I have to agree with the columnist. I always thought it was cars like the K car that paved (with gold) the road to success for Toyota, Honda, et all. It certainly wasn't the worst car ever made, but my personal experience with an 84 Caravan 2.2 pretty much ended my willingness to deal with American cars, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Peter Cheney and his K-car rant......
- Thread starter addyguy
- Start date
- Status
One more comparison to it's domestic competitors and a what if:
The Tempo used an OHV engine derived largely from the 200ci L6. It didn't carry over the bullet proofness of the 200.
The TechIV 151 in the GM is often referred to as the Low TechIV.
The Chrysler OHC 2.2's design was heavily influenced by the Volkswagen engines they were buying for the original Omni/Horizon. I wonder if things might have been different for the K-car if Chrysler had fitted it with Bosch's K-Jetronic. Would it be more like a Volkswagen or even Audi? Probably not. But it would have certainly distanced itself a bit more from the Tempo and Celebrity than the emissions choked Holley carb allowed.
The Tempo used an OHV engine derived largely from the 200ci L6. It didn't carry over the bullet proofness of the 200.
The TechIV 151 in the GM is often referred to as the Low TechIV.
The Chrysler OHC 2.2's design was heavily influenced by the Volkswagen engines they were buying for the original Omni/Horizon. I wonder if things might have been different for the K-car if Chrysler had fitted it with Bosch's K-Jetronic. Would it be more like a Volkswagen or even Audi? Probably not. But it would have certainly distanced itself a bit more from the Tempo and Celebrity than the emissions choked Holley carb allowed.
Originally Posted By: antonmnster
I have to agree with the columnist. I always thought it was cars like the K car that paved (with gold) the road to success for Toyota, Honda, et all. It certainly wasn't the worst car ever made, but my personal experience with an 84 Caravan 2.2 pretty much ended my willingness to deal with American cars, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Odd, my experience with 80's American cars strengthened my willingness to deal with American cars. Remember that imports in the 80's weren't anything to write home about either (performance or comfort speaking)
I have to agree with the columnist. I always thought it was cars like the K car that paved (with gold) the road to success for Toyota, Honda, et all. It certainly wasn't the worst car ever made, but my personal experience with an 84 Caravan 2.2 pretty much ended my willingness to deal with American cars, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Odd, my experience with 80's American cars strengthened my willingness to deal with American cars. Remember that imports in the 80's weren't anything to write home about either (performance or comfort speaking)
Originally Posted By: antonmnster
I have to agree with the columnist. I always thought it was cars like the K car that paved (with gold) the road to success for Toyota, Honda, et all. It certainly wasn't the worst car ever made, but my personal experience with an 84 Caravan 2.2 pretty much ended my willingness to deal with American cars, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
But what in it's class was better? The Vanagon? The Toyota Van?
All the 4cyl vans were horribly slow in '84.
The 3Y was reliable. You would expect that from an 80's Toyota. Boring and reliable
The Vanagon has issues. It is not an engine you can neglect. The coolant system can be problematic if the person servicing it does not purge out the air. Head gasket failure is not uncommon. ( I think that may be related to improper coolant system maintenance)
By comparison, the Caravan was affordable and semi-reliable.
I have to agree with the columnist. I always thought it was cars like the K car that paved (with gold) the road to success for Toyota, Honda, et all. It certainly wasn't the worst car ever made, but my personal experience with an 84 Caravan 2.2 pretty much ended my willingness to deal with American cars, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
But what in it's class was better? The Vanagon? The Toyota Van?
All the 4cyl vans were horribly slow in '84.
The 3Y was reliable. You would expect that from an 80's Toyota. Boring and reliable
The Vanagon has issues. It is not an engine you can neglect. The coolant system can be problematic if the person servicing it does not purge out the air. Head gasket failure is not uncommon. ( I think that may be related to improper coolant system maintenance)
By comparison, the Caravan was affordable and semi-reliable.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Man this thread really got me thinking!
Maybe, just maybe I will go looks at this, this weekend.
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/2079493482.html
I don't know if that car is worth anywhere near what he is asking for it, but those look like nice seats.
Man this thread really got me thinking!
Maybe, just maybe I will go looks at this, this weekend.
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/2079493482.html
I don't know if that car is worth anywhere near what he is asking for it, but those look like nice seats.
They only sold what, 2-3 million K-cars? That's some failure. People bought them because they were a good value. I think the K-cars were competitive with other cars at the time, foreign or domestic. There's no shortage of biased automotive writer dopes out there.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
They only sold what, 2-3 million K-cars? That's some failure. People bought them because they were a good value. I think the K-cars were competitive with other cars at the time, foreign or domestic. There's no shortage of biased automotive writer dopes out there.
The '83+ Mazda 626 was a better car all around. But I think it was over $1000 more.
The '83+ Camry was probably better engineered....but man was the first generation Camry ugly.
The Accord may have been better as well. But I've heard stories that during that era, one often had to wait several months to get their new Accord.
The Jetta may have been a better car. But to get near the Aries/Reliant price you probably had to get the vinyl floor/vinyl seat with sisal fibers stabbing you model.
I don't remember Isuzu building a fwd car in that segment for North America. Mitsubishi had the Galant but it was not yet availiable in the USA. The Tredia/Cordia were smaller.
So, for the price, The Aries/Reliant were just fine. Even if Iaccoca did insist on often pimping them up with vinyl roofs, wire wheel hubcaps, and opera windows.
They only sold what, 2-3 million K-cars? That's some failure. People bought them because they were a good value. I think the K-cars were competitive with other cars at the time, foreign or domestic. There's no shortage of biased automotive writer dopes out there.
The '83+ Mazda 626 was a better car all around. But I think it was over $1000 more.
The '83+ Camry was probably better engineered....but man was the first generation Camry ugly.
The Accord may have been better as well. But I've heard stories that during that era, one often had to wait several months to get their new Accord.
The Jetta may have been a better car. But to get near the Aries/Reliant price you probably had to get the vinyl floor/vinyl seat with sisal fibers stabbing you model.
I don't remember Isuzu building a fwd car in that segment for North America. Mitsubishi had the Galant but it was not yet availiable in the USA. The Tredia/Cordia were smaller.
So, for the price, The Aries/Reliant were just fine. Even if Iaccoca did insist on often pimping them up with vinyl roofs, wire wheel hubcaps, and opera windows.
The K-Car was exactly what it needed to be. Cheap to buy. Cheap to build. Made Chrysler money (didn't they make it out of bankruptcy because of these cars?) Most of the time, cheap to fix. And easy to fix, too.
Plus, you stuff one of the bazillion turbo motor's they built into one of those lightweight cars, and they all (okay, most) hauled [censored]!
I loved my turbo Shadow. When I'm able to have time and money for a project car, it will either be a Fox 5.0 or a turbo Mopar from the late 80's.
Plus, you stuff one of the bazillion turbo motor's they built into one of those lightweight cars, and they all (okay, most) hauled [censored]!
I loved my turbo Shadow. When I'm able to have time and money for a project car, it will either be a Fox 5.0 or a turbo Mopar from the late 80's.
I owned two of them back in the day. Really wanted to like the '84 Shelby Charger but those two k-cars were the worst automobiles I have ever owned. They were quite popular then because they were cheap, so I knew quite a few people who drove them. Most had carburetor issues, electrical problems, all kinds of problems.
My personal list would include, sway bar installed upside down at the factory, brake line popping off the caliper coming to a stop, shifter linkage coming apart in the left turn lane at an intersection, gas guage failing, rotor broke inside the distributor and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things...
My personal list would include, sway bar installed upside down at the factory, brake line popping off the caliper coming to a stop, shifter linkage coming apart in the left turn lane at an intersection, gas guage failing, rotor broke inside the distributor and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things...
A very wise man I see
The mopars with the Turbo Engines were much better than most of the cars from that era. Bullit proof blocks and great transaxles. I have 3 Daytona and my Shadow. I am up to 276K miles on the Shadow and drive it every day 80 miles.
Chrysler screwed themselves when they dropped the K-car platform and went multiple platforms. Their costs shot up and the content in the cars went way down. I was never a Neon fan since they were too stupid to offer a Turbo until 2003.
The PT Cruiser is about the only thing close to these. Same McPherson strut rear trailing arm suspension, simple to work on and parts are cheap. Do some maintenance and they will run forever.
I agree the competition wasnt any better back then, look at the price and features, especially the Turbo cars, they were a bargain.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I have had no less than 7 turbo Dodge cars. Some had their issues and some were great.
Lets see hmmm...
85 Laser Turbo
85 Daytona Turbo
85 Chrysler Lebaron Turbo
86 GLH Turbo (12 second 1/4 miles
)
87 Shelby Lancer number 24 I put 250,000 miles on that, I would sitll have it but it got wrecked.
88 Dodge Daytona Pacifica 5 speed Turbo
88 Dodge Daytona Pacifica auto Turbo
I miss them all. Fun little cars to mess with!
Opps forgot one. I bought a fully load 87 Dodge Lancer Turbo with 72,000 miles on it at auction for 135 dollars in 1996. I put a new axle in it and put another 100,000 miles on it running 14 second 1/4 miles with very cheap mods. Cheapest and one of the best cars I have ever had.
The mopars with the Turbo Engines were much better than most of the cars from that era. Bullit proof blocks and great transaxles. I have 3 Daytona and my Shadow. I am up to 276K miles on the Shadow and drive it every day 80 miles.
Chrysler screwed themselves when they dropped the K-car platform and went multiple platforms. Their costs shot up and the content in the cars went way down. I was never a Neon fan since they were too stupid to offer a Turbo until 2003.
The PT Cruiser is about the only thing close to these. Same McPherson strut rear trailing arm suspension, simple to work on and parts are cheap. Do some maintenance and they will run forever.
I agree the competition wasnt any better back then, look at the price and features, especially the Turbo cars, they were a bargain.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I have had no less than 7 turbo Dodge cars. Some had their issues and some were great.
Lets see hmmm...
85 Laser Turbo
85 Daytona Turbo
85 Chrysler Lebaron Turbo
86 GLH Turbo (12 second 1/4 miles
87 Shelby Lancer number 24 I put 250,000 miles on that, I would sitll have it but it got wrecked.
88 Dodge Daytona Pacifica 5 speed Turbo
88 Dodge Daytona Pacifica auto Turbo
I miss them all. Fun little cars to mess with!
Opps forgot one. I bought a fully load 87 Dodge Lancer Turbo with 72,000 miles on it at auction for 135 dollars in 1996. I put a new axle in it and put another 100,000 miles on it running 14 second 1/4 miles with very cheap mods. Cheapest and one of the best cars I have ever had.
Yeah
Tell me about it, my wifes family had ealry to mid 80's Accords. Terrible cars with the [censored] Mikuni carbs and CVCC engines. My BIL had an 85 Accord, paid like 12K for it, at age two he had electircal issues. One engine bay harness and 800$ later it was fixed. Then a year later the head gasket went?? Honda and Toy stuck with carbs and [censored] TB engine when for the same coin or less you could get a Turbo Dodge with real MPI, better fuel economy and 50% more HP, way ahead of its time.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: antonmnster
I have to agree with the columnist. I always thought it was cars like the K car that paved (with gold) the road to success for Toyota, Honda, et all. It certainly wasn't the worst car ever made, but my personal experience with an 84 Caravan 2.2 pretty much ended my willingness to deal with American cars, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Odd, my experience with 80's American cars strengthened my willingness to deal with American cars. Remember that imports in the 80's weren't anything to write home about either (performance or comfort speaking)
Tell me about it, my wifes family had ealry to mid 80's Accords. Terrible cars with the [censored] Mikuni carbs and CVCC engines. My BIL had an 85 Accord, paid like 12K for it, at age two he had electircal issues. One engine bay harness and 800$ later it was fixed. Then a year later the head gasket went?? Honda and Toy stuck with carbs and [censored] TB engine when for the same coin or less you could get a Turbo Dodge with real MPI, better fuel economy and 50% more HP, way ahead of its time.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: antonmnster
I have to agree with the columnist. I always thought it was cars like the K car that paved (with gold) the road to success for Toyota, Honda, et all. It certainly wasn't the worst car ever made, but my personal experience with an 84 Caravan 2.2 pretty much ended my willingness to deal with American cars, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Odd, my experience with 80's American cars strengthened my willingness to deal with American cars. Remember that imports in the 80's weren't anything to write home about either (performance or comfort speaking)
Originally Posted By: VNTS
I agree the competition wasnt any better back then, look at the price and features, especially the Turbo cars, they were a bargain.
That reminds me of a magazine comparo many years ago on budget sporty cars.
The Shadow turbo was compared against the Honda Civic CRX, Geo Storm, and Suzuki Swift GTi. The turbo Shadow was in the same price bracket.
The straightline acceleration part of the comparison was a joke. The Shadow dominated all. The Si, GSi, and GTi were all close but the Shadow significantly faster
It's funny that they chose to compare it to a car with no backseat(Si) and an unusable backseat (GSi).
I agree the competition wasnt any better back then, look at the price and features, especially the Turbo cars, they were a bargain.
That reminds me of a magazine comparo many years ago on budget sporty cars.
The Shadow turbo was compared against the Honda Civic CRX, Geo Storm, and Suzuki Swift GTi. The turbo Shadow was in the same price bracket.
The straightline acceleration part of the comparison was a joke. The Shadow dominated all. The Si, GSi, and GTi were all close but the Shadow significantly faster
It's funny that they chose to compare it to a car with no backseat(Si) and an unusable backseat (GSi).
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The Chrysler OHC 2.2's design was heavily influenced by the Volkswagen engines they were buying for the original Omni/Horizon.
Yeah... heavily influenced to build something as different from VW as possible.
Actually the slant-six and big-block (B/RB) v8s were the strongest design influence on the 2.2/2.5, according to Bill Weertman's book on Chrysler engines (Weertman was head of engineering at Chrysler in the 80s, and was the lead engineer on the slant-6 when it was being developed in the late 50s). To be fair, the VW probably did influence some of the details of how accessories, induction, and exhaust were mounted and routed, but that's about as deep as it goes. The 2.2/2.5 actually shared main and rod bearing diameters with the B/RB v8s, making its crankshaft as strong as the crank in a 426 Hemi. When a 2.2/2.5 failed, it was rarely the bottom end. Guys that raise the boost and get 400+ wheel horsepower out of them found the tensile limit of the head bolts, not the lower end.
The Chrysler OHC 2.2's design was heavily influenced by the Volkswagen engines they were buying for the original Omni/Horizon.
Yeah... heavily influenced to build something as different from VW as possible.
Actually the slant-six and big-block (B/RB) v8s were the strongest design influence on the 2.2/2.5, according to Bill Weertman's book on Chrysler engines (Weertman was head of engineering at Chrysler in the 80s, and was the lead engineer on the slant-6 when it was being developed in the late 50s). To be fair, the VW probably did influence some of the details of how accessories, induction, and exhaust were mounted and routed, but that's about as deep as it goes. The 2.2/2.5 actually shared main and rod bearing diameters with the B/RB v8s, making its crankshaft as strong as the crank in a 426 Hemi. When a 2.2/2.5 failed, it was rarely the bottom end. Guys that raise the boost and get 400+ wheel horsepower out of them found the tensile limit of the head bolts, not the lower end.
Well, I don't often admit it openly, but I too owned a K-car. Mine was an 86 Aries 2-door that I bought new -- was the cheapest one on the lot at the time, which is what I wanted and needed at the time. Cheap and reliable. And that it was. Nobody could ever mistake the thing for a Lexus, but I drove it for quite a while, and never had any problems with it (other than the frustration of having nothing but an AM radio (remember those...) for entertainment. Didn't take me long to pick up a "dedicated" boom box to sit on the seat next to me. How sophisticated.
Anyway, the subject author is an idiot. Intended or not, the K-cars were in effect the "American Volkswagen of the early 80s". No frills, but reliable and serviceable. It was, especially back then, IMPOSSIBLE to beat the K for cheap, reliable, and serviceable transportation.
Anyway, the subject author is an idiot. Intended or not, the K-cars were in effect the "American Volkswagen of the early 80s". No frills, but reliable and serviceable. It was, especially back then, IMPOSSIBLE to beat the K for cheap, reliable, and serviceable transportation.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
... When a 2.2/2.5 failed, it was rarely the bottom end. Guys that raise the boost and get 400+ wheel horsepower out of them found the tensile limit of the head bolts, not the lower end.
Shortly after replacing the cracked head (and turbocharger acquired from a wrecking yard Dodge 600 ES Turbo Sedan) the bottom end on my Daytona started to knock.
It would get progressively louder as it warmed up. It was the sound that ended my love affair with my '86 CS Daytona Turbo Z. I loved her but she had to go.
I didn't realize at the time how rare and wonderful she was. I just knew I had a black on black leather car with T-tops (but no factory air) in the sunbelt that was about to take another big chunk of change out of my pocket.
It's probably the only performance oriented car I've ever had that I left stock on purpose. It was good enough the way it came.
... When a 2.2/2.5 failed, it was rarely the bottom end. Guys that raise the boost and get 400+ wheel horsepower out of them found the tensile limit of the head bolts, not the lower end.
Shortly after replacing the cracked head (and turbocharger acquired from a wrecking yard Dodge 600 ES Turbo Sedan) the bottom end on my Daytona started to knock.
It would get progressively louder as it warmed up. It was the sound that ended my love affair with my '86 CS Daytona Turbo Z. I loved her but she had to go.
I didn't realize at the time how rare and wonderful she was. I just knew I had a black on black leather car with T-tops (but no factory air) in the sunbelt that was about to take another big chunk of change out of my pocket.
It's probably the only performance oriented car I've ever had that I left stock on purpose. It was good enough the way it came.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Intended or not, the K-cars were in effect the "American Volkswagen of the early 80s". No frills, but reliable and serviceable. It was, especially back then, IMPOSSIBLE to beat the K for cheap, reliable, and serviceable transportation.
Back in the 90's, my VW Jetta owning friends just LOVED it, when I called their beloved VW's German K-cars...
They had about the same engine, hp and NVH wise, a solid rear axle, but the K-car was more reliable...
Intended or not, the K-cars were in effect the "American Volkswagen of the early 80s". No frills, but reliable and serviceable. It was, especially back then, IMPOSSIBLE to beat the K for cheap, reliable, and serviceable transportation.
Back in the 90's, my VW Jetta owning friends just LOVED it, when I called their beloved VW's German K-cars...
They had about the same engine, hp and NVH wise, a solid rear axle, but the K-car was more reliable...
I've owned two K-cars. They rusted like crazy, but they were otherwise great cars.
What makes memories of most 80s cars so bad is that most of us are remembering stripped-down models. Most of these cars could be optioned out to be pretty decent vehicles.
The great thing about K-cars is that there's amazing parts interchangeability. It's possible to use off-the-shelf parts to build up a K-car such that its handling and braking would be competitive with current "performance compacts." Decent acceleration will take more work, but is not off the table.
What makes memories of most 80s cars so bad is that most of us are remembering stripped-down models. Most of these cars could be optioned out to be pretty decent vehicles.
The great thing about K-cars is that there's amazing parts interchangeability. It's possible to use off-the-shelf parts to build up a K-car such that its handling and braking would be competitive with current "performance compacts." Decent acceleration will take more work, but is not off the table.
I got my licence on my parents 1985 Plymouth Reliant 4-door sedan. It was the exact same colour as the one in Peter's article - baby blue.
I remember, right from the start, noticing how roomy that car was on the inside for a compact sedan - had much more room than the 1985 Buick Skyhawk I bought as my first car.
Ours was about 8 years old at the time I started driving it, so it did have issues - the least of which was lots of trouble starting/running in cold temps. I used to have to go out at least 30 mins before I planned to go somewhere to see if the car would start - it took lots of cranking and pedal-pumping to get it to fire and stay running. After 10 mins., it was good to drive.
It had started to rust quite a bit, and that included a small hole in the floor, where the drivers heel went, as well as holes in the back fenders behind the rear wheels. The rust had made it so that the weatherstripping in the doors wouldn't stay in place, I spent lots of time trying to get that stuck back on.
I remember one stupid (but fun thing I did was on a cold morning, the car was sitting on ice, with dry pavement in front. I floored the gas, and got the wheelspeed up to 50mph when it hit the dry pavement - smoke everywhere, and a huge rubber stripe out of the parking spot until we moved from that apartment! Good times.....
You had to 'punch' the gas pedal a lot to get the car going, etc, and one time, a block from school, the gas pedal linkage finally broke clean off the pedal. Luckily, there was a garage right next to my school where it broke, and I got it fixed while I was in school for $100. I didn't know much about maintenance/oil then, so I didn't do any checking/top off/changes on it at all, but besides the cold-starting issue, it ran fairly well.
My folks traded in the car on a brand-new 1994 Ford Tempo, and I bought myself a clean, low-mileage Skyhawk I mentioned above at the same time. I figured the K-car would need way too much work, and that the floor would give way. What a mistake that was - I spent a FORTUNE keeping the Skyhawk running for the next 2 years. In hindisght, I should have bought the car off my folks for a song, and spent the money and time to fix it up, including a cheap patch on the floor - it wasn't that bad.
It was a good car - I should have given it a better chance!
I remember, right from the start, noticing how roomy that car was on the inside for a compact sedan - had much more room than the 1985 Buick Skyhawk I bought as my first car.
Ours was about 8 years old at the time I started driving it, so it did have issues - the least of which was lots of trouble starting/running in cold temps. I used to have to go out at least 30 mins before I planned to go somewhere to see if the car would start - it took lots of cranking and pedal-pumping to get it to fire and stay running. After 10 mins., it was good to drive.
It had started to rust quite a bit, and that included a small hole in the floor, where the drivers heel went, as well as holes in the back fenders behind the rear wheels. The rust had made it so that the weatherstripping in the doors wouldn't stay in place, I spent lots of time trying to get that stuck back on.
I remember one stupid (but fun thing I did was on a cold morning, the car was sitting on ice, with dry pavement in front. I floored the gas, and got the wheelspeed up to 50mph when it hit the dry pavement - smoke everywhere, and a huge rubber stripe out of the parking spot until we moved from that apartment! Good times.....
You had to 'punch' the gas pedal a lot to get the car going, etc, and one time, a block from school, the gas pedal linkage finally broke clean off the pedal. Luckily, there was a garage right next to my school where it broke, and I got it fixed while I was in school for $100. I didn't know much about maintenance/oil then, so I didn't do any checking/top off/changes on it at all, but besides the cold-starting issue, it ran fairly well.
My folks traded in the car on a brand-new 1994 Ford Tempo, and I bought myself a clean, low-mileage Skyhawk I mentioned above at the same time. I figured the K-car would need way too much work, and that the floor would give way. What a mistake that was - I spent a FORTUNE keeping the Skyhawk running for the next 2 years. In hindisght, I should have bought the car off my folks for a song, and spent the money and time to fix it up, including a cheap patch on the floor - it wasn't that bad.
It was a good car - I should have given it a better chance!
Wasn't the first ones with the volkswagen engines the most problematic? My parents had a 88 Reliant wagon and never had a problem in the 75k they owned it. Dad was/is school about high mileage cars and trading them in before the warranty is up. Alot of memories in that car! He wishes he could of said the same about the 93 Voyager they got to replace it. The passenger door latch twice and the of course the transmission right after warranty. Besides that wasn't bad they fixed all the problems just to have it totaled by a drunk within a year. They got another 94 Caravan to replace it but didn't keep it a year.. transmission started acting up although it had been replaced.
Basically the same story with my grandparents Caravan/Voyagers. They had 2 of the early ones. Traded in the first one only because of the sunroof which they hated. Kept the other a long while but replaced it with a 92 that had transmission problems. But still managed to get 3 more Chrysler vans after that. Now they have Toyota's but that's just a phase.. the only reliable cars they've had was the one that the trans went out and a Aveo. Their already spying a Ford hybrid next. They've had 50+ cars and their 73/76.. automotive ADHD runs in the family.
IMO I think the 90-2000's killed Chrysler.
Basically the same story with my grandparents Caravan/Voyagers. They had 2 of the early ones. Traded in the first one only because of the sunroof which they hated. Kept the other a long while but replaced it with a 92 that had transmission problems. But still managed to get 3 more Chrysler vans after that. Now they have Toyota's but that's just a phase.. the only reliable cars they've had was the one that the trans went out and a Aveo. Their already spying a Ford hybrid next. They've had 50+ cars and their 73/76.. automotive ADHD runs in the family.
IMO I think the 90-2000's killed Chrysler.
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
Wasn't the first ones with the volkswagen engines the most problematic? ...
The original Omni/Horizon had the Volkswagen 1.7.
I've never met anyone that actually owned a 1.7 Omnirizon that had anything bad to say about it. It's the most unlikely combination; French Simca design, made in '70s USA, with a German engine. It doesn't seem like it would be very good but apparently it was.
I don't know why but people seemed to genuinely like them.
Wasn't the first ones with the volkswagen engines the most problematic? ...
The original Omni/Horizon had the Volkswagen 1.7.
I've never met anyone that actually owned a 1.7 Omnirizon that had anything bad to say about it. It's the most unlikely combination; French Simca design, made in '70s USA, with a German engine. It doesn't seem like it would be very good but apparently it was.
I don't know why but people seemed to genuinely like them.
- Status