I had three of them, an 1989 ES, a 1990 ES and a 1991 ES Limited. I worked for Chrysler Capital, they were my company lease cars. When I first worked for Chrysler, I had to pick the Chrysler car I wanted. The minute I drove the Premier, I knew that was my car. It handled like an European car. All Chrysler employees that had the Premier loved them. They handled well, were sporty, and large and comfortable. Even company visitors who rode in them loved them. They were much better than Taurus or Nissan. I totaled my 1990 in an 75 mph accident on I-95, avoiding a fallen tailpipe in the lane; we spun and hit the divider twice. The car collapsed and protected us. I still have my 1991, after 33 years. I’ve gotten so many compliments on the car, more than the BMW’s I had driven subsequently. Sadly it never sold well, and 60 to 70 percent of what was wrong with the car was the incompetence of the dealer rather than the car itself. The Chrysler dealers didn’t know how to sell them.
Thanks for your videos. I'm an old car guy and love reminiscing through your creations here on RUclips. It's a shame there were so many great ideas and designs back in the 80's that weren't carried out well due to poor quality due to cost cuts.
Absolutely agree. Back then, in my mid/late 20s, I thought it was Audi 5000/Nissan Maxima pretty... however the execution and basic yet boring driving characteristics took away any enthusiasm I (initially) felt.
I use to have one of these around 1995-96 and ran it for a couple years. It did pretty good in the Montana snow too. Pretty unique in that it's a fwd but not a transverse so you can actually get to both sides of the engine equally without tearing one half of the engine completely apart just to change spark plugs because the engine is up against the firewall. As showed in the video, it would roast the tires temporarily from a stop if you wanted it too. I was told by a mechanic one time to get rid of it and that he had to go to school to learn how to work on them. I didn't listen and didn't regret it!!! If I saw one for sale today, I would snag it in a heartbeat!!!
Did it have a separate differential that used conventional sulfurized gear oil like some of the Chrysler vehicles at the time? Or did it use the same automatic transmission fluid in the differential like most automatic transaxles?
20:00 - there were massive incentives put on the hoods of these cars as they sat on dealership lots with nearly a year of stock available by the fall of 1988. My father was able to buy a pretty well optioned LX 3.0 sedan for about 7-8k behind MSRP at that time. Electrical issues ran rampant, and I recall the gas gauge having a false positivity resulting in us breaking down on the first journey in the car from running out of fuel. Transmission went out to lunch around 80k, and the dealership actually goodwilled its replacement outside of warranty. The car ultimately was sold in 1995 in favor of a new Chrysler LHS, whose underpinnings were designed by one of the senior platform engineers that came over from Renault/AMC at the time of the acquisition.
Electrical issues were worked out later. Almost everything was replaced with Chrysler sourced components. Despite the reputation US manufacturers had in the 80's, this was a huge upgrade. Unfortunately by then they had developed a bit of a reputation and their already weak sales numbers dropped.
Great car. I had a '90 and a '92. Best visibility ever! Superior quality compared to the Camry, the Intrepid and Taurus. It shared the V6 with Volvo and Peugeot. Very underrated.
AMC never had much capital to invest properly in to their own cars but Richard Taunge was a genius and made every dollar stretch. Chrysler also inherited that design team as one might note with the Chrysler LHS cars, that was inspired by Rich's team. At the time of the Eagle AMC themselves didn't have much input in to the design. To answer your question the LHS platform is a carbon copy of the Eagles, one unique feature was it could be used for rear wheel and or front wheel drive layouts with very little work. This platform still exists today in the 300c. Chrysler liked the flexibility of that platform.
I’ve read that the LX platform is based more on the Mercedes-Benz W211, as Chrysler was then under the ownership of Daimler-Benz. So I’m not sure how much of the LH is still carried under the 300 and it’s derivatives.
@shiftfocus1 Your thinking 2000's. I am talking about the late 80's. Something Benz had absolutely no part of. Chrysler didn't merge until after 1998. Your thinking about another platform.
ABS was added as an option starting in 1991. It was standard on the ES Limited and optional on the LX and ES(by this time, the V6 was the only engine).
My friend's mom had a Monaco. I had the opportunity to take it on a 6 hour drive. It was comfortable and a blast to drive in my opinion. They were a bit homely though. 😞
This car has the same platform as the previously developed Renault 25 (official state car of the President of France...Francois Mitterand at the time). I drove a Renault 25 in France with a five speed manual and V6. Everything about it was smoooooooth with decent road feel and steering feel but obviously not on the level of a sports car. I have also driven a five cylinder Audi 5000s wagon and six cylinder Mercedes W124 E class wagon-- both with automatic transmissions -- from the same period. I don't remember if the Audi was all wheel drive or not, but all three cars feel similar to me. I can understand why this review would compare the Renault 25 and the Audi.
I rented one while working in Buffalo, NY in 1988. I was very impressed. It was the upmarket version as well, with the 3.0 PRV engine (just like a DeLorean!). I liked the edgier styling. Not as smooth as ford, but better than the "box on box" stuff that GM and Chrysler was putting out at the time. Performed great in an overnight snowstorm while I was there. The controls were a bit odd, but I figured that was par for a car originally engineerd in France. I could have gotten used to them. But I only had the car for 3 days, not 3+ years. I remember visiting a junkyard 15 years later. They had a bunch of them.
Oh and by the way One premium great feature of this car being a four-door with electric windows apparently... It is essentially that the rear windows go down all the way!! I'm sold I would buy one tomorrow especially at 1980s prices!!
i drove one of the rebadged one as a dodge monaco, and i thought it was great fun! a little pokey compared to new cars, but it was comfortable for all sizes, but that whole pedal thing was moved a touch to one side so i suppose id describe it as a cleaner design for an oldsmobile with a small engine, or a fat chevy FWD with a 3.3
When it comes to the Eagle brand, the vehicle I did like was the Eagle Talon TSI AWD. I'm a 90's teen and the I thought the DSM coupes(Mitsubishi Eclipse/Eagle Talon/Plymouth Laser) were cool.
I was a kid when the hostile takeover of AMC happened. I had honestly thought this was a Chrysler car, it didn’t feel like a Mitsubishi that even I knew Chrysler was in bed with when I was 14… I didn’t know Renault was part of AMC, and NOTHING about this feels like AMC. I thought this car was a bit big and rather ugly, but I thought the longitudly mounted engine and transmission was going to be a huge thing. A few years later, someone else did a review, possibly cad and driver, and the only thing they could come up with was the pointers on the gauges were too bright of an orange. That was all they could come up with.
Wrong! The LH cars are a separate platform. Chrysler made that perfectly clear. The only thing that they share with the Eagle Premier is the longitudinal engine placement.
I remember when this car first came out for sale (I was 26 then) and I much rather had (and I later did) the Ford Taurus. After watching this retro review video, I may have given it a chance.
I too am surprised it was just competent given how much it's handling was hyped concerning being the basis for the LH platform. I don't know if I ever saw an early version but I did see one from around 90-92 and the styling cues they added made it seem more well rounded in styling. I don't know if it is just how the gearshift is being operated but it looks flimsy and awkward to use. In the past, I didn't quite understand why these failed but this video and your points of why buy this over a Maxima or a Taurus is dead-on the point. This was a brand new brand, this car didn't break any records, it didn't do anything new and interesting, it was just a competent offering and that's it. If they would have used the original Renault interior they might have had something but it was just there with nothing ground breaking and didn't have reliability or positive brand recognition to rely on
According to Bob Lutz, they wanted to just reskin the Premier and use even the AutoTrans and even PVR V-6 engines but with all Chrysler electronics. Replace the Jeep 2.5 with a Turbo 2.2 probably even the Renault manual trans. But Renault demanded they provide the Renix electronics plus a huge license fee for each one! So the AMC/Chrysler team used the car as the inspiration for the LH. Hence why the LH had a North South drivetrain. I believe Chrysler took the Transaxle design and just put improved Ultramatic guts inside it! Chrysler really wanted to use the Renault rear suspension because of its very compact design allowed for so much rear seat room on that 106" wheelbase. The LH 113" was required to get the same room in the back with Multilink and Struts! This is what I have read and heard from the many interviews from the team that developed the LH.
The LH cars were created because Chrysler was inspired by how Renault created the Premier. They both had longitudinally mounted engines. Some people say the LH cars were just modified versions of the Eagle Premier/Dodge Monaco. I don't buy that. They look much too different underneath for that to be possible.
All I know about them was they were a good source for the 3l prv motor to use in upgrading the 2.8 prv in Volvo's. Heaps at the junk yards over in the states.
I was 17 when this car made its debut and I immediately thought, "WTH is a car like this for sale? It screamed bland and poor quality with outdated styling and possibly poor engineering." Apparently, I was right. Great review, keep pumping the vids out. I barely recall ever seeing this car.
What many folks don’t consider, is that at the time, this was a sharp looking car in the (at the time revolutionary) Audi 5000 vein back then. It may not have been flashy, but it was a simple subtly strong design for the time... even though the Audi 5000s and (similarly rectangular) Nissan Maximas of the mid to late 80s. What turned me off (on the test drive) was the weak if not poor interior quality, and (as I recall) basically competent, but unimpressive driving dynamics. Too softly sprung as I remember. Nice show, but not much go...
Those “American” workers were actually Canadians. The car was built in a new factory in Brampton Ontario Canada. The same factory that built the Intrepid and now the 300, Chargers and Challengers.
Chrysler went after AMC for Jeep, and for the Bramalea assembly plant. That they got this platform, and Francois Castaing as chief engineer, was added bonus. Both saved the company from the never ending Broughamification under Iacocca’s failing leadership. Chrysler was contracted to purchase a minimum number of those Douvrin V6 engines from Renault, and the sales of the Premier weren’t doing it - hence the Monaco. But that still wasn’t enough, so I believe Chrysler ended up canceling the contract and just paying a penalty.
In 1988 my parents test drove the slightly smaller Renault/Eagle Medallion when it came out…according to my dad, the car felt like it was already falling apart with 12 miles on the odometer. Later on, he expressed interest in the new for ‘90 Dodge Monaco….until he realized it was another Renault derivative. Turns out he was wise to steer clear…these were simply horrible cars.
it was less Renault's fault though... the renault 25 built HERE in europe was pretty darn good and had way better quality...just says more about how bad US quality was back in those days that they could actually make french cars (not exactly known for quality and reliability at all times) into worse than korean cars of the day.
I'm much younger than you. I was born in 1985! Yeah I've had the privilege of driving old cars new cars and cars even that of the nineties and of course definitely those of the 80s... And I can certainly say fuck 100% antilock brakes I hate them!!
And Giorgetto Giugiaro HAD THE GAUL to criticize the TR-7. THEY DID IT TO THE OTHER SIDE, TOO. Overall Genius & Inspired, but Joker Please on that one.
It's nice to be able to see where the hell your vehicle's front and back end unlike vehicles today. Chevy Trax is a pretty good example for the front anyway.
I took driver's ed in one of these, but may have been one model year newer. I learned to drive in an 85 Audi 5000. Neighbors had a similar model year Taurus I drove from time to time. Audi was easily the best driving, most comfortable one of the three. The Premier drove ok. The Taurus was a slow and ugly turd of a car in comparison. May have been built better than either in hindsight.
Jon you could say that the match up of Mercedes and Chrysler. If the Germans would have gotten off their self imposed podium and allow the German engineering and Chrysler design design the company could have been world changing.
The concept of going through a menu and then going through another menu followed by a menu for the menu of the menu is not fucking new in cars!! In fact I view it as back then this would have been kind of exciting for drivers though it would have been yes of course slightly annoying meaning they would have had their set of options and they would have just left it there forever... Most people did that back then whether they were young or old... However I can certainly say that today it's even worse today you literally do have the menu of the menu for the menu of the menu of the menu of the menu for the options of the options of the options of the options... I mean have you not watched even The Grand tour?? Today the menu systems are worse!!!
Actually the majority of cars of the past used to orientate most things towards the driver why? Because they're the driver chances are they're the buyer their the owner it's their way or the highway!!
"Our only complaint is the brake and gas pedals"! "Too close together, for safety"! Translation:::::: The gas and brake pedal are way too close together for old people to be driving this vehicle, otherwise every place they stop may run the risk of having a drive thru all of the sudden!! Back then you weren't allowed to talk about old people driving!
What amazes me is there is ALWAYS time to launch a vehicle in a hurry (without doing all the homework), AND lose a Mountain of Money on R & D, advertising, tooling, manufacturing, & distribution due to lame planning, price, RELIABILY, & features. This is especially true of Fiat (U.S.), Alfa Romeo, & Lancia, & many British models. A particular example escapes me (Rovet?); BUT, the heads warped due to the design with different angle head bolts, WTF ?? Where was the long-term testing ?? Then there are high labor costs with half-hearted efforts. Management without insight or the big picture, THEY LOVE TO SAY NO. Bean Counters that LOVE TO CUT COSTS. I get that Capitalism is to make a buck. IT SHOULD ALSO BE TO AVOID REPEADEDLY SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT.
I'm not really sure what angle you really have watched to get the view that you have in the beginning of the video... I certainly do not approve of everything French done and or caused. However I can certainly also say that actually the AMC Renault vehicle sold extremely well, they were actually beginning to grate on the American society as in the Americans were literally looking towards these vehicles... If the president of Renault had been assassinated, then the 87 mater your lineup would have been one hundred percent totally Kick-Ass for amc! The executives Everett Randolph were the ones that we're losing faith except one person and that was the president that was in turn shot by communists!! After his death the rest of the company panicked and pulled out. Is exactly what happened!!
Well what the hell is wrong with the little bit of styling at the time in which it was in I mean after all you're saying that you see Honda Nissan whatever in this model of car... So it's to be expected the industry would follow suit right because these people out sell them... So yeah it's a bit of a copy except it's really not because most of it came from the French AMC only put small styling touches on it to begin with... They did not redesign the car for the American market after all the French via of Europe the whole damned industry was trying to catch up with the Japanese.. So you can't say it looks I was so dated because it's square well at the same time you're talking about how you see a whole host of Japanese square cars involved!! It's contradictory what you just said you cannot say... Well I think it's very wrong because if blah blah was doing whatever blah blah then to do this which their biggest competitors which of course is the Japanese is doing then it's wrong because four-door whoever decided to go off in the other direction... screw what Ford thought or whoever thought yeah those designs totally caught on and it was the wave of the future I suppose but at the same time no no I remember even in the middle of the 90s in the Mazda 626 was still at square fucking box and sold like hotcakes!! I was 10 years old in 1995 and I remember that;.
AMC did make a lot of changes from the Renault 25. AMC did their own Exterior/ Interior. Here is the French 25 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_25#/media/File:Renault_25_Phase_1.jpg As you can see the entire body is new, Even the cowl is AMC. Doors and Beltline are close to the Renault 25. Remember AMC brought this car to the market for a 1/4 of the Budget that Ford Spent on the Taurus. My dad had the 1990 Dodge Monaco, these cars were equal or better than an Audi as far as long distance touring cars. They were great in the City too since they turned in a far shorter circle than a Taurus. But the ride is where they shined the best! Take the car over lumpy bumpy US secondary roads and the Eagle Premier suspension just soaked up everything without feeling floating like GM cars. No side to side rocking or fore and aft pitching! Yet take it out on the freeway and you could drive 100+ MPH on undulating Interstates and it was fully controlled smooth stable ride unlike a Taurus, Toyota, Honda or any GM. The cars biggest weakness, the PVR Aluminum Wet Sleeved V-6 durability! You had to use special coolant (most AMC and Chrysler dealers didn't) and change it annually or the seal between the Iron Sleeves and the Aluminum block would develop galvanic corrosion! In a few years you had coolant in the oil and DOOM shortly followed!! Dad never had any other serious problems with the car and put nearly 100K miles on it when the Chrysler dealer replaced the engine for a very discounted price! The car was out of warranty but dad had it serviced there regularly! The front brake rotors were susceptible to warping if you didn't use a torque wrench to tighten the wheels! So it had a couple brake jobs but that was common on many Imports so I don't see that as a real AMC only problem. Finally when wel hauled relatives that had Buick Park Avenues or Lincoln Town Cars they were shocked by how much rear seat room it had and how smooth it rode! Pretty good job for little old AMC!
![[Mega CD] Final Fight(1989) Cody GamePlay(2024-11-17)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lIQIhR67K7I/mqdefault.jpg)
A test drive to compare it with all the others would have been all that was needed.
I had three of them, an 1989 ES, a 1990 ES and a 1991 ES Limited. I worked for Chrysler Capital, they were my company lease cars. When I first worked for Chrysler, I had to pick the Chrysler car I wanted. The minute I drove the Premier, I knew that was my car. It handled like an European car.
All Chrysler employees that had the Premier loved them. They handled well, were sporty, and large and comfortable. Even company visitors who rode in them loved them. They were much better than Taurus or Nissan.
I totaled my 1990 in an 75 mph accident on I-95, avoiding a fallen tailpipe in the lane; we spun and hit the divider twice. The car collapsed and protected us.
I still have my 1991, after 33 years. I’ve gotten so many compliments on the car, more than the BMW’s I had driven subsequently.
Sadly it never sold well, and 60 to 70 percent of what was wrong with the car was the incompetence of the dealer rather than the car itself. The Chrysler dealers didn’t know how to sell them.
Thanks for your videos. I'm an old car guy and love reminiscing through your creations here on RUclips.
It's a shame there were so many great ideas and designs back in the 80's that weren't carried out well due to poor quality due to cost cuts.
Glad you like them!
Absolutely agree. Back then, in my mid/late 20s, I thought it was Audi 5000/Nissan Maxima pretty... however the execution and basic yet boring driving characteristics took away any enthusiasm I (initially) felt.
I use to have one of these around 1995-96 and ran it for a couple years. It did pretty good in the Montana snow too. Pretty unique in that it's a fwd but not a transverse so you can actually get to both sides of the engine equally without tearing one half of the engine completely apart just to change spark plugs because the engine is up against the firewall. As showed in the video, it would roast the tires temporarily from a stop if you wanted it too. I was told by a mechanic one time to get rid of it and that he had to go to school to learn how to work on them. I didn't listen and didn't regret it!!! If I saw one for sale today, I would snag it in a heartbeat!!!
Thanks for sharing the memories!
Did it have a separate differential that used conventional sulfurized gear oil like some of the Chrysler vehicles at the time? Or did it use the same automatic transmission fluid in the differential like most automatic transaxles?
@@gregorymalchuk272 I think it used the same ATF in the differential like most automatics.
20:00 - there were massive incentives put on the hoods of these cars as they sat on dealership lots with nearly a year of stock available by the fall of 1988. My father was able to buy a pretty well optioned LX 3.0 sedan for about 7-8k behind MSRP at that time. Electrical issues ran rampant, and I recall the gas gauge having a false positivity resulting in us breaking down on the first journey in the car from running out of fuel. Transmission went out to lunch around 80k, and the dealership actually goodwilled its replacement outside of warranty. The car ultimately was sold in 1995 in favor of a new Chrysler LHS, whose underpinnings were designed by one of the senior platform engineers that came over from Renault/AMC at the time of the acquisition.
Electrical issues were worked out later. Almost everything was replaced with Chrysler sourced components. Despite the reputation US manufacturers had in the 80's, this was a huge upgrade. Unfortunately by then they had developed a bit of a reputation and their already weak sales numbers dropped.
I had a chance to compare it with and Intrepid and a Camry in the early '90s. It felt like a much more substantial automobile. No comparison!
Grandparents had 2 in a row. A dark blue plain one. Then a silver sporty one with blue accents that was "sporty," loved it.
I thought then and still think now that these are awesome cars.
Definitely!!!
Great car. I had a '90 and a '92. Best visibility ever! Superior quality compared to the Camry, the Intrepid and Taurus. It shared the V6 with Volvo and Peugeot. Very underrated.
AMC never had much capital to invest properly in to their own cars but Richard Taunge was a genius and made every dollar stretch. Chrysler also inherited that design team as one might note with the Chrysler LHS cars, that was inspired by Rich's team. At the time of the Eagle AMC themselves didn't have much input in to the design. To answer your question the LHS platform is a carbon copy of the Eagles, one unique feature was it could be used for rear wheel and or front wheel drive layouts with very little work. This platform still exists today in the 300c. Chrysler liked the flexibility of that platform.
I’ve read that the LX platform is based more on the Mercedes-Benz W211, as Chrysler was then under the ownership of Daimler-Benz. So I’m not sure how much of the LH is still carried under the 300 and it’s derivatives.
@shiftfocus1 Your thinking 2000's. I am talking about the late 80's. Something Benz had absolutely no part of. Chrysler didn't merge until after 1998. Your thinking about another platform.
ABS was added as an option starting in 1991. It was standard on the ES Limited and optional on the LX and ES(by this time, the V6 was the only engine).
The Brampton, Ontario plant where the Premier was manufactured is also the same plant that actually manufactures the 300, Charger, and Challenger.
My friend's mom had a Monaco. I had the opportunity to take it on a 6 hour drive. It was comfortable and a blast to drive in my opinion. They were a bit homely though. 😞
This car has the same platform as the previously developed Renault 25 (official state car of the President of France...Francois Mitterand at the time). I drove a Renault 25 in France with a five speed manual and V6. Everything about it was smoooooooth with decent road feel and steering feel but obviously not on the level of a sports car. I have also driven a five cylinder Audi 5000s wagon and six cylinder Mercedes W124 E class wagon-- both with automatic transmissions -- from the same period. I don't remember if the Audi was all wheel drive or not, but all three cars feel similar to me. I can understand why this review would compare the Renault 25 and the Audi.
At 7:38 , the Renault badge is on the horn!
I rented one while working in Buffalo, NY in 1988. I was very impressed. It was the upmarket version as well, with the 3.0 PRV engine (just like a DeLorean!). I liked the edgier styling. Not as smooth as ford, but better than the "box on box" stuff that GM and Chrysler was putting out at the time. Performed great in an overnight snowstorm while I was there. The controls were a bit odd, but I figured that was par for a car originally engineerd in France. I could have gotten used to them. But I only had the car for 3 days, not 3+ years. I remember visiting a junkyard 15 years later. They had a bunch of them.
Oh and by the way One premium great feature of this car being a four-door with electric windows apparently...
It is essentially that the rear windows go down all the way!!
I'm sold I would buy one tomorrow especially at 1980s prices!!
I think I'm slightly younger than you so I remember all of the cars you talk about and review
i drove one of the rebadged one as a dodge monaco, and i thought it was great fun! a little pokey compared to new cars, but it was comfortable for all sizes, but that whole pedal thing was moved a touch to one side so i suppose id describe it as a cleaner design for an oldsmobile with a small engine, or a fat chevy FWD with a 3.3
When it comes to the Eagle brand, the vehicle I did like was the Eagle Talon TSI AWD. I'm a 90's teen and the I thought the DSM coupes(Mitsubishi Eclipse/Eagle Talon/Plymouth Laser) were cool.
I've got a MW Retro Review Reaction coming out on the Eagle in a few weeks. :)
Thank you for being more objective this time around !
The Interior of the Eagle is vastly different that the Renault 25 it’s based on.
I was a kid when the hostile takeover of AMC happened. I had honestly thought this was a Chrysler car, it didn’t feel like a Mitsubishi that even I knew Chrysler was in bed with when I was 14… I didn’t know Renault was part of AMC, and NOTHING about this feels like AMC.
I thought this car was a bit big and rather ugly, but I thought the longitudly mounted engine and transmission was going to be a huge thing.
A few years later, someone else did a review, possibly cad and driver, and the only thing they could come up with was the pointers on the gauges were too bright of an orange. That was all they could come up with.
The LH is this car with a Chrysler body and component kit. Poke around the two. It was the most advanced platform till gm kbody upgrade in 1997
Wrong! The LH cars are a separate platform. Chrysler made that perfectly clear. The only thing that they share with the Eagle Premier is the longitudinal engine placement.
That digit read out that say I PERFORM SERVICE surely got a hell of a workout 😆
I remember when this car first came out for sale (I was 26 then) and I much rather had (and I later did) the Ford Taurus. After watching this retro review video, I may have given it a chance.
ALL HAIL AMC!!!!
YOU'LL KNEEL BEFORE THE SPIRIT OF AMC!
AMC WILL RISE AGAIN!!!
You know those generic cars in commercials....this is THAT car😅😅😅
I too am surprised it was just competent given how much it's handling was hyped concerning being the basis for the LH platform. I don't know if I ever saw an early version but I did see one from around 90-92 and the styling cues they added made it seem more well rounded in styling. I don't know if it is just how the gearshift is being operated but it looks flimsy and awkward to use. In the past, I didn't quite understand why these failed but this video and your points of why buy this over a Maxima or a Taurus is dead-on the point. This was a brand new brand, this car didn't break any records, it didn't do anything new and interesting, it was just a competent offering and that's it. If they would have used the original Renault interior they might have had something but it was just there with nothing ground breaking and didn't have reliability or positive brand recognition to rely on
According to Bob Lutz, they wanted to just reskin the Premier and use even the AutoTrans and even PVR V-6 engines but with all Chrysler electronics. Replace the Jeep 2.5 with a Turbo 2.2 probably even the Renault manual trans. But Renault demanded they provide the Renix electronics plus a huge license fee for each one! So the AMC/Chrysler team used the car as the inspiration for the LH. Hence why the LH had a North South drivetrain. I believe Chrysler took the Transaxle design and just put improved Ultramatic guts inside it! Chrysler really wanted to use the Renault rear suspension because of its very compact design allowed for so much rear seat room on that 106" wheelbase. The LH 113" was required to get the same room in the back with Multilink and Struts! This is what I have read and heard from the many interviews from the team that developed the LH.
The Premier was beautiful, especially the ES Limited.
... and I didn't get my license until '98 when I was engaged
The LH cars were created because Chrysler was inspired by how Renault created the Premier. They both had longitudinally mounted engines. Some people say the LH cars were just modified versions of the Eagle Premier/Dodge Monaco. I don't buy that. They look much too different underneath for that to be possible.
All I know about them was they were a good source for the 3l prv motor to use in upgrading the 2.8 prv in Volvo's. Heaps at the junk yards over in the states.
I was 17 when this car made its debut and I immediately thought, "WTH is a car like this for sale? It screamed bland and poor quality with outdated styling and possibly poor engineering." Apparently, I was right. Great review, keep pumping the vids out. I barely recall ever seeing this car.
Yeah , I had a friend who bought a new one and he was so proud of it but end up being in the shop every two weeks . I felt so bad for him .
Such a shame AMC couldn't save the original Renault 25 front end and interior.
I think the Eagle exterior was improved, but I dig the interior of the French version. :)
What many folks don’t consider, is that at the time, this was a sharp looking car in the (at the time revolutionary) Audi 5000 vein back then.
It may not have been flashy, but it was a simple subtly strong design for the time... even though the Audi 5000s and (similarly rectangular) Nissan Maximas of the mid to late 80s.
What turned me off (on the test drive) was the weak if not poor interior quality, and (as I recall) basically competent, but unimpressive driving dynamics. Too softly sprung as I remember.
Nice show, but not much go...
Those “American” workers were actually Canadians. The car was built in a new factory in Brampton Ontario Canada. The same factory that built the Intrepid and now the 300, Chargers and Challengers.
Chrysler went after AMC for Jeep, and for the Bramalea assembly plant. That they got this platform, and Francois Castaing as chief engineer, was added bonus. Both saved the company from the never ending Broughamification under Iacocca’s failing leadership.
Chrysler was contracted to purchase a minimum number of those Douvrin V6 engines from Renault, and the sales of the Premier weren’t doing it - hence the Monaco. But that still wasn’t enough, so I believe Chrysler ended up canceling the contract and just paying a penalty.
"Broughamification" needs to be a word. :)
How about the even more rare Dodge Monoco😋
In 1988 my parents test drove the slightly smaller Renault/Eagle Medallion when it came out…according to my dad, the car felt like it was already falling apart with 12 miles on the odometer. Later on, he expressed interest in the new for ‘90 Dodge Monaco….until he realized it was another Renault derivative. Turns out he was wise to steer clear…these were simply horrible cars.
it was less Renault's fault though... the renault 25 built HERE in europe was pretty darn good and had way better quality...just says more about how bad US quality was back in those days that they could actually make french cars (not exactly known for quality and reliability at all times) into worse than korean cars of the day.
I'm much younger than you. I was born in 1985!
Yeah I've had the privilege of driving old cars new cars and cars even that of the nineties and of course definitely those of the 80s...
And I can certainly say fuck 100% antilock brakes I hate them!!
LOL. Thanks for being here, but I have to say ABS has come a long way! :)
I’m a retired auto mechanic.These cars were terrible.Major head gasket and overheating problems.Pure junk.
Thanks for the comment!
You simply strike me as someone who is against imports thank God for all the amazing cars that Renault engineered
This car was the start of the Chrysler LH platform?
Generally... yes.
The coupe version never came! Again, the Eagle Premier and the LH cars are two separate platforms. Even Chrysler admitted that.
And Giorgetto Giugiaro HAD THE GAUL to criticize the TR-7. THEY DID IT TO THE OTHER SIDE, TOO.
Overall Genius & Inspired, but Joker Please on that one.
The Audi V8 was also pretty squared off
The wheelbase is too short! Look at the front overhang.
I don't remember seeing one here
Chrysler killed off Eagle just a few years after buying AMC for Jeep
yeah, they were contractually obligated to keep Eagle for a while.
Yeah they kind of became the Chrysler version of the Geo with all of the Mitsubishi corporate twins
'88 was a bad year for me I was 16 and both my mom and my dad's Mom both past away
I actually prefer the squared off body.
It's nice to be able to see where the hell your vehicle's front and back end unlike vehicles today. Chevy Trax is a pretty good example for the front anyway.
I took driver's ed in one of these, but may have been one model year newer. I learned to drive in an 85 Audi 5000. Neighbors had a similar model year Taurus I drove from time to time. Audi was easily the best driving, most comfortable one of the three. The Premier drove ok. The Taurus was a slow and ugly turd of a car in comparison. May have been built better than either in hindsight.
Jon you could say that the match up of Mercedes and Chrysler. If the Germans would have gotten off their self imposed podium and allow the German engineering and Chrysler design design the company could have been world changing.
I could. :) I've been pondering a "what happened?" video about the Daimler/Chrysler merger.
The Eagle Premier is more boxy than the Ford Taurus
The concept of going through a menu and then going through another menu followed by a menu for the menu of the menu is not fucking new in cars!!
In fact I view it as back then this would have been kind of exciting for drivers though it would have been yes of course slightly annoying meaning they would have had their set of options and they would have just left it there forever...
Most people did that back then whether they were young or old...
However I can certainly say that today it's even worse today you literally do have the menu of the menu for the menu of the menu of the menu of the menu for the options of the options of the options of the options...
I mean have you not watched even The Grand tour??
Today the menu systems are worse!!!
Actually the majority of cars of the past used to orientate most things towards the driver why?
Because they're the driver chances are they're the buyer their the owner it's their way or the highway!!
"Our only complaint is the brake and gas pedals"!
"Too close together, for safety"!
Translation::::::
The gas and brake pedal are way too close together for old people to be driving this vehicle, otherwise every place they stop may run the risk of having a drive thru all of the sudden!!
Back then you weren't allowed to talk about old people driving!
or people with big feet apparently.
What amazes me is there is ALWAYS time to launch a vehicle in a hurry (without doing all the homework), AND lose a Mountain of Money on R & D, advertising, tooling, manufacturing, & distribution due to lame planning, price, RELIABILY, & features. This is especially true of Fiat (U.S.), Alfa Romeo, & Lancia, & many British models. A particular example escapes me (Rovet?); BUT, the heads warped due to the design with different angle head bolts, WTF ?? Where was the long-term testing ?? Then there are high labor costs with half-hearted efforts. Management without insight or the big picture, THEY LOVE TO SAY NO. Bean Counters that LOVE TO CUT COSTS. I get that Capitalism is to make a buck. IT SHOULD ALSO BE TO AVOID REPEADEDLY SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT.
I'm not really sure what angle you really have watched to get the view that you have in the beginning of the video...
I certainly do not approve of everything French done and or caused.
However I can certainly also say that actually the AMC Renault vehicle sold extremely well, they were actually beginning to grate on the American society as in the Americans were literally looking towards these vehicles...
If the president of Renault had been assassinated, then the 87 mater your lineup would have been one hundred percent totally Kick-Ass for amc!
The executives Everett Randolph were the ones that we're losing faith except one person and that was the president that was in turn shot by communists!!
After his death the rest of the company panicked and pulled out. Is exactly what happened!!
Well what the hell is wrong with the little bit of styling at the time in which it was in I mean after all you're saying that you see Honda Nissan whatever in this model of car...
So it's to be expected the industry would follow suit right because these people out sell them...
So yeah it's a bit of a copy except it's really not because most of it came from the French AMC only put small styling touches on it to begin with...
They did not redesign the car for the American market after all the French via of Europe the whole damned industry was trying to catch up with the Japanese..
So you can't say it looks I was so dated because it's square well at the same time you're talking about how you see a whole host of Japanese square cars involved!!
It's contradictory what you just said you cannot say...
Well I think it's very wrong because if blah blah was doing whatever blah blah then to do this which their biggest competitors which of course is the Japanese is doing then it's wrong because four-door whoever decided to go off in the other direction...
screw what Ford thought or whoever thought yeah those designs totally caught on and it was the wave of the future I suppose but at the same time no no I remember even in the middle of the 90s in the Mazda 626 was still at square fucking box and sold like hotcakes!!
I was 10 years old in 1995 and I remember that;.
AMC did make a lot of changes from the Renault 25. AMC did their own Exterior/ Interior. Here is the French 25 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_25#/media/File:Renault_25_Phase_1.jpg As you can see the entire body is new, Even the cowl is AMC. Doors and Beltline are close to the Renault 25. Remember AMC brought this car to the market for a 1/4 of the Budget that Ford Spent on the Taurus. My dad had the 1990 Dodge Monaco, these cars were equal or better than an Audi as far as long distance touring cars. They were great in the City too since they turned in a far shorter circle than a Taurus. But the ride is where they shined the best! Take the car over lumpy bumpy US secondary roads and the Eagle Premier suspension just soaked up everything without feeling floating like GM cars. No side to side rocking or fore and aft pitching! Yet take it out on the freeway and you could drive 100+ MPH on undulating Interstates and it was fully controlled smooth stable ride unlike a Taurus, Toyota, Honda or any GM. The cars biggest weakness, the PVR Aluminum Wet Sleeved V-6 durability! You had to use special coolant (most AMC and Chrysler dealers didn't) and change it annually or the seal between the Iron Sleeves and the Aluminum block would develop galvanic corrosion! In a few years you had coolant in the oil and DOOM shortly followed!! Dad never had any other serious problems with the car and put nearly 100K miles on it when the Chrysler dealer replaced the engine for a very discounted price! The car was out of warranty but dad had it serviced there regularly! The front brake rotors were susceptible to warping if you didn't use a torque wrench to tighten the wheels! So it had a couple brake jobs but that was common on many Imports so I don't see that as a real AMC only problem. Finally when wel hauled relatives that had Buick Park Avenues or Lincoln Town Cars they were shocked by how much rear seat room it had and how smooth it rode! Pretty good job for little old AMC!