If there’s a more forgettable Big Three car from the 1980s, I can’t remember what it could be. Just thinking of Plymouth’s Caravelle can create mental gymnastics: For example, When was the last time you noticed one? Or, Can you recall the differences between Caravelles and Dodge 600s? Fortunately, we can use these images, posted at the Cohort by William Oliver, to rekindle our collective memory.
Being a 1980s Chrysler Corporation product, this Caravelle is (surprise!) a stretched K-car. Specifically, an extra 3” of wheelbase and 10” of length created a mid-size, six-passenger sedan. Designated as the E-body when it debuted for 1983, this car range included the anonymously-named Dodge 600, the even more anonymously-named Chrysler E Class, the fancied-up Chrysler New Yorker… and, in Canada only, the Plymouth Caravelle. Two years would pass before Caravelles drifted south into US showrooms.
Having first used “Caravelle” on Plymouth’s Canadian-market M-body (Gran Fury in the US), Chrysler Canada Ltd. bestowed the name upon Plymouth’s E-body for ’83. And in a bid to confuse customers even more, the aged M-body became the Caravelle Salon. All E-bodies were offered only as four-door sedans and only with four-cylinder engines – not quite a recipe for excitement. Dodge’s 600 presented a somewhat sporty image, as the 600ES offered a firmer suspension and meatier tires, however anyone could see that the Dodge, Plymouth and Chrysler were virtually identical cars.
In the US, Plymouth made do without an E-body for 1983 and ’84, through the Chrysler brand offered both the E Class and then (added mid-model year) the more upscale New Yorker appeared. For $2,200 on top of the E Class’s $9,700 base price, Chrysler shoppers could receive standard power windows, electronic instruments, a landau roof, wire wheel covers and other such amenities by purchasing a New Yorker. It turned out that most Chrysler shoppers wanted those things, and in 1984, New Yorkers outsold E Classes 2-to-1. Left with two awfully similar Chrysler-branded sedans, Chrysler Corporation cast the cheaper one off to Plymouth for 1985, figuring that thrifty shoppers ought to be Plymouth customers anyway. So US Chrysler-Plymouth dealers saw a switcheroo, as the E Class went away, to be replaced by the Caravelle… and the New Yorker continued in its crystalline-hood-ornamented glory as the Chrysler brand’s sole E body.
Therefore, US Plymouth dealers joined their Canadian counterparts in offering an E-body Caravelle. Virtually identical to the Dodge 600 – both mechanically and visually – the ’85 Caravelle featured an eggcrate grille (as opposed to the Dodge’s slatted grille) and very minor trim variations. Perhaps most amusingly, the Caravelle carried a base price a whopping $74 less than Dodge’s 600.
And regarding this car’s name: Just what is a “Caravelle” anyway? Why, it’s a 15th-16th century Spanish or Portuguese sailing ship – usually spelled “caravel” in English… the added “-le” being the French spelling. Though few customers likely made the connection, the ship theme was a throwback to early Plymouth badges and hood ornaments that featured the Mayflower and other nautical themes. Plymouth scarcely used seafaring symbolism in the 1980s (Voyager being the other example, since the term typically applies to a long water journey), however sailing vessels made a comeback with the brand in the 1990s in the form of a modern interpretation of the old nautical badge. The Caravelle model name, though, never resurfaced after the E-bodies were discontinued.
Incidentally, Plymouth wasn’t the only make to offer a Caravelle. Both a 1960s Renault coupe/cabriolet and numerous versions of Volkswagen’s Transporter also carried the Caravelle name. Combined with our Plymouth, this must be the most unusual trio of automotive namesakes ever produced.
Now back to our featured car. This is a 1987 model, which benefited from a mild refresh that debuted the year before. For this refresh, Chrysler softened the car’s formerly hard lines, such as in the front fascia, grille and tail lamps. Headlights, which had previously resided in individual eye sockets, now sported a more contemporary appearance. And in a shockingly bold move, the stand-up hood ornament disappeared, replaced instead by a Pentastar integrated into the grille. Take a good look at this grille, because it was the most apparent visual difference between the Caravelle and its Dodge twin… Dodges featured blacked-out grilles with chromed crosshairs.
Tail lights, too, were subtly different on the Plymouth and Dodge versions; while the Caravelle featured tail lights with horizontal ribbing, the 600’s lights were divided into rectangular chunks. Wheel options differed as well, though both versions offered these wire wheel covers — after all, what kind of K-car-derived sedan could do without them?
This particular car is an SE, a model that added a few extras to the base Caravelle, such as a split bench seat, stereo, intermittent wipers, etc. About 45% of the 94,000 1986-88 Caravelle buyers splurged for the SE. Caravelle’s most significant option, though, was the engine. These sedans came standard with a 2.2L 97-hp four, but two optional engines provided much more acceptable performance. Our featured car’s original owner opted for the $280-extra 2.5L four, whose benefit wasn’t so much horsepower (only 3 more than the 2.2), but torque, of which it had more and at lower RPMs. Also optional was the same 2.2L turbo four as found in the Dodge Daytona Turbo Z, though with Caravelle’s 3-speed automatic, it wasn’t an ideal match.
The 1986 smoothing of the E-bodies’ design produced a pleasing and well-proportioned car – but certainly not an exciting one. Caravelle’s K-car roots showed through in many ways – with a noisy ride, unrefined handing, and lots of inexpensive interior materials. However, for consumers looking for a basic, but not punishingly ascetic family sedan, this was a reasonable choice. Caravelles typically cost less than GM A-body sedans, though the lack of a V-6 and more limited optional equipment likely put the Plymouth out of contention for many buyers.
This 1987 brochure described Caravelle as “The not-so-traditional American family sedan.” Chrysler neglected to explain what was nontraditional about it.
Chrysler manufactured over 700,000 E-body sedans between 1983 and 1988, with our featured car coming from the E-body’s most successful year. For the 1987 model year, 151,135 E-bodies rolled out of the Jefferson Avenue Plant in Detroit, including 42,465 Caravelles. While seemingly a fair showing, this was somewhat meager in the large 1980s mid-size sedan marketplace, and just a fraction of the sales raked in by some competitors, such as the Olds Cutlass Ciera. Having a pleasant design and offering good value could only take a car so far… Caravelle ownership was likely limited to the Chrysler faithful, and to those looking for a step up from a Reliant.
Caravelle and the rest of the E-bodies were discontinued in 1988. Its place in Plymouth’s lineup was the filled by the Acclaim and/or Dynasty (a case could be made for either, or both, being the Caravelle’s true successor). With that, this easily overlooked Plymouth sailed away, hardly to be remembered. In retrospect, Caravelle ended up being forgettable due to a lack of distinction – it wasn’t a sales leader, a styling trailblazer or a technological breakthrough. The model simply existed for a few years in a lineup of badge-engineered, value-oriented Plymouths. But thanks to these Cohort pictures, forgettable doesn’t mean forgotten.
Related Reading:
1986 Plymouth Caravelle SE: This Ship Still Sails Jim Grey
1986 Plymouth Caravelle: All In The Family Jason Shafer
1986-88 Plymouth Caravelle: Mint In Manhattan William Stopford
I recognized these cars for what they were – oversized Reliants. I disliked their elevated trunklids Their name was already overused, thus confusing the markets, or just causing customers to walk away. People thought to themselves, “I have seen this name on a car before, it was bigger, why didn’t they come up with a different name? Don’t they have a marketing department?”
Surely they could have recycled another name from their not too distant past. Let’s see. The Volare profiled yesterday? Hoo boy, better not! Valiant? No way, that name is not to be used again, it’s been retired and hung in the holy rafters. Satellite? Perhaps. Sebring? Could be. Belvedere? Too old. How about Lateen for the sails used on a Caravelle boat. Something more imaginative. Just quit recycling the same damn names over and over again.
The marketing department could have named it after a Chinese ship but they thought better of calling their new car the Plymouth Junk.
That would have been just perfect
Ok, I’ll agree these were possibly non-descript, but the ‘80s forgettable crown goes to either the Chevy Corsica or an Olds Ciera 4 door…..
You owe me half a coffee and a keyboard cleaning.
Thanks for the laugh
Hey Eric, thanks for reminding me to forget about them, lol. Like I’ve said before, it was hard being a Mopar fan in the ’80s I don’t think I ever saw one these that wasn’t a rental.
Nice find and write up though
I had an 86 Caravelle and generally liked it. It was a comfortable highway cruiser, although the 2.2 required some patience getting up to speed. Pretty reliable. I put 100,000 hard miles on it and sold it for $400. The A/C was meat-locker cold.
Plymouth Breeze filed a similar slot
Looking at the shots that show the 3/4 angle from a lower perspective there’s a remarkable similarity to the Ford LTD (the small one). Perhaps more so to me because this blue is very similar to the blue on our LTD. In the metal that similarity isn’t nearly as pronounced.
It is a rare sight or at least a rare “recognized” sight, this thing just blends in like it’s being featured in an insurance commercial. Nice write-up, having written up a Dodge 600 myself it’s difficult to find info on these cars that isn’t confused with the other similar ones on the market at the same time with all of the name changes etc, good job!
I always thought that the effort to change the side profile by adding an extra window in the ‘C’ pillar was awkward (also on the Panther bodies, as well). To me, it just seemed like a design fail, and I never warmed up to the look.
It was indeed confusing having the E- and M-body Caravelles available at the same time. I don’t understand why Chrysler Canada didn’t change to the Gran Fury name on the M when the E was introduced.
Incidentally, there was also a 2-door Caravelle available in Canada parallel to the Dodge 400/600 2-doors.
The M-Body version in Canada was renamed ‘Caravelle Salon’ when the K-based version arrived. Chrysler Canada may have felt the Caravelle name was already associated enough with the existing mid-sized version, that it was worth retaining.
Looking back, when I think of the Plymouth Caravelle name in Canada, the M- Body version is the one I immediately think of.
Oh! You have beaten me to it! What? A “Fancy” compact Plymouth coupe? Yes, they sold this from 1983 to 1986. Here is a 1986 model (it sorely needs white walls!)
“Caravelle” didn’t seem so strange to one who travelled to Canada several times during that time, much as “Parisienne” rang familiar when Pontiac revived the full-size sedan in 1983.
I best remember them as being used as police cars in the movie The Wraith with Charlie Sheen
I have nothing against how the car looks. There are far more offensive looking cars today by a mile and a half. I prefer my car lines to be between the oval Taurus and the sharp lines of today. The late 80s and early 90s Accord, Camry and 626 have the look I like. This car has it to and I drove one 4 years ago that was for sale. Never took it on the freeway but could tell it was be great for around the town at least.
Barely. Or maybe all too well.
I never thought of these as separate cars, just 6 window K cars in the same way that the Toyota Sprinter AE82 (Chevy Nova) was just a Corolla AE82 with a different greenhouse. Consequently they were just as forgettable as the Reliant/Aries, although the 6 window greenhouse is more attractive.
I think the New Yorker Salon (https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1990-chrysler-new-yorker-salon-no-its-not-a-dynasty-and-it-could-have-been-named-better/) may be even more forgettable.
If memory serves, these were sold in Mexico as “Volare”. Or maybe I don’t remember that.
There was also sold as Dodge Dart, Dart E for the “EEK-body” as the guys of Allpar nicknamed them and Dart K for the K-car version. I saw a cool collection of Mexican Dart “EEK” on IMCDB. https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles_make-Dodge_model-Dart+E.html
The Volaré name was used for a K-car variant. https://blog.consumerguide.com/south-border-madness-10-classic-mexican-market-auto-ads/
I remember the first Caravelle I saw – it was an M body parked on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls when we drove through on a vacation in 1979.
For my money, these were the best looking sedans ever built on the K platform. The original was stubby, the New Yorker version was bloated, and the later New Yorker/Dynasty was too much of a GM ripoff. This was proportioned well and an overall pleasant package to look at, in an inoffensive kind of way.
The lack of a V6 was poison in this market by the late 80s. Middle America had experienced quite enough of those hair-shirt-four bangers by 1986 or so, and a growing economy and dropping fuel prices made the much smoother and peppier V6 a good choice.
Caravelle had earlier been used on the M body in Canada; can’t remember whether they ever were in the US
I am quite sure that the Caravelle name never ended up on a US M body – I think by the time Plymouth got one it was a Gran Fury.
That’s why I remember it so well, I was smitten with the 77-79 M body coupe anyhow, and to see one called a Plymouth (and with an unfamiliar model name at that) rocked me.
Yeah, I used to go up to Montreal every summer, and I couldn’t help like trying to spot these Canada-only cars, model variations, or rebrandings. Like for whatever reason, both the Dynasty and Intrepid were Chryslers, not Dodges.
Great find, thanks for writing this up! You are right, I haven’t thought of these cars in ages.
In high school in the late 80’s, a friends’ parents had one, I believe it was an 86 model, in the Plymouth version even. Or it could have been the Dodge, but I think it was the Plymouth. I guess my fuzziness of that detail proves the point about the forgetability of this car, especially since I don’t think I’ve thought about that car in many, many years.
I rode in it a number of times. As I recall, the car was inoffensive but horribly generic and lacking anything at all appealing to the teen-aged mind. Exactly the type of car you might expect someone’s parents to drive, especially it they were kind of boring, practical and mainstream as his folks were. Good people, don’t get me wrong, just Plymouth Caravelle-driving good people!
Looking at it now, it is still generic 80’s but that makes it completely unique today. It really is not a bad looking car. The proportions seem a little bit more pleasing and natural than the smaller original K cars. Better looking, too, than the later Dynasty/New Yorker. This seems like the natural destination for the K platform.
Maternal Grandfather’s second to last car; exactly the same as the tan brochure model seen above. Dead reliable, and painfully suited to a mouthy WW2 Vet who himself drove insanely conservatively, to say the least. I can still hear his Irish voice “Watch it, Missy!” as he (inevitably) was passed by a female driver who thought the posted speed limit was actually appropriate.
I also noticed the tires. They are in decent condition, so probably not too old. This is noteworthy because generally, one has to go out of one’s way to get white wall tires these days. There are only a few brands available, and none of them are the big, traditional American brands.
The car being parked at a medical office and having handicap plates, I comfortably speculate that this is owned by a senior citizen who likes his or her car in a traditional, square shape wearing whitewall tires as the Good Lord intended. The fact that the world moved away from those things 20 or 30 years ago is of no consequence to this owner and I say more power to him!
I rented a Caravelle just like this back in 1987. It actually was a memorable and positive experience. For a basic rental car it was much better than average, being fully equipped with a plush burgundy velour interior.
Eric’s comments are spot on. The car was excellent value but the handling and smoothness wasn’t quite up to the 4 year old mid grade GM A-body Cutlass Ciera that I also drove.
Despite a positive experience, I don’t think I’d add one to my personal fleet simply because there are better cheap wheels from that era. However I respect the choice of the owner who still drives such a nice example.
The Dodge equivalent of the Alliance was the Spirit. And they replaced the Reliant and Aries.
The Dynasty replaced the E-body 600 and Caravelle. This time Chrysler Canada did not offer a separate Plymouth model for the Dynasty and instead rebadged a Chrysler sold at both Plymouth and Dodge dealers. Chrysler sold Chrysler Dynasty model in export territories outside North America.
Likewise the Dodge Daytona was sold as the Chrysler Daytona in Canada.
I owned a 1984 Dodge 600, 2.2-litre 4 and turbocharger. Painted a pale yellow with a darker gold colour for the hood and upper door frames. The gold was a nice shiny colour, but the yellow had spots where the clear coat was burnt off.
It was a nice car, decent gas mileage and quite comfortable. The car was great on the flat lands, but was a little anemic going over the Coquihalla
These looked (and drove) so dated compared to a Taurus.
This was my first car. 2.2 turbo. Had to add a quart of oil with every tank of gas. Torque steer was so bad it would change lanes when shifting from 1st to 2nd. That car had a hard life, mud, snow, gravel, airborne over section lines, hauling around a rediculous stereo, and so much more. Oh the memories.
That must be one of the cleanest E-body Caravelles still in existence. I always thought of these as an “aunt’s car” since multiple aunts in my family had one. Looking at it now, it’s not a bad looking car, albeit very generic, from certain angles like the rear 3/4 view.
Growing up I always had a weird preference for Dodge over Plymouth since my parents mostly drove Dodges (even though there’s no difference, save for the grill and taillights, if that). Nowadays it’s a special event to see any Plymouth still on the road.
And don’t forget the Sud-Aviation Caravelle, probably the first use of the name and the inspiration for the Renault
I had to laugh, my parents traded in our Plymouth Reliant for a 1986 Caravelle. I learned to drive in this car, used it on my road test, so I have a soft spot for this car. We had a Brown Caravelle with a tan interior. Worst part was that the paint was fading only 3 years into ownership. I remember this car had a computer issue, where when you started it it would rev really high and not adjust down.
Great first car, it took a beating, and it kept running….
Thanks for the article!!
With all of these comments knocking Chrysler and this sweet little Caravelle you would think a murder had been committed.If Toyota or Honda or some other foreign garbage manufacturer had done as much with a single platform like Chrysler did with the K Car everyone would be praising them for it….Foreign Trend…er I mean Motor Trend magazine would have given out their little garbage caliper award to Honda or Toyota if they had accomplished so much with so little…..But because it’s an American manufacturer,Chrysler no less,they are derided for being so innovative…..You foreign car lovers do know that Toyota founder Kiichiro Toyoda loved all things Chrysler….Hell the first production Toyota car was a smaller copy of the 1934 Chrysler Airflow….How innovative that he had to copy a design that was done first by Chrysler!…..Kiichiro had a private collection of American automoblies.And Chryslers were his preferred car.He had one car per year of every Chrysler model in his collection.The collection is still in existence in Japan and it is massive….It’s only available for the Toyota family to view.Word is that everyday the Toyoda family goes to the collection and reminds themselves that the Americans are the best at what they do.Kiichiro Toyoda knew he was a failure because he only had enough knowledge to “copy” something that was already built.So Toyota itself owes everything that it does to Chrysler.Doesn’t matter….All the mag rags are laying off mightily cause nobody reads their biased garbage magazines anymore….By the way I do think that Chrysler got the Motor Trend Car of The Year Award back in 1981 because of the original K Car.
Toyota figured out 30 years ago that they were the leaders when they got in business with GM at NUMMI.
This car was obviously second rate when it was brand new. Between the quality of the Camry and the design of the Taurus, this was strictly for Chrysler employees, rental companies, government fleets, and people who couldn’t be bothered to drive past the closest car dealer to their houses.
Sometime in the early 90’s, we owned an ’87 New Yorker. Gave us excellent service.
A good friend of mine grew up in a “Mopar Family”. Almost every single car they owned was a Chrysler product, and if they weren’t, it was older Chevy stuff. His first stinker was the first car he bought, a Volare, which was a disaster. He traded it to his uncle for an early 70’s Buick of some kind, a solid, but boring car. After a couple of years of the Buick, he decided to give Mopar another shot, and bought a new Caravelle, dark blue, and it was a lemon of such proportions that the dealer had pity on him and took it back, and ended up with a nearly identical 600 that made the Caravelle look good. Endless electrical problems, to the point it was 50/50 if it would start for work in the morning, and maybe 50/50 if it made it to work at all. The dealer tried and tried to fix the issues but they seemed to be breeding. What finally killed his Mopar love was when it was towed to the dealer, “fixed” it, towed back to the dealer after going less than a mile, and then literally dying just out of sight of the dealership again. The dealer owned a couple of different dealerships and he ended up in a GM product, I think it was a Grand Prix. Since then, no Mopars for him. It seems like Toyota has him firmly enchanted.
Toyota figured out 30 years ago that they were the leaders when they got in business with GM at NUMMI.
This car was obviously second rate when it was brand new. Between the quality of the Camry and the design of the Taurus, this was strictly for Chrysler fans.
An awesome and most rare find! I would never have thought to cross-shop one of these against a Cutlass Ciera or Century, except perhaps as a used car. Still, I actually kind of like the Caravelle and wish more had been done to distinguish it. Even if “value” was its proposition, I’m sure there could have been things to emphasize it being “easy to own”, “fun”, attainable, or something the marketing folks could have come up with.
By this time, Plymouth was a ship lying in the Doldrums. The glory days were gone and those of us who still cared, weren’t impressed with another stretch KCar. Buying it as a Chrysler New Yorker let you get the car, plus some nice touches. Buying it as a Dodge or a Plymouth though, was simply unnecessary. By the late 1980s, the mold was cast and these cars were obsolete, but still being manufactured. We all knew that they were still being built because Chrysler had nothing left for that market, except old stretched KCars.
And the name was awful. The look was completely forgettable. There was nothing to brag about here. Not a bit imaginative. Sorry, but this car had absolutely nothing special going for it.
The K-car and its endless we’re-cheap-so-here’s-another-rehash variants typify everything wrong with Detroit in the 80s. After the mediocre, tacky, unreliable bloated guzzlers of the 70s they responded with tacky, mediocre and unreliable shrunken versions of 70s cars, addressing none of the issues that were causing their customers to flee to imports.
Ed was a guy near retirement when I started working with him at my first advertising job in 1983. We lived about a quarter mile away from one another, so we decided to carpool to our job 17 miles each way from home.
When we first started this carpool, Ed had a 1981 or 1982 Plymouth Reliant, equipped the way most Greatest Generation people would buy a car. Four doors, cloth interior, automatic, PS, PB and air conditioning. I remember him saying he didn’t want the a/c but the car came with it.
Right before he was to retire in 1987, Ed decided to replace his Reliant with a new car. I was kind of excited to see what he’d be buying. Would he go for a Cadillac or Lincoln that he thought was so neat? Nope. He got a Plymouth Caravelle. Four doors, cloth interior, automatic, PS, PB and a/c. It was essentially, a bigger, newer Reliant K. Although, this time he DID want the a/c.
You’d have to know the man to understand why he did that; like many others of his generation he survived the Great Depression and WWII. These folks were eminently practical and frugal. They used their bodies and their wits to survive. They mostly bought just what they needed and not more. I didn’t realize it at the time, but Ed was teaching me a lot about life (I was in my early 20’s then), much of which I have used in my own times. Ed retired shortly after and I moved to Atlanta in the early 90’s. I kept in touch as much as I could, but these things kind of burn out over time. Ed passed in the late 90’s, and I didn’t find out until well after the funeral, so I never really got to say farewell.
I can’t look at this Caravelle and not think of Ed and the lessons he taught me.
I always like your comments. This story rings true to me. I am only 36 but Ed reminds me of my grandpa, a B-17 mechanic during WWII. He drove big Chevies and Oldses, when he could have afforded much more, for the same reasons you mentioned. They had survived hell and a car was more of an appliance–they wanted something reliable but not flashy.
I am late to the party, but the Caravelle in the attached photo lives around the corner from our house in Dallas, Texas. I left a phone message with the owner asking permission to enter her driveway for a shot of the front, but there has never been a reply.
My son says it is a first generation. Her muffler is either blown out or otherwise damaged. On the infrequent occasions when she is driving, the sound is quite loud.
A second try with a reduced file size is attached.
The front view is attached.
Less than one hour after my first post, the owner returned my Friday call asking permission to take front side photo form her driveway.
She is approximately in her late 70s, and this is only the second car she has ever owned. She says it is a 1985 model. She purchased it from a local well-to-do couple in 1989 for $1000.
Her first car was a 1960s dark blue Pontiac LeMans convertible with a white top.
Thanks for posting these pictures — it’s definitely an ’85 model, since that’s the only year of US Caravelle that featured that front end. Interesting story about the owner too — thanks so much for following up with her.
Your neighbor sounds like a person who knew quality when she saw it…..The lady bought it in 1989 and it’s still going strong…As it should……These K-cars were nearly indestructible…Doing what America has,did and still does,providing quality inexpensive transportation for the masses.Classic barebones styling……Just looking at it makes me feel proud to be an American….Chrysler should go retro with a small economy car and come back out with a new K-car…….I mean look at the Dodge Challenger! They are selling more and more Challengers every year and the same basic body shell is what they’ve had since 2008…….Chrysler could do a new K-car with the latest in technology that they have now…And Chrysler is the only one who could pull it off too……I think I’ll go out and find me a classic K-car and do a ground up concours restoration on it…..Drop in a newer late model Tigershark Dart 4 cylinder with a 6 speed auto….Makes me proud to be an American.
My Dad’s last MOPAR purchase wasn’t a Plymouth (his first car was a 1956 Plymouth Plaza) but a 1986 Dodge 600….he bought it new up at a dealer in Georgetown, Tx.
I think he bought it partly because in 1986 he could still deduct auto sales tax from the purchase (think this was removed in 1987, though we still have sales tax deduction on federal taxes since we don’t have state income tax…but I think the deduction was more in 1986 taxes). He had a Dodge Omni which he traded in on the 600, which was his only other Dodge.
The 600 was the first car with the high mounted brake light in the rear window…remember thinking it looked odd at the time. The car was a light blue with blue cloth interior, pretty nice looking. He didn’t have it long (not due to him though), my middle sister was having car problems and borrowed it and must have “zoned out” and went through a red light and hit another car on the way to a picnic. The 600 was totalled.
My Dad ended up replacing it with a new 1989 Mercury Sable…the first of 3 in a row that he was to own…though he ended with 2 Chevrolet Impalas in a row, the 2nd of which my Mother currently drives.
I guess I don’t remember the 600 well since he owned it less than 3 years until it was totalled…I’m sure I drove it a number of times, but the only thing I really remember about it was the misaligned dashboard legends on the instrument panel.
Thank you for this post. Many of the pictures are exactly what mine looked like. Was my first car and was given to me by my grandparents who are dead now. Fond memories.