Remove the Chrysler "Wings"/Not German

Apparently you have never seen Chryslers from the '30's and 40's with the trademark "wings", Viking helment/wings, or any other traditional
Chrysler logos. It is definitely not related to Mercedes-Benz.
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

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

The recent wings came with the Mercedes takeover.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you look at say, a 1934-37 Airflow, or a comparable Airstream, you will see the exact winged emblem on the trunk, and on the Airflow, on the rear fender skirts. I have a 1940 Royal coupe, and on the Owner's Manual, it has the wings with the middle logo, just like today's. Chrysler revived the motif, and for my taste, it is an historical link with their great cars!
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

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

No, they didn't (see previous post).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater.com wrote:

And besides, the re-introduction of the ribbon roundel/wings combination that is currently on the cars pre-dated the Benz fiasco by several years. There was a wholesale re-introduction of updated Dodge, Chrysler, and Plymouth logos in the mid 90s. The Dodge ram's head came back, an updated version of the Plymouth sailing ship came back (fore-aft rigged instead of square-rigged this time ;-), and the Chrysler ribbon medallion came back and sprouted wings. All 3 of those logos (or marks, more precisely) were used in the 40s and 50s, but were phased out in the 60s in favor of the Pentastar (corporate), the Dodge 3-pointed "Fratzog", and the abstract Plymouth ship that looked more like a rocket.
What I really want to see is for the Pentastar to re-appear on the right-front quarter panel where it belongs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree. They did that for a brief period the early 1990's, but then discontinued. It never did show up on the vans, at least from what I remember.
-KM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, that's a great idea! I'm with you guys. GM is doing it now, but Chrysler has a real heritage there. For my part, I really like the Chrysler ribbon logo. I wouldn't hurry to throw that away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

The ribbon logo has a heritage, but it is awfully baroque looking. Especially when paired with the wings. Baroque isn't even quite the word I want. What I'm looking for is a wierd combination of modern and 19th-century- like what you see in movies based on Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. The winged ribbon would look right at home on Captain Nemo's pipe organ.
The Pentastar actually has a shorter history with Chrysler (60s to mid 90s) but its certainly the brand identifier that most people recognize immediately as "Chrysler Corporation."
As for Dodge, bring back the Fratzog! (and yes, that's really what it was called in the legal documents...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fratzog.jpg
And as for Plymouth... well... bring back PLYMOUTH, first dammit!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Chrysler wings and ribbon emblem have been around for decades, just not used again until recently. I remember the ribbon emblem on early 1950s Chryslers, but the Forward Look pretty much stopped it then. It returned on the '95 LH cars, replacing the PentaStar as the grille emblem.
Adding the wings to the ribbon emblem gives the emblem more total visibility than if it was there alone.
I recall when the PentaStar returned to the passenger side fender on the LH cars. That made LOTS of us happy, even if it was molded into the moldings rather than being the gold emblem separate from other ornamentation. Of course, you can buy them repro, then add some double-sided molding tape and have things like you'd like them to be!
I feel that what should be considered is that the Germans wanted Chrysler to do well, so the management team made some decisions to bring back some of the prior ornamentation AND the HEMI (although it's probably more of a "pent roof" than "hemi", but they did consult with Tom Hoover (Father of The Hemi) on that resultant cylinder head design.
Consider, too, that Dr. Z and Wolfgang could do things at Chrysler that they couldn't do at MB, with respect to product and how they did things at Chrysler (already). After Dr. Z replaced Schrempp, the "Chryslerization of Mercedes" began (with respect on doing things quickly and efficiently and more cost effectively--from things I read about MB people having to spend time in MI to see how Chrysler Group did things that were better ways to do them than what MB had previously done).
Now "the merger" (or whatever) is over and it'll be interesting to see how things transpire. I hope that with almost all of the prior Chrysler Dream Team on consultant retainers, "The Magic" could well return for another round of vehicles.
It'll also be interesting to see how long the MB-derived vehicle systems will remain in use. Getting rid of that clunky cruise control stalk will be welcome! On the new LX cars, it's a pretty stout piece of material as it can be mistaken for the turn signal lever and get banged around (with "OUUU" sounds emitted when you discover you've hit the wrong lever to make a signalled turn). Not to forget about the MB automatic transmission and other chassis components.
Unfortunately, other than the 300, many of the cars and crossover vehicles designed under "The German" influence have been somewhat lackluster in execution and orientation. Good vehicles, but not the class-leading vehicles that were designed in the 1990s by "The Team". Something also mentioned in the ChryslerLLC.com blogs.
Enjoy!
C-BODY
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 29, 11:59 pm, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote:

Maybe they can explain why a 5.7 L V8 makes only 340 hp, when Toyota gets 381 hp from a 5.7 L. Or why Mercedes gets up to 518 hp from a 6.2 L V8 while Chrysler gets 425 hp.

It's so much better to have it, plus the wiper control, all on the turn signal, huh? Not!

Yes, we can return to the 1970-s era 4-speed automatics. Oooh, wow, overdrive! And those wonderful live rear axles.

Explains why the 300 didn't win any awards, huh?

Yep, those K-car derivatives were soooo great! And V6 and 4-speed automatic -- who needs more?

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

Still an inorant anti-Mopar asswipe, aren't you Lloyd?
Chrysler vehicles haven't had cruise control on stalks since the 80s, they had it on buttons on the steering wheel which is vastly superior to that stinking stalk that gets in the way of the turn signal. And the day any Benz equals the reliability and total cost of ownership of a generic 93 LH car, I'll eat my own shorts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's not nice, lets keep it intelligent here, this isn't a kids place is it? IMO Lloyd made a very good comment about something I'm also wondering.

See the 2005 Magnum, the one I unfortunately experienced.

I agree, based on my experiences with my '95 LH which is still going strong. I didn't want to keep it so long, but Chrysler's product line gave me no choice. Now I see it's become good news for me as some very nice new fuel efficient cars are coming out from all manufacturers. Now I have to avoid becoming stuck on an oldie car with no depreciation.
The current Chrysler employee comments certainly give one the impression they are extremely happy the krouts are out of their hair. Of course the krouts have to say they are glad to be rid of Chrysler. I'm sure both companies have learned something valuable to each of them about car design the car markets they are in. May they each use the best of what they have learned and not forget it too soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Some O wrote:

Yeah, it wasn't nice. But I've had to listen to Parker's inane non-engineering based blather for going on 10 years, and I'm not inclined to ever be nice to him again. He's been keeping his ignorant blather out of r.a.m.c. for quite a while, but I guess the liberation from Daimler brought him back for a few more rounds of nonsense about how "inferior" Chrysler is, because (oh my GOD!) they don't use overhead cams in all their engines, nor (GASP!) independent rear suspension in all their SUVs. Never-f*cking-mind that there are VERY sound ENGINEERING reasons to use cam-in-block engines, and solid-axle suspension is both better performing and safer under many conditions, especially in high-CG vehicles like SUVs. But engineering be damned, IRS is "new" and live axles are "old," ergo inferior in every possible way.
Don't worry, if Parker hangs around you'll get used to the drill.

Right, I was referring to the PRE-LX cars. interestingly enough, other current Chrysler vehicles like the very nice 4-liter Pacifica rental I had a few weeks ago still have the nice buttons on the wheel, not the stupid stalk. I predict that next year the stalk will be gone in the LX cars as well.

I like old cars, personally, because in my work I suffer with modern cars and all their unwanted nanny-isms quite frequently (I can lock my own damn doors and turn my own headlights on and off, thank you). My daily driver is a '66 Dodge, my wife's car is a 93 LH (250k miles, still running strong). But we will probably move it down to my daughter (first car) soon, so I'm eyeing a replacement. Both the Charger and Pacifica are contenders, as is a quad-cab Ram truck. Yeah, those models have nothing in common, but they would all fill the need nicely, with different pros and cons. As you know, I'm not a fan of FWD, but the Pacifica was powerful and predictable enough to win me over anyway. I'd prefer it in AWD, but the weight/performance penalty is pretty stout.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I looked at the Pacifica recently because the dealer nearest me was selling 2006 leased ones with about 15K miles for only CDN$22k. They are quite big and heavy and with the 3.5L engine I expect it wouldn't be as responsive as my 3.3L LH. Then when I looked for the spare it was a compact one tucked underneath as the Van. Surprising for an upscale vehicle. My use requires a matching spare mounted inside, preferable in the usual flat manner. End of that possibility.
Another vehicle that interested me was the Saturn Vue hybrid. It would do the job for me, giving very good urban mileage, but unfortunately they have eliminated their unsuitable for me compact spare for the hybrid batteries. They provide a patch kit so you can sit at the road side and attempt your own repair. This is Mercedes Smart (Dumb) car level design. Definitely not of use to me who travels in a country where you are usually without highway service except 8 to 6 weekdays, to say nothing about getting a replacement tire when far from a major center. No wonder Saturn is struggling!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Some O wrote:

I've never driven one with a 3.5, but with a 4.0 it goes like a scalded cat. Its SUBSTANTIALLY quicker than our first-gen LH with a 3.5, and very comparable to the 3.5 Charger (not 3.5 HO) Charger rentals I've had. Best of all, the 4.0 has TORQUE! It may be built on the 3.5L OHC architecture, but its got cam profiles that give it boatloads of off-idle torque and make it pull like a v8. Just the ticket for a heavy van like the Pacifica.

Why surprising for an upscale? If anything, upscale vehicles made that switch sooner than others. In fact, I've rarely seen any vehicle other than a pickup truck with a full-size spare in the past 10 years. Many don't even have ROOM for that option anymore.

That draws a big disqualification from me just based on the service history of the Vue in general.

Saturn is struggling because GM blew yet another opportunity to stick it in Toyota's face. :-(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lloyd . . . the power an engine puts out is NOT specifically related to the combustion chamber design OR having the camshaft not in the cylinder block. And then there's the issue of camshaft duration, timing, and how well the ports of the engine "work" to facilitate air flow into and out of the motor, not to forget the importance of a good undercar exhaust system in the combination, too.
Mr. Hoover noted that when they started filling in some of the sides of the combustion chamber, the power increased from what it otherwise was. In other words, in current combustion chamber design, it takes "active air" to make power--which means pretty much the same thing as a wedge-shaped combustion chamber had with its "squish" area between the piston and the cylinder head. Not all wedge motors have "active" chambers and not all hemi chambers are otherwise.
The whole idea, back then, for the hemi head was increased breathing capabilities due to unshrouded valves with respect to where they were placed and oriented in the combustion chamber. Openning things up, as the hemi head did, increased air flow and power over the normal wedge or flathead designs.
In modern times, port flow and orientations can make a wedge chamber have similar breathing capabilities as a hemi head. Add in more modern orientations of harnessing "swirl" in the mixture (kind of similar to the old stratified charge principles being researched in the early 1960s, in some respects). A good 4-valve cylindrer head can compensate in these areas too, in some ways better than having 2 large valves.
As for the power output of MB engines, all you have to do is look at the power from the original Crossfire V-6 MB engine. Same 3.5L size as the Chrysler 3.5L V-6. Camshafts in the same location and probably the same number of valves. And the Chrysler 3.5L started out with 217 (if I recall correctly) horsepower in a very cost effective unit. When you look at the MB 3.5L on a display stand, the block ribbing and such look neat, but it's very obvious that the Chrysler engine of the same size is MUCH less expensive to build (although it has many of the prior Chrysler HP V-8 engine orientations, such as full-floating piston pins, which the original 340 V-8s used). No doubt, the MB 3.5L is a good engine, but then those Chrysler guys have theirs too, with similar or more power (especially in the 2nd gen version now in use) that is both less expensive to build, easier to work on, and less sophisticated yet has equal or more power AND probably gets better fuel economy at the same time. I bet that had the engineers "over there" feeling a little outdone?
As for the cruise control and wiper control issue . . . Chrysler has had buttons on the steering wheel for cruise control since the first LH cars, which then spread to corporate-wide use. Not to forget the additional "things" on the back of the 300M steering wheel which controlled radio items!
In their "euro" oriented vehicles (i.e., some prior Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs), GM had the added lever on the inside side of the steering column. That might work for a vehicle driven by those used to such controls on imports, but when an American car driver (especially an elderly one), you'll see the windshield wipers go off as they desire to drive off from a parked position.
Similarly, the cruise control item I referenced on the current LY cars is awkard to use, even if you know what you're doing with it. Similar with the "Toyota style" cruise control switches that GM used on the 2004+ Grand Prixs (key word, "used").
Doing these things might ease the transition of an import buyer (who is used to those things) in to the American brand vehicle, but it takes some getting used to for those not used. Plus, in the first year of LY Chargers, the ONLY indicator light was a small LED on the stalk's handle itself! NO indicator light on the instrument panel . . . until a year or so later. AND you had to turn it on EACH time you started the car and wanted to use it, whereas the ones on GM cars and prior Chryslers were always ON unless you turned them off, when you started the vehicle. We're talking "convenience" here, rather than where the controls might be . . . in this case.
Where you might want your cruise control and wiper controls to be is you business, but others might not share your orientations. I can deal with steering wheel buttons for the cruise, as well as the controls on the turn signal lever. To me, and probably others, the additional stalks and such on the "import-oriented" vehicles is "foreign" (for want of a better word), which can also be a generation thing in some respects.
In reality, the most forward gears a modern vehicle with a sizeable powerplant would be 5, to me. Take a normal TorqueFlite gear spread, add a low gear of about 3.0 to the bottom and then put a 5th gear (OD) on the top of about .70. That'll get the job done nicely, with a modulated torque converter and other sophisticated engine/powertrain management controls. No real need for TWO 2nd gear ratios that are really too close together to be significantly better, or two OD ratios above "direct" either.
The most efficient transmission woudl be the CVT, but it appears that few other than Nissan and Audi know how to make them work. They ALSO take the customers knowing how to drive them, too! So, when you see Lexus putting out an 8-speed automatic, it's about keeping the engine within a very tight rpm range during cruising for fuel efficiency and such. As was noted in HOT ROD magazine, in an article about the GM Performance Parts 6-speed automatic, they noted that a torquey USA V-8 didn't need all of those extra gears, but smaller import engines did. Be that as it may . . . In some cases, "more is not better".
The 300 DID win lots of awards that first year. Everybody should remember that . . . and it still does. It's designer is now an upper management Chrysler LLC employee overseeing vehicle designs. It became an aspirational vehicle for many, just as the 300M was before that, and the LHS was before that.
What I said in the prior post was that all of the vehicles, other than the 300, which were birthed during the German influence have meet with weak public response and road test reviews that look like some benchmarks were missed (unlike in other times when Chrysler set the benchmarks AND other makes adjusted their product lines to better compete with Chrysler products . . . as in the areas of the LH cars, the rounded RAM trucks, and the string of vehicles that followed in the 1990s.
Read the blogs on the Chrysler LLC website and you'll see these comments. Look at the Sebring convertible and it's obvious why the resale value of the prior gen convertibles has probably been bolstered somewhat. On paper, they appear to be competitive, until you drive them and (as the road testers have done) been disappointed in how things worked out.
If you read Lutz's book, "GUTS", he talks about the meeting they had on the chassis tuning on the Stratus/Cirrus "cloud" cars. The senior engineer was doing his presentation and talking aobut how good the cars rode and such. Lutz, standing at the front of the room noted a group of "young guns" sitting in the back of the room as their boss glossed over how well these cars rode and handled for their intended market. Lutz, being in charge (and probalby getting a little bored) asked on of the young guns what their take on this whole deal was. The reply was that it could definitely be better in all respects, especially in comparison to the competition. Lutz gave them a time frame to get a better proposal together (in a vehicle as THEY wanted it to be) and they accepted the challenge. And THAT was what got approved for production. Now, it seems the "other" proposal (the one that was presented to Lutz first), or one similar, is how the current Sebrings are setup. Lackluster.
As much as some might like to forget the K-cars, THEY had an important mission in the life of Chrysler. Not only did they get the Chrysler-buying public into smaller and nice Chrysler cars, but there ARE still lots of those cars still around (at least in the DFW area). They are giving lots of lower income families the luxury of a leather-trimmed Chrysler at a price that they can afford. Many of these owners are of an ethnicity where Chrysler is a major player in their own country in the automotive industry . . . even rivalling GM's presence there. Yep, they were some pretty decent vehicles, even today! AND they, as many other "forgotten" Chrysler products, seem to have higher degrees of longevity than similar Ford or GM products . . . which IS the Chrysler Heritage . . . even in the "old days".
One time when Dodge Shadow convertibles were new, a Dodge dealer had a showroom display of one that they carefully laid over on its side (after the fluids were drained). I was surprised at what I saw!
Sure, it was front wheel drive, with a K-car heritage, but there, for all to see, was a miniature version of the Chrysler k-frame architecture front end! Just like you might have seen on a '68 Road Runner, just smaller.
It was a turbo 4 cylinder, but the lead pipe out of the turbo was about 2.5" in OD. PLENTY generous for good breathing! At each exhaust joint, it got about 1/8" smaller in OD, until it was aobut 2" out the back. All it needed was a better cat-back exhaust system to really cook!
Unlike Ford and GM, in those times the Chrysler performance heritage was still alive and well. Ford and GM built small cars that were appliance cars, with all due respect, but Chrysler still had performance capabilitied DESIGNED IN, just like in the old days. That's one reason the Omni GLHS was so easy to make happen! At a time when many were bemoaning the death of performance, here came that spunky little Chrysler Corp turbo car and said "Look at what I can do!"
And THAT's what I hope the Chrylser LLC can do. "Look at what I can do", as Wolfgang and associates guide things along to some great vehicles that will show Ford and GM how vehicles CAN be rather than how they now are.
As for Wolfgang's "undoing" in the ME412, in the August 2007 issue of the Walter P Chrysler Club News Magazine, there's a picture of a motorcycle with a Plymouth flathead 6 cylinder engine for power. It has four "skids" as outriggers to keep it upright. This was in about 1933!
I certainly hope "The BEST is yet to come for Chrysler as an American corporation!" With all due respect.
Everybody have a great Labor Day Weekend! Be SAFE and enjoy your Chrysler products, too!
C-BODY
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote:

Motor trend, Consumer Retards, and the like all imply it is, therefore it must be true. At least in Rhoyd's worldview.
You haven't dealt with Hemi-Rhoyd Parker before, have you C-body?
;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like which countries?
DAS
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
--
< snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3313.bay.webtv.net...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.