Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Anecdotal baloney, EVERY car mfgr makes lemons. For every single idjit who can revel us with a Chrysler story I'll just search Google and come up with another horror story for almost ANY other brand.
And K cars were a great little econobox. From Wiki: "The K-cars (Dodge Aries, Plymouth Reliant, Chrysler LeBaron, Dodge 400, and, in Mexico, Dodge Dart) sold very well, selling between 280,000 and 360,000 every year from 1981 to 1988, and edging over 100,000 in their final year, 1989.
The manual transmission provided acceleration of 0-60 mph in 10 seconds, while the automatic was between 13 and 14 seconds, similar to or better than most competitors, while gas mileage was rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway with the manual transmission."
Everybody has a brand they love to bash, but you'll never hear from the many happy owners who drove till the wheels fell off and loved their cars.
I'm on record for saying out of my '84 Firebird LG4, '85 Mustang LX 5.0, and '86 Daytona Turbo Z C/S, I would pick the Daytona again every time. It would hold it's own against the 305 Camarobirds and woe to the 2bbl 302 Mustangs that tried it.
It's all relative.
Yeah, the 2.2 Turbo Chrysler E-Class/Dodge 600 was not so good, but when you compare it to a FWD DeVille HT-4100, it's not so bad either. It's a paragon of reliability compared to the Cadillac 4100.
The Aries K isn't so great, but compared compared to a Tempo? The 2.2 and A413 was every bit as reliable as any 2.3HSC and ATX and you could sit three abreast in the front seat of an Aries. It's tight, but you can do it much better than you could in a Tempo. I've driven 2.5 powered Celebrities and 6000s and to me, the K was as good or better.
The Omni/Horizon has a boatload of defenders. I admit, it's a weird car. The first generation was basically a French car with a German engine assembled in Illinois. Again, it's in comparison. At it's debut. the only real "domestic" competitor to the Omni/Horizon was the Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta was German so you are paying Rabbit/Golf money for a Ford, and it was only a 3 door. You could fold down the seats on the Omni and put a Fiesta in the hatch (obviously that's a massive exaggeration but you get the point) Compared to the Chevette? No wonder so many people like their early Omnirizons.
You put a Mitsubishi 6G72 in a Sundance or Shadow and that is everybit as entertaining as any 2.8 Beretta. Bonus! the Sundance/Shadow has a hatch in case you have to carry something.
So yeah, '80s Chryslers stink. Compared to a Grand Marquis or Caprice, the Aries is terrible. But when compared to the correct domestic competitor, they are all the sudden not so bad anymore. They were quite good and quite competitive.
Anecdotal baloney, EVERY car mfgr makes lemons. For every single idjit who can revel us with a Chrysler story I'll just search Google and come up with another horror story for almost ANY other brand.
And K cars were a great little econobox. From Wiki: "The K-cars (Dodge Aries, Plymouth Reliant, Chrysler LeBaron, Dodge 400, and, in Mexico, Dodge Dart) sold very well, selling between 280,000 and 360,000 every year from 1981 to 1988, and edging over 100,000 in their final year, 1989.
The manual transmission provided acceleration of 0-60 mph in 10 seconds, while the automatic was between 13 and 14 seconds, similar to or better than most competitors, while gas mileage was rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway with the manual transmission."
Everybody has a brand they love to bash, but you'll never hear from the many happy owners who drove till the wheels fell off and loved their cars.
I'm on record for saying out of my '84 Firebird LG4, '85 Mustang LX 5.0, and '86 Daytona Turbo Z C/S, I would pick the Daytona again every time. It would hold it's own against the 305 Camarobirds and woe to the 2bbl 302 Mustangs that tried it.
It's all relative.
Yeah, the 2.2 Turbo Chrysler E-Class/Dodge 600 was not so good, but when you compare it to a FWD DeVille HT-4100, it's not so bad either. It's a paragon of reliability compared to the Cadillac 4100.
The Aries K isn't so great, but compared compared to a Tempo? The 2.2 and A413 was every bit as reliable as any 2.3HSC and ATX and you could sit three abreast in the front seat of an Aries. It's tight, but you can do it much better than you could in a Tempo. I've driven 2.5 powered Celebrities and 6000s and to me, the K was as good or better.
The Omni/Horizon has a boatload of defenders. I admit, it's a weird car. The first generation was basically a French car with a German engine assembled in Illinois. Again, it's in comparison. At it's debut. the only real "domestic" competitor to the Omni/Horizon was the Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta was German so you are paying Rabbit/Golf money for a Ford, and it was only a 3 door. You could fold down the seats on the Omni and put a Fiesta in the hatch (obviously that's a massive exaggeration but you get the point) Compared to the Chevette? No wonder so many people like their early Omnirizons.
You put a Mitsubishi 6G72 in a Sundance or Shadow and that is everybit as entertaining as any 2.8 Beretta. Bonus! the Sundance/Shadow has a hatch in case you have to carry something.
So yeah, '80s Chryslers stink. Compared to a Grand Marquis or Caprice, the Aries is terrible. But when compared to the correct domestic competitor, they are all the sudden not so bad anymore. They were quite good and quite competitive.