If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Bret Ludwig wrote:
> I have no beef against DaimlerChrysler, FoMoCo or General Motors. In my > opinion all have made some beautiful things and some dog poop. However > it's been brought to my attention that some consider Chrysler Corp. > engineering without peer or flaw. All I can say is, bull****. Well, of course it's bull****...*if* it's an argument that's actually been made. Who made it? > 2. Lack of interchageability. Putting a Mopar engine in a chassis > designed for that engine but sold with a different one is always a high > pain in the ass factor procedure requiring different frame members Er...no, that's frequently the case, but not always. I can think of plenty of cases in which it's not necessary to change frame members. But even in those cases where the K-member must be changed in order to swap from, say, a slant-6 to a V8, or a small block to a big block: Have you actually scrutinised the differences among the different K-frames? No, of course you have not. When you do, assuming you know what you're looking at, you'll find the differences are far more significant than just engine mount pad locations. Engine swaps are infrequent occurrences. I'll happily swap K-frames (oh NO! Eight big bolts! WhaddamigonnaDO?) inorder to have a subframe specifically designed for the loads and stresses involved. The alternative is GM-style standardisation on the weakest common denominator. You can see it in their brakes. You can see it in their U-joints. You can see it in their frames and/or subframes, in their rear axles, in their cooling systems. You can see it in Ford's electricals and cooling systems. > Putting Mopar engines in other chassis usually a major high hard one in > the hindquarters because things are at odd angles. OK, I'll play: What do you think is at "odd angles" in which Mopar engines? > How often do you see a 318 or a 440 in,say, a Jaguar? I see Chevys in them all the time. Two > demerits. I think that's more a function of what changeover kits get put on theaftermarket, which in turn is a function of what's cheap in the used-engine market, which means small block Chevrolets. And there're lots of reasons they're cheap! And, erm, since when does an engine swap that gets done maybe two dozen times in five years warrant a "demerit"...? Who cares how many non-Jaguar engines are currently installed in Jaguars? I might just as well ask how often you see a Chevy or Ford engine in a Jensen Interceptor (never, they're all Mopar 440s). > 3. Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the present. You're a decade off; the cheesy switches and body hardware started showing up in '74. It hit a low point in the 1980s and began recovering in the early 1990s. Current-production body hardware and switchgear is better in fit and feel than most of what comes out of Ford or GM. > 4. Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly rebuilt. Horsepucky. That starter is easy to get *rebuilt* properly and inexpensively. What's not possible is to find a *remanufactured* unit off the parts store shelf that lasts worth a damn. This applies equally to other-brand starters and alternators; the fault lies with the "remanufacturers". Shall we discuss the Delco 5-hour starter? Or Ford's movable-pole-shoe "better idea" unit? > 5. Troublesome systems such as Lean Burn, et al. First efforts at emission control. Worked very well for what they were and the timeframe in which they were used; no more or less troublesome overall than contemporary systems from other manufacturers *worldwide*. > 6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to Delcotron possible. One demerit. Low output at idle from certain pre-1970 alternators. Direct drop-in swap to post-1970 alternators, or if even more idle-speed charging is needed, easy and cheap upgrade to post-'89 Chrysler, Bosch or Nippondenso alternator from later-model Mopar. Yet another undeserved "demerit" arising from nothing more or less than your own ignorance. > 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines '65-80s. More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not. Same as every other carbureted vehicle. > As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a best of breed > approach. One reason why International Harvesters are such good trucks ....says the staunch marque non-partisan... > is they could and did get the best things from each vendor. Now you're hallucinating. They did no such thing. There was plenty of good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, they did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from whoever put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme susceptibility to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup looks like this: DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652 the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this: DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839 and so forth. Five million and a half demerits. You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact. DS |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Geez Dan , glad I ran a SS 64 Belvedere Hemi all over the the coast at NHRA
events, the K frame comment brought a smile. All stated, true. "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message oups.com... > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Bret Ludwig wrote: > >> I have no beef against DaimlerChrysler, FoMoCo or General Motors. In my >> opinion all have made some beautiful things and some dog poop. However >> it's been brought to my attention that some consider Chrysler Corp. >> engineering without peer or flaw. All I can say is, bull****. > > Well, of course it's bull****...*if* it's an argument that's actually > been > made. Who made it? > >> 2. Lack of interchageability. Putting a Mopar engine in a chassis >> designed for that engine but sold with a different one is always a high >> pain in the ass factor procedure requiring different frame members > > > Er...no, that's frequently the case, but not always. I can think of > plenty of cases in which it's not necessary to change frame members. > But even in those cases where the K-member must be changed in order to > swap from, say, a slant-6 to a V8, or a small block to a big block: > Have you actually scrutinised the differences among the different > K-frames? No, of course you have not. When you do, assuming you know > what you're looking at, you'll find the differences are far more > significant than just engine mount pad locations. Engine swaps are > infrequent occurrences. I'll happily swap K-frames (oh NO! Eight big > bolts! WhaddamigonnaDO?) inorder to have a subframe specifically > designed for the loads and stresses involved. The alternative is > GM-style standardisation on the weakest common denominator. You can see > it in their brakes. You can see it in their U-joints. You can see it in > their frames and/or subframes, in their rear axles, in their cooling > systems. You can see it in Ford's electricals and cooling systems. > >> Putting Mopar engines in other chassis usually a major high hard one in >> the hindquarters because things are at odd angles. > > OK, I'll play: What do you think is at "odd angles" in which Mopar > engines? > >> How often do you see a 318 or a 440 in,say, a Jaguar? I see Chevys in >> them all the time. Two > demerits. > > I think that's more a function of what changeover kits get put on > theaftermarket, which in turn is a function of what's cheap in the > used-engine market, which means small block Chevrolets. And there're > lots of reasons they're cheap! And, erm, since when does an engine > swap that gets done maybe two dozen times in five years warrant a > "demerit"...? Who cares how many non-Jaguar engines are currently > installed in Jaguars? I might just as well ask how often you see > a Chevy or Ford engine in a Jensen Interceptor (never, they're all > Mopar 440s). > >> 3. Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the >> present. > > You're a decade off; the cheesy switches and body hardware started > showing up in '74. It hit a low point in the 1980s and began recovering > in the early 1990s. Current-production body hardware and switchgear is > better in fit and feel than most of what comes out of Ford or GM. > >> 4. Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly >> rebuilt. > > Horsepucky. That starter is easy to get *rebuilt* properly and > inexpensively. What's not possible is to find a *remanufactured* unit > off the parts store shelf that lasts worth a damn. This applies equally > to other-brand starters and alternators; the fault lies with the > "remanufacturers". Shall we discuss the Delco 5-hour starter? Or Ford's > movable-pole-shoe "better idea" unit? > >> 5. Troublesome systems such as Lean Burn, et al. > > First efforts at emission control. Worked very well for what they were > and the timeframe in which they were used; no more or less troublesome > overall than contemporary systems from other manufacturers *worldwide*. > >> 6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to Delcotron >> possible. One demerit. > > Low output at idle from certain pre-1970 alternators. Direct drop-in > swap to post-1970 alternators, or if even more idle-speed charging is > needed, easy and cheap upgrade to post-'89 Chrysler, Bosch or > Nippondenso alternator from later-model Mopar. Yet another undeserved > "demerit" arising from nothing more or less than your own ignorance. > >> 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines >> '65-80s. > > More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and > choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in > cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if > they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not. > Same as every other carbureted vehicle. > >> As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a best >> of breed >> approach. One reason why International Harvesters are such good trucks > > ...says the staunch marque non-partisan... > >> is they could and did get the best things from each vendor. > > Now you're hallucinating. They did no such thing. There was plenty of > good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, they > did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from whoever > put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme susceptibility > to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as > "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while > the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup > looks like this: > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652 > > the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this: > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: > 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095 > 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656 > 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098 > 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193 > 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755 > 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839 > > and so forth. Five million and a half demerits. > > You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your > ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact. > > DS > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Shep wrote: > Geez Dan , glad I ran a SS 64 Belvedere Hemi all over the the coast at NHRA > events, the K frame comment brought a smile. All stated, true. > "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Bret Ludwig wrote: > >> 2. Lack of interchageability. Putting a Mopar engine in a chassis > >> designed for that engine but sold with a different one is always a high > >> pain in the ass factor procedure requiring different frame members > > > > > > Er...no, that's frequently the case, but not always. I can think of > > plenty of cases in which it's not necessary to change frame members. > > But even in those cases where the K-member must be changed in order to > > swap from, say, a slant-6 to a V8, or a small block to a big block: > > Have you actually scrutinised the differences among the different > > K-frames? No, of course you have not. When you do, assuming you know > > what you're looking at, you'll find the differences are far more > > significant than just engine mount pad locations. Engine swaps are > > infrequent occurrences. I'll happily swap K-frames (oh NO! Eight big > > bolts! WhaddamigonnaDO?) inorder to have a subframe specifically > > designed for the loads and stresses involved. The alternative is > > GM-style standardisation on the weakest common denominator. You can see > > it in their brakes. You can see it in their U-joints. You can see it in > > their frames and/or subframes, in their rear axles, in their cooling > > systems. You can see it in Ford's electricals and cooling systems. What's wrong with standardizing on the strongest common denominator? > > I think that's more a function of what changeover kits get put on > > theaftermarket, which in turn is a function of what's cheap in the > > used-engine market, which means small block Chevrolets. And there're > > lots of reasons they're cheap! And, erm, since when does an engine > > swap that gets done maybe two dozen times in five years warrant a > > "demerit"...? Who cares how many non-Jaguar engines are currently > > installed in Jaguars? I might just as well ask how often you see > > a Chevy or Ford engine in a Jensen Interceptor (never, they're all > > Mopar 440s). I agree the Jensen is a great car, but they were designed around mopar power in the first place. You could also mention the Facel Vega, the Dual Ghia, the later Bristols and the Monteverdis, ditto. Monteverdi's Hai was what proved what a un-Autobahnworthy and specialized affair the 426 Race Hemi was- you couldn't keep valvetrains in them. Don Aronow knew this too but he didn't see the need to tip fellow boat builders off. > > > >> 3. Cheesy interior, switches, et al on Mopars after '64 or so to the > >> present. > > > > You're a decade off; the cheesy switches and body hardware started > > showing up in '74. It hit a low point in the 1980s and began recovering > > in the early 1990s. Current-production body hardware and switchgear is > > better in fit and feel than most of what comes out of Ford or GM. Okay, conceded. > > > >> 4. Geared starter reliable at first but impossible to get properly > >> rebuilt. > > > > Horsepucky. That starter is easy to get *rebuilt* properly and > > inexpensively. What's not possible is to find a *remanufactured* unit > > off the parts store shelf that lasts worth a damn. This applies equally > > to other-brand starters and alternators; the fault lies with the > > "remanufacturers". Shall we discuss the Delco 5-hour starter? Or Ford's > > movable-pole-shoe "better idea" unit? > > > > >> 6. Big wide flat iconic alternator, low output, PITA upgrade to Delcotron > >> possible. One demerit. > > > > Low output at idle from certain pre-1970 alternators. Direct drop-in > > swap to post-1970 alternators, or if even more idle-speed charging is > > needed, easy and cheap upgrade to post-'89 Chrysler, Bosch or > > Nippondenso alternator from later-model Mopar. Yet another undeserved > > "demerit" arising from nothing more or less than your own ignorance. > > > >> 7. Engne cold start and driveability abysmal on carbureted engines > >> '65-80s. > > > > More baloney. It sounds as if you don't know how to adjust chokes and > > choke pull-offs correctly. What's more, there's no difference in > > cold-start/cold-driveability between a '64 and '65 Mopar: It's fine if > > they're in correct repair and adjustment, and it's poor if they're not. > > Same as every other carbureted vehicle. Have you ever drilled the rivets out and dropped the heat shield from under the iron intake manifold of a Mopar engine??? What a sewer pit. They should have used a valley cover and a separate manifold if they wanted the carb kept cold, which the heat shield did, but it took forever for the system to reach heat equilibrium. At least, longer than the average suburban car trip. > > > >> As I said, I think marque partisanship is unproductive and prefer a best > >> of breed > >> approach. One reason why International Harvesters are such good trucks > > > > ...says the staunch marque non-partisan... > > > >> is they could and did get the best things from each vendor. > > > > Now you're hallucinating. They did no such thing. There was plenty of > > good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, they > > did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from whoever > > put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme susceptibility > > to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as > > "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while > > the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup > > looks like this: > > > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652 > > > > the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this: > > > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: > > 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095 > > 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656 > > 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098 > > 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193 > > 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755 > > 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839 > > > > and so forth. Five million and a half demerits. > > > > You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your > > ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact. Internationals maintained by owners or fleet mechanics who know the difference between a Dana 44 and a Dana 60 or a Ford pickup vs. Cadillac commercial chassis brake drum have no problem. Often times you upgrade them to an entirely different assembly anyway since dedicated Binder owners tend to be serious off roaders. I agree Internationals in the later era of light line production were poor from a corrosion control standpoint but so were Mopars and Chevys and Fords, in other words, everyone. You win a one way ticket to the L.W. Bill OIIIIIIO Hughes Museum of Redneck Science. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
<snip> > There was plenty of > good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, > they did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from > whoever put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme > susceptibility to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as > "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while > the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup > looks like this: > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652 > > the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this: > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: > 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095 > 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656 > 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098 > 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193 > 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755 > 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839 > Good grief. WHY on earth would they do such a thing? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Hugo Schmeisser wrote: > Daniel J. Stern wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > There was plenty of > > good in-house engineering from IH, but for their pickups and SUVs, > > they did a great deal of buying components that would meet spec from > > whoever put in the lowest bid. Solid designs ruined by extreme > > susceptibility to rust and near-nil parts interchangeability. Known as > > "Intertrashionals" in the trade because while > > the entry for, say, a rear brake drum for a Ford, Chev or Dodge pickup > > looks like this: > > > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: 1966 through 1982, interchange #3652 > > > > the analogous listing for an IH pickup looks like this: > > > > DRUM, brake, rear, LH = RH: > > 3/66 - 7/15/66, interchange #2095 > > 7/16/66 - 9/66 and 11/66 - 2/67, interchange #3656 > > 10/66 exc. serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2098 > > 10/66 serial 1256983 through 1263908, interchange #2193 > > 3/67 - 8/69, exc. build plant "A", interchange #3755 > > 3/67 - 8/69, build plant "A", interchange #3839 > > > > > Good grief. > > WHY on earth would they do such a thing? The great thing is you can't even reliably go by that list since most Binders have been swapped around pretty hard. You have to know the part and its main OEM application. That scares the non-serious off and the hard core Binder buff can get them cheap. Chrysler and AMC are not innocent of that kind of thing either. Medium duty and heavy trucks are all like that-you can't specify a transmission part for "a '82 Peterbuilt". You have to say it's a 13 speed Fuller RoadRanger of such and such series. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Daniel J. Stern wrote: > You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your > ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact. > > DS All I can say is that Bret's subject #1 was correct and look who posted a reply before anyone else..... It's okay to bad mouth other manufacturers, but when a Dodge gets hit, Danny gets a little peeved. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
I still won way more races then lost on the drag strip, agreed it does not
equate to everyday driveability and long term reliability, the is 1964 remember. "Kruse" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >> You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your >> ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact. >> >> DS > > All I can say is that Bret's subject #1 was correct and look who posted > a reply before anyone else..... > It's okay to bad mouth other manufacturers, but when a Dodge gets hit, > Danny gets a little peeved. > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
"Kruse" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >> You win a one-way ticket into my killfile for promulgating your >> ignorant guesses, opinions and preferences as fact. >> >> DS > > All I can say is that Bret's subject #1 was correct and look who posted > a reply before anyone else..... > It's okay to bad mouth other manufacturers, but when a Dodge gets hit, > Danny gets a little peeved. > LOL! And yet he runs down Ford at every opportunity. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
Bob wrote: <<snip>> > LOL! And yet he runs down Ford at every opportunity. Ford has done some really good things and some poor ones. The nine inch Ford rear end, the metallurgy in their iron castings, some of their suspensions and brakes are really good. Not that it necessarily makes their cars good, but Ford engines have flown a lot of planes. Bernie Pietenpol built his Air Camper with a Model A engine. The Funk brothers got a Model B powered plane actually certificated engine and all. We all know about Geschwender and Blanton. Ford also manufactured the Trimotor transport. They are big aerospace contractors. GM, Volkswagen and Subaru engines have also flown but to my knowledge no Chrysler engines. The Brits think very highly of the little two liter Ford four that goes in Contours, for racing and in fact English and German Ford engines are still big staples in road racing, here and there. Ford's EFI with MAF sensors are better than the MAP sensor systems in a lot of ways. MegaSquirt is actually somewhat crude in that respect. Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent system but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years, their big alternator put out little zap, and their current electronics are Nazi (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the long run and the gradual transition to Benz mechanicals (see Thielert TAE125) is going to be good in the long run. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mopar Follies (was: easiest engine)
In article
.com>, "Bret Ludwig" > wrote: > Ford has done some really good things and some poor ones. The nine > inch Ford rear end, The pinion stem diameter of a Ford 9 inch is the same as the smallest (least desirable) Chrysler 8.75. Let's see, you don't need to press the rear pinion bearing off to change pinion depth shims. That doesn't lend itself to durability, just negates the need for a press and a bearing splitter during set up. I'll take strong over dumbed down any day. > the metallurgy in their iron castings, Offset by the crap aluminum they use other places. > some of > their suspensions and brakes are really good. Historically, Ford sourced their brakes from Kelsey-Hayes (front disc)and Bendix (rear drum), same as ChryCo. <snip airplane stuff> > Ford's EFI with MAF sensors are better than the MAP sensor systems in > a lot of ways. MegaSquirt is actually somewhat crude in that respect. Ford has used MAP sensors on plenty of applications. Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler MAP sensor fail because it was contaminated from dirt making it's way past the air filter. Seen plenty of Ford MAP sensors with snot hanging out of them though. > Chrysler's old brass reluctor electronic ignition is an excellent > system Brass reluctor? > but their emissions systems stunk on ice for years, No different than any other manufacturer. Wanna see a maze of make do ****, open the hood of an 83 Ford LTD. > their big > alternator put out little zap, Sure, like GM and Ford alternators aren't prone to failure. Uh-huh. > and their current electronics are Nazi > (good hacking could fix that.). I do think CAN is a good move in the > long run CCD has been around what, 16 years, now? > and the gradual transition to Benz mechanicals (see Thielert > TAE125) is going to be good in the long run. Does this mean my next Dodge will have a big pointless vanity cover over the engine like a C-230? (isn't that a Buick thing?) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | June 24th 05 05:27 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | June 8th 05 05:28 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | May 24th 05 05:27 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 4 | February 2nd 05 05:22 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 10 | December 18th 04 05:15 AM |