I owned a 98 Chrysler Cirrus V6 and loved that car. It never gave me any problems and it handled very well. It was small on the outside but huge on the inside. I loved the packaging of the cloud cars.😊 I traded it in with 160,000 miles for a 2003 Honda Accord.
@@MotorMaster_Stunticonhi bro love the video world love to see another video on Australian cars something like a lj torana or a lv commodore. Keep up the great work
I had a Chrysler Cirrus as a rental car for one week in 1996 and it was a wonderfully capable car. The ride and handling were excellent. The interior was roomy, high quality and very comfortable. But it was the exterior styling that really set this car apart from boring designs like the Accord and Camry. I assumed my rental was a V6 so I was shocked to see a 4 cylinder engine when I popped the hood.
I had a '96 Cirrus LXi. It was one of the best cars I ever owned... good looks, good performance and good fuel economy... Dark Rosewood Metallic. I had that car for 15 years.
My first car was a 99 Chrysler Cirrus LXi model and I loved it. The V6 was a good engine. Drove that car for years. Wish I could find another one in good shape.
Another great doc! One cool thing that showed how advanced their thinking was having short/long arm suspension at all 4 corners. The downside was execution. They knew there was a fault in the front that was deadly. My best friend almost lost his family in theirs. Traveling down a highway, the front suspension collapsed on one side, sending them flipping sideways through an intersection. Luckily, no one was traveling through but they spent almost a week in the hospital recovering.
@@clearviewtechnical you can Google it. The right front suspension would collapse on some. They knew about it but legacy autos run choosy analysis on repair, liability, and damage payouts etc. Is not always about consumer protection.
I used to see these everywhere here in So Cal. One of my neighbors had one back in the 90's. These were for sure one of the best looking cars at the time.
I’ve lost count of how many cloud cars I’ve owned. The most memorable were a 1997 Dodge Stratus V6 and a 2000 Stratus with the 2.4 four cylinder. I loved the power, sound and smoothness of the V6. I was also shocked at how well the 2.4 performed. A few years before I drove a Stratus with the 2.0 and hated it. Reminded me of a sewing machine.
Well done with this presentation of a very interesting era of Chrysler. Your video montage and narration are refreshingly clear, organized, and to the point. Lots of work, no doubt, but appreciated. Thank you.
I still own the '97 Stratus my grandma bought new. Meanwhile, my mom had '90 Plymouth Acclaim LX. I always thought it funny that Grandma had a far sportier, more modern car than Mom. Whenever Mom drove the Stratus she commented on how much nicer it drives. The Acclaim was quieter, however.
We had a 1995 Chrysler Cirrus Lx it was a peach color didn’t see too many of those colors at a time with brown interior. Got it in the spring of 1995. It was an awesome car to drive.
They would've been out of business without him but at the end of his tenure they would've been out of business if he stayed around because he didn't want to change
It's a complex situation. All Chrysler fans owe a debt of gratitude to iacocca. He saved the company plain and simple. But apparently based off of the people who worked for him, he didn't want to change. He wanted to hold on to the K car when it was time to let it go. He wanted to go for having the largest market share at the expense of profitability according to Bob Lutz where they would overproduce the cars and have to discount them to be able to sell them. Iacocca did allow the programs to begin to replace the K car. Iacocca did make purchases that were very important such as the AMC purchase which is how they acquired Jeep. He also made a lot of bad decisions. During his watch the ultra drive was developed which changed Chrysler from having one of the best reputations in the industry for transmissions to one of the worst And even the rear wheel drive torqueflite based transmissions didn't live up to the reputation of their three-speed variants. The TC by Maserati was a very expensive flop with some claiming that they lost around $50,000 per car in modern money and it didn't do anything to elevate Chryslers status. The whole program cost more to develop the TC which was K based then it cost to develop the Viper which was ground up aside from parts been raiding from various vehicles. We do need to give him credit also for Much of the development of the vehicles that brought on the gilded age of the '90s for Chrysler was thanks to iacocca finally accepting that he had to let go of the K platform as these programs had to start before he actually left. Some have claimed that part of the reason why the neons had so many head gasket problems though was because of Bob Eaton's cost cutting where they chose to use a composite head gasket versus a multi-layer steel gasket. I think the match made in heaven would have been if Lee iacocca could have kept his ego in check and let lutz have his way with the company which is where the LH sedans and the Viper came about. Bob Eaton according to Lutz pretty much let Lutz do anything lutz wanted but he was a penny pincher. I think if iacocca had been in charge either the horrible merger never would have happened or the merger would have happened under much better terms than what Eaton got us. Remember what Eaton previously had done at GM (the X car). Though, it was iacocca's choice to pick that guy considering what a debacle that was for GM. So he deserves blame for that move which was done out of spite towards Lutz. Not that I think that Lutz is perfect, but Eaton sold Chrysler out in a bad deal.
It has been a while. Thank you for another video. Good footage and graphics. It was interesting and good to see Chrysler Imperial and New Yorker in the video despite what was being said about them. I have a feeling I know the kinds of cars you do not like. That is okay as we all like different things and expect different things from our cars. I am sure you aware that the car they were calling LeBaron in the United States during that time they were calling New Yorker in Mexico. There are videos of it here on You Tube. These cars did have an impact during their run. Thank you again for the video.
Thanks for watching again man. I actually like the K-based AA sedans. I was just pointing out how they were outdated by 90s standards. The 1990 Imperial was unique, but looked outdated next to, say, a similarly priced Cadillac or another 90s luxury sedan.
@@MotorMaster_Stunticon I understand what you are saying. I get it now. The Imperial and New Yorker did looked dated by that time, but they basically copied the 1985-1989 downsized GM styling from that era. That New Yorker came out in 1988 and the Imperial and New Yorker Fifth Avenue arrived by the 1990 model year when the industry was changing. I liked the looks and interiors and features of the Imperial and New Yorker Fifth Avenue. I just wish they were more reliable and had more power. the LH version New Yorker sort of fixed some of those issues. I look forward to what you may have coming with your channel.
Actualmente yo tengo un Cirrus LXI 2000. Manufacturado en México y cuenta con un motor 4 cilindros 2.4L turbo. Y lo uso del diario. Hoy en día hay más variedad de marcas y modelos de coches. Pero ningún automóvil que tenga esas prestaciones hoy en día lo iguala en espacio, precio, confort, seguridad,motorización y estilo; obviamente invirtiendo en sus mantenimientos correctamente 😄
This is awesome Thank you for paying tribute to a wonderful car and putting credit where credit is due! I named my cat after the Chrysler Cirrus❤ Long live the Chrysler Cirrus😂😂 I seen one not too long ago I think a 96 model. This is awesome Thank you again!
Owned a 95, 98, 99, and 2000. Also had a 2000 Stratus. All had the Mitsubishi 2.5L v6. I still own the 2000 Cirrus which is currently upgraded with parts from the Stratus and a 3.5L v6 from a '04 Mitsubishi Diamante VR-X lol yes its a Frankencar and its fast.
The Imperial and New Yorker of that era started in 1987 (Imperial 1990)when luxury cars looked like that,they sold good...As for the Sebring it was up to what style you liked better,they could have kept the same name as it was basically just a mid cycle refresh..They both look good for the era..
I thought these things were so impressive when they first came out. I still love the styling. And for that time in that segment, they were nicely equipped, fairly luxurious and competitively priced. To be fair, I still kinda dig the boxy LeBaron styling, too, but that's another story. Any new, or even "newer" car was well beyond my means at the time, though, so I could only admire them in magazines. Transplant 2024 me into mid-1990s me, and I may well have been loudly and proudly proclaiming "I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS!" (though I'd probably have chosen the Chrysler version)
The Cirrus, specifically, looked fantastic. The front clip looked upscale, and the wheel choices complemented the grille very well. They used a just-right amount of chrome. The brand should have found a way to make the powertrain more special than the Stratus, though. Same for the dashboard. The package was near perfect. It was roomy compared to contemporaries such as the Mystique or top trims of the 626, Altima, or Accord. Nicely equipped, too.
I got a 2000 Cirrus LXi and swapped in a 6g74 3.5L V6 from a wrecked low mile '04 Diamante VR-X. It totally completes the car with how it drives. Super quick acceleration. (easily smokes tires when mashing it) The stock v6 was decent but still a dog by V6 standards. The Diamante was in production by Mitsubishi at the time so I have no idea why Chrysler never bothered to offer their engine as an option instead since the 6g73 2.5L was already sourced from them.
I had a 95 Cirrus LX, had everything I would ever want in a car. I got rid of it in 2004 at over 120,000 miles, but it was one of the most fuel efficient and reliable cars I've ever owned, but time and the elements began taking a toll on the body. Chrysler dropped the ball on the successor to these cars when they came out with the 2001 models, from my own experience due aluminum suspension components in the rear corroding and breaking. I think the only thing Chrysler got wrong with the 95-00 Cloud Cars was putting the 2.0L 4 cylinder in the Plymouth Breeze.
The 2nd generation Sebring was made in Russia after Chrysler discontinued it because Chrysler sold the factory tooling to Russian company GAZ, and the Russian version the GAZ Volga siber looked similar to the Chrysler and was presumably almost identical underneath since they used the same equipment Chrysler once used to make them.
There was a lawsuit in a Wisconsin court due to a rollover of a K car variant.. due to the roof crushing in a rollover. Chrysler's response to withstand a rollover the car has be an egg shaped. This makes you wonder if this has an thing to do with with the car design. But the cab forward design help pack in a lot of space in a minimal footprint. For a tall guy I found the Sirius in the Stratus convertible roomy. And drove whell.
My aunt had a 1997 Chrysler Stratus in Barcelona, Spain. Everyone thought it was a Mercedes, Jaguar or something expensive. It was an exotic car to european people. It ended up burning oil and it had to be send to the junkyard cause the repair costs were higher than the actual car value. My aunt's car had the Mitsubishi engine.
My Sister bought a new 1997 Chrysler Cirrus 2.4 4cyl,reliable,well built cars..She put nearly 300,000 miles on it no major issues... I was a Toyota Tech and this car was as good and better than Toyota's I worked on..Problem is lots of Chrysler owners never maintained them like Toyota owners,Toyota owners maintain them all the time. With her Chrysler,I changed the timing belt and changed the water pump at 100,000 miles and that was a issue lots of people had with the 2.0 and 2.4 4cyl,they bagged on them and never changed the timing belt then they complain when it breaks,usually the 2nd owners are like this.. If you bought a Chrysler Cirrus with the 2.5 V6 that was a Mitsubishi engine and those were junk...The 2.0 and 2.4 4 cyl Chrysler engine were reliable (not the same 2.0 and 2.4 as the 2007 and up those are 100% different engines)..
Chrysler cars end up in blue collar households who don't maintain them. Their declining resale value passes them down the income strata. 2nd and 3rd Toyota owners poorly maintain cars, Dodge owners even less
Thank you for clearing this up and you are spot on like 100%! I had a neon I changed the timing belt twice got 250,000 mi out of it with no problem! Unfortunately I replaced my Neon with a Toyota and it was a big mistake I'll never do that again! The Toyota has been nothing but a money pit Big mistake! But you are spot on Thank you for coming forward and saying that Chrysler gets bashed on way too much when they were the leaders and so much of why we have the cars we do today That is a fact.
@@glennhansel9411 I don't know where I live I don't see any older Japanese vehicles My grandparents two Camry's didn't last very long nor did my aunts Toyota Camry or Honda Accord.
Good video! I also prefer the styling of the 1st generation cloud cars. The problem I always struggled with was the cars topped out where the should have started from especially concerning Chrysler. Toyota and Honda should be the focus of Dodge if not Plymouth, not Chrysler. Chrysler should have been focusing on building a car to go toe to toe with the Lexus ES and Acura Vigor/TL. The Mitsubishi 2.5 was an okay engine (certainly more reliable than the 2.7 Chrysler) and would have been a decent base engine considering how its displacement and power was similar to the four cylinders at that time, but it was far from class leading. That's why it was on the slower end of the class. If they could have massaged the styling to allow Chrysler's own V6 family to have either the LH 3.5 or a smaller displacement version like a 3.2 l v6, I think this would have not only helped Chrysler and Dodge, but it also would have allowed Plymouth to have the space for a pushrod 3.3 l v6. Also, just to clarify the Stratus coupe shared nothing with the Stratus sedan other than the name. It would have been great to have seen how a second generation would have turned out without Daimler management's influence.
Thanks for tuning in, as always. Yeah I agree they should’ve developed something to go toe-to-toe with Acura/Lexus. The 2.5 was definitely more reliable than the 2.7. I had a 2.7 and it was problematic. As far as the Stratus, that’s what I meant.. The Stratus spawned a coupe as far as the name. Wasn’t trying to imply that the coupe and sedan were the same cars.
@@MotorMaster_Stunticon alright thank you for clarifying. I didn't think that's what you meant, just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page. Yeah the 2.7 was pretty bad. Sorry you were burnt by it. Such a shame Chrysler had great V6s like the 3.3/3.8 and the 3.2/3.5/4.0, but the one they chose to use in everything was the 2.7 sludge machine.
The Mitsubishi 6g74 3.5L block fits like a glove. Sourced one from a Diamante. Its basically a bored out 2.5L. I have one in my 2000 Cirrus. It should have been offered that way from the factory. Its quick and torquey.
@@sgtmyers88 that certainly would have helped in the first generation especially considering that they needed the smaller deck height of the cyclone V6 and they needed to fulfill their contract with Mitsubishi.
Looking at this now, this should have been the Breeze or given the Breeze all the Cirrus features and cancel the Cirrus , making the bigger Concord the "base Chrysler".
Working on these cars made me absolutely hate chrysler. they went from cars where you could do almost any service in under an hour to these cars...where the engine and components went into the dash, the batteries were behind the front drivers wheel and I couldnt get my hands around anything without taking a ton of components off. it might be "progress" to some people, but id rather have an older, slower K derived boxy car over these cars any day of the week.
I have a 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible (known as Chrysler Stratus over here in Sweden) It´s only used in the summer and because of that, it´s absolutely rust free and really good overall condition. I´ve had this car for like 8 years now, and it has no mechanical issues what so ever! Being a Mercedes guy have to admit that it lacks a bit in overall build quality though. But seeing for what it is, it was after all a pretty cheap car when it was new.
This too. I would have done the swap if I had a good source for one. Currently rocking a Diamante VR-X 6g74 3.5L in mine. It was low mileage and came from a wrecked car. Paid $200 for the block lol
Mid-late 90s were Chrysler's haydays. The LH cars were miles better than GM's W, Fords Taurus/Sable. The cloud cars miles beyond GM's N body, Ford's Contour/Mystique. And the Neon offered way more than the J body and Escort.
The Cirrus was a winner in design but unfortunately it suffered the fate of many Chrysler company cars of that era. Terrible reliability sent many of the cloud cars to an early grave. I can't remember the last time I've seen a first gen cloud car on the road.
I owned a 99 Plymouth Breeze, biggest pile of shit! Every 10,000 it blew a head gasket, 30,000 blew a main seal. I donated it could not sell it to someone for money.
@@MotorMaster_Stunticon if someone would have told me years ago that someday, Chrysler would only have a minivan for sale in 2024, i wouldn’t have believed them
While my Audi A4 was in the body shop after being hit by a truck, the rental agency put me in a Chevy Malibu. After two days of driving something akin to a worn-out piece of wood, the agency let me switch to a Chrysler Cirrus. The ride, handling, seat comfort, and dashboard appearance were amazing compared to the Chevy. Overall, it was a pleasant car to drive.
@tim3172 very glad. I missed it. The driver of the truck had good insurance, so I had enough to fix it plus buy a new set of tires. I drove it a couple more years, sold it to my nephew, and he drove it a couple years longer before selling it.
I would take the smaller but more plush “boxy” looking cars because the “Cloud” Cars look To Bland, Gimmicky and just like all the other “Plastic Fantastic” Cars of the 1990’s! Let’s not forget the decade that replaced Glass Composite Headlights with “Plastic” Composite Headlights! By the way, the boxy and creased lines Lebanon and other Chryslers of this time had better build quality, the blending of both worlds as the mid to late 80’s focused on performance, luxury, and fuel economy! The Cloud cars look and where much more disposable! No distinction from other 90’s Cars!
The Dodge Avenger Coupe was not based on the Stratus. It's a Diamond Star car based on the Mitsubishi Eclipse. These cloud cars we're significantly better than the older Chryslers but were terrible cars in general. It's more about how bad and old the previous Chrysler cars were not how great the cloud cars were. While they had lots of room and were a good value, the interior was especially cheap, the reliability was extremely poor, and they didn't handle all that well either. Back in 96, I was cross shopping between the Contour, the Breeze, and the Camry. While the Camry was about 10% more expensive than the Ford or the Chrysler cars, it was head and shoulders above those cars. In fact I just sold that exact 96 car that my father-in-law had this year and it's still ran and was in good shape.
Id bought my 1st new car in '90 (Plymouth Sundance coupe) and it was well equipped, one of the first with airbag (why I was sold on) I liked the coupe's profile and chrome trim and lots of people admired it back then, despite your condemnation but I grew up with fins & chrome so ... The '90s were booming years for Chrysler but the merger with Daimler did them in. Cirrus and others had cool grilles and profiles but the rears were usually boring and uninspired! I like funky taillights🎉 I always despised goddamn MB🤬
