I keep one in the glove box of my '68 Newport as well. Never have needed one but I have it just in case as they were known to go out. If you were going through them like candy you had a coil or wiring problem.
I have to agree with you on this one... I still have one and still hate it. EFI is the best thing that has ever happened to the internal combustion engine in my opinion. Sure wish somebody made an add on that actually worked.
I live in Florida where cars last forever.. Don't new cars still rust away in 10 years up there? The few times I have been up there it was hard to find a car that didn't have rust holes. I have seen quite a few posts on the groups about people having to throw away perfectly good newer cars because the unibody was so rested as to not be safe.
I drive two old Chryslers and a newer Cadillac. On both Chryslers I keep a parts kit in the glove box with common failure items like points and a condenser, voltage regulator and ballast resistor. I needed the points once but the rest of it is untouched. So yeah they had some "common failure" items but one could afford the parts and fix it themselves. Say a 60's Chrysler goes through five voltage regulators in its life.. Thats $60 as compared to a new Chrylser product that needs a $400 minimum computer if the voltage regulator goes out... You know what the sollution is? Put in one of the old voltage regulators. If my water pump goes out theres one sitting on the shelf at the parts store for $15. Thats all I need, nothing else will be broken.. No chewed up timing belt.. No head that warped because it got a few degrees hotter than normal.
I love the Cadillac too but have had it up to my ears with sensors that cost $80, shocks that cost $800 and mechanics (including me) that can't fix a damn thing on it unless the computer gives you a code.
Steve, Though I never have seen anything in writing on this point, I always heard that in the U.S. there is a Federal law that the car manufacturer has to make all replacement parts available for a minimum of ten years from when the car was sold as new. Is that not true?
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Article Titled "Li'l Red Express Truck" Written by the recently deceased Steve Collison - (may he RIP.)
"But the truck's powertrain is really where all the action is. This basis concept was originally introduced at the Chrysler Long Lead Press Preview in 1977 as a possible production-line piece equipped with a 360 4-bbl engine and special high-flow W-2 cylinder heads. But because the factory didn't get the truck EPA-certified in time for the model run, the W-2 package was scrubbed and the standard A-engine heads were installed instead."
Nearly anything "properly built" can make decent power. Point is, straight out of the box, the 340 is a much better engine.
I did, twice. Once with a factory replacement and once with an aftermarket unit.
It's a proven fact that today's cars last longer than the old cars did. The average age of a vehicle on the road today is the highest it has ever been and it continues to rise.
That's because today the automotive world is hyper competitive. Years ago, Detroit could produce a model and have it hang around for years with just styling tweaks. There was no big rush to stay ahead. GM, Ford, Chrysler, and to a lesser degree AMC, were really the only players in town. And back then, unlike today, people would trade-in for a new car every 3-4 years anyway (I wonder why that was?), so a manufacturer could potentially have a once dissatisfied customer, who tried out one of the other brands on their following purchase, back shopping in their showrooms in 6-8 years anyways. There were plenty of new car buyers/money to go around back then... why would they have been overly concerned with quality?
So back then it made sense to carry large inventories of parts because the rate of model changeover was so slow. But today, with the amazing amount of competition, after 4-5 models years a product is no longer competitive. So if you know a model is only going to be around for a few years, why would you load up on replacement parts? You don't, because it doesn't make good business sense.
That's because my brother's Intrepid used up all the factory replacement parts. ;-) He bought it new in '93 and in the first
40,000-50,000 miles had to just about replace everything on the car. However, after everything was replaced the car amazingly became quite reliable. He traded it in a year or so ago after racking up about
125,000 miles.
Here's some interesting reading for you. It's from Jim Wangers' book titled "Glory Days."
"The 1957 cars had been scheduled to be 1958 models, appearing in midyear 1957. The 1956 cars were to be carried over as the 1957s. But in early 1956, when Chrysler management saw how badly their cars were selling, they moved the '58 cars up six months and introduced them at announcement time. Jumping a production model ahead one year was much easier to do in those days than it is today as there were no government emission certification of EPA mileage requirements to pose significant hurdles. Unfortunantly, some corners were cut in moving those cars up, and the '57 models were somewhat compromised in build quality. For example, many side windows did not seal well, resulting in several leaks. To counter this embarrassing situation, Plymouth prepared a demonstration for the press to show how they were fixing the problem. They set up a very elaborate water spray booth at the end of the assembly line. Once the spray was turned off, a team of inspectors would carefully examine each car for leaks. If there were any leaks that car would be shuffled off to the "Hospital" for quick repair. Cars without leaks would be taken to the marshalling yard and put on a truck for delivery to a dealer. We had this show at the Plymouth plant on Mt. Elliot Road in Detroit, and brought in news people from all over the country to see this tremendous spray testing process, making sure there were no cars shipped with leaks. What we didn't tell the press was that the cars that leaked actually went around the back of the plant and got on the same trucks to be shipped to the dealers. There was no "hospital." One out of every three cars leaked, and the factory relied on the dealers to fix them before they were sold."
Read the book. It'll clear up your memory of the "good ol' days".
Ever ride in a turbo Eclipse? My friend's Eclipse is running 1.6
60-foot times and 12.0 1/4s at about 110-111 mph, on street tires with its stock motor and turbo. It's a sweet car!
Here's his page:
formatting link
Check it out! It'll change your mind about "Mitsushittis".
Steve, you are horribly biased. It's blatantly apparent you've lost all objectivity... it's so bad in fact, I doubt anyone will EVER be able to convince you that the 60's Chryslers were not the pinnacle of automotive design.
So is my belief stated in an earlier post about a federal (U.S.) requirement that mfgrs. make parts available for a minimum of ten years in error (in essence, and urban legend)?
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
In Britain, agreed that even the E 200 is 'expensive', but not in Germany. Although I posted the link elsewhere in this thread, here it is again:
formatting link
In 2003 the E-Class at no. 7 sold half as many times as the No. 1, the VW Golf/Bora. Some people even call the E a butcher's car (because it is so common).
In Mar 04 the E-Class rose to no. 4 (though sales ration with Golf/Bora still same)
I think most of your queries have received answers from other, e.g. Chrysler having plants in Europe (Simca, France). Actually also Rootes(GB), Chrysler's first shareholding being bought in 1964. If you have the patience you can plow your way through this lot:
formatting link
Here are some more interesting links:
formatting link
The English factory (Coventry) was sold to Peugeot in 1978.
The English word "saloon" is, to my mind, entirely equivalent to the US "sedan" in that it describes a shape ('three-box') and has nothing to do with size.
On re-reading my para about "'American' Chryslers" I see that it was rather unclear.
What I meant was that there are many more US-factory-made and designed-for-US cars from Chrysler in Europe than from GM and Ford, as these two companies manufacture in Europe in several locations in vast quantities, so would have little commercial interest in importing 'American' cars in large volumes.
Ford sells its mainstream cars with the blue oval, i.e. under the Ford name. (Rest are Volvo, Jag etc.
GM sell its mass cars under Vauxhall in the UK and under Opel everywhere else. For the last 25 years or so the difference between Vauxhall and Opel has been the badge. Before that Vauxhall had a distinct product line. (I bought one of the first Vauxhall-badged Opels -- Vauxhall Cavalier -- in
1979, when it was about two years old. It was still slightly distinctive in that its nose was that of the sportier Opel Manta and the rest of the Opel Ascona.)
formatting link
It caused quite a lot of amusement and puzzlement when I took it into an Opel dealer in Germany for a service, as they had never seen one (wasn't sold in Germany).
Finally, you may be right about the UK writer having insufficient experience of US Chryslers and, indeed, I don't agree with another poster that the Viper etc are available officially everywhere in Europe. I don't think it was ever sold through Chrysler in the UK.
For the current 'official' range sold in the UK see here:
formatting link
They have started selling the Crossfire:
The Neon has been sold in the UK for some years. Numbers are probably quite small but one of my acquaintances has one with a 2-litre engine. As it happens, I saw him last night so asked him for his opinion (bearing this thread in mind). He is quite happy with it and is on his second, with which he has done about 98 000 miles over 4 years. He feels that for the money it offers quite a decent package and is a bit different. However, he is soon looking for a new car and will consider others as he already had two and there has been little development in the shape etc.
What I find puzzling is this statement from one of the websites: "Chrysler stopped importing Neons into the United Kingdom in 2004"
I have heard of that supposed law, but I cannot find one on the books to that effect. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, but if it does, it's pretty well buried in the USC.
The parts guys at the dealer said that the legal limit is 8 years, and they've NEVER seen anything go NS-1 RIGHT AT the 8-year mark (96 model year to 2004) before.
Daimler trying to squeeze old Chrysler parts out of the system? Who knows?
Better in a pickup truck? Not even close- not nearly the low-end torque. there's a reason the 340 was never offered in trucks.
Better in a Monaco or Newport (where the 360 was the base engine)? Nope, same deal.
The 360 was a lighter-weight more efficient replacement for applications that previously got a 383 2-barrel (or back in the 60s the 361 big-block), its not really intended for the same applications as a 340 although it served admirably in the last year of the Barracuda and Challenger. Factory 360 Barracudas are actually quite rare and collectible.
In large part because there are 60s ande 70s cars like mine still on the road and racking up miles.
ROTFL! do you think that is "news" to me? Or let's talk about the first model year of the Aspen/Volare while we're at it. Yeah, there were some "bad years" in the past, but nowdays its a new flawed model every YEAR, and we're talking major engine design flaws and not just poor assembly quality or poor rustproofing (as if I care about rustproofing, I live in a decent climate).
In the next edition of that book, yet to be written, we'll be reading about Honda Odyseeys that can't keep an automatic transmission in them, Toyotas getting engines replaced en-masse at 80k miles because grit blocked their oil passages and caused the bearings to seize, the first Nissan minivan that had to be pulled off the market and BOUGHT BACK from customers because it was such a disaster, and the Honda ignitor module debacle of the mid 90s.
Yeah, if you like burning a quart of oil per tank of gas by 50,000 miles, yeah they're GREAT. WONDERFUL. Thankfully, the writing on the wall is there, and Mitsubishi will be out of the car business entirely in another year or two.
Nothing will. They're crap. Fast crap sometimes, but still crap.
No, you've swallowed the Import Quality Myth, hook line and sinker. Enjoy your Bic Disposable Transportation Devices. No skin off my nose.
it's so bad in fact, I doubt anyone will EVER be
The actual pinnacle was somewhere between 68 and 72.
Stock motor and turbo, maybe but otherwise modified. These cars stock were no where near that quick. I've seen quicker ones too. If you have enough money you can make almost anything scream these days.
My 1994 Chevy pickup is in great shape after 10 years of PA/NY winters. The newer cars last MUCH longer than the 60s and 70s cars did from a body perspective. My 1970 Fury III had rust through by 1978. My dad's
1970 Falcon and 1973 Maverick didn't even make four years before they had rust through. I suspect my Chevy truck will make at least 15 years before serious rust problems. I don't know of any car made prior to
1985 that would last that long in PA.
Good point, on paper. You'd think with the bigger crank the 360 would be a torque monster in comparision to the 340. As I'm sure you know, in '73 the 340 was factory rated at 295, and in '74 the 360 had figures only as high as 320, in later years the 360's numbers trailed off and went down to 280. Even for a truck application, I'd still opt for a 340 to get its bigger valves and stronger crank and make up for the slightly less torque with a little more rear gear.
I liked the looks of the 70's 'Cudas and Challengers, but was never a big fan of them. They were too big and too heavy. IMO, the Demons, Darts, Dusters and 60's Barracudas with the 340 are the ones to get.
The only reason it seems worse now to you than years ago is because of all the news sources we have these days. Now as soon as a company's product slips up it's broadcast instantly all over the internet/hourly news channels. Back in the day, it would often take months/years through word of month for defects to get well known by the public.
Let someone do some poor assembly quality on your engine/trans and you'll care.
Lucky you. However, most people don't live in a decent climate. So if their car starts rotting out in only 3-4 years (like the 60's cars did in the north, midwest, northeast/west or some coastal areas) that would make them more "disposable".
No. The next edition will be about cup holders that are too small, stereo systems that don't produce perfect sound quality, lack of non-heated seats/a DVD player/automatic climate control, etc.
I know a few people who own them. They've never mentioned oil burning. Do you know something these owners don't?
the car business entirely in another year or two.
Let's hope not... Let's hope they end up getting a government bail-out or some rich German company buys them out.
A closed mind is a wasted mind.
FYI - I've been driving a 5-liter Mustang for the past 17 years. I just don't wear blinders like you do.
'68-'72: Poisonous leaded fuel, noxious and planet killing emissions, drum brakes, bias-ply tires, poorly designed safety belts, cheap vinyl interiors, shoddy build quality, recirculating ball steering, distributor points, virtually no rust control measures, no overdrive transmissions... yeah, after those "glory days" it all went down hill...
There are only a couple faster (his car is like 3rd or 4th fastest) than his that still sport the stock motor/turbo. And he's only about
2 tenths off the fastest car's time.
Engine wise his is very low buck. Just added boost, larger mass air meter, exhaust mods and getting 1.6 60-foot times and 12.1 1/4s on plain old street tires is pretty impressive.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.