 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / October 2004The Last Really Good Chrysler Product
My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as souvenirs. Yes, he's a peckerwood. I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the sh.tter and dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on brand new electroshitboxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints. But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because there is yet to be anything after it. Oh, and IMHO it's the first good one in a long time. Richard > My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's > never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? >I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product > is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little >> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976). > The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976). Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. Some '73s were passable, but the build and materials quality went steeply downhill from there. By the last year ('76) they were shoddily built out of cheap materials -- and that's without even factoring in the poor fuel economy, poor performance and poor driveability wrought by the stone-age emission controls. No, the '60-'72 A-bodies were first-rate cars, but the later ones just didn't measure up. The '89-'95 AA-bodies, on the other hand, came extremely close to the standard set by the up-to-'72 A-bodies in terms of ruggedness, dependability and driveability. DS >>The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976). > > Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. IMO, the A-body and B-body were both perfectly acceptable right through their end of production in '76 and '78, respectively. The F, M, and J-bodies that replaced them, and were phased in along side them, lent their crappy reputation to the older A- and B- body models that really didn't deserve it. Yeah, QC had slipped across the whole line by '77, but the A- and B- bodies (and even to an extent the R-body, which was merely a stretched B-body) didn't suffer nearly as badly as the newer and allegedly "better" replacements that were coming out and breaking records for warranty claims. The tightest, quietest, and most solid-feeling A-bodies I've ever driven were both '74 Darts. Just my personal view on it. > > Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. > > IMO, the A-body and B-body [was] perfectly acceptable right through > their end of production in '76 Sure, but the question wasn't "perfectly acceptable", it was "really good". >>>Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sure, but the question wasn't "perfectly acceptable", it was "really > good". The B-bodies were always "really good." A 73 was better than a 77, and a 69 was better than a '73, but even a '78 B-body was better than any GM A-body, which was its nominal competition. | > The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976). | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | DS The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen 1974 "slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over 200K miles..a few into 300k with surprisingly few problems. Then they bought Aspens...they fell apart before reaching 60K...literally...things actually fell off of them!!! So, I partly agree with Daniel, I think the A-body was very good past 1972...at least the ones I'm familiar with. > The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen > 1974 "slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over > 200K miles..a few into 300k with surprisingly few problems. Right, James, but you and I have been through this before, and as I recall, you have no experience with the pre-'72 A-bodies for context/comparison. | > The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen | > 1974 "slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | recall, you have no experience with the pre-'72 A-bodies for | context/comparison. True...hard to believe that they could be much better. But, I'll take your word for it. The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 a gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking up oil at a 30%+ per year growth rate with supply channels already at full production. So, most of them will be left parked in the driveway along with the SUVs. Too expensive to drive and no one will want them (so no one will buy them off of you). They may be good...(yet to be seen), but part of being good is that it fits the times. I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole...it has "loosing your shirt" written all over it! |I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product | is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little | > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? >The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 >a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >"loosing your shirt" written all over it! I guess that is why you are you and the rest of us are glad we aren't. | >The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 | >a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | I guess that is why you are you and the rest of us are glad we aren't. See you in retirement. Oh, wait, old 300C owners from decades back will be retired and living in their car by then. (I know, that a little of a overstatement...maybe) ;-) However, I lived and drove through both the 70's oil crisis (73 and 79)...waited in 2-3+ hour gas lines, etc. many times. It reinforced the lesson I already knew watching others. I even knew better back then (not being much older than a kid at the time)...people with gas guzzlers lost a LOT of money. They were basically stuck with BIG cars they could no longer afford to drive and couldn't sell because no one else wanted them either. It's coming again...the signs are there plain as day (no matter if Kerry or Bush are elected). The news just today, inventories of distillates (gasoline, fuel oil, diesel) are well below projected need for the winter with production capacity still below consumption rates (so inventories will get even worse!) But, hey, knock yourself out. The only part that actually makes me angry is that I may have to wait in gas lines just because people buy these unnecessary fuel wasting vehicles. But I am partly consoled to know that they will be in line with me. > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:41:28 -0400 > From: James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is that it fits the times. I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole...it has > "loosing your shirt" written all over it! Put me down as being one of the first in line to buy a used, V8-equipped LX at a fire sale price! I can't wait!!!! --Geoff | > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:41:28 -0400 | > From: James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | | --Geoff 3-4 years. It will fly by quickly. You'll have plenty of choices too. History repeats itself from time-to-time, so have faith and hang on! :-) > The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 a > gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is that it fits the times. I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole...it has > "loosing your shirt" written all over it! Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? | > The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 a | > gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? I did live through the 60's and 70's...let me see if I have some left! ;-) > > The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 a > > gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25% of the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of our standard of living, where's the extra energy going to come from? Anybody got any ideas? China's economy is growing at about 10% a year or so. | > > The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to | $5.00 a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | of living, where's the extra energy going to come from? Anybody got any | ideas? China's economy is growing at about 10% a year or so. Thus the reason we, as a people, will always repeat history. We simply refuse to learn from it...then cry the blues when it does happen (why didn't the President do something?) when it's all our own fault. Oh well...hang on. Glad my commute is only 4-miles and I have a telecommute option. I can go over a month on a tank of gas if I absolutely must. Now the fuel oil to heat my house is a bigger problem!! :-( > Thus the reason we, as a people, will always repeat history. We simply refuse > to learn from it...then cry the blues when it does happen (why didn't the > President do something?) when it's all our own fault. Oh well...hang on. Glad > my commute is only 4-miles and I have a telecommute option. I can go over a > month on a tank of gas if I absolutely must. Now the fuel oil to heat my house > is a bigger problem!! :-( Not to worry - help is on the way. If JK gets elected, all he'll have to do is say to Saudi Arabia "Hey guys - could you lower the prices a little?", and they'd say "Oh - ummm - OK!". Problem solved. 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') Yeah like Bush solved any problems in the last 3.5 years. Give us all a break. The guy is one catastrophe after another. >> Thus the reason we, as a people, will always repeat history. We simply >> refuse to learn from it...then cry the blues when it does happen (why [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >>>Thus the reason we, as a people, will always repeat history. We simply >>>refuse to learn from it...then cry the blues when it does happen (why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>do is say to Saudi Arabia "Hey guys - could you lower the prices a >>little?", and they'd say "Oh - ummm - OK!". Problem solved. 8^) > Yeah like Bush solved any problems in the last 3.5 years. Give us all a > break. The guy is one catastrophe after another. Oh yes - I know, Art, how in a parallel universe in which the PoTUS was Gore or Kerry for the last 4 years the Islamists are all just peace and love, 9/11 never happened, flu shots are abounding, women still can't vote in Afghanistan, Afghanistan no longer produces poppies as the raw materials for it's biggest export, Kofi Anan's son stopped making under-the-table deals with France and Germany in the Oil for Food program which was their motivation for blocking the taking out of Sadam, Sadam quit offering and paying suicide bomber/murderers' families for their loving acts against innocents, the DNC recalled it's policy of routing out voter fraud wherever they could find it and, where it didn't exist, to plant the idea that it did anyway in the minds of the public, everyone is covered by free cradle-to-grave health insurance while taxes have dropped to their lowest levels ever and the national debt has been wiped out, industry is being punished by disincentives to keep production in the U.S. yet they are magically doubling the size of all their U.S. production facilities every year, genocide was prevented by the UN in Sudan, U.S. unemployment figures match the double-digit numbers of France and Germany, and Al Franken and James Carville both have viable radio talk shows. I just can't wait for the Kerry Utopian society in which we need to pass the Global Approval Test before we take appropriate action in light of the Oil for Food stuff and absolute appalling UN inaction in Sudan (I guess they're waiting once again for the U.S. to go in and try to fix it so we get the blame for any and all problems and the other countries can continue to profit from the situation). Yes - we want a guy as President who met with the Viet Cong in Paris while the war was still going on - Yeah - that's my man for President! What a joke. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') | Oh yes - I know, Art, how in a parallel universe in which the PoTUS was | Gore or Kerry for the last 4 years the Islamists are all just peace and [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my | adddress with the letter 'x') Well stated... > Well stated... And you had to repost all of it for your stupid "me too" when you could have just said, "Moo." | > Well stated... | | And you had to repost all of it for your stupid "me too" when you could | have just said, "Moo." Cite where I said "me too". Oink! > | Oh yes - I know, Art, how in a parallel universe in which the PoTUS was > | Gore or Kerry for the last 4 years the Islamists are all just peace and [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Well stated... Thanks, James. I forgot to mention that in Art's parallel universe, Christopher Reeve is still dead (in spite of the ignorance and dishonesty of Ron Regan, Jr. and Reeve's widow's in the disinformation campaign on the subject and the Dem's employment of them as useful idiots - sorry - there's no other term for what they are doing), and Libya still maintains an arsenal of WMD's. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') | > | Oh yes - I know, Art, how in a parallel universe in which the PoTUS was | > | Gore or Kerry for the last 4 years the Islamists are all just peace and [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] | (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my | adddress with the letter 'x') I thought Christopher Reeve was walking in his universe. > | I forgot to mention that in Art's parallel universe, Christopher Reeve > | is still dead (in spite of the ignorance and dishonesty of Ron Regan, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I thought Christopher Reeve was walking in his universe. Nope - because there would be no solution from embryonic stem cell research - Reeve himself acknowledged that. People are free to do research with it if they wish to - it isn't forbidden like the Dems are trying to make it sound. If the Dems are really convinced that there would be benefit in the research and are genuinely concerned with helping people (yeah, right!), looks like Soros and Heinz-Kerry could pool a small fraction of their money for that (even though it would be a big waste of money over what is being accomplished from adult stem cell research). But, as we all know, the important thing isn't that people are genuinely helped. What's important is that people are used and confused. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') Funny Bill, but in reality Bush has had only one successful policy in his first (and most likely last term). It was the "Do Not Call" list. I suspect he will go down in history as the Do Not Call President. >>>>Thus the reason we, as a people, will always repeat history. We simply >>>>refuse to learn from it...then cry the blues when it does happen (why [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Gee. I never knew they made a first ! > Yeah like Bush solved any problems in the last 3.5 years. Give us all a > break. The guy is one catastrophe after another. Just wait. If Kerry gets elected and follows through on his promise to raise taxes on business owners, just WATCH how fast the economy hits the tanks. The miniscule reduction in the deficit (independent studies say Kerry's plan will hit a 1.27 T, Bush's 1.33T- a vanishingly small difference) will be nothing compared to the lost jobs and loss of revenue stream flowing through the economy. > He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25% of > the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of our > standard of living, where's the extra energy going to come from? Anybody > got any ideas? China's economy is growing at about 10% a year or so. And the worst part is, it doesn't have to be this way. We could simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preserve and multiply American jobs and greatly retard the increase of oil prices. All we'd have to do is quit buying from China. > > He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25% of > > the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of our [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > All we'd have to do is quit buying from China. And have to give up $39 DVD players, $99 DVD/VCRs, and $230 27" TV/DVD/VCR units? Not to mention all those fine tools and car parts we would miss out on. Never happen. | > He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25% of | > the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of our [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | All we'd have to do is quit buying from China. People like their cheap products...so your solution isn't really viable. Even if we could get people in the USA to "buy-in" to that solution, you won't get the rest of the world to. Actually Bush's energy plan had a very well balanced approach of tax incentives for development of alternative and renewable fuels for the long term as well as improving the supply of domestic energy to deal with the shorter term issues (that have only gotten worse since). However, the democrats zeroed in on the small piece they didn't like (the domestic supply piece) so it never saw the light of day in Congress. We'd be in a little better spot now (both in the short term and working on the long term) if it had been passed. At one time the plan was available as a PDF file on the Whitehouse site...I read it. It was a very good well-rounded and comprehensive plan that had something in it for everyone. Hydrogen vehicle research/development tax breaks? Yep! Solar, wind and geothermal energy tax incentives? Yep! Drilling in Alaska? Yep! Oh wait...that last issue killed the whole thing! Sad, ain't it? >>> He's telling you the truth. We have 3% of the population and use 25% >>> of the energy. If only India and China come up to 1/10 (one-tenth) of >>> our standard of living, where's the extra energy going to come from? >>> Anybody got any ideas? China's economy is growing at about 10% a year >>> or so. >> And the worst part is, it doesn't have to be this way. We could >> simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preserve and multiply >> American jobs and greatly retard the increase of oil prices. All we'd >> have to do is quit buying from China. > People like their cheap products...so your solution isn't really viable. One doesn't follow from the other. What people like or dislike doesn't affect the viability of the solution, just its conceptual popularity. People are stupidly shortsighted; what else is new? > Even if we could get people in the USA to "buy-in" to that solution, you > won't get the rest of the world to. Wouldn't need to; the US is China's biggest export market. > Actually Bush's energy plan had a very well balanced approach of ...of cutting down old-growth and cutting down new-growth and warring for oil and burning rocks^h^h^h^h^hdirt^h^h^h^hcoal, yes. > At one time the plan was available as a PDF file on the Whitehouse site...I > read it. I'd have to remain very skeptical that Mr. Bush would come up with a very well balanced approach to energy policy unless I read the primary document. Still got the PDF? (BTW, why have you got your newsreader set to use the | character rather than the > character for quoted text? The > character is the standard, and many newsreaders don't handle | well.) > My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's > never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? IMHO the A-body, but I have a feeling that's not the answer he gave you. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's > never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? My 89 Acclaim was the best one I've ever owned. My 96 minivan isn't bad, still running reasonably well at 158,000 miles, however, it has required at least one trip a year to the dealer for something significant - a couple or three recalls, clockspring, electrical problems, etc. The Acclaim had only one significant problem in 143,000 miles and that was a cracked torque convertor flex plate. Matt I had a 68 Dodge Sportsman Window Van when I was in high school. It had the 225 slant six and the odometer broke on it when it turned over for the second time. It was 12 years old when I got it 1n 1980, my first "car", and I drove it for 8 years after that. I gave it to a friend in 88 and he got a couple more years out of it at least. Who knows how many miles it had when it went to the boneyard but I'll bet 300,000+. It was a great first car and built like a tank. You couldn't dent it easily like the tin cans of today. With your kind of language, Teddy, I wouldn't let you near my 99 Intrepid ES which I consider to be one of the best cars I've ever owned (so far). > My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's > never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995. My old 89 Spirit turbo Base. Smoked alot of my pals with that sleeper! Lasted until Last year! Gave it to my parents ( my father never believed in changing oil) Used to go visit everyyear and change it for him. It finally bit the dust last year with the fried tranny. Only problem in 280,00 km's was the oil seal to the turbo blew. Leaked oil, Then the tranny. Damn, I wish I kept it. | > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good | > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little | > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? | | The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995. If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the road now. I don't see them very often. The old A bodies you saw frequently on the road well into the 80's. > | The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995. > > If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the > road now. I don't see them very often. I see lots of them, and I'm right in the salt belt (Toronto). Perhaps they didn't sell well wherever you are. | > | The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995. | > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | I see lots of them, and I'm right in the salt belt (Toronto). Perhaps they | didn't sell well wherever you are. Could be. Plus, for whatever reason, this marked has become very bad for older used vehicles. It's possible that those that get put back into the resale market get shipped elsewhere where they will sell better. > | > | The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995. > | > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > used vehicles. It's possible that those that get put back into the resale > market get shipped elsewhere where they will sell better. I think they get shipped here. >>> If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the >>> road now. I don't see them very often. >> I see lots of them, and I'm right in the salt belt (Toronto). Perhaps >> they didn't sell well wherever you are. > Could be. Plus, for whatever reason, this marked has become very bad > for older used vehicles. It's possible that those that get put back > into the resale market get shipped elsewhere where they will sell > better. I noticed that when I lived in Michigan -- it was damn near impossible to find a good, inexpensive used car. You could find good *or* inexpensive used cars, but NOT both at the same time. The dynamics of the used-car market are highly variable region-to-region. DS > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:45:03 -0400 > From: James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't see them very often. The old A bodies you saw frequently on the road > well into the 80's. You can't swing the dipstick from a dead Chevy without whacking into an AA-body, even here in rust-ravaged Detroit. ...and those cars are what, 9 years old at the newest? --Geoff > You can't swing the dipstick from a dead Chevy without whacking into an > AA-body, even here in rust-ravaged Detroit. ...and one of them in rust-ravaged Detroit used to be mine. It's a remarkably clean, unrusted silver '92 LeBaron sedan with big black European-spec mirrors, glass European-spec headlights, and round European-spec side turn blinkers just behind each front wheel. Bought it for $1200 with 125k miles on it, put on an exhaust system, shocks and struts and a set of brakes, and drove it 45,000 exceptionally dependable, economical and inexpensive miles before impulsively selling it for $2100. The new owner didn't know much about cars, but got 15k miles out of it before failing to tighten the radiator draincock after having loosened it. The coolant level dropped below the head and the engine cooked. When I heard about that, I did a search via the Secretary of State, figuring I might buy it back inexpensively, refurbish it and keep driving it (or at least snag the Euro-spec lights and mirrors out of whatever yard it wound up in). Nope, someone had already dropped in a used engine and sold it on -- its registration is current; it's still driving around, now probably working on its third hundred thousand miles. > | > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good > | > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't see them very often. The old A bodies you saw frequently on the road > well into the 80's. In the first place, I DO see a lot of them around. In the second place, they probably built about half as many AA-bodies as they did A-bodies over the years. And FWIW, I differ from Dan here in that I really never could stand any of the K-derivative cars. But they were incredibly durable in a cockroach-and-rat sort of way. At least the ones that didn't have the Mitsubishi 3.0. :-/ | > | > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good | > | > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | cockroach-and-rat sort of way. At least the ones that didn't have the | Mitsubishi 3.0. :-/ My mother in law is still driving a late 80's Aries. Of course she is in her 80's herself, so it fits. > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar? Everything except 1975-1992 has been "good", and there were a few good ones in there (trucks, some M-bodies). The LH cars, in both generations, have been very very good vehicles, and the JA-bodies aren't great but they aren't an embarassment. The first-generation Neon comes close to an embarassment, but was cheap enough to be excused. The jury's still out on the Daimler-fied Mopars, but the Magnum and 300 sure look promising. The 5.7 engine is a work of art (even the more technical auto magazines that actually dis-assemble engines and study them are giving the 5.7 great reviews). Its less certain to me whether the aluminum suspension parts or the un-necessarily complicated 6-speed Benz-based slushbox are any good. Now, if you could bolt an A-518 behind that hemi, then we'd really have something great! >... What was the last good Mopar? I'm sure this isn't his choice but I'll tell you what mine is. My 1984 Horizon 5-speed. Ran like gangbusters for 10 years of road-warrior commuter duty through Ontario winters. Never needed to be towed. Used very little gas and cost chicken feed to maintain. Paid off my mortgage. Needed fewer repairs than the Camries and Accords that my friends were driving at the same time, and even at the end when the body was rusting out it could blow the doors off cars with engines twice the size. Astonishing interior room to boot - helped several people move. I don't get insulted when I hear people say that Omni/Horizons were bad cars. I just smile. In the early 60's my Dad bought a 1956 Dodge from an old lady on the block for $100. It a a "Red Ram" engine, a really neat interior with push button automatic transmission, real vent windows on all for doors, a real oil pressure gauge, the most comfortable seats I've ever sat in with tons of room, and a pop up air vent that you moved a big chrome lever under the dash to activate. think it was white over green. A really fun car. A friend in high school was given a 68 Charger by his father. I drove in it once. The one thing that really stuck to me about that car was that it as "solid" stiff, body. no frills but it felt "strong" We had a 68 Coronet with a 318. That 318 went like a bat out of hell. It was just the right hp / weight ratio. Shame it was stolen and few months later. We had alot of Darts, 64, 70, 74 model years to name a few. The slant six engines and transmissions were solid but the bodies rotted away. but so did the Fords and GM products of the same time. > >... What was the last good Mopar? The Omnorizons were good cars for basic transport. My main beef with them vis-a-vis the VW Rabbit/Golf (early ones had Rabbit/Golf drivelines) was no diesel-unlike the VW, Ford Escort, and Shovette. I have heard it's possible, with a little fabrication, to swap a VW engine and trans in them and the little mini-pickup 024 with a VW TDi and five speed would be cool. But they would run longer than the owners wanted them to usually. The Slant 6, despite its three main bearing lower end, is a pleasant enough engine and it's a shame there never was a small enough, and rustproof enough, chassis for them to shine. With three sidedrafts and tube header exhaust they would be pretty swank. If memory serves they have a different bolt pattern than any Mopar V8 and to add to the misery unless they were sold with a manual there's no crank pilot hole, which is a pain in the a.s to have drilled out because it has to be done on a lathe rather than a crank grinder. The asymmmetrical XNR would make a great kit (hint,hint.) As I remember, the Nissan SD33 was sold by Chrysler as a "Chrysler Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover) and it had a standard Mopar bolt pattern. Was it that of a /6 or one of the V8's? These were sold as a Chrysler Industrial product and not put in cars but Tony Capana did a bunch of swaps. They suffered from lack of a 5 speed manual or a four speed Torqueflite but today that would be remediable. One of the old Valiants with the trunk lid reminiscent of a Westinghouse 45° washer would make a good host for one of these great engines,especially if someone could figure out how to get a pushbutton transmission controller to work with a four speed Torqueflite. > The Slant 6, despite its three main bearing lower end, ...FOUR main bearings located well above the pan rail, each of which the same size as those found in Chrysler's big-block V8s, and all of which support a forged steel crankshaft (on engines built between '60 and mid-'76; engines after mid-'76 have a nodular iron crank, which isn't as sexy but is plenty strong enough for all non-race purposes). There's no "despite" about it -- it was and is considerably more than adequate. > With three sidedrafts and tube header exhaust they would be pretty > swank. For certain definitions of "swank", sure, I guess. > If memory serves they have a different bolt pattern than any Mopar V8 True. > unless they were sold with a manual there's no crank pilot hole, False; it's there, just not fully finished out to accept a standard pilot bushing. There's a special pilot bushing that fits in such cranks. > The asymmmetrical XNR would make a great kit (hint,hint.) Agree! > As I remember, the Nissan SD33 was sold by Chrysler as a "Chrysler > Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover) > and it had a standard Mopar bolt pattern. Doubtful but possible. The factory installed a few of these turds into Dodge D100 pickups in '78-'79. > One of the old Valiants with the trunk lid reminiscent of a Westinghouse > 45 washer would make a good host for one of these great engines Such a swap would be very much akin to entering a church, climbing atop the altar, dropping trou and taking a dump. > especially if someone could figure out how to get a pushbutton > transmission controller to work with a four speed Torqueflite. Lower the dosage, guy. > ...FOUR main bearings located well above the pan rail, each of which the > same size as those found in Chrysler's big-block V8s, I stand corrected. and all of which > support a forged steel crankshaft (on engines built between '60 and > mid-'76; engines after mid-'76 have a nodular iron crank, which isn't as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > For certain definitions of "swank", sure, I guess. > > As I remember, the Nissan SD33 was sold by Chrysler as a "Chrysler > > Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Such a swap would be very much akin to entering a church, climbing atop > the altar, dropping trou and taking a dump. I believe you are errant. The Dodge _vans_ were briefly sold with Mits, not Nissan, engines. I don't know about the trucks. It would surprise me to learn they put Mitses in the vans and Nissans in the trucks-on second thought nothing Mopar did surprises me really. I will check this out. The SD Nissans are very tough, durable engines with reasonable torque and are simple to work on, and weight is about the same as a /6. Why you think that makes them "turds" is a mystery. I have seen ones (actually SD22s which are the four cylinder variant-same cylinder kits, valves, pushrods, et al) that have rolled 55,000 hours in ground support equipment using only raw Jet A for fuel and Aeroshell for oil. They were getting tough to start in the cold and a little smoky but they were probably superb cores-no cracks. I'm very fond of these powerplants. Those that were cared for at all well are still powering IH Scouts. They are not high horsepower and naturally aspirated ones will smoke a little sometimes. Power to weight isn't superb, but we weren't talking about flying one anyway. (If that were the criteria we'd all go Subaru, which has replaced tha aircooled VW and various Fords as the car engine most often seen hanging off firewalls at Oshkosh.) No one is flying any engine Mopar per se ever built, however the current production Mercedes diesel four is the core of the certificated Thielert TAE 125 aircraft engine package... >> ...FOUR main bearings located well above the pan rail, each of which the >> same size as those found in Chrysler's big-block V8s, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >production Mercedes diesel four is the core of the certificated >Thielert TAE 125 aircraft engine package... There was a plane built in 1936 with a plymouth flathead engine. This was a PRODUCTION plane. > > > As I remember, the Nissan SD33 was sold by Chrysler as a "Chrysler > > > Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I believe you are errant. I believe you meant "mistaken" or "incorrect", for "errant" makes no sense in this context. Whichever of the three you meant, I am not. > The Dodge _vans_ were briefly sold with Mits, not Nissan, engines. That's as may be, but the D100 was available with the Nissan diesel in '78-'79. I've got a contemporaneous Popular Mechanics with a road test of it, around here somewhere, and at one time was in regular contact with a former owner of such a truck. > The SD Nissans are very tough, durable engines with reasonable torque > and are simple to work on, and weight is about the same as a /6. Why > you think that makes them "turds" is a mystery. According to the road test (and the abovementioned former owner), the trucks took about 35 minutes to go from 0 to 60, once you got them started, which took considerable patience. Exhaust smoke was heavy. Horsepower was something ridiculous for a D100 -- I'd have to re-read the road test, but it was something like 72BHP; totally inadequate. > They are not high horsepower and naturally aspirated ones will smoke > a little sometimes. Power to weight isn't superb, but we weren't > talking about flying one anyway. Who the hell cares if you could get 22 mpg on the highway if you were doing it at 22 mph trying to lug a week's worth of groceries up a 1% grade? DS > According to the road test (and the abovementioned former owner), the > trucks took about 35 minutes to go from 0 to 60, once you got them [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > doing it at 22 mph trying to lug a week's worth of groceries up a 1% > grade? The turbo engines are a lot more suited to vehicle use than the naturally aspirated ones: they were idiots to use the NA version if that's what they did. And in any event, the /6 in full size pickups was an obstruction to traffic too, especially the three on the tree ones. The SD33 or any other 3.3 liter (200 cid) engine was a smaller engine than a fullsize truck should have if it is going to be used on the highway at all. (Keep in mind a lot of pickups and vans in the old days were sold to fleet buyers who never got out of town or up to highway speeds and if it was faster than a horse they were happy. People started buying pickups more for personal vehicles in the late 70s, but there was still a market segment totally unconcerned with speed.) > The turbo engines are a lot more suited to vehicle use than the > naturally aspirated ones: they were idiots to use the NA version if > that's what they did. The contemporary Ford diesel was naturally aspirated, and was actually quite successful throughout the 80s. Yes, it got 200% better when they finally hung a turbo on it, spurred by Dodge releasing the Cummins turbo diesel, but it was perfectly acceptable as it was. The Nissan diesel was not acceptable under any definition. > And in any event, the /6 in full size pickups > was an obstruction to traffic too, especially the three on the tree > ones. Uh... no. > According to the road test (and the abovementioned former owner), the > trucks took about 35 minutes to go from 0 to 60, once you got them > started, which took considerable patience. Exhaust smoke was heavy. > Horsepower was something ridiculous for a D100 -- I'd have to re-read the > road test, but it was something like 72BHP; totally inadequate. The road test I recall referred to "spewing unburned liquid diesel out the tailpipe for 5 minutes after a start on a cold morning," and that was assuming you could persuade it to start at all. Being able to say "well, at least it wasn't an Oldsmobile diesel" is damning with faint praise. >> According to the road test (and the abovementioned former owner), the >> trucks took about 35 minutes to go from 0 to 60, once you got them >> started, which took considerable patience. Exhaust smoke was heavy. >> Horsepower was something ridiculous for a D100 -- I'd have to re-read >> the road test, but it was something like 72BHP; totally inadequate. > The road test I recall referred to "spewing unburned liquid diesel out the > tailpipe for 5 minutes after a start on a cold morning," YES! I'd forgotten about that, but now you mention it, I remember laughing out loud and shaking my head when I read that. > > > Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover) > > > and it had a standard Mopar bolt pattern. One of the old Valiants > > > with the trunk lid reminiscent of a Westinghouse 45 washer would > > > make a good host for one of these great engines > > Such a swap would be very much akin to entering a church, climbing atop > > the altar, dropping trou and taking a dump. > I believe you are errant. I'll also add: A company in California offered a Dart/Valiant/Duster conversion using this same Nissan diesel engine from '73 to '74. That vehicle, like the factory-equipped '78-'79 D100 pickups, was excessively noisy, bog slow, extremely smoky and bitchy to start from cold. We're supposed to think you've got a great idea here because *why* again? >> As I remember, the Nissan SD33 was sold by Chrysler as a "Chrysler >>Nissan Diesel" (replete with a so-embossed chrome rocker box cover) >>and it had a standard Mopar bolt pattern. > > Doubtful but possible. The factory installed a few of these turds into > Dodge D100 pickups in '78-'79. Every time the memory almost dies, someone has to go and resurrect that clunker. Installing that engine (and I use the term loosely...) was one of Chrysler's few all-out bloody screaming mistakes. >>One of the old Valiants with the trunk lid reminiscent of a Westinghouse >>45? washer would make a good host for one of these great engines > > Such a swap would be very much akin to entering a church, climbing atop > the altar, dropping trou and taking a dump. Accurate metaphor. Disturbing, and not easily purged from the mental viewscreen, but accurate. Blowing raw fuel out after cold start is the symptom for glow plugs not working or not used on prechamber engines. No mystery why they wouldn't start. That said the NA 3.3 was too small for the fullsize truck-unless you never need to go over 50 mph as was the case for some in-town vocational trucks. Many medium duty straight trucks were sold with four cylinder Cumminses and three or four cylinder Detroits which wouldn't do 55 mph with a van body up through the late sixties or early seventies. Many bread vans with gas engines wouldn't either. Had they used the turbo engine performance would have bettered the /6 which admittedly isn't saying much... Properly used these are remarkable powerplants, but they are 200 CID...not 400. > Blowing raw fuel out after cold start is the symptom for glow plugs not > working or not used on prechamber engines. No mystery why they wouldn't > start. Mm. So, three different sources telling the same fib due to malfunctioning glow plugs on three different engines, eh? Obviously, because otherwise it would mean the engines were garbage, and since Ted Azito says they are the very paragon of automotive powerplant engineering, that couldn't *possibly* be so. Ignore the utter market failure of the engine; that's just a conspiracy to make Ted Azito look like he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. > Properly used these are remarkable powerplants ...blah blah blah... > Blowing raw fuel out after cold start is the symptom for glow plugs > not working or not used on prechamber engines. No mystery why they > wouldn't start. Except for the fact that this article was written in 1978 and it was a BRAND NEW TRUCK! > Properly used these are remarkable powerplants, but they are 200 > CID...not 400. Remarkably crappy, that is. The Cummins B5.9 is only 360 CID, and works just great in vehicles more than 4x the weight of a D-100, so the fact that its "only" 200 CID is no excuse. > Blowing raw fuel out after cold start is the symptom for glow plugs > not working or not used on prechamber engines. No mystery why they > wouldn't start. You shouldn't need the glow plugs to ignite the fuel for very long after engine start. It is also a symptom of a very poorly calibrated fuel injection pump or improperly sized injectors. Matt > My uncle... > > Yes, he's a peckerwood... Please define "peckerwood". Is it like "redneck"? Or is it like art, i.e., hard to define, and you just know it when you see it. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > > My uncle... > > > > Yes, he's a peckerwood... > > Please define "peckerwood". Is it like "redneck"? Or is it like art, > i.e., hard to define, and you just know it when you see it. Yes and yes. 041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted: >>> My uncle... >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Yes and yes. Speaking of "peckerwood"... http://www.arches.uga.edu/~dpopov/BigWoody.jpg | 041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted: | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | http://www.arches.uga.edu/~dpopov/BigWoody.jpg Yikes! 041023 1904 - James C. Reeves posted: > | 041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted: > | [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Yikes! Some guys are real artists with a chainsaw aren't they??? | 041023 1904 - James C. Reeves posted: | [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | | Some guys are real artists with a chainsaw aren't they??? Apparently so, but the artistic subject is a bit odd...unless it's the only "woody" the guy can have! > | 041023 1904 - James C. Reeves posted: > | > | Speaking of "peckerwood"... > | > | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently so, but the artistic subject is a bit odd...unless it's the only > "woody" the guy can have! That could be true if he had an "accident" with a chain saw. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > 041023 1801 - Ted Azito posted: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.arches.uga.edu/~dpopov/BigWoody.jpg Gives a whole new meaning to the word "woodpecker". 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer. You won't, though; you only want to troll. You'll get a lot of responses from this group but I'll call you, c.nt: Post it. doc > > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good > > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer. > > You won't, though; you only want to troll. You'll get a lot of responses > from this group but I'll call you, c.nt: Post it. No, Doc, I'll call you a c.nt. And I'll be right. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.