Chrysler Beats GM in All Categories! Video!

Page 1 of 2  
Side by side test track comparison shows chrysler beating GM in performance and handling....see exiting video!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lyle Lanley (Monorail Engineer) wrote:

The video would even be better if you cut and pasted the link.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Forgot the link...here it is

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:30:24 -0400, "Lyle Lanley \(Monorail Engineer\)"

Chrysler used to make technically superior cars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When was that? I drove Chryslers in the 60's and 70's, owned one in the 80's, and my SO had one in the 90's. The 60's and 70's were nothing special (a better term would be "unreliable junk").. The one I owned in the 80's drove nicely but was so poorly thrown together I kept it less than a year. My SOs Plymouth was OK, but certainly nothing "technically superior."
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Demolition derby materials? I guess he was talking about the years that they made the big Imperials. Around here, some demolition derbys will not let anybody enter a Chrysler Imperial because of the big advantage that you have. Other than that, who knows?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good morning. A few examples of Chrysler technical superiority over GM and Ford during the late '50s up until about 1973 when most all of Detroit went to hell:
TorqueFlite trans. Superior in performance, weight, durability and efficiency. Torsion bar front suspension. Better handling and adjustable. Widespread use of an alternator from about '60 up. Unit body from about '62 up. First widespread use of electronic ignition starting in '72.
I am sure there are others.
Lee Richardson.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I drove 60's era Chryslers. The advantage was never obvious to me. I've always hear it claimed they were durable (no reason to think they weren't), but I find your claims of superior performance and efficiency hard to swallow. They were definitely heavier than a C4 Ford Automatic (but lighter than a C6 or an FMX).

Torsion bars are notorious for transmitting noise and harshness to the body (especially unit bodies) - even Chrysler stopped using them for cars. The last gasp was the horrible arrangement used for the Aspen/Volare. What a POS that was.
As for "better handling" - the Chryslers I drove in the 60's were horrible. I see no reason to think that torsion bars should provide for superior handling.

The old Chrysler alternators were great. I still have one in a 35 year old truck that works just fine.

I think they actually had unit bodies before that, but then so did Ford (Falcon, Fairlane) and GM (Covair, Tempest, Skylark, etc>). Chrysler actually had some unit bodies before WWII (Airflow).

I don't think they were ahead of anyone else on this. By 1972 every manufacturer had some cars with electronic ignition. And Chrysler still had some cars with conventional ignition later (at least as late as 1975 - probably later).

I think you could legitimately argue that Chrysler was the most innovative US auto manufacturer from the 30's until around 1957. After that I can't point to any significant new technological innovation Chrysler introduced unless you want to count the front wheel drive mini-van or the horrible lean-burn system.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: After

I'm not so sure that the Chrysler-made front wheel drive mini-van was so great except the fact that they were the first company to build one and for that reason they've had the greatest sales. They (like everybody else) have had their faults. Probably one of the bigger blunders about their minivan was the day it was introduced. In front of about a hundred photographers, a company big wig drove up the first minivan with Lee Iacoca (sp?) riding in the middle seat. Amid hundreds of camera flashes the van stops and the big wig gets out, walks over to the sliding door to let Lee out, and..........the sliding door is stuck. Mr Iacoca has to crawl over the front seat and has to exit out a front door.
Gawd, I wished I had that on video.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe if you do a search you will find the Airflow was body on frame construction and the first car with the frame as a welded part of the body was the 'step-down' Hudson introduced in 1948
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 07:18:35 -0400, "C. E. White"

The best work car I ever had was a 1980 Plymouth police package. Road and handled wonderfully, engine was so smooth and well isolated I often started the car when it was already running. It was a little hard on brakes but not much went wrong with it for the 100K I had it. And as the movie showed, the Chryslers of the late 50's early 60's were way ahead of the competition. Heck, up thru the eighties Ford couldn't even make a power steering system that didn't give up in an abrupt steering maneuver. And technical superiority doesn't necessarily mean they were well made.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ashton Crusher wrote:

I worked for a company in the 1970's that had a fleet of Plymouth Dusters '72-'74 model years. Most had the "slant-6" engine. Nearly all of them were driven 250K miles. A few exceeded 300K with amazingly few problems. I hadn't seen any line of vehicles before or since hold up like that in a fleet environment (which tend to receive a bit of abuse).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would agree that it does't seem there are many people bragging about high mileage on recent Chrysler products, but I know (and have personally experienced) LOTS of people that could brag about high mileage success from other manufacturers, including GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, just to name a few.
Willy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Willy wrote:

Just about all manufacturers produce vehicles capable of attaining 250K+ miles these days (with the proper maintenance).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:30:24 -0400, "Lyle Lanley \(Monorail Engineer\)"

What a great video. The RR track crossing was fantastic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank god they don't build them like that any more. They were all over the place during braking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What amazes me is that I didn't know they have moving picture videos back in 1957. I just thought they had Mathew Brady type cameras.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What amazes me is that I didn't know they have moving picture videos back in 1957. I just thought they had Mathew Brady type cameras.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I bought my first computer in 1957. It had a half a Kilobytes of Ram and a 2 Kilobyte HD and came with a dvd player too. The case was all chrome and looked like a giant toaster.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lyle Lanley (Monorail Engineer) wrote:

What kind of computer? I did not know they even had DVD back in 1957 or even computers available back then, except for commercial applications.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.