Certain cars provoke such strong reactions that a mere photo of one can be a litmus test for enthusiasts. The Cybertruck is certainly one of them. A 1978 Dodge Challenger, like the one pictured above, is another. For this episode of Glorious Garbage, things are a little different: is the car itself garbage, or is it garbage thanks to the efforts of crooked marketing types?
‘That thing’s a travesty and a disgrace to the Challenger name’ says the traditional Mopar-or-no-car crowd about this Mitsubishi “captive import.” Others might say things like: ‘it was a great little ride that many of us will remember with fondness.’ Personally, my opinion falls into the latter category. I’ve heard some old mechanics say that it was one of the best products that Mitsubishi ever made; the balancer shaft four-cylinder worked so well that Porsche reportedly gave up on trying to make their own system and just paid Mitsubishi licensing fees to use it on the 944. Bmw E90 Strut Mount
The sad thing is that this controversial car was yet another victim of poor decision-making by the struggling 1970s Chrysler Corporation. The Challenger started out overseas as the Mitsubishi Sapporo, a rather crisp and clean-looking car that was refreshingly free of the usual adornments found on Japanese cars of the era.
In addition to those balance shafts, the Galant-based Sapporo had other tricks up its sleeve. The 2.6-liter four had a “Jet Valve,” a way to improve emissions by enhancing swirl in the combustion chamber to allow for burning a leaner mixture for better fuel economy. The Sapporo also had four-wheel disc brakes, something few American cars had at the time other than the Corvette and certain Cadillacs.
Like the first Prelude, the Sapporo sort of bridged the gap between a sports car and luxury coupe. Chrysler didn’t seem to get that and decided instead to sell it as two surprisingly different-looking cars, one for Plymouth and one for Dodge. Each car was tailored almost exclusively to the perceived tastes of 1978 American “sport” and “luxury” coupe buyers (which are totally perceived categories to begin with). To accomplish this, a laundry list of clichés was applied to each of the two vehicles with the results being as silly as you’d expect.
The Dodge ‘sport’ version, of course, was the Challenger, a naming that obviously inspired calls of blasphemy from the Mopar faithful. How can a car with 78 horsepower dare to carry this badge? In reality, by almost any measure this thing was an order of magnitude better than any of the true garbage Chrysler was spewing out at the time like Furys, Volares and Aspens (with barely 150 horsepower out of a 318 cubic inch V8, and Chrysler’s own disastrous “lean burn” system).
As the ‘sporty’ version of the original Sapporo car, the Dodge Challenger had to feature:
Boy, did this thing represent the stuck-on-sportiness gestalt of the later ’70s. Better yet… had an overhead console with an “eyeball” reading light and a digital clock. In 1978, when 10-year-old year me saw that feature at an auto show I believe that I needed to be put into a dark room with a cold compress until I calmed down. Can you blame me?
The Plymouth version–called “Sapporo” just like in the overseas markets–was tailored to be a mini personal luxury car. Baroque coupe? Let’s get out the to-do list:
All the boxes are checked! It’s so inviting inside for Mr. Macho and his lady below to drive to Monument Valley:
Instead of the insane leisure-suit plaid upholstery of the Challenger, you get tufty crushed velour in eye-searing red. Note the controls for dual power mirrors and even power front windows; again, all pretty exclusive for the time.
Thankfully by around 1980 Chrysler ditched all of the exterior crap and gave us what was essentially the clean JDM/Euro market version. Here’s a classic MotorWeek review that shows the car was so good it didn’t necessarily need all the baggage of being a Dodge Challenger:
The whole Posh Spice /Sporty Spice twin thing was toned way down, and there’s barely any difference between the Dodge and Plymouth.
You can see that it cleans up real nice, at least in an early eighties kind of way with this top-level “Technica” model:
“Technica” indeed: look at this for malaise tech and “show biz”:
You could see that the basic pillarless hardtop shape was pretty nice for the time and a solid competitor for Celicas, 200SX, and Mustang, which is what the damn thing was supposed to be in the first place.
As your momma always said, just be yourself. It’s the best thing you can do.
A Trained Designer Imagines What A 1980s Version Of A 1955 Chrysler 300 Would Look Like – The Autopian
Why The Plymouth Road Runner Was Cool And Then In 1975 It Instantly Became Uncool: Glorious Garbage – The Autopian
The Plymouth Volare ‘Street Kit Car’ Was A Crappy Car In An Embarrassing Halloween Costume And It Was Totally Real – The Autopian
The Chevy Celebrity Eurosport VR Proved Chevy Didn’t Know What ‘Euro’ Meant – The Autopian
I’ve low key wanted one of these since I learned they existed. I have this weird fascination with these little guys and similar cars.
The Chrysler looks like a Ford Fox body. The Dodge looks like a Fox body with a Pontiac 6000 nose. However the Plymouth looks like an AMC Concord.
Y’know if that B(C?)-pillar was moved forward like six inches the proportions would be a little less awkward… or if the back glass was flush with the back of the pillar.
Love that ’80s dash, though. Looks like a TOMY dashboard toy.
One of my first cars, and my first Mitsubishi was a Plymouth Sapporo.
I loved that car. The styling was an earlier and much better version of the Fox Body Mustang. It would’ve been even better with more power, but it had a decent power to weight ratio, and there simply wasn’t much better available affordably at the time.
Mitsubishi of 1978 was easily a match for Honda and Toyota at the time and perhaps even better, but somehow they faded from top tier, to also-ran, and then to junior partner or Renault and Nissan.
Well, at least, Chrysler retained the amber-coloured turn signal indicators in the taillamps for both Dodge and Plymouth instead of going on the cheap route of installing the least-common-denominator all-red taillamps.
Love these articles! I wish there was a Glorious Garbage calendar
This is an excellent idea!
I have to confess that back in the day 20-something me thought the silver-over-black with red-orange stripes was pretty cool.
Hell I think it’s pretty cool now.
People forget, or weren’t born yet, forget how dark a time the mid to late 70’s were for enthusiast cars. Engines were emasculated.Tires were still tall and skinny, with handling and road feel in short supply. Car makers relied on BNG- bold new graphics.
looking and the standard US built options, these Misubishi cars were not a bad thing.
I had a 1978 Challenger exactly like the lead photo. I had that car for 5 years while I went through university and then I sold it to a friend who drove it for another 3 years before passing it on to his younger sister who drove it for another couple of years before it finally died. Collectively, we put 250k km on it (and it had 100k when I bought it). It never stranded any of us.
It was pretty slow but the 2.6 was pretty torquey once it got moving. It had very tall gearing which didn’t help.
It didn’t handle well – until I put some Addco sway bars and Tokiko shocks on it, which really improved things.
It was the only car I have ever owned where you could change the oil without getting under the vehicle – everything was accessible from the top.
The previous owner had removed the emissions carb and replaced it with a Weber which pretty much just worked (the Canadian models didn’t have the MCAJet head or a cat but they were jetted very lean).
It got amazing fuel economy on the highway.
For a 1970’s Japanese car, it was surprisingly immune to rust.
Things I didn’t like:
The Leisure Suit Larry upholstery – largely cured with seat covers.
Some weird Mitsu design features; like it had a temperature probe that sat in the heater duct to keep the air temp constant. It didn’t keep the cabin at a constant temp, just the air in the ducts. It said Auto on the heat control but it took me forever to figure out why. We all complain about German cars being uselessly complicated but they have nothing on Mitsubishi.
The window seals sucked (particularly because there was no B pillar) and were NLA from Chrysler, so you just had to live with the wind noise. I have avoided cars with frameless windows ever since.
The oil fill cap was a push in design which worked OK most of the time – except in really long Canadian winters, the PCV hose would freeze and then pressure would start to build so the cap would eventually pop off (and disappear down the road). After replacing a few, I ended up adding a tether, so it could pop off and I could just pop it back in.
Ultimately, it was pretty much on par with the Gen 2 Celica or Gen 1 Prelude at the time it was introduced. It had fallen pretty far behind the Gen 3 Celica and Gen 2 Prelude by 82/83.
Love the history. I must say that if you’d purchased any other Chrysler product in 1978 your list of “things you didn’t like” would be far longer.
10 year old me thought these were wierdo cars bought by wierdo people to drive in wierdo towns. Also any AMC product.
Turns out I was a wierdo and as such missed out on a lot of stuff I would have liked.
In HS I had a Conquest/Starion and my buddy had a Sapporo. One day working on his car I realized it used a LOT of the same parts as my car and when ordering parts for his car they were a lot less expensive. I remember the starter motor was the same and only half the price at the Mitz counter.
I just learned that certain models of the last Sapporo even had independent suspension, ahead of the Conquest/Starion successor.
No, I really mean it is a page from the Ford brochure, not that it is something that looks like a Fairmont. Here’s the picture URL: https://images-stag.jazelc.com/uploads/theautopian-m2en/s-l1600-113.jpg You have the picture attribution as ‘Chrysler‘ so I’m just assuming you inserted the wrong photo. Conversely, maybe the Futura brochure picture is the one you wanted to show, but got the attribution wrong? That doesn’t seem to be indicated based on the context of the article text, though.
Edit: Drat, I responded in-line below the wrong comment, sorry about that. Still, the question stands – either the picture or the attribution is a typo that I wanted to bring to your attention.
Mike- no, both the link and the image are coming up the Technica from the brochure, at least what I’m seeing. Cleared my cache, tried again, still getting Mopars.
Mike is not crazy, I’m most definitely seeing the Ford Fairmont Futura Turbo(!) brochure, too.
Although not what you are intending to show, TIL that there was a turbo version of the Futura!
We’re looking into it. If the image is what I think it is, you’ll learn a lot more next week!
Fixed! Similar file names. I appreciate somebody bringing it to our attention.
Is anyone else seeing an ad for an ’80 Ford Fairmont in the second to last picture instead of something from Chrysler?
The nose is sort of like the first FoxStangs, which came out a year after the Sapporo/Challenger.
Also, I didn’t realize until now that the “Chapporo” has a hot-wire bend rear glass window like on the 1977-79 Chevy Impala and Caprice coupes. Supposedly this was a difficult process to do at the time (at least at GM) and the amount of waste from non-conforming parts was alarming.
The Bishop’s right about the nose, and the ’77-79 Caprice was also my first thought regarding the fancy rear window. (The Fairmont Futura/Zephyr Z-7 had normal windows apart from the shape of the rear quarters, like someone glued a bit of a different car over the bed of a Ford Durango rather than the Durango being the oddball conversion.)
For me, though, it’s the wheels in particular. Ford used a similar style on various cars and trucks sold in North America, on the last Argentinian Falcon, and over in Europe (including the UK) on the Mk II Granada, off the top of my head.
Back in the early 80s my old man had a Sapporo Turbo. At the time it was an exceptionally fast car. 0-60 under 8 seconds was up there with expensive sports cars.
This is the best generation Dodge Challenger 😀
People need to stop hating on them.
This is also the precursor to the later Starion/Conquest and later DSM.
That plaid and those body stripes, wow! If I recall Chrysler in particular had a lot of lurid interiors back then.
Including that leather from Corinth. Not that fake stuff that grows on cows.
Using a performance nameplate for lesser car is not smart marketing. This is the same mistake as the Holden Monaro based Pontiac GTO. I recall these as perfectly OK late 70s Japanese cars but personally I’d go for a Plymouth Fire Arrow with the same 2.6 in a smaller lighter shell that was a genuine performance car with a successful SCCA Pro Rally career.
If this was the challenger, who was the champ? Some non-badged Japanese coupe, for certain: Prelude, Celica, Corolla SR5.
I’d go Celica on that one. I like some of the other choices just as much but if maintained and driven in the south the Toyota could still be running today, even the A/C working.
Yes, I’d go that way, too. Celicas were sportier looking, too.
I had an 81 and 85 Celica. The 81 had issues with door hinges, and more importantly the driver’s seat was weak, I broke the back of mine, and it was difficult finding a replacment that wasn’t also broke. The 85 (last gen of RWD) was a much better car overall, but did suffer a bit from rust – and I live in the South.
Studebaker was the Champion… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Champion
Plymouth Champ was the Champ (Dodge Colt/Mitsubishi Mirage/Colt twin)
Purists can say what they want. Sure you could have a 1970 Challenger with several fast V8 powertrains…but they were (also) built with a 3.2L slant six and 3 speed manuals/autos… and that variant still had the Challenger badge on it too.
Literally the only thing that was wrong about this car was the name. Dodge could have picked virtually any other name, but no…
Same thing happened in the 1980s when Chevy decided to call the NUMMI-built, Corolla-derived car the “Nova”.
Yeah, how dare GM sully the illustrious reputation of the world leading X-body by transferring the name to a Toyota
Bish I did not know we were the same age. Truly we are special, conceived in the Summer of Love, ground zero for Star Wars, and the same age as the characters in every John Hughes movie. And now plenty of Ys and Zs to prop up Social Security for us! The sweet spot of Gen X for sure.
As a Gen X’er, I can assure you Gen X does not exist. I am reminded of this near daily as I continue to hear about Boomers, Millenials and Zillenials. Luckily, our superpower is apathy.
Your comment reminds of the Simpsons ep back in the early 90s depicting our Xtreme apathy. https://images.app.goo.gl/vZ1q4Vcx1yQGmZzC9
I once drove some similar Mitsubishi derivative (exactly like a 4-door Sapporo, with an 87hp Diesel), and it was one of the best cars I have ever driven. It was the early 2000’s, the car was from the mid 80’s, and it was sure footed, comfortable, suprisingly fast, and a blast in the snow despite being FW (the engine overhang played for a lot there, same as on the 2002 Diamante we later had, which got me through one of the major East Coast snowstorms from Boston to NYC, on original all season tires, slaloming between stuck vehicles).
My question has always been: better or worse than the concurrent Dodge Charger?
The 78 Charger was only sold briefly- it was replaced that year by the Magnum with the clear headlight covers that lifted up. The Charger and Magnum of this era were essentially twins of the Chrysler Cordoba, which pretty much tells me all I need to know.
They did have similar side window louvers, right? 😉
How about vis a vis the Charger from the early ’80s?
1980s Charger was the little front wheel drive Omni 024 coupe, totally different animal and suprisingly quick with the 2.2 motors.
Night and day difference, one was a sixties era chassis smogged and saddled with Monte Carlo Styled brick bodies, the other was a small foreign styled coupe. the engines at least sent power tot he rear wheels in both cases, but that is about the closest they come in similarity.
I briefly had a Sapporo. I vaguely remember it as a 79, but it didn’t have that opera top. Great little car I got from my gf as we broke up. $150 down—and $200 more if it survived 6months. Despite my blowing out both brand new strut mounts (I installed previous weekend) getting air over a rural bridge, it lasted for long enough for me to pay her the rest. Great car in the snow, too. I pulled the overhead console to put in one of my Subarus before I sold it—they were that cool 🙂
detail I enjoyed was that the strut mounts were in a Mopar box: only place I could find them was the dealer
Bishop, you gotta slow down on these. We’re only supposed to get one or two per year
No, I have to share. Too much malaise. Too little time.
To bad it wasn’t a Mercury. Then we could have had a twofer with Mercury Monday on Friday, as it should be.
I think you are mistaken in the decision making process here. More likely it was too little too late. The 70’s, especially by 1978 were a dismal time to try to make it in the car business, then as now emissions were choking the life out of performance and overall reliability and Chrysler was not making a ton of money, but Chevy had the Monza and Ford had the Mustang 2 and this was a direct competitor in many ways. Had they trotted it out in 1974 and by 78 figured out how to legally shoehorn that lil red express spec 360 into one of these little guys, they most likely would have wiped the floor with likes of Pontiac TA’s and Mustang Cobra’s of the same vintage.
True, but that 360 is a heavy lump. I would, however, like to see one with the turbo motor and independent rear suspension of the related successor. Any Starion/Conquest peeps out there?
No more so than the 305 in the monza, or even the 302 in the Mustang Cobra’s of the time. And all could have been made lighter with use of lighter components like aluminum intakes or steel tube exhaust manifolds. But I agree they could have definitely gone the route of competing with the mustang even more with say a Turbo R/T spec versions of this car to see if they could have done it better than the Turbo stang of the time.
Mazda Shock Mounting © 2024 The Autopian. All Rights Reserved. Design by Jazel.