The Last Really Good Chrysler Product
 

My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
souvenirs.

Yes, he's a peckerwood.

I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.

But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product
is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because
there is yet to be anything after it. Oh, and IMHO it's the first good one
in a long time.
Richard
"Ted Azito" > wrote in message
om...
> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product
is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because
there is yet to be anything after it. Oh, and IMHO it's the first good one
in a long time.
Richard
"Ted Azito" > wrote in message
om...
> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

Ted Azito wrote:

> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

IMHO the A-body, but I have a feeling that's not the answer he gave you.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Ted Azito wrote:

> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

IMHO the A-body, but I have a feeling that's not the answer he gave you.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Ted Azito wrote:

> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

My 89 Acclaim was the best one I've ever owned. My 96 minivan isn't
bad, still running reasonably well at 158,000 miles, however, it has
required at least one trip a year to the dealer for something
significant - a couple or three recalls, clockspring, electrical
problems, etc. The Acclaim had only one significant problem in 143,000
miles and that was a cracked torque convertor flex plate.


Matt

Ted Azito wrote:

> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

My 89 Acclaim was the best one I've ever owned. My 96 minivan isn't
bad, still running reasonably well at 158,000 miles, however, it has
required at least one trip a year to the dealer for something
significant - a couple or three recalls, clockspring, electrical
problems, etc. The Acclaim had only one significant problem in 143,000
miles and that was a cracked torque convertor flex plate.


Matt

I had a 68 Dodge Sportsman Window Van when I was in high school. It had the
225 slant six and the odometer broke on it when it turned over for the
second time. It was 12 years old when I got it 1n 1980, my first "car",
and I drove it for 8 years after that. I gave it to a friend in 88 and he
got a couple more years out of it at least. Who knows how many miles it
had when it went to the boneyard but I'll bet 300,000+. It was a great
first car and built like a tank. You couldn't dent it easily like the tin
cans of today.

I had a 68 Dodge Sportsman Window Van when I was in high school. It had the
225 slant six and the odometer broke on it when it turned over for the
second time. It was 12 years old when I got it 1n 1980, my first "car",
and I drove it for 8 years after that. I gave it to a friend in 88 and he
got a couple more years out of it at least. Who knows how many miles it
had when it went to the boneyard but I'll bet 300,000+. It was a great
first car and built like a tank. You couldn't dent it easily like the tin
cans of today.

With your kind of language, Teddy, I wouldn't let you near my 99 Intrepid ES
which I consider to be one of the best cars I've ever owned (so far).

"Ted Azito" > wrote in message
om...
> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

With your kind of language, Teddy, I wouldn't let you near my 99 Intrepid ES
which I consider to be one of the best cars I've ever owned (so far).

"Ted Azito" > wrote in message
om...
> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
> souvenirs.
>
> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>
> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2004, Ted Azito wrote:

> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2004, Ted Azito wrote:

> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995.

"marlinspike" > wrote in message
...
>I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product
> is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because
> there is yet to be anything after it. Oh, and IMHO it's the first good one
> in a long time.
> Richard
> "Ted Azito" > wrote in message
> om...
>> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
>> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
>> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
>> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
>> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
>> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
>> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
>> souvenirs.
>>
>> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>>
>> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
>> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
>> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
>> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
>> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>>
>> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
>> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
>> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).

"marlinspike" > wrote in message
...
>I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product
> is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because
> there is yet to be anything after it. Oh, and IMHO it's the first good one
> in a long time.
> Richard
> "Ted Azito" > wrote in message
> om...
>> My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
>> never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
>> demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
>> in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
>> don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
>> them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
>> even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
>> souvenirs.
>>
>> Yes, he's a peckerwood.
>>
>> I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
>> them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
>> dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
>> brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
>> crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
>>
>> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
>> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
>> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).

My old 89 Spirit turbo Base. Smoked alot of my pals with that sleeper!
Lasted until Last year! Gave it to my parents ( my father never believed in
changing oil) Used to go visit everyyear and change it for him. It finally
bit the dust last year with the fried tranny. Only problem in 280,00 km's
was the oil seal to the turbo blew. Leaked oil, Then the tranny. Damn, I
wish I kept it.

My old 89 Spirit turbo Base. Smoked alot of my pals with that sleeper!
Lasted until Last year! Gave it to my parents ( my father never believed in
changing oil) Used to go visit everyyear and change it for him. It finally
bit the dust last year with the fried tranny. Only problem in 280,00 km's
was the oil seal to the turbo blew. Leaked oil, Then the tranny. Damn, I
wish I kept it.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Melvin Myers wrote:

> The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).

Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. Some '73s were passable,
but the build and materials quality went steeply downhill from there. By
the last year ('76) they were shoddily built out of cheap materials -- and
that's without even factoring in the poor fuel economy, poor performance
and poor driveability wrought by the stone-age emission controls.

No, the '60-'72 A-bodies were first-rate cars, but the later ones just
didn't measure up. The '89-'95 AA-bodies, on the other hand, came
extremely close to the standard set by the up-to-'72 A-bodies in terms of
ruggedness, dependability and driveability.

DS

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Melvin Myers wrote:

> The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).

Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. Some '73s were passable,
but the build and materials quality went steeply downhill from there. By
the last year ('76) they were shoddily built out of cheap materials -- and
that's without even factoring in the poor fuel economy, poor performance
and poor driveability wrought by the stone-age emission controls.

No, the '60-'72 A-bodies were first-rate cars, but the later ones just
didn't measure up. The '89-'95 AA-bodies, on the other hand, came
extremely close to the standard set by the up-to-'72 A-bodies in terms of
ruggedness, dependability and driveability.

DS

>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

Everything except 1975-1992 has been "good", and there were a few good
ones in there (trucks, some M-bodies). The LH cars, in both generations,
have been very very good vehicles, and the JA-bodies aren't great but
they aren't an embarassment. The first-generation Neon comes close to an
embarassment, but was cheap enough to be excused.

The jury's still out on the Daimler-fied Mopars, but the Magnum and 300
sure look promising. The 5.7 engine is a work of art (even the more
technical auto magazines that actually dis-assemble engines and study
them are giving the 5.7 great reviews). Its less certain to me whether
the aluminum suspension parts or the un-necessarily complicated 6-speed
Benz-based slushbox are any good. Now, if you could bolt an A-518 behind
that hemi, then we'd really have something great!

>
> But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
> Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
> later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?

Everything except 1975-1992 has been "good", and there were a few good
ones in there (trucks, some M-bodies). The LH cars, in both generations,
have been very very good vehicles, and the JA-bodies aren't great but
they aren't an embarassment. The first-generation Neon comes close to an
embarassment, but was cheap enough to be excused.

The jury's still out on the Daimler-fied Mopars, but the Magnum and 300
sure look promising. The 5.7 engine is a work of art (even the more
technical auto magazines that actually dis-assemble engines and study
them are giving the 5.7 great reviews). Its less certain to me whether
the aluminum suspension parts or the un-necessarily complicated 6-speed
Benz-based slushbox are any good. Now, if you could bolt an A-518 behind
that hemi, then we'd really have something great!

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Melvin Myers wrote:
>
>
>>The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).
>
>
> Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72.

IMO, the A-body and B-body were both perfectly acceptable right through
their end of production in '76 and '78, respectively. The F, M, and
J-bodies that replaced them, and were phased in along side them, lent
their crappy reputation to the older A- and B- body models that really
didn't deserve it. Yeah, QC had slipped across the whole line by '77,
but the A- and B- bodies (and even to an extent the R-body, which was
merely a stretched B-body) didn't suffer nearly as badly as the newer
and allegedly "better" replacements that were coming out and breaking
records for warranty claims. The tightest, quietest, and most
solid-feeling A-bodies I've ever driven were both '74 Darts. Just my
personal view on it.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Melvin Myers wrote:
>
>
>>The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).
>
>
> Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72.

IMO, the A-body and B-body were both perfectly acceptable right through
their end of production in '76 and '78, respectively. The F, M, and
J-bodies that replaced them, and were phased in along side them, lent
their crappy reputation to the older A- and B- body models that really
didn't deserve it. Yeah, QC had slipped across the whole line by '77,
but the A- and B- bodies (and even to an extent the R-body, which was
merely a stretched B-body) didn't suffer nearly as badly as the newer
and allegedly "better" replacements that were coming out and breaking
records for warranty claims. The tightest, quietest, and most
solid-feeling A-bodies I've ever driven were both '74 Darts. Just my
personal view on it.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Melvin Myers wrote:
|
| > The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).
|
| Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. Some '73s were passable,
| but the build and materials quality went steeply downhill from there. By
| the last year ('76) they were shoddily built out of cheap materials -- and
| that's without even factoring in the poor fuel economy, poor performance
| and poor driveability wrought by the stone-age emission controls.
|
| No, the '60-'72 A-bodies were first-rate cars, but the later ones just
| didn't measure up. The '89-'95 AA-bodies, on the other hand, came
| extremely close to the standard set by the up-to-'72 A-bodies in terms of
| ruggedness, dependability and driveability.
|
| DS

The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen 1974
"slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over 200K miles..a
few into 300k with surprisingly few problems. Then they bought Aspens...they
fell apart before reaching 60K...literally...things actually fell off of
them!!! So, I partly agree with Daniel, I think the A-body was very good past
1972...at least the ones I'm familiar with.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Melvin Myers wrote:
|
| > The A-Body Valiant/Duster/Dart (1976).
|
| Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72. Some '73s were passable,
| but the build and materials quality went steeply downhill from there. By
| the last year ('76) they were shoddily built out of cheap materials -- and
| that's without even factoring in the poor fuel economy, poor performance
| and poor driveability wrought by the stone-age emission controls.
|
| No, the '60-'72 A-bodies were first-rate cars, but the later ones just
| didn't measure up. The '89-'95 AA-bodies, on the other hand, came
| extremely close to the standard set by the up-to-'72 A-bodies in terms of
| ruggedness, dependability and driveability.
|
| DS

The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen 1974
"slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over 200K miles..a
few into 300k with surprisingly few problems. Then they bought Aspens...they
fell apart before reaching 60K...literally...things actually fell off of
them!!! So, I partly agree with Daniel, I think the A-body was very good past
1972...at least the ones I'm familiar with.

The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 a
gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking
up oil at a 30%+ per year growth rate with supply channels already at full
production. So, most of them will be left parked in the driveway along with
the SUVs. Too expensive to drive and no one will want them (so no one will buy
them off of you). They may be good...(yet to be seen), but part of being good
is that it fits the times. I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole...it has
"loosing your shirt" written all over it!

"marlinspike" > wrote in message
...
|I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product
| is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because
| there is yet to be anything after it. Oh, and IMHO it's the first good one
| in a long time.
| Richard
| "Ted Azito" > wrote in message
| om...
| > My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
| > never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
| > demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
| > in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
| > don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
| > them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
| > even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
| > souvenirs.
| >
| > Yes, he's a peckerwood.
| >
| > I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
| > them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
| > dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
| > brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
| > crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
| >
| > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
| > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
| > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?
|
|

The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00 a
gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking
up oil at a 30%+ per year growth rate with supply channels already at full
production. So, most of them will be left parked in the driveway along with
the SUVs. Too expensive to drive and no one will want them (so no one will buy
them off of you). They may be good...(yet to be seen), but part of being good
is that it fits the times. I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole...it has
"loosing your shirt" written all over it!

"marlinspike" > wrote in message
...
|I guess it doesn't count as a mopar car but the last good chrysler product
| is the 300C hemi srt-8 that will come out shortly. It's only last because
| there is yet to be anything after it. Oh, and IMHO it's the first good one
| in a long time.
| Richard
| "Ted Azito" > wrote in message
| om...
| > My uncle was over at the house bitching about Chrysler again. He's
| > never owned anything but Chryslers for fifty years. He buys them as
| > demo's or used at a year old, drives them into the ground, puts an ad
| > in the paper for the dead car a s a mechanic's special, and when they
| > don't sell for a couple of hundred bucks he has someone tow or trailer
| > them somewhere and abandon them. Apparently no one comes after him
| > even though he has a pattern of this. He keeps the steering wheels as
| > souvenirs.
| >
| > Yes, he's a peckerwood.
| >
| > I do the opposite: I buy dead cars or get them given to me and bring
| > them back to drivability. With the interest rates in the ****ter and
| > dealerships' willingness and ability to get total turds financed on
| > brand new electro****boxes, some pretty desirable-to me- cars get
| > crushed today. Often as simple as a head gssket or even U-joints.
| >
| > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
| > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
| > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?
|
|

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen
> 1974 "slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over
> 200K miles..a few into 300k with surprisingly few problems.

Right, James, but you and I have been through this before, and as I
recall, you have no experience with the pre-'72 A-bodies for
context/comparison.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen
> 1974 "slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over
> 200K miles..a few into 300k with surprisingly few problems.

Right, James, but you and I have been through this before, and as I
recall, you have no experience with the pre-'72 A-bodies for
context/comparison.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

> > Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72.
>
> IMO, the A-body and B-body [was] perfectly acceptable right through
> their end of production in '76

Sure, but the question wasn't "perfectly acceptable", it was "really
good".

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

> > Disagree. The last really good A-body was in '72.
>
> IMO, the A-body and B-body [was] perfectly acceptable right through
> their end of production in '76

Sure, but the question wasn't "perfectly acceptable", it was "really
good".

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2004, Ted Azito wrote:
|
| > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
| > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
| > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?
|
| The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995.

If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the road now.
I don't see them very often. The old A bodies you saw frequently on the road
well into the 80's.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2004, Ted Azito wrote:
|
| > But getting back on subject, he was going off on what the last good
| > Chrysler product was. I'll post his answer-surprising to me-a little
| > later, but I want your opinions first. What was the last good Mopar?
|
| The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995.

If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the road now.
I don't see them very often. The old A bodies you saw frequently on the road
well into the 80's.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
|
| > The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen
| > 1974 "slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over
| > 200K miles..a few into 300k with surprisingly few problems.
|
| Right, James, but you and I have been through this before, and as I
| recall, you have no experience with the pre-'72 A-bodies for
| context/comparison.

True...hard to believe that they could be much better. But, I'll take your
word for it.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
|
| > The company I worked for in the 1970's had a fleet of a couple dozen
| > 1974 "slant-six" Plymouth Duster's...nearly all of then ran well over
| > 200K miles..a few into 300k with surprisingly few problems.
|
| Right, James, but you and I have been through this before, and as I
| recall, you have no experience with the pre-'72 A-bodies for
| context/comparison.

True...hard to believe that they could be much better. But, I'll take your
word for it.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> | The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995.
>
> If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the
> road now. I don't see them very often.

I see lots of them, and I'm right in the salt belt (Toronto). Perhaps they
didn't sell well wherever you are.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> | The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995.
>
> If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the
> road now. I don't see them very often.

I see lots of them, and I'm right in the salt belt (Toronto). Perhaps they
didn't sell well wherever you are.

"James C. Reeves" wrote:

>The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00
>a
>gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking
>
>up oil at a 30%+ per year growth rate with supply channels already at full
>production. So, most of them will be left parked in the driveway along with
>the SUVs. Too expensive to drive and no one will want them (so no one will
>buy
>them off of you). They may be good...(yet to be seen), but part of being
>good
>is that it fits the times. I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole...it has
>
>"loosing your shirt" written all over it!

I guess that is why you are you and the rest of us are glad we aren't.

"James C. Reeves" wrote:

>The 300C is the wrong car for the wrong time. Gas will be at $4.00 to $5.00
>a
>gallon in a few short years with China (and other "emerging markets") sucking
>
>up oil at a 30%+ per year growth rate with supply channels already at full
>production. So, most of them will be left parked in the driveway along with
>the SUVs. Too expensive to drive and no one will want them (so no one will
>buy
>them off of you). They may be good...(yet to be seen), but part of being
>good
>is that it fits the times. I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole...it has
>
>"loosing your shirt" written all over it!

I guess that is why you are you and the rest of us are glad we aren't.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
|
| > | The AA-body (Spirit, Acclaim, LeBaron sedan, export Saratoga) 1989-1995.
| >
| > If so, one would think that there would still be these models on the
| > road now. I don't see them very often.
|
| I see lots of them, and I'm right in the salt belt (Toronto). Perhaps they
| didn't sell well wherever you are.
|

Could be. Plus, for whatever reason, this marked has become very bad for older
used vehicles. It's possible that those that get put back into the resale
market get shipped elsewhere where they will sell better.