Chrysler 180 Gallery

The Chrysler 180 was quite a stylish car, and it remains a mystery why it failed so spectacularly in the UK…

Chrysler 180

Chrysler 180

Chrysler 180

Chrysler 180

Pictures taken from the excellent French language Chrysler 180 site.


  1. “The Chrysler 180 was quite a stylish car, and it remains a mystery why it failed so spectacularly in the UK”

    It DOES look like a big Avenger, so may have failed in a similar way to the Austin 3-litre looking like a big 1800.

  2. It looked like a big, stodgy Avenger. It drove like a big stodgy Avenger. It had nothing to recommend it in a market full of better cars in the 1600-2000cc class. Gone and thankfully almost forgotten.

  3. Vastly underrated and miles better than the truly abysmal Triumph 2000/2500…..

    Had the 180/2-Litre been marketed properly, e.g, Hillman and Humber, then it would probably have had more chance of succeeding.

  4. The basis of a great car existed here. As for the styling, the Australian Centura version, with a few minor tweaks transformed the look of the car.

  5. #3 “Vastly underrated and miles better than the truly abysmal Triumph 2000/2500…..”

    Which planet have you been living on? The Triumph 2000/2500 wiped the floor with the 180 and deservedly so. Stylish Michelotti exterior, upmarket wood dash interior, six cylinder engines, independent rear suspension. Against an inflated Avenger with a rough 4 cylinder engine and a live rear axle.

    Well, excuse me, but given the choice it would be a Triumph that I would choose to drive every time!

  6. It’s not a bad looking car, certainly of it’s time. The Mk1 Granada was a bit like an upscaled Mk3 Cortina and that didn’t seem to harm it’s image.

    I’d rather have a Triumph though!

  7. I had one of these cars, crashed it three times one night and it still got me away, only fit for scrap then,but it still started every time,

  8. A good attempt for the late 1960’s early 70’s coke bottle car. The front end, it looked like a Viva only with a sadder mood. Yes its clearly styled as a big Avenger and the square headlights looked okay on the cheaper Avengers while the four headlight GL Avenger looked good. Did it not occur to Chrysler that four round headlights would have made the 180 look a whole lot better. Seems like an incredibly simple mistake to have made. Very strange also how Rootes/Chrysler alone, never mind Simca/Chrysler, were developing three entirely new engines at the same time. The Avenger engine, the V6 and the OHC Simca engine for the 180. I wonder if they continued with the V6 (maybe even a diesel version of the V6 too) and instead of developing the Simca OHC had taken the then new Avenger engine to alloy headed OHC for the C180 and kept the OHV iron head for the basic Avengers. Perhaps then they would have had a modern 1800cc engine with a much better power and economy profile than ceartanly anything Ford or GM were making at the time. Maybe even could have been a hit in the US for Chrysler as oil rocketed.
    Just a theory of course with the blessing of hindsight! I reckon though if they had a good economy 1800 and say the option of an OHC 1600 in the Avenger then possibly Chrysler could have put it up to Ford.

  9. @ Pat, with four headlamps, the car would have looked more upmarket, but the 180/ 2 Litre looked quite good, particularly from the rear where it resembled an American luxury car, and the vinyl roof always made the car look the part.

  10. I believe that the Centura front end was ideal for the car. Also, it should ‘ve been marketed as Rootes editions (Humber etc). Finally, the australian edition would be ideal to be manufactured in the USA market too

  11. They did rust out quickly – 18 months between a new Chrysler Sports saloon arriving to the delight of family to it being rusted through and scrap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.