The Good
The 1987 LeBaron offered a comfortable ride and a stylish, often European-inspired design, particularly appealing to those seeking a touch of class without a high price tag. Its front-wheel drive provided good handling, and its convertible option offered an emotional connection to freedom and open-air driving. Practically, it was reasonably fuel-efficient and offered decent value for its era.
The Bad
Potential buyers of the 1987 Chrysler LeBaron should be aware of common issues like electrical gremlins, especially concerning power windows and locks. Transmission problems, particularly with the automatic, can arise. Rust is a significant concern, especially in the rocker panels and wheel wells. Interior wear and tear, including seat fabric and dashboard cracks, are also frequent.
1987 Chrysler LeBaron: Quick Overview
- Engine Options:
- 2.2L 4-cylinder (base engine)
- 2.5L 4-cylinder (optional, some with balance shafts)
- 2.2L Turbocharged 4-cylinder (optional)
- Horsepower:
- 2.2L: Approximately 96 hp
- 2.5L: Approximately 104 hp
- 2.2L Turbo: Approximately 146 hp
- Fuel Economy: Varies by engine and transmission, but generally in the range of 22-25 MPG city and 28-32 MPG highway for non-turbo models. Turbo models might see slightly lower figures.
- 0-60 Times:
- Base models: Around 11-13 seconds
- Turbo models: Around 8-10 seconds
- Towing Capacity: Not typically rated for towing; designed as a passenger car.
- Trim-Level Features (General):
- Base LeBaron: Standard AM/FM radio, power steering, power brakes, manual windows and locks, cloth interior, 13-inch wheels.
- GTS (Hatchback Sedan): Often included sportier suspension, upgraded interior materials, optional power amenities, and sometimes a cassette player.
- Landau (Coupe/Convertible): Featured vinyl roof treatment, upgraded upholstery (often velour), sometimes wire wheel covers, and more premium interior appointments.
- Common Optional Features Across Trims: Air conditioning, power windows, power locks, cruise control, tilt steering wheel, upgraded sound systems (cassette player), alloy wheels, automatic transmission.
1987 Chrysler LeBaron Specifications
Vehicle Information
| Year | 1987 |
| Make | Chrysler |
| Model | LeBaron |
| Trim | - |
| Style | Sedan |
| Type | Sedan |
| Category | Compact Car |
Manufacturing Details
| Made In | United States |
| Manufacturing City | TOLUCA |
Dimensions
| Doors | 4-Door |
| Curb Weight | - |
| Gross Vehicle Weight Rating | - |
| Overall Height | - |
| Overall Length | - |
| Overall Width | - |
| Wheelbase Length | - |
| Standard Seating | - |
Engine & Performance
| Engine | 2.5L I4 |
| Engine Size | 2.5L |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 |
| Transmission | 3-Speed Automatic |
| Transmission Type | Automatic |
| Transmission Speeds | 3-Speed |
| Drivetrain | Front-Wheel Drive |
Additional Features
| Anti-Brake System | - |
| Steering Type | - |
Pricing
| Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) | - |
| Invoice Price | - |
| Delivery Charges | - |
Vehicle History Report
Specifications
History
Events
History Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Listings
Recalls
Check
Analysis
What Problems Does the 1987 Chrysler LeBaron Have?
How long will the 1987 Chrysler LeBaron last?
What Technology & Safety Features are Included?
What Colors Options are Available?
1987 Chrysler LeBaron Prices and Market Value
1987 Chrysler LeBaron Cost of Ownership
1987 Chrysler LeBaron Fuel Efficiency
1987 Chrysler LeBaron Warranty
Basic
Powertrain
Rust
1987 Chrysler LeBaron Insurance
reasonable repair costs.
How Does the 1987 Chrysler LeBaron Compare to Other Sedan?
- Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz: Offered similar practicality and available AWD in some later years, but generally lacked the LeBaron's style.
- Chevrolet Celebrity/Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera: Larger and more traditional, with V6 options, but often felt less modern than the LeBaron.
- Honda Accord / Toyota Camry: Superior reliability and build quality, though generally less stylish and more expensive.
- Ford Mustang / Chevrolet Camaro (V6 models): Offered more sporty performance and a convertible option, but were less practical and often less fuel-efficient.