Discontinued Chrysler models

Back in '73 I ordered and purchased my first new car - a '73 Camaro LT with a

350 V-8. I really thought it was something and I thought it handled fantastic on the freeways of Southern California. About 7 years ago my best friend bought a used '74 or '75 Trans Am Formula 400. He let me take it out on the 210 freeway and encouraged me to drive it the way it was meant to be. At 85 mph it was shaking and rattling, the hood was vibrating up and down and the whole experience was downright frightening. Afterwards I realized how much cars have improved and what was considered good handling "way-back-when" really wasn't.

Considering he spent a small fortune restoring it, including suspension, no!

...yeah, and I was afraid of that, too...

:-)) DAS

--

Yes.

Just curious as to why it should shake, is all. I have a bunch of old cars, 20 to 40 years old and none of then shake at 80 MPH or even at 100 MPh for that matter and they are not rebuilt. ;)

mike hunt

RPhillips47 wrote:

With all the many posts in this tread, I'm surprised nobody mentioned tires (and/or bent wheels) as being the prime cause of most highway vibrations, shake and rattles! I owned an '89 Cavalier coupe 5-speed and often buried the needle past the top-speed on the odometer (140 Km/hr) whenever I thought it was safe to do so behind a fast driver. I had a couple of sets of tires on that car that caused severe shakes over 120 Km/Hr (75 MPH) and was beginning to think it was the car itself ... then I took advantage of a tire sale and installed 4 new tires, properly balanced, and was amazed at how smooth that car rode at any speed thereafter.

Some of the used tires I've used on various cars in the past have caused highway shake even though they balanced well. I have heard that the only way to know that a tire will run smooth at high speed is to test it under load (few places can test tires this way except actually on a car for a road test). Tires that sit around unused (especially on a car not on blocks) develop uneven conditions or "flat spots" that will permanently remain as a flaw or at least cause rough rides long after they are back on the road following a long "sit". I have learned from this, that most used tires are not worth the risk of bumpy rides, and opt for good quality tires on sale whenever tire shopping (and make sure the shop balances them properly)

Stuart

The Cavalier (US) is or wasa regular car, was it not? You're saying the speedometer only indicated a max of 140 KILOMETRES/h ?

That's not a lot. I don't think I have ever seen such a low max on a dial! I thought manufacturers like to put unrealistically high top speeds on their dials.

:-) DAS

--

Many cars and trucks in the US had 85 mph (nearly 140 km/h) as the highest speed on the speedometer. My 1994 Chevy K1500 is this way.

Matt

Also that 55 had to be highlighted in some way!

I thought that mark was where I am supposed to shift into second....

:-)

Matt

Presumably the cars weren't governed to this maximum, so how did one know one's speed? Must be even more dangerous than exceeding the legal limit, which many (most?) drivers do at least sometimes.

Maybe this uncertainty did slow drivers down...

Great thinking by the legislators...

DAS

--

There was a painful period in history (called "the 80s" though the latter part of the 70s were included) when 85-mph was the mandated max speed on speedometers on new-car speedometers in the US. The "55" mark was also boxed and boldfaced to complete the not-so-subtle hint. What stupidity....

Thanks for the info, chaps.

DAS

--

I like a speedometer with about 85 as the max. I would probably not buy a car with 120 as the max. because the divisions on the 85 MAX are more accurate, hence one's speed control can be more accurate. - RM

But you'd want one of some sort installed, or would you buy a car without one?

;-) DAS

--

Now you're just being difficult... :-p

I'm sure Dan can quote the FMVSS regulati> But you'd want one of some sort installed, or would you buy a car without > one?

FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays.

DS

We bought our '66 Newport 4-dr Town Sedan when it was one year old with

7000 miles for $2995.00. New ones were in the low $4000.00 range with the Basic Group (TorqueFlite, Air Temp a/c, Light Package, 8.55x14 whitewalls, wheel covers, undercoat, ps, pb, tinted glass). Seems like Imperials and Lincolns were in the $6000.00 range.

When I was looking at Cordobas in the middle '70s, one like I wanted (Corinthian Leather, 400HO, HD suspension, etc.) would have hit about $6500.00 to $7000.00 MSRP range. Seems like there were loaded Newports in that range too.

Neat thing about those 400HO and 440HO motors is that they still had the same premium features as the old 383 and 440 Super Commando/Magnum engines of the Road Runner days--steel cranks, premium bearings, roller chain timing set, and windage tray. The steel crank 440s (when everything else was using cast cranks) lasted until the '75 or '76 model year--but only with 4-speed manual transmissions in the intermediate chassis vehicles (Charger, Satellite). Only significant difference was that they had a lower compression ratio.

In '75 and '76, Chrysler also had engines without catalytic converters and didn't need to have unleaded fuel. These were obviously fleet vehicles (some fleet managers were still a little leery of those hot exhaust system items under the cars back then). 318 2bbl, 360HO, and

400HO. The 360 and 400 in that configuration were full dual exhaust system cars too. Chrysler also built full dual exhaust cars with a converter on each side up until the '80 year model for the full size Chrysler Newport/Dodge St. Regis cars.

If it took "binoculars" to see end to end of that Olds 88, then it'd taken a telescope to see end to end of a middle '70s Chrysler. BUT the Chrysler would always get better fuel economy than the Olds did so that was some compensation of owning a Chrysler back then.

Enjoy!

C-BODY

Well, the 300 Letter series goes back to the '50s, with the 300C in '57??