Second generation blues
Chrysler is a company that has traditionally had problems with second generations.
We could go all the way back to the Fury, a car which put stunning performance into a standard Plymouth chassis, bursting out of the brand that, alone at Chrysler Corporation, had never had a Hemi V8, relying instead on the flathead sixes. Soon, the Fury name was attached to standard-performance cars as well as the “true” Plymouth Fury, and its rep diffused and fizzled.
Then there was the Neon, which, say what you like about it, had a clear aura and personality; people loved it or hated it, most of the time. In the second generation, it became much blander, and though with a stick-shift it still outperformed most competitors, its identity because too fuzzy to support sales, especially with the 1995-1997 models’ quality issues.
We could even bring up the wondrous Valiant, which started very exotic and European in nature, and by the final generation to bear the same name was squarish and conventional. Or the Dodge Ram, whose styling went from unique to cartoonish. Or the original Dodge Charger - admittedly it’s the second generation that’s well known, but Chrylser went off to pursue new trends and gave it the “formal look.” The Intrepid, the PT Cruiser, “baby-Ram” Dakota, they all lost much of their uniqueness over time as the company got more conservative with their high-selling stars. (The PT, admittedly, lost less than most, but the interior doesn’t seem to blend as well as it used to, and the scalloped headlights, needed to conform to Chrysler’s dual-headlight rule, don’t seem to work with the Plymouth Truck.)
Perhaps Chrysler should start being on its guard, and remembering what Lutz said - when you don’t dominate the market, you should make vehicles people love or hate, as long as more people love them than currently buy them! And when you do have a winner, understand and preserve its strengths even as you try to fix its weaknesses. The Neon had most of its weaknesses cured, but the cure was worse than the disease.
Throw in the 2nd gen Intrepid & Concorde as well. They, and most of the rest of your examples, shared a common trait: Bigger, wider, heavier than the cars they replaced. The growth seemed to ‘fill out’ the lithe lines of their predecessors. I love the looks of my mom’s 99 LHS, but the extreme cab-forward design does have drawbacks when you live with it awhile, ranging from ducking the A (ouch!) pillar to the chore of cleaning the inside of the windshield and rear window. The PT was a real departure design-wise for them, in comparison to what the rest of the product line was, as opposed to the new interior which blatantly apes the 300.
Also, the PT always had dual headlamps; they’ve just chosen to emphasize them (too bad they kinda look like they’re squinting). But at least they work well; that’s one area they have vastly improved over the mid 90s units.
I agree with you, and that’s one reason I really like the PT - it goes back to a friendlier style of car, with a nice big roof, a windshield that doesn’t get in your face (and can be cleaned), and doors that feel good when you open and close them (though I don’t mind the simple pull-to-open doors, the lift-latches are annoyingn to me, and the one in my Corolla kept pinching me!). The A pillar duck … yes… but on the other hand, of course, the cab-forward vehicles had much better aerodynamics than the boxy 300/Charger!
Didn’t realize that with the PT, will have to fix that. You are right about the emphasis, though - same thing that makes the Commander look silly. They get this idea they need to show that they have dual headlamps…original PT has great headlights too.
An interesting piece of trivia here:
Apparently; Chrysler’s RWD A body must have been well thought of————–outside of Chrysler Corporation.
Why I say that is when Chrysler Australia closed up shop ca. 1980 the ‘CM’ Valiant lived on for another year or two under Mitsubishi———–the Japanese built Valiants under license!
The last of the Brazilian Darts and friends were bult by VW after Mopar gave up in that country.
Final tidbit here: the 1962-74 Ply Valiant was built under license by SAAB in Sweden for sale over there……..in fact: analogs of our webmaster’s A body were used as police cars in Stockholm alongside Volvos.
I don’t really consider the F and M bodies to be separate from the A bodies in any meaningful way. They were continuations of the A bodies with modified front suspensions.
The names also don’t last past 2 generations.
If the Sebring keeps its name…that will be a first in a long time (at least for cars.)
They have no patience or long-term view.
Many think that if the Valiant had kept its name, the Volare’s first-year problems would have been erased eventually from the collective memory, in light of the Valiant’s long, long history of reliability. Instead they ended up dumping the Volare name, after the car was no longer problematic.
Some names were born to be forgotten, but others should have stayed. What’s interesting to me in a way is how many names failed to make it over into front wheel drive, while the Japanese cars were not affected by that technology change. Likewise the Intrepid could have made it into rear wheel drive.
Part of the problem with the name changes is that Chrylser hates anything they’ve donein the recent past and is always reinventing themselves. That doesn’t help anyone who buys from them because it de-values their own older cars. The Sundance was junk when the Neon came out, the Neon became junk when the Caliber came out, with Chrysler’s own hired actor mocking it.
That part I didn’t get *at all* (mocking the Neon). Not even a little bit.
Regarding the Sebring name; as far as the Sedan goes this will be the second generation for that name. Only the convertible will have had the name on three different cars. If they ever make (or slap their name on) a coupe again, I don’t expect it to be a Sebring.
So even that name gets an asterisk. IIRC, that means the last name to have carried over for multiple generations (aside from trucks and minivans) would be New Yorker, which outlived LeBaron by a year and disappeared after ‘96.
David Spade mocked it while on the stage for Chrysler. I realize David Spade is paid to mock, but …
Also, the exception to the name-change phenomenon is when Chrylser slaps names around willy-nilly to cars that are obviously different in character, not just technology. I know what to expect from a Corolla or Camry, rear or front drive. I don’t know what to expect from a LeBaron - a name on three completely different models in a single year - or from a Sebring, for that matter (an old Plymouth name).
It’s a shame they didn’t just keep the Savoy and such … Belvedere was a great car but what exactly was it? And renaming it to Fury…
Oh, that is correct Rich. I forgot about the Cirrus. Thanks