nice convertible

Other than the GT dash, I really like that car! The front seats and carpets appear to be standard issue Chrysler 5th Avenue from around

1986. Very comfortable seats and I have never seen that particular pile carpet in any other car.

I have seen a few of these shortened K body convertibles. I wonder if he is correct about 15 inches being removed. They are usually built on a '60-'64 convertible frame. This results in a 12 inch shorter wheelbase and the frame with an X-member. Maybe he uses "coupe" as a generic term for all C & K models. You would obviously start with a hardtop to build a convertible.

Yer too picky.

I just wish they had not shortened it. :-(

Looks very similar to the carpet that was the '87 5th Avenue I should have never sold.

Matthew

I like it, needs a "rake" and a removable hardtop, but a nice car. Kind of odd seeing the tach to the left on a GT dash, but that's just because I'm used to the factory ones.

nate

Heh.... I still feel the same way about the '85 Fifth that Debbie had.

We gave it to a couple we know who were going thru a rough spot when Debbie bought that god-forsaken Cherokee. She was happy with her Jeep purchase for about three weeks and was really wanting that old Chrysler back.

The ONLY reason we replaced it was that it had 220,000+ damn-near trouble free miles on it and I was getting to the point that I was concerned about long trips. I replaced the original belts, hoses, and water pump at 162,000 miles, the original fuel pump at 165,000 and rebuilt the transmission at 178,000..... Our friends finally let got of it at somewhere around 310,000 miles and it was still running well....

Truly an exception to the rule for US cars...

JT

Lee wrote:

May well be but, that particular body of Chrysler product (Diplomat, Fury, Fifth Ave) was a hell of a good, solid car. In '85, I believe, they went to the roller tappet 318 which REALLY made a difference. At

310k miles, when my buddy finally got rid of it, it was still sporting its original timing chain!

That was an odd road car.... 318/auto with lock up/2.23:1 rear end. In town, it was lucky to get 15 MPG.... At 60, it generally got in the 22-23 MPG range but, if I acutally got the engine up into a range it could make power (75-80 MPH) it would easily pulll 27-29 MPG.

The Diplomat I had, if I remember correctly, had the 2.92:1 rear end and, while much peppier off the line, only got in the high teens to very low 20's per gallon on the highway.

Was a shame >Truly an exception to the rule for US cars...

yeah, it's too bad they were ugly as sin, because I have a lot of respect for ALL RWD MoPars...

nate

Lee wrote:

This coming from a guy who admits to owning a Porsche 914.

Lee

Not an exception for the Chryslers of that period. Watching our police fleet (post 1980) is what converted me to Mopar.

Our Diplomats/Furys would be out there on the street working, while the Ch**ys and F**ds were in the shop.

Sometimes, we use a broad brush, and paint (taint) everything.

Our '87 was as pretty as any car on the road. Burgandy red, grey pin stripe and leather interior, moon roof... and most importantly, factory road wheels.

you know, I have to admit that I actually like the styling of the 914, the cheezy vinyl on the roll hoop thing could go though. It is a little disproprotionate because they made the trunk long enough to hold the roof, but that's a neat, practical touch IMHO. I think it looks a lot better than some comtemporary "wedge" styled cars, like the Triumph TR-7...

nate

Lee Aanderud wrote:

Why would I not believe it? That's exactly what I did, also! Never did like the "Boulevard" ride.

Chrysler 5th Avenue. one of the best damm cars I ever got to drive

I worked for a guy that had a triple black 88 5th Avenue..... went to work for him after I got out of selling insurance, he did advertising (tourism maps, phone book covers, etc).

the Chrysler was my company car from 1991-1994, I must have put 40,000 miles on it in 4 years, just driving around Louisiana

he sold it, with 180,000 on it. he, his wife, and me were the only ones that drove it from 88-94

it was triple black.... we nicknamed it the Batmobile

What is the reason that they shorten all these convertible conversions?

So they can mount it on a Lark Convertible frame and get the X-member. Also, It makes the body more rigid.. The Original frames for '53-'61 C/K's are varying degrees of "flexible".(especially early Champions).. You can get a Late-Lark frame cheaply and easily- and it's much thicker steel. (stiffer)..

I too do NOT care at all for the shortened C/K's I think it makes them look "dumpy" ... The long quarter panel really enhances the stance and rake of the car. Shortening it takes that away...

Ray (I'm planning to make a full-length roadster/convert from a '61 Hawk. Possibly w/removeable Hardtop)