Our first '79 Horizion 2dr was manual steering and stick stick by choice.
Difficult to park and the stick shift had linkage problems. We traded it on an '80 with power steering and auto transmission by choice.
We also had a manual steering FWD Escort rental in the UK. Horrible to steer in close quarters.
I had this problem when I bought a '81 Horizon TC3, with the 2.2L engine and stick shift. The manual transmission had problems and I became very frustrated that no one in the dealership seemed capable of discussing 4 spd transmission functions. All they knew was autos.
Fortunately I found a mechanic at another dealership who understood my transmission problems. He patched it several times, until after 2 years Chrysler totally replaced the transmission innards with a later design, which was OK. I'm still wondering why I didn't dump it for another make.
That was said yesterday by the previous CAW president. He said there wouldn't be enough profit in small Fiats to help Chrysler.
I think this is a general issue. Very little profit per small car. Am not sure if the (Mercedes) Smart has turned a profit yet. The (BMW) Mini only fairly recently went into the black, AFAIK.
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
Never mind the Smart crash results, just try to buy parts (or those oddball sized tires!) for less than a fortune. No thanks.
Nothing is changing, its just that the myth of superior Japanese quality is finally fading after enough Toyota owners have had to replace engines and front suspensions, and enough soccer moms have had their Odysseys puke their transmission guts out on the way home from school.
Not the choice I would have made. The early Horizon/Omni automatics were horribly "mushy" shifting, and the power steering was incredibly notchy. My father owned a '78 and it (plus a couple of Datsuns) put him off small front-drive cars for the rest of his life. Manual/manual/manual Omnirizons drove FAR better IMO. My first car was a manual-brake manual-steering Ford Ranchero (Fairlane body, not the earlier Falcon body Ranchero). It was harder to steer than an Omni/Horizon, but I managed to parallel park it just fine.
When I was a teenager, my Dad bought a 1965 International Travelall that was mine to drive. For those not familiar with it, it was a station wagon built on a true truck chassis - like the Chevrolet Suburban, but heavier - though it had an automatic transmission, it had manual steering. It definitely needed power steering. Parallel parking was not fun. Just thought I'd throw that in. :)
Depends on the country...
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
Your FWD manual steering experiences were totally different than ours. We went to FWD power steering in the 80s and have been happily there since, with several different FWD cars. Yes the 3 spd auto then was mushy, but for our city driving much better. On the highway I'd take the manual, but we drive mostly in slower variable speed city driving.
You save on wheel bolts, only three of them! >:)
Wow - not much redundancy for a super-critical part of the vehicle!
Was it a 345 or 392 v8? Somewhere I used to have a picture of a bare IH
345 cylinder block. The thing makes your average Ford, Chevy, or Chrysler big-block look like a dainty little ornate metal scupture. The 345 looks more like a solid block of iron with bits picked away for the rotating assembly to fit. Buttresses across the lifter valley. Only like 2 coolant holes passing through the cylinder deck. Deep skirt with cross bracing around the main caps. The weight engine ALONE in a Travelall is enough reason to want power steering!
Actually it was the 304 CI engine. It actually moved it pretty well. But you're right - I always heard that their engines weighed several hundred pounds more than other make engines. I think that kind of extreme over-design was their eventual downfall. They generally didn't progress with the times, i.e., slow in adopting true improvements like disc brakes.
My Dad used IH trucks in his Mechanical contracting business. One of the service trucks that he had had a 4 cylinder engine, the design of which was literally the V-8 block, head, pistons, connecting rods but with one cylinder bank deleted from the casting.
This is what the '65 Travelall looked like:
I think that's the same casting as the 345. The 392 is, I think, a "raised deck" version of the 345 block. Sorta like a Mopar 440 vs a 383.
It was probably their downfall from the light-duty market sector (the Scout and Travelall). But it kept them at the top of the game in school bus and medium-duty box truck service for 40 years...
>
I will only be beneficial if buyers that fit the Fiats come to buy them. I don't!!!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required