All the bad qualities of American cars, Japanese cars and European cars rolled into one unappetising shape. In 1995 these cars had the power to thrill.
This car has two claims to our attention today. The first is that in the cold light of day, it is hard to believe this car and its almost identical stable-mates were once nominated on Car & Driver’s 10 best list. I wasn’t aware of this at the time. The second reason I’m drawn to it is because it was the first car I was ever paid to review*. I wrote 1000 words and saw the editor chop out 200 of them, more or less killing the nuances of the text stone dead. I wanted to write a travelogue evoking the huge distances of the great American desert and a car review at the same time. It was never going to work.
Around 1995 I was in the middle of my penultimate American sojourn and, inspired by Car magazine’s gushing articles about a design renaissance at Chrysler, I insisted on renting one of these when I had the chance. The version I drove had the 2.5 litre Mitsubishi V6 engine which was almost certainly less coarse than the four-cylinder unit found in this example.
That’s all I remember about the car. The rest is a set of memories based on some photos I took at the various places I stopped (Death Valley and the Navajo desert).
Why were the automotive press so thrilled with this underwhelming and coarsely detailed vehicle? Its predecessors were the wholly dismal Dodge Spirit and company, the re-skinned descendants of the Chrysler K-cars; I drove one of those too and can remember only the colour, the weather and the exact brand of cigar I smoked that day (Montesino).
Bearing in mind the outstanding mediocrity of these vehicles, the fact the cab-forward Dodge/Chryslers/Plymouths were average came as a huge surprise. That’s why the press were amazed. And Tom Gale, who was head of Chrysler/Dodge styling did an incredible job of selling the non-existent advantages of cab-forward styling.
Car magazine and I loved this. It was as if cancer had been cured and world peace made permanent. These were the days when it was possible to treat the latest news in car design as if major breakthroughs were being made in society’s most pressing problems. It was also a time when I really liked American car design and when it was reported in the UK. These days you’d hardly know the US existed if you only read the UK automotive press.
Here we are now and Chrysler’s first not-very-bad car in two decades is on sale for €1,500. The dealer is keen to get rid of this vehicle. The ad informs us that the car will be sold with a full tank of petrol, which is worth about €60-80. And the car is not rusty and it has a “nice” interior, according to the two lines of text accompanying the ad. There is a rather poor photo of the dashboard and photos of only one side of the car. This is not compelling. Notice the rear seats have no central armrest.
I think that even at this very low price you’d be wise to steer clear of this vehicle, both because of the car as designed and the state of the example we see here. The design has not worn well, especially in comparison to the Ford Mondeo, Honda Accord and Opel Vectra of the same period. While the cab-forward look did become quite common, the coarse detailing favoured by Chrysler did not.
I would suggest all the radii are a bit too big, making the car look as if it is made of shiny, waxy polyethylene which has been painted. And this example has 282,000 km on the clock. You can’t see those but you will see the interior fabric which is in the awkward transition period between being dated and having nostalgic charm. The car is about to enter the breakdown phase. Two decades and nearly 300,000 km is a lot to ask of a Detroit car from this period.
Mostly though this car serves as an example of the willingness of the automotive press to get dragged into the swirls of hyperbole generated by designers. Sure, it was better than the Dodge Spirit but not better than anything the Japanese were selling and miles off the pace compared to what Buick and Ford were offering for similar money.
As I mentioned elsewhere, these American cars of the recent past provide nothing characteristically good to appeal to us. They merely seem like bad copies of the rather bland vehicles that Europe and Japan were turning out. I’ll keep my €1500, thanks.
*And last.
Driven To Write 
Definitely one to “ovoid”, much like the Ford Taurus of the same era.
Nice to see you here.
At the time this design direction really seemed important. All cab-forward did was make for a huge dashboard top. The h-point didn’t move relative to the front wheels’ axle line.
While the design looks banal now, in the ere before the Internet any photos of US cars had a huge fascination. Car magazine ran an article about these cars and obscured each one by having a caricature American stand in the way. How droll.
According to TTAC, none of the Chrysler cloud cars (of which the Cirrus is one) ever had rear central arm-rests.
OK you don’t like this car, fine, this is your opinion.
Now I think more interesting te remind the early 90ies that were amazing at Chrysler.
They decided to create dedicated teams to develop new cars and this lead to the cab forward concept inherited from the Lambo Portofio concept but also the Dodge Viper (1992), the Neon (1994), the PT cruiser (2000), the RAM mk II (1993), the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the Plymouth Prowler (1997), the Voyager II (1996) or the Dodge Stealth (1991)
A wind of new ideas was blowing and that was really cool: Chrysler kicked out the boxy annoying old models and introduced several new models and each time it wasn’t just cars that were following the trend of the moment but new innovative designs.
Most of those cars were hits and sold well.
Then Mercedes arrived and wanted to implement the german organisation and as the result just killed everything innovative and fresh.
Under Merco management, Chrysler achieved only 2 cool cars: the 300C and the Crossfire All the other models were evolutions of the previous generation: Neon II, Concorde II, Sebring II , Viper II etc…
This is why, even if the Chrysler were still poorly built (welcome in America: GM and Ford were’nt much better), those 90ies Chrysler corp were refreshing.
Sadly Chrysler nowaday is an almost dead brand (let’s say a zombie brand) that has only 2 models in its current range.
Dodge is not really in better shape since the trucks are sold under the RAM brand.
Plymouth is dead (RIP Prowler and Roadrunner)
Hopefully now Peugeot merged with Fiat for Stellantis, Chrysler and Dodge will benefit from modern platforms to develop new models: the 300C is at life end and the Pacifica at mid-life: Chrysler is a patient who requires intensive care to relive
Personaly I like the style of the Stratus because of is own typical style: which car from the same period is looking similar to it? None!
We lost already Rover, Saab, Lancia is dying. I do hope Chrysler can be saved and will offers us in the future new cool models and as exciting as the ones released during the 90ies and not the boring models released since 😦