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?

"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).

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

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.

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:

> 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.

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.