1986 Dodge Daytona Z

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by septicman, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. septicman

    septicman Guest

    are there any groups devoted to these cars? I just bought one in
    Wisconsin and hope to get it running to hopefully sell.
     
    septicman, Sep 12, 2006
    #1
  2. septicman

    Steve Guest

    Steve, Sep 12, 2006
    #2
  3. septicman

    maxpower Guest

    what exactly do you need?

    Glenn Beasley
    Chrysler Tech
     
    maxpower, Sep 12, 2006
    #3
  4. septicman

    septicman Guest

    I would like to know what to watch out for, what usually fails, what
    makes them special or unique, things like that.
     
    septicman, Sep 13, 2006
    #4
  5. septicman

    DeserTBoB Guest

    Just yet another K-car stretch with some rakish styling, optional
    blown 2.2L and not much to recommend it, although it was an
    improvement over the Omni-based Charger. Not many of these car
    survive for a reason...they looked sporty, but performed like a K-car.
    The blown versions, like most blown K-cars, were shop queens if not
    maintained properly. The "G-body," as the Daytona/Laser twins were
    designated, was a Lee Iacocca project aimed at getting sales in the
    youth market that the Ks weren't getting at all, while keeping the
    Corporation's CAFE numbers high and using high powertrain and chassis
    parts interchange, thus saving precious cash. Body integrity was a
    big problem on "G-bodies." The "G-bodies" were aiming also to compete
    with Ford's Turbo T-Bird, but didn't quite make it. Today, G-bodies,
    like most 1980s Chrysler products save the Ms, are pretty rare. The
    2.2L with a blower provided good, if not "sporty," power and still
    yielded good economy. The Garrett AiResearch turbo was a problem,
    though, especially to non-mechanically inclined drivers. The 5 speed,
    like all K-based manual transmission cars, was pretty "clunky" feeling
    due to its ham-fisted linkage.

    My bro-in-law had one for awhile, and was pretty unimpressed with it
    overall. I kept the routine maintenance up on it for him, and it was
    pretty reliable. When he wanted to sell it to me in '87, I passed.
    The car just couldn't perform either power or handling-wise up to its
    looks, and a K-car had more room inside.
     
    DeserTBoB, Sep 13, 2006
    #5
  6. septicman

    sqdancerLynn Guest

    Don't spend a lot of money on it. It will never be worth a lot....
     
    sqdancerLynn, Sep 15, 2006
    #6
  7. septicman

    DeserTBoB Guest

    Lynn's right. This is a "special interest" car only, not a future
    classic like a 300. Neither's my M-body, but I still like it...it's
    got character, and now has pretty good economy to go with it.
     
    DeserTBoB, Sep 15, 2006
    #7
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.