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
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 | 10 | October 16th 04 05:28 AM |
Chrysler 300 C - How much of a Mercedes is it, and is that good or bad? | REInvestments | Dodge | 14 | May 11th 04 01:10 PM |
Good Good Deals! | Brendan Carpenter | Dodge | 0 | April 20th 04 04:05 AM |