I know that one day another panel welded in is just not going to be enough to keep my Geo Tracker on the road and I am slowly starting to look into other options. I need a good car I can put a phone into that's not a luxury sedan.
I've been looking at K-cars now for a few months to see which models are still relatively available or are the least painful to keep in service. Granted, they are all now at least 30 years old.
What I really need though is some owner feedback. I know some of you farts are old enough to of seen Sputnik make it into space so I am assuming there are a few people who had one. How good were they? What were the known issues? What kind of fuel economy was normal for them? Were there any later models that still featured a manual transmission?

K-cars were cheaply made, bottom of the line cars which were usually bought by either people who were disinterested in cars and bought on price alone, or diehard Chrysler fanatics.

It would be kind of cool to have one now, just because there's so few survivors, and they were once so common.

I've seen some manual transmission models, if you're looking now try and find one which isn't rusty above all else, the mechanical stuff is much easier to fix than the body, and these rusted quite fast

K-cars were cheaply made, bottom of the line cars which were usually bought by either people who were disinterested in cars and bought on price alone, or diehard Chrysler fanatics.

It would be kind of cool to have one now, just because there's so few survivors, and they were once so common.

I've seen some manual transmission models, if you're looking now try and find one which isn't rusty above all else, the mechanical stuff is much easier to fix than the body, and these rusted quite fast
Try to look for a GM "X" car, Chev Citation or the Pontiac, Buick or Olds offerings and see what real junk was all about. How about a Chevy Vega!
The Chevette was almost a good car. Some almost lasted 100K miles.
Buyers of that junk had to be real GM fanatics. Many of those are now driving Japanese or Korean makes.

I'm actually at the point now where I wouldn't mind buying a Yugo if all the ones I see for sale are "collectors" cars with laughable prices. Come one man, driving an east bloc car around Canada for a summer sounds fun.

There's actually an '89 Dodge Aries not too far away from me right now that just its price slashed from $1500 to $950. Miiiighty tempting. :scratch2:
https://vancouver.craigslist.ca/van/cto/d/1989-dodge-arieskms/6478855677.html

There's a 40,000-mile Chevette Diesel down here on CL from time to time that's going for $5000. Pretty clean, too.

Not sure I understand the attraction of K-cars, X-cars or Vegas. Because I've driven them when new. They cannot have improved.

Another Suzuki/Tracker? They're pretty cheap.

Up there, I'd go for a Volvo Cross-Country wagon if you want comfy, snow-worthy, and no rust. Kinda picky to take care of, but heated seats are worth the effort.
So you have an installed car phone? Does Rogers still have AMPS/NAMPS? If so, have I got a deal for you!

Another Suzuki/Tracker? They're pretty cheap.

Western Canada is weird. We barely use any salt.
We got a lot of kids here now that spend a few weeks in the fields and come home to all sorts of toys and the trailers to transport said toys behind their massive goddamn trucks. Little 4x4's like the tracker and Samurai are often $4k-$6000 for the 4x4 models and the much cheaper 2WD models are starting to get pretty rare as people strip them for parts.

Also no I don't have an AMPS car phone, I have the next best thing: this. (https://web.archive.org/web/20080331042717/http://www.bluecarphone.com:80/about.php)

Not mine, no relation, etc.
'92 4WD 5-speed, surprisingly un-rusty for around here.
If my driveway wasn't full I'd get it for myself.
You'd have to work out delivery, though.

https://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/d/92-geo-tracker/6510390321.html

You know why Yugos have heated rear windows, don't you?

First of all... I've never owned an original K car, but I will put forth the following: Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler corp. from ruin with the K cars, so if they were so awful, why did people keep buying them? Many of them are still on the road today. And in response to the no doubt numerous nay-sayers (as there WILL BE many), ANY cars that are made cheap and sold cheap get a bad rep, not necessarily because they're poorly made, but because they're bought by poor people, who don't maintain them properly, because they're poor!

I do however own a 93 Chrysler Lebaron convertible. It's what you'd call an EEK (Every Extended K car). I love that little car, it's a lot of fun. Though it's not a good example of reliability, because - who'd've guessed? - it was previously owned by poor people who abused it. But once I got past its initial problems, it never fails to serve me. Hell, I leave it alone outside for the whole winter, and it'll start right up in the spring without a jump. I have done a lot of work to it, and the great thing is that it's easy as pie to work on those cars. Tons of room in the engine bay, above AND below. Tiny little K frame ftw. Also, linkless sway bar, among many other neat little innovations.

That being said, any one of them you buy is going to be 20+ years old, you should set your sights a little newer, methinks. I like old cars as much as the next guy, but unless you're planning on restoring the car you get, newer would be better.


Lastly, on Yugos. I once saw an absolutely MINT Yugo going down the road and I had to pull up and tell the owner how neat that was. He and his passenger said it was a barn find, etc, etc, I told them, "Nice Yugo, and I see you brought a friend to help you push!"

:P

Try getting a GEO Metro. The three-cylinder is torquey and gets phenomenal fuel economy. Fairly roomy too! My brother's was very nice.

First of all... I've never owned an original K car, but I will put forth the following: Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler corp. from ruin with the K cars, so if they were so awful, why did people keep buying them? Many of them are still on the road today. And in response to the no doubt numerous nay-sayers (as there WILL BE many), ANY cars that are made cheap and sold cheap get a bad rep, not necessarily because they're poorly made, but because they're bought by poor people, who don't maintain them properly, because they're poor!
No kidding, they would do anything short of deliberately wrecking them. I've gotten flack for my interest in the Mercury Lynx (not to mention the slightly plainer-looking Ford Escort) but our '84 Lynx served us very well in spite of previous owners beating the tar out of it. Aside from the usual rusty exhaust system it came with a lot of Bondo on the driver's side quarter panel, an oil pan leak, a non-functioning parking brake, a busted half-shaft and a 4-speed that was VERY difficult to get into reverse. That was in 1992, and I've seen older ones in far better shape since then.

I do however own a 93 Chrysler Lebaron convertible. It's what you'd call an EEK (Every Extended K car). I love that little car, it's a lot of fun. Though it's not a good example of reliability, because - who'd've guessed? - it was previously owned by poor people who abused it. But once I got past its initial problems, it never fails to serve me. Hell, I leave it alone outside for the whole winter, and it'll start right up in the spring without a jump. I have done a lot of work to it, and the great thing is that it's easy as pie to work on those cars. Tons of room in the engine bay, above AND below. Tiny little K frame ftw. Also, linkless sway bar, among many other neat little innovations.

I used to drive a 1987 Dodge Lancer ES. The only persistent mechanical problems it had was a transmission that often had trouble upshifting and trouble engaging at all in cold weather and a mysterious knock in the front end. Other than that the worst problems were a blown head gasket and a broken timing belt. All problems aside, it held up very well underneath in spite of all the salt used when Fail Town still had a real winter and the coldest weather never prevented it from starting, it just cranked slowly.

It had the optional 2.5 which was rather noisy, one time someone asked me if it was a diesel.

The later ones with fuel injection were really solid cars, that Aries OP linked above is a good example. They were simple, parts are still easy to come by and they are easy to wrench on. The 2.2 is a little underpowered, but the 2.5 will move it along pretty well.

The higher end models with Turbo are going to be more complicated, and try to avoid the earlier carbureted models. In addition to Reliant and Aries, you might want to search for Sundance and Shadow, or even better, a 4 cyl Acclaim or Spirit.

I recall peeling factory paint, creaky doors, misaligned instrument clusters, stuffy and uncomfortable seats.. And by the late 1980s terribly outdated styling. Shift points in the 3 speed auto chosen to make driving as bland as possible.. They did really sell a lot of them so there must be something to it, and I've had at least one friend who absolutely swears by them, he's had three or four. Not my cup of tea, but they do have fans.

I think some of the last run K car descendants just before the Neon were available with a small Mitsubishi 6 cyl, which was a little more fun to drive, and fairly reliable.

Wasn't there a front wheel drive new yorker based on the K car chassis too? Those were a bit nicer than the usual K's.

We had a 1990 Dynasty which was an upscale K-car and it had a Mitsubishi V6 motor and it was an awesome car that got fantastic gas mileage. We bought it used and kept it a few years with very few problems. My one daughter bought an Aries with a 2.2 litre motor and we did have a lot of trouble with that one.

Gregb

K-cars are easy to work on, and easy to get parts for. I just sold my 1985 Plymouth Voyager, which was technically a K-car. It had a 1985 Daytona turbo engine swapped in. It was a fun little ride.

I never had any real trouble with it. We also had a non-turbo 2.2 charger with the 5-speed. Never really had any trouble with it either.

I say, if you find one cheap enough, and it's been decently maintained, go for it.

I can say DON'T get a geo metro though. I had a 4-door one, and I had 4 people in it. I got hit broadside by a chick on a cell phone who ran a red light. All 4 of us ended up in the hospital. That car offered NO protection. Sure, they get phenomenal mileage, because they are a 3-cylinder-powered soda can.

Rust will be the biggest concern. Rocker, floorboards, torsion bar. These cars are really vintage now!

I always look for a K-Car, I like to see the survivors show up on CL. And here in
Rustville, NY CL has about 10 a year that show up. Most are garaged, owned by
some "Little old lady" who recently passed away. They sell from anywhere from $600.
to about $2k. And they look Great! I wanna replace my old '86 Prelude this year, and
I might just get a K! I just had to re-weld my muffler as they don't make them anymore.
Rust is beginning to catch up with what I'm willing to do, and the wife wants a bigger
spare car, which is what we use it for mostly.


I agree with Mad Man, a lot of really great older cars are owned by people who buy
them in reasonable shape and then "run them into the ground" My wife's '91 Accord
has over 450K and runs great, I plan on keeping it forever, It was a very well designed
car, easy to keep up. But most around town look like wrecks because they are bought
now, by poor people who don't intend to do anything to them, but run them till
they explode.

I think a lot of people who bought the cheaper cars don't maintain them properly.
They don't have the money, or pay much attention to it. Add oil when the light
comes on, but don't think it's important to check it often if the light already
came on once.....

I got an 88 Dakota, and it has a computer, and digital radio, and like he said, you can
park it all winter and it'll start up in the summer without a jump. I always look up
my Dakota online to see what shows up on CL, or G to see what's new in the index.
Some stuff written about my D as being designed by an outside company, and with
the most use of galvanized steel because of the Chrysler 7/70 no rust through warranty.
Remember that? Well a lot of the old '88 D's I see for sale are really NOT as rusty as
some 10 year old C's D's and F's that were $50K New. There are a number of K cars
running around here and they are also not rusty, and I talk to the owners, they
love them.

I say more power to ya- Get a K-car ! I want one too......

.

I see decent looking examples for sale all the time in the $800-1200 range; there is a later model Aries that I drive by all the time with a sign in the window. If I were in the market for a cheap commuter car it would be tempting.

I have some friends, in their 80's, who've used a Reliant wagon as their daily driver for about 25 years. Most I've known were owned by older folks & garage/carport kept. They were designed from the start to be a small car for people who were used to bigger cars: an engine that concentrated more on torque than hp, conservative styling, nothing flashy.

The other day I spotted a decent Daytona on the road. Now, there was a car that usually got beat to death! Like any used car, take the time to buy the nicest example your budget will allow. I'd try hard to find one that was fuel injected if at all possible. A manual, outside of Daytona's or maybe some of the convertibles, would be a tough find.

My last K-car story for right now: had this customer, a little blue-haired old lady, with a very early Reliant ('81 I think). I remember the radio looked just like the factory Mopar units but was labeled not "Chrysler" but "Motorola". (Maybe Moto built the factory units & offered a version for dealer installation?) Anyway, she brought it in because her back-up lights stopped working. I found a bad switch which, as far as I could tell, also served as the neutral safety switch. I explained how it was a good thing that one half of the unit had failed & not the other, because it could have left her stranded. Instead of making her feel blessed I guess it scared her because the next week I saw her driving in a newer car!

Wasn't there a front wheel drive new yorker based on the K car chassis too? Those were a bit nicer than the usual K's.

The New Yorker, Imperial, and Dodge Dynasty (my buddy has one that was beat to hell but it still works). His has the 3.3L, like from the vans. Decent motor, very simple. Those cars look miniscule on the outside, but are actually fairly comfortable inside. And the upper end New Yorkers and all the Imperials are nicely appointed.

Also, yes, sadly, clearcoat delamination was a problem for those years. Fortunately, the actual paint under it rarely comes off, so it just makes the cars ugly, not rusty.

We had a 1990 Dynasty which was an upscale K-car and it had a Mitsubishi V6 motor and it was an awesome car that got fantastic gas mileage.

I have the same V6 in my 'baron. Mitsubishi used it for a long time, then continued using variations of it for even longer. They licensed it to Chrysler in... I think 89, as Chrysler had no V6 in its arsenal at the time, and the Caravan really needed one. Chrysler used it all the way up till 96 or 98. It's a pretty sound motor, maybe not that powerful, but if you compare it to other cars at the time, 150 hp was not too shabby. And it has the very desirable attribute that its torque curve is as flat as a table. And the intake is as flat as a table too! So you can put your tools there while you work on it! They do have a tendency to burn oil, but replacing valve stem seals on it is actually pretty easy, and it's done.

That car offered NO protection. Sure, they get phenomenal mileage, because they are a 3-cylinder-powered soda can.

lol soda can. Hopefully all 4 of you turned out ok. But yeah, it's a tradeoff. You want safety you pay more for gas. Me? I wouldn't drive a 90s Toyota Corolla on the highway if you paid me. I know inside and out how those cars are built, like you say, a soda can.

I got an 88 Dakota, and it has a computer, and digital radio, and like he said, you can park it all winter and it'll start up in the summer without a jump.

Chrysler actually has a tighter tolerance on ignition off draw, they spec max 30mA, and every other maker specs max 50 mA, so I imagine that's why.

Like any used car, take the time to buy the nicest example your budget will allow. I'd try hard to find one that was fuel injected if at all possible. A manual, outside of Daytona's or maybe some of the convertibles, would be a tough find.

Agreed. Carbuerators suck. The only argument in favor of them is 'oh but you can make the car run better just by turning a screw!' Or, you know, you could let a computer do that for you, in realtime. As for the stick shifts, they were quite common in the day, I've seen many examples in the junk yards, but that's just it, the manual ones get junked first. Very few are left.

Fortunately both automatic transmissions, the 3 and 4 speeds, are pretty hearty little things (despite what people may say). And very easy to work on. The 3 speeds have a tendency for the governor to stick, giving you only 2nd and 3rd in forward, but you can, you know, fix that. The 4 speed A604 which you find on the later EEKs, people will have you believe are awful. The exact opposite is true. They are a shining example of simplicity AND electronic automation. They have NO bands at all, the solenoids come in a convenient small pack, the computer can actually detect how much of your clutches are left (something I've yet to see even the most expensive and modern cars do), and the only reason people think they're bad is because people used to change the trans fluid out for Dexron II (which was the prevalent fluid at the time), which disagrees with the clutches. Fortunately, you can't even buy Dexron II anymore, so you'd be hard pressed to make that mistake as pretty much any trans fluid you can buy now will agree with it.

I ordered the 83 Reliant SW my folks bought. I was leery of the 2.6 Mitsubishi motor and opted for the 2.2 Chrysler 4-banger. Did not like the mileage penalty and idea of an automatic hooked to a 4 cylinder, so the 4-speed transaxle made it seem almost peppy as it pulled real good from a stop.
The heavy duty radiator, alternator and suspension were ordered though A/C was passed on, again due to doubts the 4-cylinder could handle it. It was traded on an 88 Voyager, so there are no memories of trouble as it may have had only 75K on it.

In my opinion, MoPar punted on most of their cars in the late-1970s and the K-cars renewed demand for this reason. The electrical systems were not as water-tight and the increasing pollution controlled and carbureted 225 slant-six was unreliable as a result. The 2.2 L4 was almost as driveable at that point.

Much as I didn't like them when they were plentiful, this one locally looks pretty nice, that wagon would be great for hauling TVs


Please view this ad:

1986 plymouth Reliant K ,
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-cars-trucks/strathcona-county/1986-plymouth-reliant-k/1330283034?utm_source=com.google.android.apps.docs&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialbuttonsVIP&utm_content=app_android

Price: $#2,300

Download the application from the Google Play Store.
http://goo.gl/Hs9Yg

Please view this ad:I wouldn't believe their 33 mpg estimate, these were only rated at 21/22 combined mpg.

The ad has also been viewed by more than 650 people. If that many looked at a listing specifically for a Reliant, and all of them decided against buying it, that should tell you something.

.

I wouldn't believe their 33 mpg estimate, these were only rated at 21/22 combined mpg.

The ad has also been viewed by more than 650 people. If that many looked at a listing specifically for a Reliant, and all of them decided against buying it, that should tell you something.

.
My '92 Dodge Dynasty with the 3.3 CID V6 got upper 20's on the HY with AT and AC using the cruise control. I was surprised that the 6 was that quick, compared to the other 6's I owned. The car weighed 3008 lbs.

I had a tech who worked with me back in the early 90's who had a nice little Chrysler LeBaron coupe, late 80's model. It was dark blue with tinted windows, and I always thought it was a sharp looking car. It served him well until it got close to 100k miles, and then went south in a hurry. I remember he replaced a bunch of front end parts, followed by a transmission rebuild and a head gasket. He wanted rid of it when it was about 8 or 9 years old, and despite it's looking like new, he liked to never have sold it.....nobody wanted it.

I remember my father trying to talk mom into buying a Dodge Dynasty when he bought a new Dodge Dakota pickup in 1990. She wouldn't hear of it, and readily admitted that while she knew very little about cars, she knew better than to buy a Chrysler product. The little Dakota pickup dad bought went on to serve him well, racking up well over 100k trouble-free miles by the time he passed away in 2001. Mom hung onto her old Monte Carlo for several more years before buying a Lincoln.

The ad has also been viewed by more than 650 people. If that many looked at a listing specifically for a Reliant, and all of them decided against buying it, that should tell you something.

It tells me that nobody wants to buy an old ass Reliant. Big surprise.

Alberta country, yo.
Why spend your hard earned rig drilling bucks on some junky 80's K-wagon when the Edmonton dealership can sell you a 2018 Dodge Ram pickup that can seat 12 and is equipped to drive across arctic tundra? :scratch2:

I've had a better offer come up it seems. Why kiss goodbye to the sleek body and tin can interior of a Geo Tracker when you can get another one for only $1000? It will seat four, get 22MPG and fit two laserdisc autochangers with room (for the driver) to spare.

I had a tech who worked with me back in the early 90's who had a nice little Chrysler LeBaron coupe, late 80's model. It was dark blue with tinted windows, and I always thought it was a sharp looking car. It served him well until it got close to 100k miles, and then went south in a hurry. I remember he replaced a bunch of front end parts, followed by a transmission rebuild and a head gasket. He wanted rid of it when it was about 8 or 9 years old, and despite it's looking like new, he liked to never have sold it.....nobody wanted it.

I remember my father trying to talk mom into buying a Dodge Dynasty when he bought a new Dodge Dakota pickup in 1990. She wouldn't hear of it, and readily admitted that while she knew very little about cars, she knew better than to buy a Chrysler product. The little Dakota pickup dad bought went on to serve him well, racking up well over 100k trouble-free miles by the time he passed away in 2001. Mom hung onto her old Monte Carlo for several more years before buying a Lincoln.

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.
The Chev M/C was a larger rear wheel drive car which could've had a V-8. The earlier models were super-fugly. I gave them a different name after many of the people that bought them. There seemed to be five on each block in a particular neighborhood. :D

It tells me that nobody wants to buy an old ass Reliant. Big surprise.

I think that the seller is confusing rarity with value, if it was half that price I'm sure it would sell. It is kind of neat to see one still on the road.

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.
The Chev M/C was a larger rear wheel drive car which could've had a V-8. The earlier models were super-fugly. I gave them a different name after many of the people that bought them. There seemed to be five on each block in a particular neighborhood. :D
Yup, one will find fanboys/fangirls of a particular make anywhere who will disparage just about everything else. If I'm looking for pictures of a particular car and stumble on a junkyard find from "The Truth About Cars" I'll usually skip it. I don't know if I've ever seen the writer say anything good about the cars he finds.

I have no idea what a Chev "M/C" is but it sounds like they were almost as popular as Hondas are today.

Yup, one will find fanboys/fangirls of a particular make anywhere who will disparage just about everything else. If I'm looking for pictures of a particular car and stumble on a junkyard find from "The Truth About Cars" I'll usually skip it. I don't know if I've ever seen the writer say anything good about the cars he finds.

I have no idea what a Chev "M/C" is but it sounds like they were almost as popular as Hondas are today.

Monte Carlo....

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.
The Chev M/C was a larger rear wheel drive car which could've had a V-8. The earlier models were super-fugly. I gave them a different name after many of the people that bought them. There seemed to be five on each block in a particular neighborhood. :D

Her Monte Carlo was a '77 with a V8. It was a big, ugly, and (despite the V8) slow car that got terrible gas mileage. I never liked it, but she drove it until 1991, ran up over 100k miles, and never had any problems other than regular maintenance.

Monte Carlo....
I see. Well, the 1970-72 Monte Carlos are nice but the 1973-75 models are just nasty. Little wonder a brand new one was deliberately wrecked in Street People. The 1976-77 models were a slight improvement and seems GM decided to wash most of the mud off the name for 1978.

The colonnade-body GMs are at best rather "blah" to me. I'm not ragging on GM though, I'll admit that Ford and Chrysler also made plenty of oversized, underpowered and unattractive cars in the 70s. I am rather puzzled though as to why Khan - or Mr. Roarke - or Ricardo Montalban if one wants to be formal, was willing to plug cars for a company that was doing so badly before Lee Iacocca stepped in.

That little red K-Wagon is really nice looking ! That is the same price the good looking
ones sell for here. And it's got the cloth seats ! Very cool !

I would believe that gas mileage. My 88 Dakota 3.9 v6 long bed 2WD can get 26
highway @ 55-60 It has a OD Automatic.

My parents '79 Colony Park (LTD) wagon with 302 and vacuum run VV 2700 Carb
engine and 3 speed also got 26 pretty solid on the highway 55-60.

MPG pretty much depends on how you treat the car. Gunna be the first from
one red light to the next, well then yer gunna get single diget mpg.

That is a nice wagon, same thoughts I had with the wagon, good for tv's
Hope you get it, I would love to see more pictures !


.

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.
Hehehe lol! Mopar or no car.

Her Monte Carlo was a '77 with a V8. It was a big, ugly, and (despite the V8) slow car that got terrible gas mileage. I never liked it, but she drove it until 1991, ran up over 100k miles, and never had any problems other than regular maintenance.

Eh, the big American cars in the 70s were strangled with emissions junk that they really didn't have the tech to compensate for. Ironically, those emissions standards that were trying to help the air quality basically necessitated burning WAY more gas, which I'd imagine would pollute even more. That's also where the notion that foreign cars are better on gas comes from. Because the only foreign cars you could buy at the time were miniscule Civics and Beetles, when all the Americans were land yachts.

I see. Well, the 1970-72 Monte Carlos are nice but the 1973-75 models are just nasty. Little wonder a brand new one was deliberately wrecked in Street People. The 1976-77 models were a slight improvement and seems GM decided to wash most of the mud off the name for 1978.

The colonnade-body GMs are at best rather "blah" to me. I'm not ragging on GM though, I'll admit that Ford and Chrysler also made plenty of oversized, underpowered and unattractive cars in the 70s. I am rather puzzled though as to why Khan - or Mr. Roarke - or Ricardo Montalban if one wants to be formal, was willing to plug cars for a company that was doing so badly before Lee Iacocca stepped in.
You talk about Chrysler doing badly, look what happened to GM a few years back. Same thing! Government bailout! Lee Iacocca had to pay back the loan way early, as he didn't like owing THEM money.
I bought a 1982 Dodge Ramcharger, even though the company future didn't look that bright. I drove it for 13 years. The only real expense was a timing chain at 91K miles. A 318, the best small-block engine in the business.

Well, my first car was a '73 Mustang, AKA Rustang. And yes it was a kinda not that
great a car compared to later models..... And the thing I hated most was that if you
didn't see it, they didn't paint it. And the frame rails seemed to rust from the inside
out Also galvanized outside, but rusted inside....

I also hated the 9mpg it got, 12hwy. I put a VV carb on it and got mpg up to 17, and
21 hwy. I was impressed, and again 55-60 mph, not racing it. So the engines as built
were capable of some economy. It was really something, the tail pipe ash went
from black, to light grey almost white ash with the VV well tuned. Spark plugs
never got dirty...... really freaky..... 351C engine, FMX Auto Trans.

I really can't complain about the service I got out of it for the 140K miles it lasted,
and I had fun with it too....

I see at car shows that the old cars are capable of running really well, and good fit
and finish when restored. They were what they were.

If I had to pay $20K or more for a car, I have thought about this a lot, I think I would
put it into a '73 mustang, or a 78 TA. I see reasonable looking ones on ebay all the time.
I read about how people hate the functionality of new cars, and I hate the idea of all
those electronic dashes, knobless radios.

It's the overall experience. And the "Start" button really bugs me.....


Lee Iacoca was a good guy, a car guy, and did a lot to get the company back on track.
I remember reading that the K-cars were the lengh they were so one more row would
fit on the train cars that carried them to market. Kinda like the gimmick they had for
the Chevy Vega, they packed them on standing on their nose.

Growing up my parents had a 70 Coronet 225 six station wagon. Dad had a 74 Dart
with a 318 I took my driving test on. They were cool and very tough cars. The Coronet
was our pickup truck. And as kids we rode in the cargo area and lived !


.

Well, my first car was a '73 Mustang, AKA Rustang. And yes it was a kinda not that
great a car compared to later models..... And the thing I hated most was that if you
didn't see it, they didn't paint it. And the frame rails seemed to rust from the inside
out Also galvanized outside, but rusted inside....

I also hated the 9mpg it got, 12hwy. I put a VV carb on it and got mpg up to 17, and
21 hwy. I was impressed, and again 55-60 mph, not racing it. So the engines as built
were capable of some economy. It was really something, the tail pipe ash went
from black, to light grey almost white ash with the VV well tuned. Spark plugs
never got dirty...... really freaky..... 351C engine, FMX Auto Trans.

I really can't complain about the service I got out of it for the 140K miles it lasted,
and I had fun with it too....

I see at car shows that the old cars are capable of running really well, and good fit
and finish when restored. They were what they were.

If I had to pay $20K or more for a car, I have thought about this a lot, I think I would
put it into a '73 mustang, or a 78 TA. I see reasonable looking ones on ebay all the time.
I read about how people hate the functionality of new cars, and I hate the idea of all
those electronic dashes, knobless radios.

It's the overall experience. And the "Start" button really bugs me.....


Lee Iacoca was a good guy, a car guy, and did a lot to get the company back on track.
I remember reading that the K-cars were the lengh they were so one more row would
fit on the train cars that carried them to market. Kinda like the gimmick they had for
the Chevy Vega, they packed them on standing on their nose.

Growing up my parents had a 70 Coronet 225 six station wagon. Dad had a 74 Dart
with a 318 I took my driving test on. They were cool and very tough cars. The Coronet
was our pickup truck. And as kids we rode in the cargo area and lived !


.

I like the start button concept on the new cars. The only thing is, I keep forgetting to take the keys out of my pocket when driving my Dakota pickup or my Jeep Wrangler.
My Prius has the start button and the engine first starts about 10 seconds after it's put in drive or reverse.

You talk about Chrysler doing badly, look what happened to GM a few years back. Same thing! Government bailout! Lee Iacocca had to pay back the loan way early, as he didn't like owing THEM money.

I wasn't ragging on Chrysler either. In fact I find it hard to understand why they were doing so badly in the 70s considering their offerings during the smog era were the best of the big three in my opinion. That isn't saying much, but still. Even their least visually appealing models from back then aren't that bad. Putting the Charger name on a full-size seemed kind of weird though.

Too bad Chrysler was unable to make 2-door and wagon versions of the R-platform cars, which might have done better had they been introduced a few years later. The 1979 New Yorker Fifth Avenue at least with a 360 and dual exhaust came without cats up here which must have been some help at least.

I'm aware of GM's problems from a few years back but I don't hear as much about that. Besides, I was speaking of smog-era vehicles, not those whose biggest advantage is that when they're used up their owners can step on them and return them for a refund.

I wasn't ragging on Chrysler either. In fact I find it hard to understand why they were doing so badly in the 70s considering their offerings during the smog era were the best of the big three in my opinion. That isn't saying much, but still. Even their least visually appealing models from back then aren't that bad. Putting the Charger name on a full-size seemed kind of weird though.

Too bad Chrysler was unable to make 2-door and wagon versions of the R-platform cars, which might have done better had they been introduced a few years later. The 1979 New Yorker Fifth Avenue at least with a 360 and dual exhaust came without cats up here which must have been some help at least.

I'm aware of GM's problems from a few years back but I don't hear as much about that. Besides, I was speaking of smog-era vehicles, not those whose biggest advantage is that when they're used up their owners can step on them and return them for a refund.

Chryslers problem at the time was poor planning! The wrong product at the wrong time. Lee Iacocca stated that in his book.
When the other US manufactures were started building small cars to compete with the imports, they were still building the old product line.

Many of Chrysler's problems when Iacocca came on the scene were mismanagement and not necessarily the products. Over-dependence on rentals, excessive production capacity, over-dependence on the RV industry, as someone else said "poor planning". I've had 70's Chrysler products that were pretty good compared to some of the garbage coming out of Detroit back then.

That's not to say they didn't have their fair share of lemons (e.g. Volare/Aspen). I know people who bought those and that didn't outrun their payment books before (literally) falling apart.

My Dad was a dedicated Chrysler guy for as long as I can remember and in 1978 he bought a brand new Plymouth Volare wagon. What a huge POS that car was, I have never seen anything that bad. It was the last Chrysler product he ever owned.

Gregb

I'm guessing that the main problem that plagued the Aspen and Volare was poor fit and finish, making it very much "hit or miss" on getting a good one. Seems they have a decent following today. I just remembered one fellow I knew who had one and said the back floor would get so wet that toadstools were growing out of the carpet.

Many of Chrysler's problems when Iacocca came on the scene were mismanagement and not necessarily the products. Over-dependence on rentals, excessive production capacity, over-dependence on the RV industry, as someone else said "poor planning". I've had 70's Chrysler products that were pretty good compared to some of the garbage coming out of Detroit back then.

That's not to say they didn't have their fair share of lemons (e.g. Volare/Aspen). I know people who bought those and that didn't outrun their payment books before (literally) falling apart.
I wonder how many owners of Chev Vegas didn't finish paying for their car before an engine failure.
You could imagine those poor souls were making two payments a month, one for the car loan and one for the engine replacement.
GM really never had a decent warranty on their cars. They were always afraid to guarantee their products for more than 2 yrs, 20k miles. If they included a longer warranty on their products, they would've had money problems a lot earlier. :scratch2:

I wonder how many owners of Chev Vegas didn't finish paying for their car before an engine failure.
You could imagine those poor souls were making two payments a month, one for the car loan and one for the engine replacement.
GM really never had a decent warranty on their cars. They were always afraid to guarantee their products for more than 2 yrs, 20k miles. If they included a longer warranty on their products, they would've had money problems a lot earlier. :scratch2:

That's just what the warranty was back then, 1 year/12k miles. I think Chrysler was the first to provide a long powertrain warranty in the 80's, think at first it was 5/50

K cars have outlasted most of their domestic contemporaries at this point. I still see a few Reliants and such on the road here in Phoenix, but it's been years since I have seen a Topaz or Citation. I would recommend avoiding the turbos, unless they have some sort of service history. That being said, I would also recommend that you go for an M body and buy a Diplomat. In an accident, an M body will demolish just about anything currently on the road.

K cars have outlasted most of their domestic contemporaries at this point. I still see a few Reliants and such on the road here in Phoenix, but it's been years since I have seen a Topaz or Citation. I would recommend avoiding the turbos, unless they have some sort of service history. That being said, I would also recommend that you go for an M body and buy a Diplomat. In an accident, an M body will demolish just about anything currently on the road.

I couldn't agree more, and see more K-cars on the road then any other 80's cars...however, I took this pic a few weeks ago in Phoenix. Ford fans, here you go!

https://i.imgur.com/kjmnDlV.jpg

Looks like a Ford advertisement poster or something. Both white, but look like new.

I couldn't agree more, and see more K-cars on the road then any other 80's cars...however, I took this pic a few weeks ago in Phoenix. Ford fans, here you go!
I can't recall the last time I saw an Aerostar. I saw a dark green Topaz in nice shape parked on the same street quite a few times not that long ago; chances are it's still in use, I just haven't been to that area in a while. Also, last month I saw a teal '92-'94 Taurus wagon, also in nice shape. That's pretty good for cars that were built while this region still had a winter.
K cars have outlasted most of their domestic contemporaries at this point. I still see a few Reliants and such on the road here in Phoenix, but it's been years since I have seen a Topaz or Citation. I would recommend avoiding the turbos, unless they have some sort of service history. That being said, I would also recommend that you go for an M body and buy a Diplomat. In an accident, an M body will demolish just about anything currently on the road.
Sounds good to me. I would add one of those bumper stickers that say "Your car is my crumple zone".

The only thing I would suggest avoiding in the K-cars is the optional Mitsubishi-built 2.6L engine. My dad had one of those in a 1981 Aries wagon, and it would eat timing belts and fuel pumps on a regular basis. The standard 2.2L engines were quite reliable, in my experience.

Of course, as a lifelong Mopar guy, it kind of galled me to see the "2.6 HEMI" fendertags that came with that POS engine. :no:

Of course, as a lifelong Mopar guy, it kind of galled me to see the "2.6 HEMI" fendertags that came with that POS engine. :no:

Well, heh, it was legitimately a hemi, though. Hemispherical combustion chambers ftw. But yeah...

Of course, as a lifelong Mopar guy, it kind of galled me to see the "2.6 HEMI" fendertags that came with that POS engine. :no:
Even Ford's 1.6L I4 is technically a hemi but fortunately I haven't seen any fender tags announcing this. While I have a soft spot for the early model Lynx and Escort I think the SS (1981 Escort only), RS and GT trim packages are a bit much for a subcompact without a lot of horsepower or low-end torque.

I have heard that the dodge 2.2 was the best motor in the K's. In the photos
of the K's for sale that are still around and running it always seems to have a 2.2.

As for the smog era cars, and I like that term, My uncle's last Chrysler was a 74-76?
Dodge Monaco like the ones on Blues Brothers, and it kinda came apart like in the
movie, just not all at once. It use to take a lot of cranking to get it running, it had
no power, 6mpg, lights and horn were active together at times, turn signals came
with audio accompany. It was the worst car he had, he followed that with a 4WD
Eagle, AMC I think at the time.

By the time that car died mostly of rust. I had got my '89 Prelude, the wife got her
'91 accord, and I talked him into an accord too, they had that car till he died.

On some of the sites about the Blues Brothers movie, they said they got those cars
for $100 -200. from the city as they were replacing them. Also hollywood got
hundreds of '77 Coronets for $35. because of smog system problems that
chrysler did not want to pay to redesign and fix. I remember seeing on PBS
about the decline of the auto industry 70's edition that chrysler and others would
take delivery on stuff like engine blocks by the thousands and by the time they
needed them for production the discovered there was a casting problem and
could not use them, so they would have to idle the factory, re order new run
and wait.... The bad blocks rusted. Same kinda story for GM and using known
bad or under designed bolts in the early Quad-4's. They all knowingly made
and sold crap for way too long....

.

I have heard that the dodge 2.2 was the best motor in the K's. In the photos
of the K's for sale that are still around and running it always seems to have a 2.2.

As for the smog era cars, and I like that term, My uncle's last Chrysler was a 74-76? Dodge Monaco like the ones on Blues Brothers, and it kinda came apart like in the movie, just not all at once. It use to take a lot of cranking to get it running, it had no power, 6mpg, lights and horn were active together at times, turn signals came with audio accompany. It was the worst car he had, he followed that with a 4WD Eagle, AMC I think at the time.
The 2.2 probably is the best K motor, the 2.5 seemed rather problematic to me.

I doubt your uncle's Monaco was a '74 because it's a model made before catalytic converters so it runs good on regular gas. For '75 I believe only the Royal Monaco came with hideaway headlamps, and all '76 models have them.

Who says unicorns don't exist? I saw an AMC Eagle rolling down Greenway Parkway last week, and was shocked by how 'good' it looked. At least it was distinctive and had personality, which most modern cars lack.

The 2.2 probably is the best K motor, the 2.5 seemed rather problematic to me.



Did you mean 2.6? The 2.5 is just a 2.2 with a larger bore and longer stroke with a balance shaft added. The 2.5 adds a lot of low end torque, and the balance shaft really smooths the engine out.

Did you mean 2.6? The 2.5 is just a 2.2 with a larger bore and longer stroke with a balance shaft added. The 2.5 adds a lot of low end torque, and the balance shaft really smooths the engine out.
I meant 2.5, but I only have experience with one car so equipped and none with the 2.2 so I'm not really a good barometer. The head gasket cracked letting coolant into the oil, the timing belt broke and it blew a handful of frost plugs but never suffered any major damage. It was rather loud for a gas engine, noisy lifters maybe? It seemed sluggish sometimes but I reckon that had a lot to do with its temperamental 3-speed slushbox. If I recall correctly I often had to let up on the accelerator briefly to get out of low gear. I used to drive on a long stretch of level road and make a left at the end to go uphill; it wasn't very steep but that's when I would be mashing it and still be unable to keep up with traffic, no idea why.

Edit: Apparently the engine was getting tired, it sounded just like the one in this Aries (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxYXhO6CgwQ) (startup at 6:10).

Even Ford's 1.6L I4 is technically a hemi but fortunately I haven't seen any fender tags announcing this.

Prob because 'Hemi' is a Chrysler-owned trademark lol

The 2.2 probably is the best K motor, the 2.5 seemed rather problematic to me.
Did you mean 2.6? The 2.5 is just a 2.2 with a larger bore and longer stroke with a balance shaft added. The 2.5 adds a lot of low end torque, and the balance shaft really smooths the engine out.

^ This.

My uncle's last Chrysler was a 74-76? Dodge Monaco like the ones on Blues Brothers, and it kinda came apart like in the movie, just not all at once. It use to take a lot of cranking to get it running, it had no power, 6mpg, lights and horn were active together at times, turn signals came with audio accompany. It was the worst car he had, he followed that with a 4WD Eagle, AMC I think at the time.

It's a shame that some cars get a bad rap just because nobody bothered fixing them. It sounds like it only needed a carb cleaning/adjustment and some ground wires fixed. As if those were uncommon problems in the 70s... >_>

Who says unicorns don't exist? I saw an AMC Eagle rolling down Greenway Parkway last week, and was shocked by how 'good' it looked. At least it was distinctive and had personality, which most modern cars lack.

I really like the original Eagles. I mean... they're basically a car bolted onto a Jeep CJ chassis. You can legit go rock crawling with a stock Eagle. A buddy of mine in college once asked if I wanted to ride in his friend's 'AMG' as he was going to get an oil change. I shrugged, and went along because I had nothing better to do. I kept looking around in the parking lot for a Mercedes, but I was pleasantly surprised that the dude hopped in an AMC Eagle! I think my friend was a bit disappointed lol.

Same kinda story for GM and using known
bad or under designed bolts in the early Quad-4's. They all knowingly made
and sold crap for way too long....

A lot of 70s cars sucked, because of auto factory workers' union problems. Strikes and all that.

That's just what the warranty was back then, 1 year/12k miles. I think Chrysler was the first to provide a long powertrain warranty in the 80's, think at first it was 5/50

My '64 Valiant had a 5/50 warrantee on it. Chrysler first started it for the 1962 model and kept it until the 1971 model year, then going back to 1 year, 12k miles. My '82 Dodge Ramcharger had a 5/50 Warrantee. I don't remember when they resumed the warrantee coverage.

Even Ford's 1.6L I4 is technically a hemi but fortunately I haven't seen any fender tags announcing this.
Prob because 'Hemi' is a Chrysler-owned trademark lol

And "SS" is a GM-owned trademark but that didn't stop Ford from using it on some first-year Escorts; only the resulting lawsuit did. Geez, grownups today, they're not allowed to kill each other one on one so most of them do it in court, shameful.

Our family was two-time Aerostar users. They were great family vans. Later on in life I considered buying one because the removable seats are a great bonus but:
-They are heavy as hell
-The engines are a MASSIVE pain in the ass to service.

The 2.2 probably is the best K motor, the 2.5 seemed rather problematic to me.

I doubt your uncle's Monaco was a '74 because it's a model made before catalytic converters so it runs good on regular gas. For '75 I believe only the Royal Monaco came with hideaway headlamps, and all '76 models have them.

+2 on that 2-2, Jon - My '78 Celica GT 5-spd with a 2.2 could not catch the Mopars, which had an edge for some reason:sigh: My Dad traded a 1975 Rabbit 1.5 L for an '81 Horizon with 1.7L 4cyl with a horrible-shifting 4spd, (VW or Peugot-built IIRC) and what a pooch that was.

That '81 was involved in 4 accidents, last one a sideswipe requiring half a body from a junkyard. Being Orange I guess it was hard to see:D. They just would not total it, so it was traded for the 2.2L in the '85 Omni, which had an automatic, which he always shut the car off leaving it in "D" with the parking brake on, being used to manuals. Even with a 3-spd auto, the 2.2 could spin the tires on dryypavement, with the expected torque-steer of MoPar's front wheel drive.

For my first ride, and under $1000, all I had to chose from were gas hogs nobody wanted in 1980. I had a choice of a 76 Monaco with a 360- probably a lean-burn 2bbl; A 75 LeSabre with 350 2bbl. Since both were smog-sleds, I opted for the 73 Fury II 400-2bbl - the small-town's unmarked squad car, dark green. I was not sorry.

I know of a few 2.5 Liter 4 cyl Caravans turning out to be reliable beaters. Cheap parts is one reason.

+2 on that 2-2, Jon - My '78 Celica GT 5-spd with a 2.2 could not catch the Mopars, which had an edge for some reason:sigh: My Dad traded a 1975 Rabbit 1.5 L for an '81 Horizon with 1.7L 4cyl with a horrible-shifting 4spd, (VW or Peugot-built IIRC) and what a pooch that was.

That '81 was involved in 4 accidents, last one a sideswipe requiring half a body from a junkyard. Being Orange I guess it was hard to see:D. They just would not total it, so it was traded for the 2.2L in the '85 Omni, which had an automatic, which he always shut the car off leaving it in "D" with the parking brake on, being used to manuals. Even with a 3-spd auto, the 2.2 could spin the tires on dryypavement, with the expected torque-steer of MoPar's front wheel drive.

For my first ride, and under $1000, all I had to chose from were gas hogs nobody wanted in 1980. I had a choice of a 76 Monaco with a 360- probably a lean-burn 2bbl; A 75 LeSabre with 350 2bbl. Since both were smog-sleds, I opted for the 73 Fury II 400-2bbl - the small-town's unmarked squad car, dark green. I was not sorry.

I know of a few 2.5 Liter 4 cyl Caravans turning out to be reliable beaters. Cheap parts is one reason.
A guy in the building I used to live in had a '79 Celica with a 5-speed. I think he had a second set of keys so he would sometimes leave it running with the windows up and the doors locked. In spite of that it still got pinched one day. He got it back but not quite in the same condition.

I didn't know the Omni/Horizon came with a 1.7L as standard equipment. Now it's easier to understand why they were named 1982's lemon of the year. A quick check on Wikipedia reveals that the 1.7 and the 4-speed were VW-made.

Ouch, hopefully that 1985 Omni was never parked on steep hills. I wouldn't want to risk leaving a slushbox in gear while parked. I never knew torque-steer was a problem with FWD Mopars; I guess I was just extra careful in slippery conditions. As I recall it was even more of a problem with GM's FWD X-body cars.

Oh yeah, RWD Mopar with a cop motor with a 400 cubic inch plant, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks and made before catalytic converters, the logical choice in my opinion.

Little wonder the Blues Brothers were able to beat the heat to Chicago.

which he always shut the car off leaving it in "D" with the parking brake on, being used to manuals.

tfw when no ignition-shift interlock.

I had a choice of a 76 Monaco with a 360- probably a lean-burn 2bbl

You know, I've only ever been under the hood of just ONE lean-burn vehicle (outside of a junkyard, anyway), and I never had a chance to work on the motor, because it ran just fine. It was a 70-something Dodge pickup, with a slant-6. I've read a lot about the Lean Burn™ system, and it's quite fascinating. But I'd really like to work on one to actually get a feel for it. It was basically a computer controlled engine, except carbureted, and no, the carb was not at all controlled by the computer. It handled ignition only. The only problems I can speculate about the system would be A: it's a 'computer' from the '70s, before computers were really a thing, and B: they put the damn computer in the hottest place they could pick - right on top of the engine.

Chrysler has a long proud history of technological achievements, but putting a computer on top of a hot engine was not one of their brightest moments. Though to be perfectly fair, many carmakers today continue that practice. Mostly GM.

Oh yeah, RWD Mopar with a cop motor with a 400 cubic inch plant, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks and made before catalytic converters...

Huehuehuehue.

The Dodge Omni and their variants were powered by VW parts. And back then
Consumer Reports, if I'm not mistaken released one of their tests to the TV news
media that showed that if you were moving at highway speeds and took the steering
wheel and twisted to to one side and released it, the car would on it's own swing wildly
from right to left until it spun out. Tests on other cars showed that they would have
the steering wheel dampen out the flick and return to a center position, provided
you were still on the pavement. An unrealistic hazard in my opinion. I wonder
why the VW's that shared the drive train did not suffer from that symptom?

Maybe because of Chrysler's fun single finger power power steering, where a good
flick of the wheel with one finger often spun it from center to one of the far locks
quite easily.

The early Lean Burns were spark only, the last runs had feedback carburetors too.
But by the time FBC's came into the mix they had to get away from the name Lean Burn.

Speaking of no shift locks, my '86 Prelude has no shift lock, no signs it was defeated
by the previous owner either....


.

Dodge may have used VW engines, but I doubt they would have gone VW on the suspension and steering in a K car.

The early Lean Burns were spark only, the last runs had feedback carburetors too.
But by the time FBC's came into the mix they had to get away from the name Lean Burn.

Neat.

Dodge may have used VW engines, but I doubt they would have gone VW on the suspension and steering in a K car.

No, that was the Omni only. The Omni was pre-k car. I don't think the VW engine was ever offered in a K car. To the best of my knowledge, the K cars were entirely in-house, at least originally. Ah, the good old days.

Neat.



No, that was the Omni only. The Omni was pre-k car. I don't think the VW engine was ever offered in a K car. To the best of my knowledge, the K cars were entirely in-house, at least originally. Ah, the good old days.

There's a lot of information about the evolution of the various Mopar platforms on the website "Allpar". I generally follow it pretty close.

There's a lot of information about the evolution of the various Mopar platforms on the website "Allpar". I generally follow it pretty close.
The LH cars were the last of the 'in house' designs, even though the company was being controlled my Mercedes at the time. My understanding is that, in spite of what people claim, the current LX cars are really the old LH platform modified to accept the improved Mercedes suspension components and are not merely a warmed over Benz chasis. Of course, the dreaded NAG1 tranny is a Benz unit, and we all know how craptastic those things can be.

The LH cars were the last of the 'in house' designs, even though the company was being controlled my Mercedes at the time. My understanding is that, in spite of what people claim, the current LX cars are really the old LH platform modified to accept the improved Mercedes suspension components and are not merely a warmed over Benz chasis. Of course, the dreaded NAG1 tranny is a Benz unit, and we all know how craptastic those things can be.

The LH cars were introduced in 93. I had a 94 Concorde, really loved that car. Huge, absolutely huge car for a fwd. I mean, you got in it, you were a mile away from your passenger, and enough headroom for Abe Lincoln with his hat on. Definitely prefer the interior to a Cadillac Deville, also fwd in roughly the same category. Anyhow, Mercedes takeover was from 98 to 08. And there are small but notable similarities between the LH and LX platforms. I'd say it's really an evolution. That having been said, they maintained their own teams of engineers and designers, I don't think it's entirely fair to say 'their last in-house design.' Maybe their last design that didn't involve Mercedes parts in any way, perhaps. Course there was a brief reprise when they were privately held and not associated with any other company. But Fiat had to ruin that.

Mercedes transmissions are actually usually pretty hearty things. But uh... in terms of performance... yeah. Craptastic sounds about right. In the late 80s - 90s, perhaps earlier, idk what possessed them to think that taking off in 2nd gear was a good idea.

The LH was really an AMC design as much as anything. Their engineering staff came over after Chrysler bought AM & put them in charge. The (Renault) Eagle Premier was the starting point for the LH & they were built in the former AMC Bramalea factory. Fitting that they were use the Concorde name, as a sort of tribute to the old AMC Concord.

I think some of the last run K car descendants just before the Neon were available with a small Mitsubishi 6 cyl, which was a little more fun to drive, and fairly reliable.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

K cars had a very long and also very successful production run, and as pointed out previously they basically saved Chrysler from the dustbin of history. A little more fun to drive than what? A potato? You've apparently never been in a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo with mild tuning done to it, I promise it shits all over that piss poor excuse for a japanese V6 and its impossible to change timing belt. Transmissions? Yeah the 3-sp torqueflite is sorta gay, but once again with a 2.5 turbo attached it most likely shits all over whatever you're currently in.

If you can't tell, I'm tired of people talking shit about my car. And no, I'm not a K-car fanatic. I'm a turbo fanatic. I also have a factory turbo Corvair, wanna fight about it? I'll put my '89 Spirit up against whatever you got, and while it may or may not not win you'll definitely be surprised...

Speaking as a Mopar or no car sort of guy, cool your jets. Nobody is questioning your masculinity. I agree that the K-cars were the best 'small' cars on the road, with room for six Americans, but there is no need to be so darned hurt. Even the rice burners that were supposed to be the death knell of the U.S. autos are long since shredded and turned into toasters, while Reliants still cruise city streets. By the way, the Diplomat was still the better car. A 318 kicks the hell out of a four banger any day of the week, no matter how torquey it may be.

I promise it shits all over that piss poor excuse for a japanese V6 and its impossible to change timing belt.

I take offense to that, sir. I have one of those piss poor Mitsu V6's, and I quite enjoy it. Nothing against the 4-bangers, just that the 3.0L is quite a decent engine, especially in its time period. The torque curve is as flat as a table, you have basically 100% of the torque at any rpm you need it at.

And changing the T-belt is only slightly more difficult than any other car - owing the the adapter plate, a whopping 5 extra bolts - but nothing any competent mechanic can't conquer with ease. Come to think of it, its been many years since I last did the job, I should do it again soon.

Also, chill down, nobody's talking shit about your car.

Also, chill down, nobody's talking shit about your car.
Even so, it wouldn't hurt to be prepared to just brush off snarky comments. Pretty much anyone into anything other than traditional muscle cars is going to hear others roasting their idea of a fly ride. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

Pretty much anyone into anything other than traditional muscle cars is going to hear others roasting their idea of a fly ride. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

What are you talking about? They'll do it anyway! The chevy guys and the ford guys are always going at it. And then there's the mopar guys who kind of get shit on by the other two factions, but mostly because they're secretly jealous of the awesome mopars. :3

lol

What are you talking about? They'll do it anyway! The chevy guys and the ford guys are always going at it. And then there's the mopar guys who kind of get shit on by the other two factions, but mostly because they're secretly jealous of the awesome mopars. :3

lol
Yeah I realized later on I hadn't really thought that through. The musclecar crowd probably gets the least amount of crap though. On the flip side, I know there are some Lada enthusiasts up here; I can't imagine how many snarky comments they have to deflect.

I certainly agree that Mopars are awesome.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

K cars had a very long and also very successful production run, and as pointed out previously they basically saved Chrysler from the dustbin of history. A little more fun to drive than what? A potato? You've apparently never been in a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo with mild tuning done to it, I promise it shits all over that piss poor excuse for a japanese V6 and its impossible to change timing belt. Transmissions? Yeah the 3-sp torqueflite is sorta gay, but once again with a 2.5 turbo attached it most likely shits all over whatever you're currently in.

If you can't tell, I'm tired of people talking shit about my car. And no, I'm not a K-car fanatic. I'm a turbo fanatic. I also have a factory turbo Corvair, wanna fight about it? I'll put my '89 Spirit up against whatever you got, and while it may or may not not win you'll definitely be surprised...
When I was at your place in Waukegan, IL you didn't seem to be that enthused with Mopars. Many times, most conversations turn to cars.
You had shown me the old VW with the FI conversion and the Mini and IIRC, your wife had some kind of a Japanese SUV.
Mopars are still my first choice, but my daily driver is a Prius. I'm not that crazy about leaving that much money at the pump.
Still have my 2000 Dodge Dakota and my 2006 Jeep Wrangler, both bought new.
BTW, Powerglides and Dynaflows are really Gay.

Yeah I realized later on I hadn't really thought that through. The musclecar crowd probably gets the least amount of crap though. On the flip side, I know there are some Lada enthusiasts up here; I can't imagine how many snarky comments they have to deflect.

I certainly agree that Mopars are awesome.

I read about the Lada years ago and I would like to see one up close.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

K cars had a very long and also very successful production run, and as pointed out previously they basically saved Chrysler from the dustbin of history. A little more fun to drive than what? A potato? You've apparently never been in a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo with mild tuning done to it, I promise it shits all over that piss poor excuse for a japanese V6 and its impossible to change timing belt. Transmissions? Yeah the 3-sp torqueflite is sorta gay, but once again with a 2.5 turbo attached it most likely shits all over whatever you're currently in.

If you can't tell, I'm tired of people talking shit about my car. And no, I'm not a K-car fanatic. I'm a turbo fanatic. I also have a factory turbo Corvair, wanna fight about it? I'll put my '89 Spirit up against whatever you got, and while it may or may not not win you'll definitely be surprised...

Fair enough, around here the turbo variant was very rare, so much so that I'm not counting it as part of the normal K car experience. I did know one guy who had a turbo with a 5 speed, and yes, it was a lot better than a normal K car. That car was a real sleeper, and I won't argue that it's pretty cool.

It still had peeling paint, creaky doors, a misaligned instrument cluster, and the other k car defects.

And yes, your 89 spirit would blow the doors off my 86 toyota diesel pickup!

I read about the Lada years ago and I would like to see one up close.

LADA cars are interesting, they were sold in Canada until 1997 when they no longer met emission requirements. The NIVA 4x4 is quite capable. Actually owning one may not be the world's best idea, but I too would like a chance to drive one... I've only been a passenger and it was not recently.

BTW, Powerglides and Dynaflows are really Gay.

LOL I mean they kinda are. Powerglides apparently are used in drag cars a lot because, well, they're real solid and only two gears. Dynaflows are fascinating... but that's about it.

LOL I mean they kinda are. Powerglides apparently are used in drag cars a lot because, well, they're real solid and only two gears. Dynaflows are fascinating... but that's about it.
I heard that about the drag cars.
Practically everyone I know had to have the Powerglide transmission repaired once in their time of ownership.
How about the early Mopars with the Powerflites that used the same oil for the transmission as the engine.
The transmission fluid was changed every time the engine oil was changed. :D
Dynaflows= slush-o-matics.

How about the early Mopars with the Powerflites that used the same oil for the transmission as the engine. The transmission fluid was changed every time the engine oil was changed. :D

Better to have a Powerflite than an early Torqueflite from what I read. Apparently the pushbutton gear selector is a real dog to maintain. I read that Keith Gordon from Christine had a lot of trouble with it and the crew had to keep someone on hand to fix it.

How about the early Mopars with the Powerflites that used the same oil for the transmission as the engine.
The transmission fluid was changed every time the engine oil was changed. :D
Dynaflows= slush-o-matics.

Back in the days when nobody knew the right way to do a new-fangled 'automatic' transmission. On the bright side, as long as you kept up on your oil changes, your trans fluid would always be fresh!

Better to have a Powerflite than an early Torqueflite from what I read. Apparently the pushbutton gear selector is a real dog to maintain. I read that Keith Gordon from Christine had a lot of trouble with it and the crew had to keep someone on hand to fix it.

I heard that drag racers that used push-button Powerflites considered the main problem with the pushbutton system to be the placement of the R button too close to the forward gear buttons...If not careful they'd mash it into reverse and mess things up.

In defense of Chrysler's pushbutton mech I've always heard, it was solid and reliable...It was a great step up from the other pushbutton shifter of the time the steering wheel mounted electric selector in the Edsel...Which supposedly liked to short and change gears when turning the wheel...That scares me a hell of a lot more than hitting the wrong button by mistake.

I heard that drag racers that used push-button Powerflites considered the main problem with the pushbutton system to be the placement of the R button too close to the forward gear buttons...If not careful they'd mash it into reverse and mess things up.

In defense of Chrysler's pushbutton mech I've always heard, it was solid and reliable...It was a great step up from the other pushbutton shifter of the time the steering wheel mounted electric selector in the Edsel...Which supposedly liked to short and change gears when turning the wheel...That scares me a hell of a lot more than hitting the wrong button by mistake.
A friend had a '58 Mercury that had a form of a push button transmission.
It had a park position lever that had to slid to the right. IDK, if the neutral button had to be pushed before the park was set. The transmission stayed in drive while the engine was in fast idle. The transmission burned up.
IIRC, the push button selector was outlawed by the government, stating all automatic transmission cars had to be uniform to minimize mishaps.

If I recall correctly, you couldn't do any real damage shifting from drive to reverse in a Chrysler pushbutton automatic. I think their was a safety that hitting the reverse button while the car was moving forward would put it into the neutral mode and not reverse. Been a long time since I drove one, and I don't ever recall making that mistake.

.

My first car was a 1991 Dodge Spirit, aka a refresh of the Dodge Aries. Had the 'piss poor' Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 under the hood, which made the car quite peppy. Not as fast as the Spirit R/T (https://www.allpar.com/model/spiritrt.html), I'm sure, but it got up and went when called upon. I can say for a fact that the car would begin to shake violently if I tried to drive much faster than 95MPH.......... :yikes:

It had its quirks, to be sure. It resisted every single attempt I made to upgrade the stock AM/FM stereo (installed a 'Infinity I' cassette stereo, and got nothing out of the speakers; tried using a later version AM/FM/cassette head unit, but the brackets didn't line up correctly). The previous owner had been extremely obese, and had managed to break the front seat, though we got it fixed. One nice "feature" was that I could remove the key from the ignition while it was running, which came in handy when it was cold, as I could keep the engine running with the doors locked. :D

I put a few dents and dings in it as a rookie driver, but it just kept on running. Even the infamous "A-Sick-Oh-Four (http://etereman.com/blog/fiat-transmission/having-problems-with-your-a604-automatic-transmission-youre-not-alone)" 4spd automatic just kept on going, apart from one time it glitched and got stuck in "limp home mode" (wouldn't shift higher than 2nd gear, which made highway driving "interesting".....). The one time I thought it was a goner, it turned out that it was bad motor mounts that were causing the engine to tilt when trying to drive in reverse, making a nasty racket as I backed up.

It was somewhat ugly and didn't have much in the way of features, but it was a solid little car. I sure can't say that of its successor, a 1996 Chrysler Concorde (http://www.electronixandmore.com/adam/temp/concorde.jpg) that was handed down to me. Looked sleek, and had all sorts of bells and whistles, but had more reliability issues than Carter had liver pills. Dead transmission (before I started driving it), overheating issues, stalling issues, and culminated with the entire rear suspension collapsing as I pulled away from a stoplight. :rant: Should've just stuck with the Spirit. Here's a 'beauty shot' of it in its later days:
http://www.electronixandmore.com/adam/temp/spirit1.jpg

It had its quirks, to be sure. It resisted every single attempt I made to upgrade the stock AM/FM stereo (installed a 'Infinity I' cassette stereo, and got nothing out of the speakers; tried using a later version AM/FM/cassette head unit, but the brackets didn't line up correctly).

The Infinity almost certainly required an amplifier, which you didn't have. Then you got a radio from a Sebring/Stratus, the only cars that used a different bracket setup, but identical other than the brackets and the orange display.

Even the infamous "A-Sick-Oh-Four (http://etereman.com/blog/fiat-transmission/having-problems-with-your-a604-automatic-transmission-youre-not-alone)" 4spd automatic just kept on going, apart from one time it glitched and got stuck in "limp home mode" (wouldn't shift higher than 2nd gear, which made highway driving "interesting".....).

Not surprising. For all the shit people give it, as an actual certified transmission mechanic myself, I can tell you that they're pretty hardy little things. My favorite transmission actually. It's a breeze to work on, and it's so simple, there's almost nothing to go wrong with it. Also, you'd be surprised just how often limp mode was triggered by a corroded battery termimal.

a 1996 Chrysler Concorde (http://www.electronixandmore.com/adam/temp/concorde.jpg) that was handed down to me. Looked sleek, and had all sorts of bells and whistles, but had more reliability issues than Carter had liver pills. Dead transmission (before I started driving it), overheating issues, stalling issues, and culminated with the entire rear suspension collapsing as I pulled away from a stoplight. :rant: Should've just stuck with the Spirit.

Maybe you just got a lemon dude. My 94 Concorde got T boned by a utility truck, and kept going. It went and went, literally the only time I ever had to have it towed was after it was hit. The transmission is literally the same A604, just twisted around to fit the other way. And mine NEVER overheated, it was the most temp-stable car I've ever had. Then again, I had the 3.3L, maybe you got the 3.5L, they were new for the LH cars, and did have some problems. Legit the 93 model ones would spontaneously combust. Fuel rail problems.

A friend had a '58 Mercury that had a form of a push button transmission.
It had a park position lever that had to slid to the right. IDK, if the neutral button had to be pushed before the park was set. The transmission stayed in drive while the engine was in fast idle. The transmission burned up.
IIRC, the push button selector was outlawed by the government, stating all automatic transmission cars had to be uniform to minimize mishaps.
Are you certain it was a Mercury? I was able to find photos of Mopars with a park slider but all the photos of late-50s Mercury controls I've seen show a park lever that resembles a hood release. By the way I'm a little confused by the presence of a "hill control" button in the Mercurys, seems redundant with a park lever. I suppose that could have been what they called the parking brake considering the presence of the "brake release" button.

Are you certain it was a Mercury? I was able to find photos of Mopars with a park slider but all the photos of late-50s Mercury controls I've seen show a park lever that resembles a hood release. By the way I'm a little confused by the presence of a "hill control" button in the Mercurys, seems redundant with a park lever. I suppose that could have been what they called the parking brake considering the presence of the "brake release" button.
I'm trying to remember something that happened around 50 years ago, but I'm positive it was a Mercury. I drove the owner to the used car lot to pick it up. The owner told me the circumstances of the trans failure. I wasn't there.

The Infinity almost certainly required an amplifier, which you didn't have. Then you got a radio from a Sebring/Stratus, the only cars that used a different bracket setup, but identical other than the brackets and the orange display.



Not surprising. For all the shit people give it, as an actual certified transmission mechanic myself, I can tell you that they're pretty hardy little things. My favorite transmission actually. It's a breeze to work on, and it's so simple, there's almost nothing to go wrong with it. Also, you'd be surprised just how often limp mode was triggered by a corroded battery termimal.



Maybe you just got a lemon dude. My 94 Concorde got T boned by a utility truck, and kept going. It went and went, literally the only time I ever had to have it towed was after it was hit. The transmission is literally the same A604, just twisted around to fit the other way. And mine NEVER overheated, it was the most temp-stable car I've ever had. Then again, I had the 3.3L, maybe you got the 3.5L, they were new for the LH cars, and did have some problems. Legit the 93 model ones would spontaneously combust. Fuel rail problems.
I had a '92 Dodge Dynasty that had the 3.3 engine. Mine ran perfectly and when I sold it, it had 162K and didn't leak any fluids and didn't use any oil between changes. It still used the old push-rod design.

On the flip side, I know there are some Lada enthusiasts up here; I can't imagine how many snarky comments they have to deflect.


IMHO they probably get the least crap; at least among those who have watched crash compilations on youtube...Those of us in that camp are or should be scared of Ladas. If you see a Lada odds are it is 30 seconds from an accident or about to have parts fall off.

I had a '92 Dodge Dynasty that had the 3.3 engine. Mine ran perfectly and when I sold it, it had 162K and didn't leak any fluids and didn't use any oil between changes. It still used the old push-rod design.

Yeah the 3.3L has a few common problems, but nothing that can't be fixed. Very hardy little motors. There's a story on allpar about some engineers getting excited to have a new modern engine (the 3.3), and then being disheartened when they found it had pushrods. lol It's probably one of its strengths, though. No timing belt, less parts, more reliable.

The Infinity almost certainly required an amplifier, which you didn't have. Then you got a radio from a Sebring/Stratus, the only cars that used a different bracket setup, but identical other than the brackets and the orange display.

I asked on the Allpar forum about whether or not the missing amplifier was the cause of the no-sound issue, and got conflicting responses. Some claimed the head unit would output sound regardless of whether or not the amp was there; others claimed that the silence was due to the missing amp. I did eventually find a later head unit with the right bracket setup, but was handed down the Concorde before I could install it.

Not surprising. For all the shit people give it, as an actual certified transmission mechanic myself, I can tell you that they're pretty hardy little things. My favorite transmission actually. It's a breeze to work on, and it's so simple, there's almost nothing to go wrong with it. Also, you'd be surprised just how often limp mode was triggered by a corroded battery termimal.

From what I've heard, at least some of the A604 failures were due to lazy transmission techs using Dexron instead of the required ATF+3 fluid. When it started making noise in reverse, I bought five (IIRC) quarts of ATF+3 in preparation for having to drain the existing fluid. When we ended up taking it to a mechanic instead, I gave him the bottles of fluid I'd bought so he wouldn't go the lazy route.

As for when it dropped into 'limp home' mode: After it occurred, I immediately drove it to my mechanic, who found nothing wrong with it, and it never did that again. I can only figure that it was some sort of glitch.

Maybe you just got a lemon dude. My 94 Concorde got T boned by a utility truck, and kept going. It went and went, literally the only time I ever had to have it towed was after it was hit. The transmission is literally the same A604, just twisted around to fit the other way. And mine NEVER overheated, it was the most temp-stable car I've ever had. Then again, I had the 3.3L, maybe you got the 3.5L, they were new for the LH cars, and did have some problems. Legit the 93 model ones would spontaneously combust. Fuel rail problems.

I've long figured it was a lemon; I've seen a fair number of Concordes of this style still on the road. This one indeed had the 3.5L engine under the hood. When it worked, it was a decent engine; I even put mid-grade gas in it, as recommended in the owner's manual. I don't know why its 42LE failed; one day I was driving around in it with my mother (who owned the car before me), and we noticed that the car would vibrate like a jackhammer if we tried to accelerate faster than 40MPH or so. $1,700 or so later, it was back on the road, and never had a transmission issue afterwards.

When we got the car used (former lease car) some years before, there was a recall on it due to fuel system issues. We brought it to a dealership for the recall work, then the day after we got it back from them, my mother noticed a large puddle of fuel under the gas tank when she was getting ready to leave work. :yikes: Back to the dealership it went for more work, and it never had that issue again.

The overheating issue was an odd series of events. The first time it happened was while I was getting onto the highway. I had it towed to the mechanic, who claimed to have fixed the problem. Not long afterwards, while driving to class, it overheated again. I had it towed back to the mechanic, who managed to find the cause of the problem this time around: the A/C compressor had seized, causing the belt running it to break; the belt then got jammed in the cooling fan, which popped its fuse. How the mechanic missed this the first time around, I have no idea. :headscrat
-Adam

The overheating issue was an odd series of events. The first time it happened was while I was getting onto the highway. I had it towed to the mechanic, who claimed to have fixed the problem. Not long afterwards, while driving to class, it overheated again. I had it towed back to the mechanic, who managed to find the cause of the problem this time around: the A/C compressor had seized, causing the belt running it to break; the belt then got jammed in the cooling fan, which popped its fuse. How the mechanic missed this the first time around, I have no idea. :headscrat
-Adam

Not familiar with those cars, but if the belt had not snapped yet the first time and if there was a cooling fan on a pully the compressor belt shared the stuck compressor could have stopped that pulley...

I'd imagine that with the compressor stuck there would have been a LOT of noise as it killed that belt...If you hear a problem sometimes it pays to grab a flashlight pop the hood and look around carefully. Depending on where they put the compressor it could have been a very obvious fail. (I'm someone who has had a stuck compressor and watched/heard the belt slip on it.)

Not familiar with those cars, but if the belt had not snapped yet the first time and if there was a cooling fan on a pully the compressor belt shared the stuck compressor could have stopped that pulley...

I'd imagine that with the compressor stuck there would have been a LOT of noise as it killed that belt...If you hear a problem sometimes it pays to grab a flashlight pop the hood and look around carefully. Depending on where they put the compressor it could have been a very obvious fail. (I'm someone who has had a stuck compressor and watched/heard the belt slip on it.)

I believe these cars used an electric cooling fan rather than one run from a serpentine belt. Not sure of the belt layout for the 3.5L V6, but just recalling what the mechanic told me several years ago. Don't remember hearing any odd noises from the engine before the first overheating incident, but I was known for playing the (very nice) head unit in that car a tad loudly, soooooooooo.......... :stupid:
-Adam

I'm trying to remember something that happened around 50 years ago, but I'm positive it was a Mercury. I drove the owner to the used car lot to pick it up. The owner told me the circumstances of the trans failure. I wasn't there.

When I was a kid I rode in a car with my father and this mechanic he knew. I thought it was a Pontiac but it my have been a Mercury; late 50's/early 60's regardless, and I remember it has a lever on the dash for the transmission. I've also seen a dash lever on early/mid-60's Dodge pickups.

Yeah the 3.3L has a few common problems, but nothing that can't be fixed. Very hardy little motors. There's a story on allpar about some engineers getting excited to have a new modern engine (the 3.3), and then being disheartened when they found it had pushrods. lol It's probably one of its strengths, though. No timing belt, less parts, more reliable.
Some of the engineers had a bit more imagination, regarding new designs. Why mess with a design that's stood the test of time.
The 3.3 evolved into the 3.8 and possibly the 4.0.
My next-door neighbor bought a used Chrysler Pacifica with a 4.0. I said, if that's the engine I think it is, it'll be around for a long time.:thmbsp:

I asked on the Allpar forum about whether or not the missing amplifier was the cause of the no-sound issue, and got conflicting responses.
Honestly, it depends on the head unit. There were about 10 different styles, some required the amp, some did not, and some that did not were paired with an amp anyway, and then some others were meant to work with the early Imperial's setup: one baby amp on each speaker.
I believe these cars used an electric cooling fan rather than one run from a serpentine belt. Not sure of the belt layout for the 3.5L V6
Both the 3.3 and 3.5 had a serpentine belt with auto tensioner, and a manually tensioned V belt for the AC only. On my car, I was constantly tightening the AC belt. But the AC always worked.

The 3.3 evolved into the 3.8 and possibly the 4.0.
My next-door neighbor bought a used Chrysler Pacifica with a 4.0. I said, if that's the engine I think it is, it'll be around for a long time.:thmbsp:
The 3.8 is legit just a bored 3.3 lol. Almost all parts are identical, aside from the block and pistons. Likewise the 4.0 is just an overgrown 3.5. :P On the bright side, the 3.5 had been around for almost 10 years by the time the 4.0 came out, I'm fairly certain they've worked out the kinks. Tell your neighbor to keep up on T belt maintenance, I'm sure it'll be fine.

I'm trying to remember something that happened around 50 years ago, but I'm positive it was a Mercury. I drove the owner to the used car lot to pick it up. The owner told me the circumstances of the trans failure. I wasn't there.
I figured it was a long time ago, hence my question. I wouldn't expect anyone's memory to be spot-on after all that time.
Those of us in that camp are or should be scared of Ladas. If you see a Lada odds are it is 30 seconds from an accident or about to have parts fall off.
I thought I might draw fire from merely mentioning Ladas on here, and there it is.

Cheap cars attract abusive owners, it's as simple as that. I'm sure I will be "corrected" on this.

Honestly, it depends on the head unit. There were about 10 different styles, some required the amp, some did not, and some that did not were paired with an amp anyway, and then some others were meant to work with the early Imperial's setup: one baby amp on each speaker.

Both the 3.3 and 3.5 had a serpentine belt with auto tensioner, and a manually tensioned V belt for the AC only. On my car, I was constantly tightening the AC belt. But the AC always worked.

The 3.8 is legit just a bored 3.3 lol. Almost all parts are identical, aside from the block and pistons. Likewise the 4.0 is just an overgrown 3.5. :P On the bright side, the 3.5 had been around for almost 10 years by the time the 4.0 came out, I'm fairly certain they've worked out the kinks. Tell your neighbor to keep up on T belt maintenance, I'm sure it'll be fine.
Is that 3.5 engine a Chrysler engine? They have a newer engine, a 3.6 used in some Jeeps.
Regarding AC, the AC in my 2000 Dodge Dakota will still freeze you out. Try that with a GM, or even a Ford. A lot of the GM's wouldn't hold a charge for a year and that's way into the 90's. :thumbsdn:

I figured it was a long time ago, hence my question. I wouldn't expect anyone's memory to be spot-on after all that time.

I thought I might draw fire from merely mentioning Ladas on here, and there it is.

Cheap cars attract abusive owners, it's as simple as that. I'm sure I will be "corrected" on this.

Not meant to be fire but comedy..... Guess my sense of humor needs work.

The AC in my 2003 Grand Marquis is still going strong, never been recharged. An '88 Cadillac I had about 10 years ago also had cold AC, bad transmission, but good AC.

Cheap cars attract abusive owners, it's as simple as that. I'm sure I will be "corrected" on this.
Not by me. I'm the guy who has to fix those cheap cars. I can absolutely assure you, you are correct.
Is that 3.5 engine a Chrysler engine? They have a newer engine, a 3.6 used in some Jeeps.
Yes, it's a legit Chrysler motor. Designed all in-house, pre-Mercedes buyout. Come to think of it... it might've been their last true in-house engine. The 3.6 is a late model engine, it's much more modern. Up to snuff with all the competitors. They come in a couple sizes, but they're called the Pentastar engines (in development, the Phoenix engines). They're not bad... but they are modern.

Not by me. I'm the guy who has to fix those cheap cars. I can absolutely assure you, you are correct.

Yes, it's a legit Chrysler motor. Designed all in-house, pre-Mercedes buyout. Come to think of it... it might've been their last true in-house engine. The 3.6 is a late model engine, it's much more modern. Up to snuff with all the competitors. They come in a couple sizes, but they're called the Pentastar engines (in development, the Phoenix engines). They're not bad... but they are modern.

Actually I think the disaster 2.7 is the last engine designed before the Mercedes takeover. Chrysler always had solid engines until they launched that pig.

Right before he passed away my father bought a brand new Ram pickup with the Pentastar V6. Amazing gas mileage for a full-size pickup, an honest 26mpg as I recall. As for the 2.7, well, when I was working as a service writer I had to give the bad news to way too many folks that their Mopar needed an engine. Most were abandoned or the customer hauled them in for scrap.

Actually I think the disaster 2.7 is the last engine designed before the Mercedes takeover. Chrysler always had solid engines until they launched that pig.

As for the 2.7, well, when I was working as a service writer I had to give the bad news to way too many folks that their Mopar needed an engine. Most were abandoned or the customer hauled them in for scrap.

Oh yeah. The 2.7 is a bit of a turd. Though to be totally fair, it was just really sensitive. I've seen a couple that weren't dogged, and got regular oil changes (and I mean religiously), and they were just peachy. I honestly wouldn't want one for myself though lol.

Agreed, the ones we saw in the shop were owned by the type of person who changes their oil if a) they happen to think about it while at Wal*Mart or b) the oil light comes on. They'll drive around for months with the "change oil soon" indicator on. Check their windshield & you'll find a faded sticker from Quickie Lube letting them know their next change should be by 78,345. Odometer now reads 102,998. In the back seat of their Sebring, buried under mounds of Big Mac wrappers, Twinkies boxes & empty 2 liter bottles of Diet Coke ("I'm diabetic, you know") you'll find a couple empty bottles of that sweet miracle elixir for automotive engines everywhere, Warren 30w non-detergent, ever flying off the shelf down at Dollar General.

If you ever get behind an Accord that blows blue smoke, you're following one of these car owners. The Honda engines somehow manage to survive longer under such misuse than those 2.7's. I do recall spending a lot of time learning all about one of the common failure items-it had something to do with the front of the engine & a rather complicated way that things fit together. We were trying to come up with a repair vs replace option for a good customer who was a truly nice lady but also the poster child for what I described above. Poor thing later got talked into buying a VW, as I recall. All I could do was shake my head.

Agreed, the ones we saw in the shop were owned by the type of person who changes their oil if a) they happen to think about it while at Wal*Mart or b) the oil light comes on. They'll drive around for months with the "change oil soon" indicator on. Check their windshield & you'll find a faded sticker from Quickie Lube letting them know their next change should be by 78,345. Odometer now reads 102,998. In the back seat of their Sebring, buried under mounds of Big Mac wrappers, Twinkies boxes & empty 2 liter bottles of Diet Coke ("I'm diabetic, you know") you'll find a couple empty bottles of that sweet miracle elixir for automotive engines everywhere, Warren 30w non-detergent, ever flying off the shelf down at Dollar General.

If you ever get behind an Accord that blows blue smoke, you're following one of these car owners. The Honda engines somehow manage to survive longer under such misuse than those 2.7's. I do recall spending a lot of time learning all about one of the common failure items-it had something to do with the front of the engine & a rather complicated way that things fit together. We were trying to come up with a repair vs replace option for a good customer who was a truly nice lady but also the poster child for what I described above. Poor thing later got talked into buying a VW, as I recall. All I could do was shake my head.

My late uncle had a hobby of collecting 1920's cars, knew how to treat cars/wasn't in the rolling fast food garbage can crowd, but I the 80's bought a new Honda and decided to drive it 100k without changing the oil....He never had a single problem with it, and sold it in good shape.

Most blue smoke Hondas I've seen either are rice rockets or poorly made wannbes....Or ancient clunkers that have easily north of 300k on the clock....One has to be doing some really harsh driving to get it smoking under 100k.

Agreed, the ones we saw in the shop were owned by the type of person who changes their oil if a) they happen to think about it while at Wal*Mart or b) the oil light comes on. They'll drive around for months with the "change oil soon" indicator on. Check their windshield & you'll find a faded sticker from Quickie Lube letting them know their next change should be by 78,345. Odometer now reads 102,998. In the back seat of their Sebring, buried under mounds of Big Mac wrappers, Twinkies boxes & empty 2 liter bottles of Diet Coke ("I'm diabetic, you know") you'll find a couple empty bottles of that sweet miracle elixir for automotive engines everywhere, Warren 30w non-detergent, ever flying off the shelf down at Dollar General.

LOL

I know exactly what you mean! Actually I just got a call from a friend-of-a-friend today. He's one of those people. He called me today and told me that he was "pulled over" for sleeping in his car, and he was probably drunk off his ass, so they impounded his car - not entirely sure why - and he asked me how to get his car out of the impound with expired plates on it. He was supposed to come in for emission repairs like 6 months ago (so he could renew his plate stickers). He's literally a hoarder though. Like us guys might have a house full of TVs and radios, and bits and bobs, but this guy literally hoards garbage. Like newspapers and magazines. His car is filled to the brim with just worthless papers and food wrappers. I mean FILLED. I mean the rear suspension is bottomed out under the weight.

The 2.7's just get sludged up easily, and it blocks the oil galleries, ceasing lubrication and destroying the motor. It's like cholesterol. I seen my share of them. Open the valve cover, and it's like somebody filled it with tar. I've seen a few like that after the engine was already blown, and a few that were still running ok, and either way had to give the customer the bad news and a good scolding.

LOL

I know exactly what you mean! Actually I just got a call from a friend-of-a-friend today. He's one of those people. He called me today and told me that he was "pulled over" for sleeping in his car, and he was probably drunk off his ass, so they impounded his car - not entirely sure why - and he asked me how to get his car out of the impound with expired plates on it. He was supposed to come in for emission repairs like 6 months ago (so he could renew his plate stickers). He's literally a hoarder though. Like us guys might have a house full of TVs and radios, and bits and bobs, but this guy literally hoards garbage. Like newspapers and magazines. His car is filled to the brim with just worthless papers and food wrappers. I mean FILLED. I mean the rear suspension is bottomed out under the weight.

The 2.7's just get sludged up easily, and it blocks the oil galleries, ceasing lubrication and destroying the motor. It's like cholesterol. I seen my share of them. Open the valve cover, and it's like somebody filled it with tar. I've seen a few like that after the engine was already blown, and a few that were still running ok, and either way had to give the customer the bad news and a good scolding.

Does Synthetic oil build up sludge?
The worst driving is short trip city driving, where the engine never gets up to temp. Slow traffic speeds and very little highway or expressway use.
When I lived in the city the oil looked like I never changed it after only 500 miles. Now, living out in God's country, I can look at the oil after 2000 miles and it still looks clean. I change my oil every 3500-4000 miles in my daily driver.

Does Synthetic oil build up sludge?

It's certainly less prone to it. But it's still basically the same amalgam of hydrocarbons as regular oil. So no matter what anyone might say, it's still a possibility. It's also important to remember that while synthetic oil can take a lot more beating before the molecules break down, it's simply the nature of the internal combustion engine to contaminate the oil. Whether you run synthetic or not, it gets dirty at the same rate.

Also stop and go driving is bad for the oil, and everything in general, because there's a lot of engine under load (accelerating). Rural driving has a lot more cruising, which really doesn't put stress on much of anything.

I looked at a car today that just had me shaking my head. 2017 model (I won't name names but, while not cream of the crop, it should be good for over 200k like everything else these days.) 35k on the clock & the engine is toast. How? Last oil change was at 16k. No warranty for you, my friend!

35k on the clock & the engine is toast. How? Last oil change was at 16k. No warranty for you, my friend!

No kidding. Newer cars are increasingly sensitive to bad oil. Firstly, most new cars run very thin 0W20 oil, which naturally gets even thinner after it's been used a bit, and it has to be that thin for efficiency (to meet EPA shit) and also to run oil based things like cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing. But sadly, 0W20 is kind of pushing the envelope of how thin you can have your engine oil.

All I can say is, if you buy a newer car, change that oil religiously.

My mom's ~2011 CR-V has had problems where it would not want to start unless floored (as the tow truck driver showed us) when the oil was close to needing a change and it had not been driven for 3+ days...That and the Takada death bags took them down a few rungs in her mind.

My mom's ~2011 CR-V has had problems where it would not want to start unless floored (as the tow truck driver showed us) when the oil was close to needing a change and it had not been driven for 3+ days...That and the Takada death bags took them down a few rungs in her mind.
Maybe it's time to step up to a Mopar!

I looked at a car today that just had me shaking my head. 2017 model (I won't name names but, while not cream of the crop, it should be good for over 200k like everything else these days.) 35k on the clock & the engine is toast. How? Last oil change was at 16k. No warranty for you, my friend!
One of my neighbors at the workshop had a 2009 Kia Rio. For an el-cheapo it ran well and he always changed to oil with Amsoil and used their filter. At 60K miles he had the timing belt changed to maintain the 100K warrantee.
At a little over 120K the timing belt snapped and trashed the engine. It was kind of one of those round-to-its.
Had a salvage yard engine installed and that one spun a bearing a month later. The car got junked! The replacement engine probably wasn't maintained very well. :thumbsdn:

I was at a Kia dealer service department one day last year & the mechanic (who looked about 18 y.o.) was showing me an engine he was replacing on a late model. The oil hadn't been changed. He took me out back & there was a long row of trashed engines lined up along the wall. Later I visited a Hyundai dealer and, indeed, along the back of the building was a long row of trashed engines. I am very certain that the cause was not that of the typical Kia/Hyundai engine but of the typical Kia/Hyundai owner!

At a little over 120K the timing belt snapped and trashed the engine. It was kind of one of those round-to-its.
Had a salvage yard engine installed and that one spun a bearing a month later. The car got junked! The replacement engine probably wasn't maintained very well. :thumbsdn:

That's a shame. He'd've been way better off just doing the head and valves on his engine. At least he knew what he was gonna get, opposed to a junk yard engine with "40k miles on it." Lying junk yarders. The number they claim is ALWAYS 40k!

I am very certain that the cause was not that of the typical Kia/Hyundai engine but of the typical Kia/Hyundai owner!

Damn right. I've rarely seen much in the way of mechanical issues with Kia/Hyundai.

That's a shame. He'd've been way better off just doing the head and valves on his engine. At least he knew what he was gonna get, opposed to a junk yard engine with "40k miles on it." Lying junk yarders. The number they claim is ALWAYS 40k!



Damn right. I've rarely seen much in the way of mechanical issues with Kia/Hyundai.
With an interference engine, isn't there more damage to the engine than the just the head and valves? Possible damage to the piston faces or block.
BTW, salvage yard reported 88K miles on the engine. :scratch2:

With an interference engine, isn't there more damage to the engine than the just the head and valves? Possible damage to the piston faces or block.

In my experience, VERY rarely. Most typically, two or so cylinder's valves just get bent aside (effectively making them stuck open), and maybe put a tiny ding on the top of the corresponding pistons. I think I may have seen one engine that had a hole poked in the piston, out of the countless broken timing belts I've seen. Long story short, if it's a fight between a piston and a valve, the piston wins.

In my experience, VERY rarely. Most typically, two or so cylinder's valves just get bent aside (effectively making them stuck open), and maybe put a tiny ding on the top of the corresponding pistons. I think I may have seen one engine that had a hole poked in the piston, out of the countless broken timing belts I've seen. Long story short, if it's a fight between a piston and a valve, the piston wins.
I saw the former Kia owner Sunday, but forgot to ask him if he pulled the head to see how much damage was done to the original engine.
He pretty well knows his way around cars, but this winter seemed so long and cold, so who could blame him. :thumbsdn:

In my experience, VERY rarely. Most typically, two or so cylinder's valves just get bent aside (effectively making them stuck open), and maybe put a tiny ding on the top of the corresponding pistons. I think I may have seen one engine that had a hole poked in the piston, out of the countless broken timing belts I've seen. Long story short, if it's a fight between a piston and a valve, the piston wins.

Hmm, I've seen cars written off (by their owners) for this, when there was plenty of value left in the rest of the car. Maybe a good way to get a cheap car, if there's a little luck involved!

I guess it's becoming less relevant, with the industry moving away from timing belts. The main problem is how darn annoying front wheel drive cars are to work on.. I had the timing belt off in my RWD pickup in a few hours.

Hmm, I've seen cars written off (by their owners) for this, when there was plenty of value left in the rest of the car. Maybe a good way to get a cheap car, if there's a little luck involved!
You might get lucky sometimes. I've been the own who's written off a lot of those cars. It's still a big expensive job, the head being at the machinist's is about $400 by itself, then all the R&R at a decent shop is another $600-$1000. So yeah, depends on the car's value.
I guess it's becoming less relevant, with the industry moving away from timing belts. The main problem is how darn annoying front wheel drive cars are to work on.. I had the timing belt off in my RWD pickup in a few hours.
Oh yes... much less relevant. Now more cars are using timing chains... riding on plastic guides that become brittle in the heat and oil of an engine by 100k miles and break and destroy the valves just like a broken timing belt. I've already dealt with several of those. In general, they're much more labor intensive. You're honestly better off with a rubber belt. You'll have to do the maintenance either way, and a belt is typically easier. I suppose the one advantage a chain design has is the absence of camshaft oil seals.

On occasion I've been able to do a chain job preventatively. It's hard to catch though, because it's not as easy as just peeking behind a plastic cover to look at the condition of a belt. :/ It's also not a 'recommended' maintenance, nor is it something the ordinary motorist (or indeed, mechanic) would even consider to be a maintenance item.

Oh yes... much less relevant. Now more cars are using timing chains... riding on plastic guides that become brittle in the heat and oil of an engine by 100k miles and break and destroy the valves just like a broken timing belt. I've already dealt with several of those. In general, they're much more labor intensive. You're honestly better off with a rubber belt. You'll have to do the maintenance either way, and a belt is typically easier. I suppose the one advantage a chain design has is the absence of camshaft oil seals.

On occasion I've been able to do a chain job preventatively. It's hard to catch though, because it's not as easy as just peeking behind a plastic cover to look at the condition of a belt. :/ It's also not a 'recommended' maintenance, nor is it something the ordinary motorist (or indeed, mechanic) would even consider to be a maintenance item.

:thmbsp:

Thats my "case" for timing belts, at least for OHC applications. as for front wheel drive, that's why I'm in a Miata right now. the timing belt shouldn't be too hard on that one, it was replaced at 80k, and isn't due until 160K.......unless the water pump craps out.

the timing belt shouldn't be too hard on that one, it was replaced at 80k, and isn't due until 160K.......unless the water pump craps out.

Oh it shouldn't be too bad. But I would do it at 140k or earlier. In fact, most manufacturers recommend a shorter interval after the first belt. It's typical for it to say at 120k then every 60k afterwards, for example.

Mopar typically recommends a timing belt change every 90k or ten years. The average 3.5L will need five timing belt changes during it's lifetime, if you take care of it. Of course I should also mention that it may need seven tranny changes, depending on the model year. UltraDrive could be a real stinker, especially if you used the wrong fluid.

Mopar typically recommends a timing belt change every 90k or ten years. The average 3.5L will need five timing belt changes during it's lifetime, if you take care of it. Of course I should also mention that it may need seven tranny changes, depending on the model year. UltraDrive could be a real stinker, especially if you used the wrong fluid.

I suspect a lot of people were sold transmissions that only needed a sensor or solenoid pack too.

Yeah, the Ultradrive aka A604 is actually a really solid little transmission. They don't even make Dexron 2 anymore, so you'd have to be a special level of incompetent to screw it up these days. And sure they have their problems, but so does literally everything else.

:thmbsp:

Thats my "case" for timing belts, at least for OHC applications. as for front wheel drive, that's why I'm in a Miata right now. the timing belt shouldn't be too hard on that one, it was replaced at 80k, and isn't due until 160K.......unless the water pump craps out.

The Miata is a non-interferance engine, so if the belt does break, it won't be a total disaster.

You might get lucky sometimes. I've been the own who's written off a lot of those cars. It's still a big expensive job, the head being at the machinist's is about $400 by itself, then all the R&R at a decent shop is another $600-$1000. So yeah, depends on the car's value.

Oh yes... much less relevant. Now more cars are using timing chains... riding on plastic guides that become brittle in the heat and oil of an engine by 100k miles and break and destroy the valves just like a broken timing belt. I've already dealt with several of those. In general, they're much more labor intensive. You're honestly better off with a rubber belt. You'll have to do the maintenance either way, and a belt is typically easier. I suppose the one advantage a chain design has is the absence of camshaft oil seals.

On occasion I've been able to do a chain job preventatively. It's hard to catch though, because it's not as easy as just peeking behind a plastic cover to look at the condition of a belt. :/ It's also not a 'recommended' maintenance, nor is it something the ordinary motorist (or indeed, mechanic) would even consider to be a maintenance item.


Any brands/engines specifically prone to failure? I've seen plenty last a lot longer than 100k, miles, but if that failure prone it sounds like gambling.

Sounds like a reasonable case for pushrods, that style of engine lasted great, no fancy cam drive system..

Any brands/engines specifically prone to failure? I've seen plenty last a lot longer than 100k, miles, but if that failure prone it sounds like gambling.

Sounds like a reasonable case for pushrods, that style of engine lasted great, no fancy cam drive system..

St

Has anyone mentioned the original timing chain fail when General Motors used nylon timing gears on their very-interfering small-block V8. Not to be outdone, they used the softened camshafts later in the 70's that rounded lobes by 60K miles.

Any brands/engines specifically prone to failure? I've seen plenty last a lot longer than 100k, miles, but if that failure prone it sounds like gambling.

Most are still a bit new for me to start pointing fingers. Of some of the older ones that I've personally seen... VW's 2.8 VR6 (doing one atm), Ford's 4.0 v6 (Explorers, mostly the older ones [enormous pain in the ass to do]), MINI's 1.8(?) (was able to catch that one early), GM's Ecotec 4 banger (saw one go at 60k, another at 100k [strangely I've only seen it in 2010+, design change, maybe?])... and that's all that's coming to mind atm.

Has anyone mentioned the original timing chain fail when General Motors used nylon timing gears on their very-interfering small-block V8. Not to be outdone, they used the softened camshafts later in the 70's that rounded lobes by 60K miles.

NICE!

Most are still a bit new for me to start pointing fingers. Of some of the older ones that I've personally seen... VW's 2.8 VR6 (doing one atm), Ford's 4.0 v6 (Explorers, mostly the older ones [enormous pain in the ass to do]), MINI's 1.8(?) (was able to catch that one early), GM's Ecotec 4 banger (saw one go at 60k, another at 100k [strangely I've only seen it in 2010+, design change, maybe?])... and that's all that's coming to mind atm.



NICE!
I had a 2001 Ford Explorer that had the 4.0 V6. When it was started from cold, the engine would rumble until the oil pressure came up, but only for a few seconds. It seemed to run alright, but I traded it at 120K when it need front end work and tires. I thought if I did the rest of the work and the engine failed, it was a big expense.
I traded it on my 2005 diesel Jeep Liberty which was totaled in Dec. 2009 in a freak accident. :sigh:

St

Has anyone mentioned the original timing chain fail when General Motors used nylon timing gears on their very-interfering small-block V8. Not to be outdone, they used the softened camshafts later in the 70's that rounded lobes by 60K miles.
I heard of a couple of owners that had major problems with their Garbage Motors engines with low miles on them and well cared for.
What did they do! Bought another GM product! Gluttons for Punishment! :D

I know of some very nice folks who somehow remain loyal to GM despite having owned a Trailblazer with a failing straight 6. I can't remember just now what fails on them but those vehicles had been pampered.

I've had good luck with GM, I'd buy another without giving it a second thought.

I know of some very nice folks who somehow remain loyal to GM despite having owned a Trailblazer with a failing straight 6. I can't remember just now what fails on them but those vehicles had been pampered.

Strange...My Envoy (GMC badged trailblazer) had about everything lousy except the engine, trans and airconditioning, and the previous owners CLEARLY treated it and repaired it like crap...

I know of some very nice folks who somehow remain loyal to GM despite having owned a Trailblazer with a failing straight 6. I can't remember just now what fails on them but those vehicles had been pampered.

That's unfortunate. I've rarely seen any problems with those weird straight sixes (barring the occasional hoopdie). It's usually literally everything else on those cars, besides the engine itself. Maybe it's just something simple, like the ignition coils, or something. I've changed so many of those. (It's just popping in my head that it might be a dirty throttle plate. Like most electronic throttle cars, it's SUPER sensitive to that.)

And then hummer wanted to use the straight six in the h3 (I think?) but it was too big for them (too big for a hummer? lol) so they chopped off one cylinder. lol

The Trailblazer straight six is a helluva lot better than that 4.3 v6 vortec piece of ass. God I hate those so much.

I hate GM with a burning passion, but their engines are usually ok. It's the rest of the package that kills them. DexCool antifreeze that turn into concrete, plastic timing belt idlers that don't like engine heat, transmissions that puke their guts out, and electrical systems that make Lucas look good. Do you know why they used to say "this isn't your fathers Oldsmobile"? Because it wasn't on fire.

That's unfortunate. I've rarely seen any problems with those weird straight sixes (barring the occasional hoopdie). It's usually literally everything else on those cars, besides the engine itself. Maybe it's just something simple, like the ignition coils, or something. I've changed so many of those. (It's just popping in my head that it might be a dirty throttle plate. Like most electronic throttle cars, it's SUPER sensitive to that.)

And then hummer wanted to use the straight six in the h3 (I think?) but it was too big for them (too big for a hummer? lol) so they chopped off one cylinder. lol

The Trailblazer straight six is a helluva lot better than that 4.3 v6 vortec piece of ass. God I hate those so much.
I thought the Hummer had a Diesel engine. Maybe, just the real big ones do.
Another one not on my list of wants.
Seeing as I don't follow GM at all, but I never knew Chevy built an inline six that late.

I thought the Hummer had a Diesel engine. Maybe, just the real big ones do.
Another one not on my list of wants.
Seeing as I don't follow GM at all, but I never knew Chevy built an inline six that late.

It was certainly strange. idk what possessed them to do such a thing. iirc, they borrowed a lot from their Opel division for that motor, but I don't think the actual motor is from them, because it's a big hulking mass that's really only suited for an suv. Anyone familiar with contemporary GMs will know that the straight six is an oddball. It's just... different from GM's usual fare.

The actual HMMV hummer has a diesel. The H2 is a giant box on top of a Chevy Tahoe frame, and the H3 is a pansy excuse for an suv with a straight 5 gas engine.

Huh. I thought the 43 vortecs where alright.

I've got a c3500 box truck at work with a 454 vortec with over 200k on the clock and I can't seem to kill it, the power steering pump is on its way out though....

Ok, I had to research the Trailblazer engine problem-turns out it was limited to some '02 models and had to do with failing cylinder sleeves. I was thinking it was an ongoing problem but apparently they nipped it in the bud. I had one friend who had bought a used TB from his uncle, a used car dealer, and a year later the engine had to be rebuilt at the GM dealer. Not many miles on it as I recall. Shortly thereafter a pastor I know, who couldn't afford to have any problems, mentioned he was having engine trouble with his TB. I was saddened to here it because I'm such a fan of straight sixes. An advantage of that series of engines was that they could share parts with a 4 & 5 cylinder as used in the Colorado/Canyon/H3.

Huh. I thought the 43 vortecs where alright.

I've got a c3500 box truck at work with a 454 vortec with over 200k on the clock and I can't seem to kill it, the power steering pump is on its way out though....

Well, the 454 is completely different. And to be fair the actual 4.3 motor is ok. The older ones were certainly decent. But the ones with spider injection are just crap. I've never seen one running right, they always have some kind of problem. You can throw everything you have at one, and it just won't be right.

Some vehicles just seem to be hexed. No matter how well they are cared for, or how much money you spend on them, they are never right. That being said, Mopar or no car. If you GM fans are ever in Arizona and need a tow, my Chrysler is always ready to pull your ass out of trouble.

The only American cars I like are old Chrysler's. My first GM had factory rust, poor fit and finish, bad brake disks and a poor carburetor. My Dad bought an Olds with a V8 with a THM 200 transmission. I bought a used Buick with bad truck rot. I had a Ford with the 3.8 V6 blow an exhaust head gasket. My first Plymouth was a 318 with a torqueflite tranny. Nothing could kill that car! I got 20MPG. NO MORE AMERICAN JUNQUE!!!

My Dad bought an Olds with a V8 with a THM 200 transmission.

lol I like how with the other cars, you state the problem, but with this one it's simply implied. The 200 transmission was a turd. I've rebuilt a couple, probably my last as you don't see them anymore. The only real good thing about the 200 is that it's so tiny that it's a cake walk to R&R one of them.

Some vehicles just seem to be hexed. No matter how well they are cared for, or how much money you spend on them, they are never right. That being said, Mopar or no car. If you GM fans are ever in Arizona and need a tow, my Chrysler is always ready to pull your ass out of trouble.
Someone, on this website or another mentioned that you seldom see a Toyota on a flatbed or a tow truck.
That's a rather broad statement, as I see all makes of cars being pulled.
In 54 years of owning a car, I only had to be towed 3 times and one was the only GM car I ever owned.

I always thought it was kind of funny how people have such strong opinions on car brands. I have always leaned heavily towards Lincoln and Ford, because I have had good luck with them and never any big problems. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy GM because of having bad luck with 2 different Cadillac's, but I did have a Buick that was a good car. My dad had a Dodge truck that was great, but one of my employees has a 4 year old Chrysler 200 that is a complete piece of trash. In the end, you can get a lemon with any brand (even though certain manufacturers seem to have more than their fair share of lemons).

As an old friend of mine who was in the used car business all his life always said "It doesn't matter if its a house or a car....things are gonna tear up and you're gonna have to spend money on it".

There are things Detroit knows how to build and things they don't, there are also places where one brand or another has a weird weak point...Knowing what to get and avoid is important. I like buying used because you can look at the track records of heaviest used examples and know what issues are likely ahead on the low miles example your going to buy.

I always thought it was kind of funny how people have such strong opinions on car brands. I have always leaned heavily towards Lincoln and Ford, because I have had good luck with them and never any big problems. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy GM because of having bad luck with 2 different Cadillac's, but I did have a Buick that was a good car. My dad had a Dodge truck that was great, but one of my employees has a 4 year old Chrysler 200 that is a complete piece of trash. In the end, you can get a lemon with any brand (even though certain manufacturers seem to have more than their fair share of lemons).

As an old friend of mine who was in the used car business all his life always said "It doesn't matter if its a house or a car....things are gonna tear up and you're gonna have to spend money on it".
There's a similar quote on those lines, "If it has t*ts or wheels, it's going to cost you money". :D

We all love what we love. My car could be on fire, and it's still better than yours.