Remove the Chrysler "Wings"/Not German

Apparently you have never seen Chryslers from the '30's and 40's with
the trademark "wings", Viking helment/wings, or any other traditional
Chrysler logos. It is definitely not related to Mercedes-Benz.

 

The recent wings came with the Mercedes takeover.

 

If you look at say, a 1934-37 Airflow, or a comparable Airstream, you
will see the exact winged emblem on the trunk, and on the Airflow, on
the rear fender skirts. I have a 1940 Royal coupe, and on the Owner's
Manual, it has the wings with the middle logo, just like today's.
Chrysler revived the motif, and for my taste, it is an historical link
with their great cars!

 

And besides, the re-introduction of the ribbon roundel/wings combination
that is currently on the cars pre-dated the Benz fiasco by several
years. There was a wholesale re-introduction of updated Dodge, Chrysler,
and Plymouth logos in the mid 90s. The Dodge ram's head came back, an
updated version of the Plymouth sailing ship came back (fore-aft rigged
instead of square-rigged this time ;-), and the Chrysler ribbon
medallion came back and sprouted wings. All 3 of those logos (or marks,
more precisely) were used in the 40s and 50s, but were phased out in the
60s in favor of the Pentastar (corporate), the Dodge 3-pointed
"Fratzog", and the abstract Plymouth ship that looked more like a rocket.

What I really want to see is for the Pentastar to re-appear on the
right-front quarter panel where it belongs.

 

No, they didn't (see previous post).

 

I agree. They did that for a brief period the early 1990's, but then
discontinued. It never did show up on the vans, at least from what I
remember.

-KM

 

Yeah, that's a great idea! I'm with you guys. GM is doing it now, but
Chrysler has a real heritage there. For my part, I really like the Chrysler
ribbon logo. I wouldn't hurry to throw that away.

 

Joe wrote:

The ribbon logo has a heritage, but it is awfully baroque looking.
Especially when paired with the wings. Baroque isn't even quite the word
I want. What I'm looking for is a wierd combination of modern and
19th-century- like what you see in movies based on Jules Verne and H.G.
Wells. The winged ribbon would look right at home on Captain Nemo's pipe
organ.

The Pentastar actually has a shorter history with Chrysler (60s to mid
90s) but its certainly the brand identifier that most people recognize
immediately as "Chrysler Corporation."

As for Dodge, bring back the Fratzog! (and yes, that's really what it
was called in the legal documents...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fratzog.jpg

And as for Plymouth... well... bring back PLYMOUTH, first dammit!

 

The Chrysler wings and ribbon emblem have been around for decades, just
not used again until recently. I remember the ribbon emblem on early
1950s Chryslers, but the Forward Look pretty much stopped it then. It
returned on the '95 LH cars, replacing the PentaStar as the grille
emblem.

Adding the wings to the ribbon emblem gives the emblem more total
visibility than if it was there alone.

I recall when the PentaStar returned to the passenger side fender on the
LH cars. That made LOTS of us happy, even if it was molded into the
moldings rather than being the gold emblem separate from other
ornamentation. Of course, you can buy them repro, then add some
double-sided molding tape and have things like you'd like them to be!

I feel that what should be considered is that the Germans wanted
Chrysler to do well, so the management team made some decisions to bring
back some of the prior ornamentation AND the HEMI (although it's
probably more of a "pent roof" than "hemi", but they did consult with
Tom Hoover (Father of The Hemi) on that resultant cylinder head design.

Consider, too, that Dr. Z and Wolfgang could do things at Chrysler that
they couldn't do at MB, with respect to product and how they did things
at Chrysler (already). After Dr. Z replaced Schrempp, the
"Chryslerization of Mercedes" began (with respect on doing things
quickly and efficiently and more cost effectively--from things I read
about MB people having to spend time in MI to see how Chrysler Group did
things that were better ways to do them than what MB had previously
done).

Now "the merger" (or whatever) is over and it'll be interesting to see
how things transpire. I hope that with almost all of the prior Chrysler
Dream Team on consultant retainers, "The Magic" could well return for
another round of vehicles.

It'll also be interesting to see how long the MB-derived vehicle systems
will remain in use. Getting rid of that clunky cruise control stalk
will be welcome! On the new LX cars, it's a pretty stout piece of
material as it can be mistaken for the turn signal lever and get banged
around (with "OUUU" sounds emitted when you discover you've hit the
wrong lever to make a signalled turn). Not to forget about the MB
automatic transmission and other chassis components.

Unfortunately, other than the 300, many of the cars and crossover
vehicles designed under "The German" influence have been somewhat
lackluster in execution and orientation. Good vehicles, but not the
class-leading vehicles that were designed in the 1990s by "The Team".
Something also mentioned in the ChryslerLLC.com blogs.

Enjoy!

C-BODY

 

Maybe they can explain why a 5.7 L V8 makes only 340 hp, when Toyota
gets 381 hp from a 5.7 L. Or why Mercedes gets up to 518 hp from a
6.2 L V8 while Chrysler gets 425 hp.

It's so much better to have it, plus the wiper control, all on the
turn signal, huh? Not!

Yes, we can return to the 1970-s era 4-speed automatics. Oooh, wow,
overdrive! And those wonderful live rear axles.

Explains why the 300 didn't win any awards, huh?

Yep, those K-car derivatives were soooo great! And V6 and 4-speed
automatic -- who needs more?

 

Still an inorant anti-Mopar asswipe, aren't you Lloyd?

Chrysler vehicles haven't had cruise control on stalks since the 80s,
they had it on buttons on the steering wheel which is vastly superior to
that stinking stalk that gets in the way of the turn signal. And the day
any Benz equals the reliability and total cost of ownership of a generic
93 LH car, I'll eat my own shorts.

 

Lloyd . . . the power an engine puts out is NOT specifically related to
the combustion chamber design OR having the camshaft not in the cylinder
block. And then there's the issue of camshaft duration, timing, and how
well the ports of the engine "work" to facilitate air flow into and out
of the motor, not to forget the importance of a good undercar exhaust
system in the combination, too.

Mr. Hoover noted that when they started filling in some of the sides of
the combustion chamber, the power increased from what it otherwise was.
In other words, in current combustion chamber design, it takes "active
air" to make power--which means pretty much the same thing as a
wedge-shaped combustion chamber had with its "squish" area between the
piston and the cylinder head. Not all wedge motors have "active"
chambers and not all hemi chambers are otherwise.

The whole idea, back then, for the hemi head was increased breathing
capabilities due to unshrouded valves with respect to where they were
placed and oriented in the combustion chamber. Openning things up, as
the hemi head did, increased air flow and power over the normal wedge or
flathead designs.

In modern times, port flow and orientations can make a wedge chamber
have similar breathing capabilities as a hemi head. Add in more modern
orientations of harnessing "swirl" in the mixture (kind of similar to
the old stratified charge principles being researched in the early
1960s, in some respects). A good 4-valve cylindrer head can compensate
in these areas too, in some ways better than having 2 large valves.

As for the power output of MB engines, all you have to do is look at the
power from the original Crossfire V-6 MB engine. Same 3.5L size as the
Chrysler 3.5L V-6. Camshafts in the same location and probably the same
number of valves. And the Chrysler 3.5L started out with 217 (if I
recall correctly) horsepower in a very cost effective unit. When you
look at the MB 3.5L on a display stand, the block ribbing and such look
neat, but it's very obvious that the Chrysler engine of the same size is
MUCH less expensive to build (although it has many of the prior Chrysler
HP V-8 engine orientations, such as full-floating piston pins, which the
original 340 V-8s used). No doubt, the MB 3.5L is a good engine, but
then those Chrysler guys have theirs too, with similar or more power
(especially in the 2nd gen version now in use) that is both less
expensive to build, easier to work on, and less sophisticated yet has
equal or more power AND probably gets better fuel economy at the same
time. I bet that had the engineers "over there" feeling a little
outdone?

As for the cruise control and wiper control issue . . . Chrysler has had
buttons on the steering wheel for cruise control since the first LH
cars, which then spread to corporate-wide use. Not to forget the
additional "things" on the back of the 300M steering wheel which
controlled radio items!

In their "euro" oriented vehicles (i.e., some prior Oldsmobiles and
Pontiacs), GM had the added lever on the inside side of the steering
column. That might work for a vehicle driven by those used to such
controls on imports, but when an American car driver (especially an
elderly one), you'll see the windshield wipers go off as they desire to
drive off from a parked position.

Similarly, the cruise control item I referenced on the current LY cars
is awkard to use, even if you know what you're doing with it. Similar
with the "Toyota style" cruise control switches that GM used on the
2004+ Grand Prixs (key word, "used").

Doing these things might ease the transition of an import buyer (who is
used to those things) in to the American brand vehicle, but it takes
some getting used to for those not used. Plus, in the first year of LY
Chargers, the ONLY indicator light was a small LED on the stalk's handle
itself! NO indicator light on the instrument panel . . . until a year
or so later. AND you had to turn it on EACH time you started the car
and wanted to use it, whereas the ones on GM cars and prior Chryslers
were always ON unless you turned them off, when you started the vehicle.
We're talking "convenience" here, rather than where the controls might
be . . . in this case.

Where you might want your cruise control and wiper controls to be is you
business, but others might not share your orientations. I can deal with
steering wheel buttons for the cruise, as well as the controls on the
turn signal lever. To me, and probably others, the additional stalks
and such on the "import-oriented" vehicles is "foreign" (for want of a
better word), which can also be a generation thing in some respects.

In reality, the most forward gears a modern vehicle with a sizeable
powerplant would be 5, to me. Take a normal TorqueFlite gear spread,
add a low gear of about 3.0 to the bottom and then put a 5th gear (OD)
on the top of about .70. That'll get the job done nicely, with a
modulated torque converter and other sophisticated engine/powertrain
management controls. No real need for TWO 2nd gear ratios that are
really too close together to be significantly better, or two OD ratios
above "direct" either.

The most efficient transmission woudl be the CVT, but it appears that
few other than Nissan and Audi know how to make them work. They ALSO
take the customers knowing how to drive them, too! So, when you see
Lexus putting out an 8-speed automatic, it's about keeping the engine
within a very tight rpm range during cruising for fuel efficiency and
such. As was noted in HOT ROD magazine, in an article about the GM
Performance Parts 6-speed automatic, they noted that a torquey USA V-8
didn't need all of those extra gears, but smaller import engines did.
Be that as it may . . . In some cases, "more is not better".

The 300 DID win lots of awards that first year. Everybody should
remember that . . . and it still does. It's designer is now an upper
management Chrysler LLC employee overseeing vehicle designs. It became
an aspirational vehicle for many, just as the 300M was before that, and
the LHS was before that.

What I said in the prior post was that all of the vehicles, other than
the 300, which were birthed during the German influence have meet with
weak public response and road test reviews that look like some
benchmarks were missed (unlike in other times when Chrysler set the
benchmarks AND other makes adjusted their product lines to better
compete with Chrysler products . . . as in the areas of the LH cars, the
rounded RAM trucks, and the string of vehicles that followed in the
1990s.

Read the blogs on the Chrysler LLC website and you'll see these
comments. Look at the Sebring convertible and it's obvious why the
resale value of the prior gen convertibles has probably been bolstered
somewhat. On paper, they appear to be competitive, until you drive them
and (as the road testers have done) been disappointed in how things
worked out.

If you read Lutz's book, "GUTS", he talks about the meeting they had on
the chassis tuning on the Stratus/Cirrus "cloud" cars. The senior
engineer was doing his presentation and talking aobut how good the cars
rode and such. Lutz, standing at the front of the room noted a group of
"young guns" sitting in the back of the room as their boss glossed over
how well these cars rode and handled for their intended market. Lutz,
being in charge (and probalby getting a little bored) asked on of the
young guns what their take on this whole deal was. The reply was that
it could definitely be better in all respects, especially in comparison
to the competition. Lutz gave them a time frame to get a better
proposal together (in a vehicle as THEY wanted it to be) and they
accepted the challenge. And THAT was what got approved for production.
Now, it seems the "other" proposal (the one that was presented to Lutz
first), or one similar, is how the current Sebrings are setup.
Lackluster.

As much as some might like to forget the K-cars, THEY had an important
mission in the life of Chrysler. Not only did they get the
Chrysler-buying public into smaller and nice Chrysler cars, but there
ARE still lots of those cars still around (at least in the DFW area).
They are giving lots of lower income families the luxury of a
leather-trimmed Chrysler at a price that they can afford. Many of these
owners are of an ethnicity where Chrysler is a major player in their own
country in the automotive industry . . . even rivalling GM's presence
there. Yep, they were some pretty decent vehicles, even today! AND
they, as many other "forgotten" Chrysler products, seem to have higher
degrees of longevity than similar Ford or GM products . . . which IS the
Chrysler Heritage . . . even in the "old days".

One time when Dodge Shadow convertibles were new, a Dodge dealer had a
showroom display of one that they carefully laid over on its side (after
the fluids were drained). I was surprised at what I saw!

Sure, it was front wheel drive, with a K-car heritage, but there, for
all to see, was a miniature version of the Chrysler k-frame architecture
front end! Just like you might have seen on a '68 Road Runner, just
smaller.

It was a turbo 4 cylinder, but the lead pipe out of the turbo was about
2.5" in OD. PLENTY generous for good breathing! At each exhaust joint,
it got about 1/8" smaller in OD, until it was aobut 2" out the back.
All it needed was a better cat-back exhaust system to really cook!

Unlike Ford and GM, in those times the Chrysler performance heritage was
still alive and well. Ford and GM built small cars that were appliance
cars, with all due respect, but Chrysler still had performance
capabilitied DESIGNED IN, just like in the old days. That's one reason
the Omni GLHS was so easy to make happen! At a time when many were
bemoaning the death of performance, here came that spunky little
Chrysler Corp turbo car and said "Look at what I can do!"

And THAT's what I hope the Chrylser LLC can do. "Look at what I can
do", as Wolfgang and associates guide things along to some great
vehicles that will show Ford and GM how vehicles CAN be rather than how
they now are.

As for Wolfgang's "undoing" in the ME412, in the August 2007 issue of
the Walter P Chrysler Club News Magazine, there's a picture of a
motorcycle with a Plymouth flathead 6 cylinder engine for power. It has
four "skids" as outriggers to keep it upright. This was in about 1933!

I certainly hope "The BEST is yet to come for Chrysler as an American
corporation!" With all due respect.

Everybody have a great Labor Day Weekend!
Be SAFE and enjoy your Chrysler products, too!

C-BODY

 

That's not nice, lets keep it intelligent here, this isn't a kids place
is it?
IMO Lloyd made a very good comment about something I'm also wondering.

See the 2005 Magnum, the one I unfortunately experienced.

I agree, based on my experiences with my '95 LH which is still going
strong. I didn't want to keep it so long, but Chrysler's product line
gave me no choice. Now I see it's become good news for me as some very
nice new fuel efficient cars are coming out from all manufacturers.
Now I have to avoid becoming stuck on an oldie car with no depreciation.

The current Chrysler employee comments certainly give one the impression
they are extremely happy the krouts are out of their hair.
Of course the krouts have to say they are glad to be rid of Chrysler.
I'm sure both companies have learned something valuable to each of them
about car design the car markets they are in. May they each use the
best of what they have learned and not forget it too soon.

 

Motor trend, Consumer Retards, and the like all imply it is, therefore
it must be true. At least in Rhoyd's worldview.

You haven't dealt with Hemi-Rhoyd Parker before, have you C-body?

;-)

 

Yeah, it wasn't nice. But I've had to listen to Parker's inane
non-engineering based blather for going on 10 years, and I'm not
inclined to ever be nice to him again. He's been keeping his ignorant
blather out of r.a.m.c. for quite a while, but I guess the liberation
from Daimler brought him back for a few more rounds of nonsense about
how "inferior" Chrysler is, because (oh my GOD!) they don't use overhead
cams in all their engines, nor (GASP!) independent rear suspension in
all their SUVs. Never-f*cking-mind that there are VERY sound ENGINEERING
reasons to use cam-in-block engines, and solid-axle suspension is both
better performing and safer under many conditions, especially in high-CG
vehicles like SUVs. But engineering be damned, IRS is "new" and live
axles are "old," ergo inferior in every possible way.

Don't worry, if Parker hangs around you'll get used to the drill.

Right, I was referring to the PRE-LX cars. interestingly enough, other
current Chrysler vehicles like the very nice 4-liter Pacifica rental I
had a few weeks ago still have the nice buttons on the wheel, not the
stupid stalk. I predict that next year the stalk will be gone in the LX
cars as well.

I like old cars, personally, because in my work I suffer with modern
cars and all their unwanted nanny-isms quite frequently (I can lock my
own damn doors and turn my own headlights on and off, thank you). My
daily driver is a '66 Dodge, my wife's car is a 93 LH (250k miles, still
running strong). But we will probably move it down to my daughter (first
car) soon, so I'm eyeing a replacement. Both the Charger and Pacifica
are contenders, as is a quad-cab Ram truck. Yeah, those models have
nothing in common, but they would all fill the need nicely, with
different pros and cons. As you know, I'm not a fan of FWD, but the
Pacifica was powerful and predictable enough to win me over anyway. I'd
prefer it in AWD, but the weight/performance penalty is pretty stout.

 

I looked at the Pacifica recently because the dealer nearest me was
selling 2006 leased ones with about 15K miles for only CDN$22k.
They are quite big and heavy and with the 3.5L engine I expect it
wouldn't be as responsive as my 3.3L LH.
Then when I looked for the spare it was a compact one tucked underneath
as the Van. Surprising for an upscale vehicle.
My use requires a matching spare mounted inside, preferable in the usual
flat manner.
End of that possibility.

Another vehicle that interested me was the Saturn Vue hybrid. It would
do the job for me, giving very good urban mileage, but unfortunately
they have eliminated their unsuitable for me compact spare for the
hybrid batteries.
They provide a patch kit so you can sit at the road side and attempt
your own repair. This is Mercedes Smart (Dumb) car level design.
Definitely not of use to me who travels in a country where you are
usually without highway service except 8 to 6 weekdays, to say nothing
about getting a replacement tire when far from a major center.
No wonder Saturn is struggling!

 

I've never driven one with a 3.5, but with a 4.0 it goes like a scalded
cat. Its SUBSTANTIALLY quicker than our first-gen LH with a 3.5, and
very comparable to the 3.5 Charger (not 3.5 HO) Charger rentals I've
had. Best of all, the 4.0 has TORQUE! It may be built on the 3.5L OHC
architecture, but its got cam profiles that give it boatloads of
off-idle torque and make it pull like a v8. Just the ticket for a heavy
van like the Pacifica.

Why surprising for an upscale? If anything, upscale vehicles made that
switch sooner than others. In fact, I've rarely seen any vehicle other
than a pickup truck with a full-size spare in the past 10 years. Many
don't even have ROOM for that option anymore.

That draws a big disqualification from me just based on the service
history of the Vue in general.

Saturn is struggling because GM blew yet another opportunity to stick it
in Toyota's face. :-(

 

Like which countries?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling