I find the interaction between automakers an interesting topic to investigate. Either out of just pure collaboration, strategic partnership or partial complete ownership the results of these relationship produce some cars that were awe-inspiring and some that were “what the ‘H’ were they thinking??!!! This car falls somewhere in between. The U.S., U.K., Japan and Italy intermix I found very interesting.
The Chrysler TC as jointly developed with Maserati and became available in late-1989 with only some 7,300 units manufactured in Milan, Italy when production ended in 1991. Lee Iacocca‘s friendship with the late Alejandro De Tomaso whilst at Ford, which had led to the development of the De Tomaso Pantera. With Iacocca in the 1980’s now heading Chrysler and De Tomaso now the owner of the legendary Maserati brand, the two men decided to create a sports car between the two companies which became the TC by Maserati with Chrysler having become an investor in Maserati at that time. The engine was assembled by Maserati and has a Maserati-branded cast valve cover with the 200HP 16-valve 2.2 L ‘Maserati’ engine’s cylinder head being cast in the UK at the iconic Cosworth plant and then finished in Milan by Maserati. The ‘Maserati’ engine used a specially-made 2.2 block, upgraded crankshaft and rods. A Japanese turbo-charger was used. The rest of the engine used common Turbo II parts manufactured in the USA. The special wheels were made in Italy by Formula One supplier Fondmetal.
The TC featured a removable hardtop with port holes or opera windows as they were referred to and a manually operated cloth lined soft top that was available in either tan or black. For the 1989 model year, interior leather colors were either ginger or bordeaux. Exterior colors were only available in yellow, red or cabinet. The TC’s dash, door panels, seats, armrest, and rear facia panels were all covered in hand-stitched Italian leather. Inside door jambs were finished with stainless steel panels and sill plates. The convertible boot over which the hardtop rests is a body color keyed metal panel. A special interior storage compartment came with an umbrella, tool kit, and small spare tire that allowed the use of the full-sized trunk even with the top down. Standard equipment included a 10-speaker AM/FM cassette stereo, power windows, 6-way power seats, power door and trunk locks, map lights, puddle lamps, cruise control, and tilt steering wheel. Total production for each model year was 7,300 cars with only 3,764 built-in 1989 and with extraordinary base prices starting at $33,000 in 1989 and rising to $37,000 in the last year of production only three years later in 1991. The TC was sold by only 300 selected Chrysler dealers.
The TC
89 TC – look familiar? Take a look at the LeBaron below.
The LeBaron – same shape and front end. Even the honeycomb wheels.
The question is – the TC a Maserati design or Chrysler design?
Thanks for reading.
Tim
I agree with Rolf B’s comments. I too may someday buy one of these as I always loved the interiors, and have a special liking for the 2.2 Turbo. That Chrysler 413 TorqueFlite automatic was as reliable as the sun, and I do not mind it one bit behind a 2.2 Turbo.
The “Chrysler’s TC by Maserati” (as it was named) was really a hallmark car in spite of the bashing it has taken from the time of it’s release and lack of sales. Designed by Chrysler and built by Maserati, at the time an odd pairing, to slot below the Allante, Mercedes SL and others at about half the price. The TC opened the way for cars like the Mercedes SLK, BMW Z3, Audi TT to name a few. Smaller luxury touring roadsters (relative term) really did not exist beyond some British attempts until Chrysler unleashed the TC. Unique then and now in both style and execution compared to the other roadsters on the market.
The idea of using a 2.2 turbo engine (Shelby engineered by the way) was a breakaway concept in a luxury car (common now), the hand sewn all leather interior was unique and stunning even the overall styling was simple and has stood up well after all these years. Yes there where oddities with this car and it’s timing was just awful not to mention the marketing Chrysler chose to follow. Things like the fake wood trim inset in that hand done Italian leather, the three speed auto transmission on the SOHC (bullet proof, but really, even for 89 better choices existed), the stereo was a cassette deck ( a CD was listed as “optional” but was never really available), the limited DOHC engine should have been THE engine as Chrysler later used most of the development in the following years and THAT “Porthole” is a matter of taste. I do not take issue with the Chrysler switch gear as I have seen and used what Maserati and other Italian makers had at the time and that was a good move as well as the “K Car” underpinnings, very similar to what VW/Audi as well as other cars noted for their handling, had been using and it was well tuned. I also don’t take issue with the list price at the time, as I noted, it was well below what of other makers offerings of the same years.
Chrysler may have been better off just making the car itself and leaving Maserati out of it. The price would have been a bit lower, quality (even though not bad) might have been a bit improved and the earlier release date would have, I’m sure, been met. After all Chrysler had been working on the car for some three years before involving Maserati at all, that includes the design and engineering involved. But than again that interior may have been lost for it was styled by Maserati.
I will also admit I own one of these, an 89 2.2 auto, and have found it to be a truly enjoyable car to own and people still ask about it. On the road it is a comfortable and engaging car with reasonable economy as well as mechanical reliability. Let’s see, a Maserati (now part of Ferrari) with Chrysler parts prices and availability with Shelby power assembled by the guy who made the Pantera and fewer copies than Bentley, Aston Martin, Ferrari or Rolls Royce made in the same years. Yeah I’ll keep it and enjoy it.
Thank you. Great comment.
Tim
This was a car that failed because of it’s time to market. The plan was that the TC would be released about 6 to 9 months BEFORE the newly re-designed LeBaron convertible. Therefore, the much lower cost LeBaron would look like the upscale TC. Instead, the TC came out three years late, and failed because the TC looked like a LeBaron. Get it? The TC looked like the rental car fleet LeBaron, not the LeBaron looked like the upscale TC. Why would anyone pay three times the price for a LeBaron looking Italian built car?
At the time, there were a few cars that was trying to imitate the Allante. Even Buick tried and failed with the really bad Reatta. Out of the three (TC, Reatta, and Allante) I really liked the TC as I know that the 2.2 Turbo II is a great motor from my Shelby Lancer and Shelby Charger ownership experiences. I also think the interior was much nicer in the TC than the Allante and Reatta. The TC also did not over gadget the electronics as in the Reatta and Allante.
Unfortunately, history has been kinder to the Allante. The Caddy Allante is considered a ‘future collectible’, and has held it’s value well eventhough 99% of the high tech electronic crap is now inoperable and impossible to repair/restore.
Towards the end of the TC’s run Chrysler further ‘diluted’ the TC by offering a Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 and ‘UltraDrive’ problem prone automatic straight from the minivan as an option.
So, to answer your question; well, remember at the time Lee Iacocca bought Lamborgini, and was trying to partner with FIAT (a man who was ahead of his time on that deal), and had set up distribution for the US dealer network for Maserati and Alfa Romeo. Therefore, I will answer that the TC is indeed a MOPAR all the way to it’s K CAR underpinnings!
Having said all this rant, I would LOVE to have a low mileage TC with hardtop option, pearl white with saddle leather, and a good ol’2.2 Turbo II mated to a 5 speed, but not as my daily driver, but as my weekend car show warrior.