We’re here in the Autopian World Headquarters this week doing what we always do when we get together: see who can eat the most Charlestown Chews in five minutes without choking and talk about extremely average vehicles no one thinks about anymore. The conversation turned to the Chrysler LH cars and I remarked that I thought the Eagle Vision TSi variant was, in fact, a great-looking midsizer. The Concorde? Holy Cheese Balls, the designers must have really hated this car.
First, to clarify, the post about longitudinal front-wheel drive cars being less rare than you think initially included a massive oversight: the LH cars. SWG pointed out that the famous cab-forward Chrysler cars did in fact feature a big V6 in the front mounted in line with the wheels. Are they the most popular longitudinally-mounted FWD cars ever made? Quite possibly.
It was this line of inquiry that led me to comment that I generally enjoyed the way those cars looked, especially in first-generation Vision TSi trim. Let’s look at it, it looks great:
That was in 1994. Here it is in 1996. Were there even any stylistic upgrades or just photographic ones? I’m not sure, but it looks like a damn fine automobile.
All the “LH” platformed cars are derived from the Lamborghini Portofino Concept, which itself was inspired by the Chrysler Navajo Concept. This was because Chrysler bought Lamborghini that year, which left us with the odd sequence of a Chrysler concept inspiring a Lamborghini concept that in turn produced a bunch of Chrysler products. 
This is an alluring concept and you really get the idea of the “cab forward” design that pushes the passenger cabin as far forward as possible, with the wheels pushed way out to the edges of the car.
The Dodge Intrepid is the most common version of this car:
For some reason, this particular model found itself stuck in a child’s sandbox, but it looks great nevertheless.
Eagle was killed before it could get a second generation of the Eagle Vision, but Dodge did give us a heavy redesign for its 2nd gen Intrepid.
Some of this is taste, but I don’t consider the 2nd gen cars to be quite as attractive as the 1st gen models. It’s a little too late ’90s/early aughts ovoid, but it’s not a bad-looking car.
Why Is The Concorde Like This?
I was looking at Visions and Intrepids, which led me to search for the Chrysler Concorde. I don’t normally like to use Wikipedia images, but this one was kind of perfect.
Something about this angle really shows how phoned-in this design was. In theory, the Concorde sits at the top of the LH range, but it somehow looks the cheapest. It’s probably not fair to compare a press shot to a real shot of an aged vehicle, but the grille work here is extremely lazy. The subtle cooling vents in the other iterations are one of the design touches that make these vehicles look special, so the strange upright nostrils just give the impression that the Concorde has a rigidly combed Prussian mustache.
This car also features everyone’s least favorite version of the Chrysler logo.
It gets worse. Way worse. Here’s the second-generation car:
That is straight-up Dopey Gillis. Dopey Houser, MD. If it were to star in a Burt Reynolds/Sally Field movie they’d call it Dopey And The Bandit. I was surprised to hear that Jason sort of liked this version, but he also has a thing for fish-like cars.
I think even the Chrysler engineers knew that this was bad, so they tried to fix it with a facelift that somehow made it worse:
Did someone piss off the designer of this car at some point? This was during the “Merger of Equals” times and I’m guessing Daimler just couldn’t be bothered to muster even one dry nugget of crap about the fading Concorde.
Why are there so many different shapes in the front of this car? There’s the long, cigar-like oval of the sidemarker lamp. The strange shoeprint shape of the headlights. Almost circular foglights. And then a totally unnecessary tall squircle-y grille. Look at this awful line for the nose that totally breaks up the look:
And here’s where it gets totally bonkers. I was looking for press photos of this car when I was reminded that Chrysler made yet another Chrysler-branded version of the LH platform, the 300M:
Same car! Just slightly upmarket. Also a Chrysler. It doesn’t look great but it doesn’t look quite so awful. I honestly can’t think of another car that just whiffed it so badly with each iteration.
I think the real issue is that the first generation are a little more timeless. The Dodge Intrepid first generation has the benefit of the Viper look which is classic. Also, the 2nd gen had orange. I personally don’t like the Chrysler Concorde in any version, as I thought the New Yorker version of the LH cars was the best. No mention here.
Respectfully, the cars you like least actually look the best imo. Well, except that gen 3 Concorde. But still better than gen 1. The eagle is the best, but gen 2 intrepid wasn’t bad.
Now I want to see how they packaged the powertrain.
I think you got your Chryslers mixed up. The New Yorker and LHS were the top of the line LH bodies and had its own body. The Concorde was a step below that and used the same body as the Dodge and Eagle versions. The 300 was a shortened, sportier version of the LHS and sold at a premium price. In the midwest all of these were really popular, in Columbus you saw lots of New Yorkers and LHS back in the day. Concorde’s were more like the “premium” rental car choice, but Intrepids were very popular too.
If I recall correct, Chrysler had no less than three iterations of the 1st gen LH platform. That’d be the New Yorker, Concorde and the oft forgotten LHS. I can’t imagine what executive thought that there was room for three different version of almost the identical car. One thin I remember really liking was the rear windshield glass shape of the LHS (I think).
I also remember reading somewhere that a version for Plymouth had at least reached the prototype stage. There are pictures on the net somewhere.
“There’s your answer, fishbulb!”
Happily the next 300 blew the doors off the old designs. Are they still selling it?
2nd Gen Intrepid was the best looking Dodge product until we got the 2nd Gen Challenger. I said what I said.
My mother LOVED her 300M. She special ordered it with the “sport” suspension for some reason, and it had a really odd quirk. The sport package actually DOWNSIZED the wheels. I think they were 16″ vs the regular version’s 17″ standard wheels. I never drove any 300M other than hers so I have no idea if it was any sportier than the regular car, but I always though it was odd that they made it more sporty by putting on smaller wheels.
I sold for Mopar during this period. The 300M was a very different car in the way it drove compared to the Concord. There was a difference between the sport suspension cars and non. The reason for th 16’s is that with the lack of sidewall on the 17’s, the suspension was really harsh. At customer’s request, we swapped 17’s onto a sport suspension car. We swapped them back at the first oil change.
That whole brood of cars hold the record for the fastest disappearance from the streets I’ve ever seen.
My Intrepid disappeared when a water pump replacement – that required major engine tear down – was going to cost big bucks, close to $2000 due to the labor required. The LH cars, indeed, vanished fast.
The 300M was actually the design for the second generation Eagle, but they killed the brand. IIRC, the grill was redesigned. My dad had one. Roomy as hell and the dreaded Daimler-Chrysler interiors hadn’t reared their hard, cheap heads yet. Unexciting to drive, despite its Letter Car aspirations.
The second generation is the best generation. The third generation isn’t bad.
And I still maintain that the LH was killed because of some sort of Daimler-Chrysler conspiracy, emphasis Daimler. The LH cars were going along, looking great and selling just fine when all of a sudden any media description of the cars were peppered with claims that they were an old or tired design. It was very strange. I wouldn’t be surprised if Daimler was spoon feeding this narrative to the media, which for some reason, ate it up. Some say Daimler overpaid for Chrysler and was chomping at the bit to build Chryslers with its last generation Mercedes bits to consolidate manufacturing and save bucks.
Daimler hated that American engineering in certain places (Jeep) was better than theirs. They wanted Chryslers huge cash reserves and exactly what you said, save on their manufacturers costs.
A 1994 Concorde was my first car, and due to a combination of it being a particularly good example of one and teenage nostalgia I will always have a soft spot for the 1st gen LH cars. My car had the factory Infinity soundsystem, the 3.3l, and leather. It was our family’s first “nice” car, it replaced a late eighties Crown Vic in 2000, and became mine in 2004. I did all sorts of stupid teenager stuff in it- it got jumped, off roaded, driven at 100mph from Lansing to Grand Rapids for a Tool concert (one of my passengers said it was so smooth at that speed that he didn’t realize how fast we were going until he looked outside and then checked my speedo). I once drove it through snow so deep that it plowed up onto the hood and over the windshield- those cars were really good in the snow. I learned how to do brake jobs, a basic tuneup, and tie rods on that car. It took me to visit my dad in Minnesota multiple times and delivered pizza to suburban snobs and drunk college kids. Eventually, I wanted to be cool and replaced it with a 1987 Comanche, an objectively cooler but much worse car. I sold it someone who turned it into a race car. As improbable as that sounds, a local track had a V6 fwd race that those 3.3l LH cars were apparently the hot ticket in. I will always have a soft spot for that car, and sometimes consider picking one up but I have no idea what I would do with it.
I put a lot of miles on the LH cars in the mid-90’s through 2004-ish. This was in the upper Midwest: Minnesota, Iowa, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, etc. This platform was a good highway car – pretty smooth and quiet. They were very good in the snow, which was a key attribute in those days when ABS-based traction control was optional and stability control was not available. The 3.3L engine was reliable if not exciting. The original iron-block 3.5L SOHC V6 versions were more zesty and still durable. The transmissions were always a weak spot, being a derivative of the problematic A604 electronically-shifted 4-speed. My favorites were the Eagle Vision TSi (which had the 3.5L and more sporty chassis tuning) and the 300M Special. 2002 Chrysler 300M Special Is Our Bring a Trailer Auction Pick (caranddriver.com)
Alright, as a former LH owner (300m) and “enthusiast” I’m gonna have to clarify some things here. The Concorde was never the top LH. From the start of the LH, the LHS was technically the top, all the way up until 2002… when the LHS died and became the Concorde Limited, but from 99-2004 after which the LH cars got replaced, the 300M was top dog, albeit sharing that place with the LHS in some opinions for 99-01.
Also, for a couple years at the start, the LHS’s body had a more base model called the New Yorker, which would also be above the Concorde.
The correct list would be: Intrepid < Concorde < Vision < LHS for Gen 1.
then: Intrepid < Concorde < 300M < LHS for Gen 2.
I could go on more about the differences of each model, but I'm on mobile and longer comments get hard. I'll elaborate if someone cares to know and asks in a reply.
Had a 88 new Yorker in high school
Had a mittsubishi engine, trip computer that told you the mpgs , sofa soft leather seats and a huge back seat
That car was the balls.
I’d loooove to take a ride in one again
My parents went from one of those to a 95 LHS when I was a kid. I remember both being lovely, but the LHS being so much better.
Here’s a question, what’s up with the dodge intrepid r/t having 242 HP? Did that feel like as much power as it sounds like? I imagine the transmission was rather slushy and kneecapped the car a bit but still.
I actually had an R/T. From what I remember it was reasonably quick and decent to drive. I didn’t keep it long because I decided I wanted a pickup, but it was a nice car while I had it.
Just got back here… The transmission really kneecapped performance, many folks have dyno’d their LH cars over the years, usually ending up around 180hp to the wheels from 3.5L 300Ms (a couple guys dyno’d their Intrepids with similar results). That’s approximately a 28% drivetrain loss. Many figure it’s due to the longitudinal-fwd layout that got us to this conversation and how Chrysler executed it.
It’s long been understood in the LH community that the power number differences were mostly BS and really don’t matter by now. Interestingly, there’s preferred ECUs thanks to have the transmission is mapped and how aggressive shifts are. (2002 300M Special is the best FWIW).
Had a 1st gen LHS and loved it – opened my eyes up to the jump in quality that came with the top-dog model. Truly cavernous back seat and trunk (ala A8L, 750iL, XJ L sized). Only weak spot was slightly myopic headlights. Would recommend.
My friend in High School would always volunteer her parent’s 2nd gen Intrepid to pick up friends/party supplies, although she never volunteered to drive. So I spent a few hours behind the wheel of an intrepid. It wasn’t really that cool except when I learned how to do reverse 180’s in it. Woke up a few parents peeling out of driveways at 3 am. At least I was the DD.
Weirdly, Chrysler chose Eagle Vision TSi instead of its Concorde as the model to be sold in Europe. Probably due to Vision being only LH with amber turn signal indicators. The Eagle emblem on the nose was replaced with lamest Chrysler emblem ever.
I actually believe it was because the Vision was the ‘sportier’ model, which they figured Europe desired over road couches.
That emblem…what in the miniscule Alfa Romeo grill…
or was it because the license plate opening was compatible with Euro plates?