• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Chrysler. . . By Maserati!

nerp

nerp

Diamond Member
Saw this gem the other day. Thought it would be fun to share. You all know I'm a fan of Chrysler, so you can imagine my delight seeing this beauty.

Just 7,300 were made, according to Wikipedia.

They ran about $34,000 in 1989-1991.

Maseratiby_Chrysler.jpg


Maseratiby_Chrysler2.jpg


Maseratiby_Chrsyler3.jpg
 
Ahh yes. The Too Costly, by Maserati. Dodge Daytona chassis with 1980's Italian build quality. And then when they decided that the Turbo II engine was just too reliable, they switched it out for a Mitsubishi V6 with less power.

Basically, Chrysler learned the hard way that no matter how many frills you add to a car, people spending that much on a car don't want the exact same drivetrain that you could get in an Omni. Except that, in the Omni, the engine made more power. (The TC used the Turbo II engine, detuned to 160 hp. The Omni GLH-S used a 170 hp version of the same engine, and the Omni had it first.) Yes, the TC had the option of a "Maserati" engine (a beefed-up Turbo II with a 16-valve head) that made more power, but it's still a tough pill to swallow when your ~$35,000 "halo" car has an engine based on the engine used in your econobox.

ZV
 
First impression....its the Chrysler version of the Buick Reatta
Then I read the wiki, and also mentioned the Cadillac Allanté...I lol'd
 
Hahah, I've actually seen a couple of those.

I guess they just had to out-do GM for their Cimarron disaster (rebadged CAVALIER with a Caddy badge, ROFL!!)

medium_85Cimarron_Rr_RH_2.jpg
 
Those cars are so rare thesedays.. I think I have seen more Cimarron's.
Another car that is just insanely rare and also shitty is the early 90's Mercury Capri convertible.
 
They still haven't learned that people buying a $60K Grand Cherokee don't want the same IP and Radio/Nav/HVAC system as a Dodge Dart.
 
IIRC the problem with the TC was the price..as mentioned. I think the chassis was made here then shipped to Italy for the bodywork and then back to the US. Yeah, not the cheapest way to build a car.
 
You should have put a note on his windshield "congratulations on keeping this POS running for 20 years!"

Price was an issue but it was really quality. There was a market for a well made $35K convertible in the late 80s (the Mercedes SLs were $50-$60K) but the perception was, as said before, that it was a LeBaron convertible with a Maserati grill ornament.
 
I didn't even know those were available with the V6 until I actually read the whole wiki link.

ZV, you favor the 2.2 turbo over the 3.0? Dear lord, why?

The Mitsu V6's have never been outright bad, IMO. They've had their quirks, but the fundamentals seem solid, and there's not a whole lot that seems to go wrong. Other than oil leaks. Assuming regular maintenance, of course.

But I've never met a Chrysler 4cyl I didn't hate. Always looked at them as the opposite of their competitors, who often had/have decent 4-bangers and craptastic V6's.
 
phucheneh said:
I didn't even know those were available with the V6 until I actually read the whole wiki link.

ZV, you favor the 2.2 turbo over the 3.0? Dear lord, why?

The Mitsu V6's have never been outright bad, IMO. They've had their quirks, but the fundamentals seem solid, and there's not a whole lot that seems to go wrong. Other than oil leaks. Assuming regular maintenance, of course.

But I've never met a Chrysler 4cyl I didn't hate. Always looked at them as the opposite of their competitors, who often had/have decent 4-bangers and craptastic V6's.
Click to expand...

The 2.2 turbo was awesome, I had one when I was young,it was my first car, I miss that car all the time. Reliable and moderately fun, not bad for a cheap 80's car.. (it was a LeBaron sedan)

I then had a Neon R/T with a 2L SOHC high revver, another great Chryco 4 cyl, never had a single issue with the powertrain and I beat on that car relentlessly as a 19 year old.

All different opinions on all different matters as we all know.
 
CraigRT said:
The 2.2 turbo was awesome, I had one when I was young,it was my first car, I miss that car all the time. Reliable and moderately fun, not bad for a cheap 80's car.. (it was a LeBaron sedan)

I then had a Neon R/T with a 2L SOHC high revver, another great Chryco 4 cyl, never had a single issue with the powertrain and I beat on that car relentlessly as a 19 year old.

All different opinions on all different matters as we all know.
Click to expand...

My boss had one brand new as a company car in the mid to late 80s. It was an '87 or '88 LeBaron Coupe 2.2 Turbo, he let me drive it a few times and it had some balls compared to most of the rest of the crap produced at the time. I remember it because I was young and impressionable and it was new and I was driving a 1973 Pontiac at the time. I can't remember the last time I've actually seen one in real life though. They were made to perish... much like most American cars of that era, including the piece of crap the OP is going on about.
 
Last edited:
There had to be marijuana involved at some point in between conceptualization and the actual go-ahead for production.
 
I loved the 2.5l turbo in my caravan. The 3.0l mitsu was ok too, it was smoother and had decent reliability but wasn't as fun as the turbo 4s. The big problem with the 3.0l was a lot of them came with the craptastic new 4 speed electronically controlled trans.
 
phucheneh said:
I didn't even know those were available with the V6 until I actually read the whole wiki link.

ZV, you favor the 2.2 turbo over the 3.0? Dear lord, why?
Click to expand...

Eh, the Chrysler turbo 4s had forged internals and the 2.2 and 2.5 weren't bad engines. Not as bad as the later engines. They suffered from 1980's era engine management and whatnot so they had some rough spots but I remember them as being pretty hard to kill.

But the 2.2/2.5 went out of production in the early '90s (IIRC around '93 or '94) and most of the ones I've seen have been pretty heavily abused.

ZV
 
Interesting engine...

501 cars were built with an optional drivetrain consisting of a German Getrag manual transmission and a 16-valve head version of the 2.2 L. This engine is often called the "Maserati" engine because it was built by Maserati and has a Maserati-branded cast valve cover.

The 200 hp (149 kW; 203 PS) 16-valve 2.2 L "Maserati" engine's cylinder head was cast in England by Cosworth and finished in Italy by Maserati. The pistons came from Mahle GmbH in Germany. The camshafts were designed by Florida-based Crane Cams and were manufactured by Maserati in Modena. The "Maserati" engine used a specially-made 2.2 block, upgraded crankshaft and rods. A Japanese turbocharger was sourced from IHI. The rest of the engine used common Turbo II parts made in the United States.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard of Fondmetal in a while...

The special wheels were made in Italy by the Formula One supplier Fondmetal.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Zenmervolt said:
Eh, the Chrysler turbo 4s had forged internals and the 2.2 and 2.5 weren't bad engines. Not as bad as the later engines. They suffered from 1980's era engine management and whatnot so they had some rough spots but I remember them as being pretty hard to kill.

But the 2.2/2.5 went out of production in the early '90s (IIRC around '93 or '94) and most of the ones I've seen have been pretty heavily abused.

ZV
Click to expand...

The 2.2 TII engines had a forged crankshaft but that was it. The rods were beefed up, pistons were different, and a few changes in the valve train. Everything else was pretty much the same as the non-turbo engines. The heads tended to crack. My van had a regular non-turbo head on it when I got it I assume to do a blown head gasket/cracking. I swapped on a turbo head eventually and the machine shop tried to talk me into a new head because of the normal don't matter cracks. And the 2.5l engines tended to develop piston slap because of the long stroke and short piston skirts.
100_0059.jpg

One of mine for example with 150k miles on it. Still ran fine but made more noise at idle than my current TDI lol. Forged pistons replaced the stockers.
 
JulesMaximus said:
My boss had one brand new as a company car in the mid to late 80s. It was an '87 or '88 LeBaron Coupe 2.2 Turbo, he let me drive it a few times and it had some balls compared to most of the rest of the crap produced at the time. I remember it because I was young and impressionable and it was new and I was driving a 1973 Pontiac at the time. I can't remember the last time I've actually seen one in real life though. They were made to perish... much like most American cars of that era, including the piece of crap the OP is going on about.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't think I actually think the car is great. I think it's an amusing oddity and I enjoy spotting very rare pieces of crap.
 
thedarkwolf said:
The 2.2 TII engines had a forged crankshaft but that was it. The rods were beefed up, pistons were different, and a few changes in the valve train. Everything else was pretty much the same as the non-turbo engines. The heads tended to crack. My van had a regular non-turbo head on it when I got it I assume to do a blown head gasket/cracking. I swapped on a turbo head eventually and the machine shop tried to talk me into a new head because of the normal don't matter cracks. And the 2.5l engines tended to develop piston slap because of the long stroke and short piston skirts.
100_0059.jpg

One of mine for example with 150k miles on it. Still ran fine but made more noise at idle than my current TDI lol. Forged pistons replaced the stockers.
Click to expand...

We had a Caravelle with the 2.2 I remember the racket that thing would make. Its almost as memorable as that damn radio they put in all their cars back then.
When we replaced it with an 87 Oldsmobile Delta 88, the Olds felt like a hi-performance wondercar compared to Caravelle. :lol
In the Caravelle's defense, it did stand up to major maintenance neglect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top