I have no beef against DaimlerChrysler, FoMoCo or General Motors. In my opinion all have made some beautiful things and some dog poop. However it's been brought to my attention that some consider Chrysler Corp. engineering without peer or flaw. All I can say is, bullshit.
Bad points with Mopar:
Like Amiga computer users, Moparites can be real penises about their chosen folly. So can other marque partisans, I give them one demerit.
Lack of interchageability. Putting a Mopar engine in a chassis designed for that engine but sold with a different one is always a high pain in the ass factor procedure requiring different frame members, different bellhousings or automatic transmissions, etc. Putting Mopar engines in other chassis usually a major high hard one in the hindquarters because things are at odd angles. How often do you see a
318 or a 440 in,say, a Jaguar? I see Chevys in them all the time. Two demerits.
Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the present. Feels tacky. One and a half demerits.
Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly rebuilt. Two demerits, but if modern high torque aftermarket starter fitted, waived.
Troublesome systems such as Lean Burn, et al. Two demerits, waived in states where depollutionizing feasible.
Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to Delcotron possible. One demerit.
Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines '65-80s. Two demerits, waived with aftermarket aluminum intake manifold on V8's.
Left hand threaded lug nuts, one demerit for confusion, one-half demerit waived for innovation. One-half demerit.
As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a best of breed approach. One reason why International Harvesters are such good trucks is they could and did get the best things from each vendor. I remember old Dave Blanton and how he would bitch about General Motors. Half of what he said had some basis in fact and half didn't. But he flew those junkyard refugee Ford V6s. He put his ass on the line. You have to respect that. I notice DCX isn't having that minxy broad that flies the T-34 with the pentagram, I mean pentastar, on the tail put a Hemi under her cowling!
Well, of course it's bullshit...*if* it's an argument that's actually been made. Who made it?
Er...no, that's frequently the case, but not always. I can think of plenty of cases in which it's not necessary to change frame members. But even in those cases where the K-member must be changed in order to swap from, say, a slant-6 to a V8, or a small block to a big block: Have you actually scrutinised the differences among the different K-frames? No, of course you have not. When you do, assuming you know what you're looking at, you'll find the differences are far more significant than just engine mount pad locations. Engine swaps are infrequent occurrences. I'll happily swap K-frames (oh NO! Eight big bolts! WhaddamigonnaDO?) inorder to have a subframe specifically designed for the loads and stresses involved. The alternative is GM-style standardisation on the weakest common denominator. You can see it in their brakes. You can see it in their U-joints. You can see it in their frames and/or subframes, in their rear axles, in their cooling systems. You can see it in Ford's electricals and cooling systems.
OK, I'll play: What do you think is at "odd angles" in which Mopar engines?
the time. Two > demerits.
I think that's more a function of what changeover kits get put on theaftermarket, which in turn is a function of what's cheap in the used-engine market, which means small block Chevrolets. And there're lots of reasons they're cheap! And, erm, since when does an engine swap that gets done maybe two dozen times in five years warrant a "demerit"...? Who cares how many non-Jaguar engines are currently installed in Jaguars? I might just as well ask how often you see a Chevy or Ford engine in a Jensen Interceptor (never, they're all Mopar 440s).
You're a decade off; the cheesy switches and body hardware started showing up in '74. It hit a low point in the 1980s and began recovering in the early 1990s. Current-production body hardware and switchgear is better in fit and feel than most of what comes out of Ford or GM.
Horsepucky. That starter is easy to get *rebuilt* properly and inexpensively. What's not possible is to find a *remanufactured* unit off the parts store shelf that lasts worth a damn. This applies equally to other-brand starters and alternators; the fault lies with the "remanufacturers". Shall we discuss the Delco 5-hour starter? Or Ford's movable-pole-shoe "better idea" unit?
First efforts at emission control. Worked very well for what they were and the timeframe in which they were used; no more or less troublesome overall than contemporary systems from other manufacturers *worldwide*.
possible. One demerit.
Low output at idle from certain pre-1970 alternators. Direct drop-in swap to post-1970 alternators, or if even more idle-speed charging is needed, easy and cheap upgrade to post-'89 Chrysler, Bosch or Nippondenso alternator from later-model Mopar. Yet another undeserved "demerit" arising from nothing more or less than your own ignorance.
More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not. Same as every other carbureted vehicle.
...says the staunch marque non-partisan...
Now you're hallucinating. They did no such thing. There was plenty of good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, they did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from whoever put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme susceptibility to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup looks like this:
What's wrong with standardizing on the strongest common denominator?
I agree the Jensen is a great car, but they were designed around mopar power in the first place. You could also mention the Facel Vega, the Dual Ghia, the later Bristols and the Monteverdis, ditto. Monteverdi's Hai was what proved what a un-Autobahnworthy and specialized affair the
426 Race Hemi was- you couldn't keep valvetrains in them. Don Aronow knew this too but he didn't see the need to tip fellow boat builders off.
Okay, conceded.
Have you ever drilled the rivets out and dropped the heat shield from under the iron intake manifold of a Mopar engine??? What a sewer pit. They should have used a valley cover and a separate manifold if they wanted the carb kept cold, which the heat shield did, but it took forever for the system to reach heat equilibrium. At least, longer than the average suburban car trip.
Internationals maintained by owners or fleet mechanics who know the difference between a Dana 44 and a Dana 60 or a Ford pickup vs. Cadillac commercial chassis brake drum have no problem. Often times you upgrade them to an entirely different assembly anyway since dedicated Binder owners tend to be serious off roaders.
I agree Internationals in the later era of light line production were poor from a corrosion control standpoint but so were Mopars and Chevys and Fords, in other words, everyone.
You win a one way ticket to the L.W. Bill OIIIIIIO Hughes Museum of Redneck Science.
The great thing is you can't even reliably go by that list since most Binders have been swapped around pretty hard. You have to know the part and its main OEM application. That scares the non-serious off and the hard core Binder buff can get them cheap.
Chrysler and AMC are not innocent of that kind of thing either. Medium duty and heavy trucks are all like that-you can't specify a transmission part for "a '82 Peterbuilt". You have to say it's a 13 speed Fuller RoadRanger of such and such series.
All I can say is that Bret's subject #1 was correct and look who posted a reply before anyone else..... It's okay to bad mouth other manufacturers, but when a Dodge gets hit, Danny gets a little peeved.
Ford has done some really good things and some poor ones. The nine inch Ford rear end, the metallurgy in their iron castings, some of their suspensions and brakes are really good.
Not that it necessarily makes their cars good, but Ford engines have flown a lot of planes. Bernie Pietenpol built his Air Camper with a Model A engine. The Funk brothers got a Model B powered plane actually certificated engine and all. We all know about Geschwender and Blanton. Ford also manufactured the Trimotor transport. They are big aerospace contractors. GM, Volkswagen and Subaru engines have also flown but to my knowledge no Chrysler engines.
The Brits think very highly of the little two liter Ford four that goes in Contours, for racing and in fact English and German Ford engines are still big staples in road racing, here and there.
Ford's EFI with MAF sensors are better than the MAP sensor systems in a lot of ways. MegaSquirt is actually somewhat crude in that respect.
Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent system but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years, their big alternator put out little zap, and their current electronics are Nazi (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the long run and the gradual transition to Benz mechanicals (see Thielert TAE125) is going to be good in the long run.
The pinion stem diameter of a Ford 9 inch is the same as the smallest (least desirable) Chrysler 8.75. Let's see, you don't need to press the rear pinion bearing off to change pinion depth shims. That doesn't lend itself to durability, just negates the need for a press and a bearing splitter during set up. I'll take strong over dumbed down any day.
Offset by the crap aluminum they use other places.
Historically, Ford sourced their brakes from Kelsey-Hayes (front disc)and Bendix (rear drum), same as ChryCo.
Ford has used MAP sensors on plenty of applications. Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler MAP sensor fail because it was contaminated from dirt making it's way past the air filter. Seen plenty of Ford MAP sensors with snot hanging out of them though.
Brass reluctor?
No different than any other manufacturer. Wanna see a maze of make do shit, open the hood of an 83 Ford LTD.
Sure, like GM and Ford alternators aren't prone to failure. Uh-huh.
CCD has been around what, 16 years, now?
Does this mean my next Dodge will have a big pointless vanity cover over the engine like a C-230? (isn't that a Buick thing?)
At least some 1975 or 1976 Slant 6 cars with the single barrel Holly stalled so badly that the federal government forced a recall for the problem. The modifications included keeping the EGR closed until a higher temperature and using a different accelerator pump diaphram material, but they didn't help much, unlike a change to the 2-barrel carb did. The V-8s with the Carter 2-barrels didn't stall.
Apparently the hesitation was caused by Chrsyler's difficulties meeting EPA regulations, and only aA few years earlier the EPA thought Chrysler would have the most problems meeting emissions standards, GM the least.
The 9" Ford is the rear end to have, until you get to the big medium duty stuff. For cars it's the best and not just by a little. Of course, if the stock ones were full floating like the properly modified ones it would be better. Still, with the Ford you have your "pumpkin" ready to go and swap them out, removing the old diff, ring, and pinion in one fell swoop.
The only thing better is a Jag XJ setup. Guess what, with a little machine work it takes Ford ring and pinion too!
MAP is not a speed density system, MAF is. It's right from a computational standpoint. It is more accurate over the full engine mapp especially with modification.
Yeah, the reluctor, actually it's the feeler gauge that's brass. Sorry. It has the TO case transistor on the little box with the five pin connector with the screw through it. You can usually fix them yourself by changing the power transistor and the diodes and caps out, if you can get it depotted.
All that winds up in a cardboard box and we put on a good aftermarket manifold and carb and jet to taste. If I had to drive an '83 LTD in Californicator country I'd put a big propane cylinder in the trunk and convert to LPG.
GM alternators are the best. Period. They are reliable and more to the point, can be had in high current versions cheaply.
The Chrysler is reliable enough. But it's what, 60 amps? And that's the BIG version.
True. And? Find me *any* automaker's product that didn't have *at least* one significant driveability-related TSB or recall in the mid-1970s. Find me *one*. Hence my earlier comments regarding "no more or less troublesome than any other make, first attempts at emission control" comments.
You don't like my opinion so I am a fool and should be embarrased? I am amazed at your self importance. As far as being archived forever I think thats great. Someone with a lot of time might be able to search through it for the few facts that are scattered about.
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.