Peter Cheney and his K-car rant......

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
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.


Well said.

Many vehicles that were once very popular are now labeled junk. Usually when a vehicle sells really well, it's for a reason. Some cars just wear out their welcome. For example, I think the first generation of the Taurus was a good car. Sure, there were a lot of them, they were not that cool, and they did destroy their fair share of transmissions, but the Taurus my parents had was overall a great car for about a decade.
 
It was the omnis that had VW engines when they first rolled out. Apparently a VW distributor will fit with little or no work in the same spot on a 2.2 mopar engine.

The 2.6 Mitsubishi was marketed as a hemi for a period of time; it did legitimitely have mostly hemispherical combustion chambers.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
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.

Let me introduce me. Mike Friend. I had one. The VW motor sucked. Not only did I own a bunch of turbo ones I also owned a few Holley carbed ones and TBI models. I just love to tinker with them. So easy to work on and a bottom end over built.
My Lancer and two Daytonas were fully loaded with leather and all the the power options for the time.
I was in my Navy dress blues here. You can see my ex-wife's pile o poo Nissan Sentra and my Parents even worse Tempo about 1993
daytona2g.jpg

daytona.jpg

daytona3.jpg

My second Daytona Pacifica and my 96 Dodge Stratus. About 1996
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: VNTS
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)


The Ks were pretty rudimentary cars, however you dressed them up, but seemed decent.
I knew a couple of people who owned them way back when, and the cars seemed to do okay.
I've got to call you on the Hondas, though.
No one who had driven a Civic or an Accord would have bought a K car.
The Hondas were just so much more sophisticated in their engines and their behavior on the road.
Honda cars didn't have Mikuni carbs, either.
The CVCCs came with Honda's own Keihins, while the two valve engines used Hitachis.
In terms of reliability, we had a '76 Civic CVCC 1500, with three valves per cylinder, and a 3V Keihin, and later had two '86 Civic Wagons, four valves per cylinder and 3V Keihins, and all three were among the most reliable cars we have ever owned.
Nothing from Chrysler, Ford or GM at the time was even close.
We also owned an '80 Citation four door hatch, with 2.8 V-6.
Fuel economy would average 28-29 mpg on actual road trips, and it would eat any NA K car for breakfast, plus it had way better space utilization.
The Ks were okay cars for those who bought them.
They also contributed greatly to the progress of Honda and its companion Japanese makers.
Chrylser may have won a battle, but it was clearly losing the war.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
No one who had driven a Civic or an Accord would have bought a K car.
The Hondas were just so much more sophisticated in their engines and their behavior on the road.


We had one of each, a Civic and an Accord, in the 80s. A K-car would have been an upgrade.
 
My coworker had a honda CVCC civic 1980 vintage. It replaced a VW beetle. Both were rubbish, he lived near Anchorage, AK at the time.

The VW got ice in and around the pedals under the floorboards and he could barely drive.

The civic, at about a year old, froze a PCV line and sprayed oil all over the engine. The dealer laughed it off and said they all did that.

Everyone has really come a long way in quality.
 
My BIL and i took a nice Chevy p/u to a local public auto auction several years ago with no intentions of selling the truck it was for his personal use,but a man made an offer he could not refuse so we were left without a ride.After a little walking and thinking how we were going to get home he saw an old Reliant going through the block,he bid $50 on the car and got it.It ran very poorly but got us home,we found a couple bad vaccum lines,changed them out and tuned up the old beast and he drove the wheels off it for 3 years after that. Everywhere he went was in that old Reliant with no issues what so ever said it was the best deal he ever made on a car,he even drove it into the scrap yards and loaded it with parts through the mud,broken glass and all.You would have to know my BIL and this would make sense to you.
crazy2.gif
 
Last edited:
Go look up the specs, a Turbo 2.2 in a 85 LeBaron or lancer or Daytona vs the 1.8 4 cylinder in a Honda, it isnt even close. You infer K-car as 82-84 carbed, most moper folks consider any of the derivatives K-cars since they are one in the same. A Turbo 2.2 or later 2.5 was far ahead of any Honda engine at that time. Honda went to 12 valves but as we say vanes will always beat valves.

Honda was stuck in the mid 80's running carbs when for the same coin you could get a MPI Turbo in a Dodge.

1985 Accord as I recall had a 1.8 pushing a whopping 109HP at 5800 and 112Ft-lbs at 3500 with a 5 spd stick vs a 2.2 with 146 Hp and 170 Ft-lbs. I know because my father bought a Turbo Z and we looked at Accords. The Accord was a joke for the same $$ you could get a lot more car, just had to open your eyes and test drive a few. We had a 79 accord which he got rid of after all the problems and bought the Turbo Z.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: VNTS
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)


The Ks were pretty rudimentary cars, however you dressed them up, but seemed decent.
I knew a couple of people who owned them way back when, and the cars seemed to do okay.
I've got to call you on the Hondas, though.
No one who had driven a Civic or an Accord would have bought a K car.
The Hondas were just so much more sophisticated in their engines and their behavior on the road.
Honda cars didn't have Mikuni carbs, either.
The CVCCs came with Honda's own Keihins, while the two valve engines used Hitachis.
In terms of reliability, we had a '76 Civic CVCC 1500, with three valves per cylinder, and a 3V Keihin, and later had two '86 Civic Wagons, four valves per cylinder and 3V Keihins, and all three were among the most reliable cars we have ever owned.
Nothing from Chrysler, Ford or GM at the time was even close.
We also owned an '80 Citation four door hatch, with 2.8 V-6.
Fuel economy would average 28-29 mpg on actual road trips, and it would eat any NA K car for breakfast, plus it had way better space utilization.
The Ks were okay cars for those who bought them.
They also contributed greatly to the progress of Honda and its companion Japanese makers.
Chrylser may have won a battle, but it was clearly losing the war.
 
Wow, 1980s Hondas versus 1980s Chryslers. This has really become a race to the bottom.

For the record, I'd totally roll a K-car over a CVCC.

If I came across a woodgrain-delete turbo Chrysler Town & Country---the K-car station wagon, not the minivan---I would buy it in a heartbeat!
 
Originally Posted By: Stu_Rock
Wow, 1980s Hondas versus 1980s Chryslers. This has really become a race to the bottom.


No joke. My dad is very open minded when it comes to cars, but Hondas and Chryslers were off the shopping list in the '80s. He stuck to EFI Fords and an AMC-built Jeep.

My dad decided to give Honda a try in 2004 with a Civic Hybrid. It's currently starting to destroy transmission #2. I think Honda is off the shopping list again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom