it is.
My ex’s aunt had a ’02 Stratus R/T coupe with the later 24V 3.0 and manual trans. Even with 3 of us in the car, the time she let me drive I found it a really quick little car.
I had a 1990 Plymouth Acclaim LX with the 3.0 and Ultradrive from new. Many of those Ultradrive transmissions were done in by the use of the wrong fluid. Dexron would generally kill them. I had the trans fluid changed every 30K miles with Mopar ATF+4 and got 125K miles out of the original transmission with no problems. After 125K the trans was starting to slip and the engine was starting to blow some smoke, so I sold it. Still one of my favorite cars.
And inexplicably, the owners manuals in the early cars (and maybe even the dipsticks) said that Dextron was OK, though not preferred.
Forgot this story – my wife (at the time girlfriend) saw a white LeBaron GTC hardtop that she liked at a small used car lot. When the guy started it up, tons of smoke came out of the tailpipe. He basically told her it was “normal” for these cars, and she told him it was “normal” for her to walk away from a salesman when he is BS’ing her!!!
*mic drop*. Probably a good indication that she was a keeper!
My ex’s mom had one of these in the early aughties…a ’91 model, as I remember. I drove it a few times and for all the respect that shitsubishi engine gets, I have to say it would roast the front tires willingly yet ran smooth and got good mpgs…the only smoke was from my ex and her mom’s Marlboro lites. It was a total ladies car too: double white outside, light blue inside, whitewalls and wire spoke hubcaps. The only issues they ever had were the quarter window’s motors burning out (much like the featured car) but they were replaced without incident.
I always liked the hardtop coupe’s bodystyle…kind of a blatant ripoff of the aerobird, but much better proportions. Whats a REAL shame is how much better the car was executed in Mexico. They call it the Phantom down there (how badass is that?) and the Phantom R/T with the intercooled turbo is highly regarded as a performance car. Granted, the contemporary Shelby Daytona that this car is so closely related to didn’t seem to be offered there, and made more sense as the ‘hot car’ in the lineup…but still, a Phantom R/T with a manual and a Turbo II would be a pretty sweet ride!
Thanks for this link from the ’58 impala drive review—I missed this one last year. My wife and I have owned a ’92 Lebaron LX (3.0, 4 spd auto) convertible for 20 years. It currently has 142K miles on it—trans was rebuilt @ 75k miles and has been flawless ever since. It has been an interesting ownership experience with wiring harness issues early on (harness connector too close to the battery) and the usual rear quarter window issues (repaired). Overall, the car has been a solid driver and I still take it on 150+ mile trips without worry.
This one has the optional ABS 4 wheel disc system and the brakes have always been very good with only an occasional warped front rotor causing issues. It also has 15X6 aluminum wheels, so there is no problem with interference—just don’t go above a 205R60X15 tire.