Nate Nagel > wrote in
news:1118629849.0557f4ff163c52732e3ebfaa82fa1cb8@t eranews:

> DTJ wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:04:03 -0400, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>>Chrysler has for many years built good looking vehicles
>>>
>>>>but never consistently put a good engine in.
>>>
>>>HUH?
>>>
>>>Chrysler engines have traditionally been far superior to Ford and
>>>GM's offerings (well, at least the lower priced lines, the old Caddy
>>>and Olds motors were pretty decent.) It's only in recent years that
>>>they've had issues. The old V-8s were all built like a brick
>>>****house and the slant six was even more reliable.
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>
>> Well, Nate, that is the same as saying Chrysler has sucked far less
>> than Ford and GM. Since the 60's or so, Chrysler has sucked compared
>> to what you can get elsewhere.
>
> IMHO since the early 70s, ALL American cars have sucked to some
> extent.
> Chrysler actually postponed the suckage longer and more effectively
> than Ford or GM. I still don't understand the comment about Chrysler
> consistently not putting in good engines; up until very recently they
> were still the best American engines out there and some were really
> world class... the LA, B/RB, slant six, 2.2/2.5, all very decent
> engines. What have the other guys been putting out? the 3800 is
> pretty good, like I said the older non-Chevy GM engines were good, but
> other than that...

Every Chrysler I have ever driven has been a noisy gutless pig. Of
course it's been a couple of years since I test drove a Concorde.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time