What Bugs Me About the 300

I keep one in the glove box of my '68 Newport as well. Never have
needed one but I have it just in case as they were known to go out.
If you were going through them like candy you had a coil or wiring
problem.

I have to agree with you on this one... I still have one and still
hate it. EFI is the best thing that has ever happened to the internal
combustion engine in my opinion. Sure wish somebody made an add on
that actually worked.

I live in Florida where cars last forever.. Don't new cars still rust
away in 10 years up there? The few times I have been up there it was
hard to find a car that didn't have rust holes. I have seen quite a
few posts on the groups about people having to throw away perfectly
good newer cars because the unibody was so rested as to not be safe.

I drive two old Chryslers and a newer Cadillac. On both Chryslers I
keep a parts kit in the glove box with common failure items like
points and a condenser, voltage regulator and ballast resistor. I
needed the points once but the rest of it is untouched. So yeah they
had some "common failure" items but one could afford the parts and fix
it themselves. Say a 60's Chrysler goes through five voltage
regulators in its life.. Thats $60 as compared to a new Chrylser
product that needs a $400 minimum computer if the voltage regulator
goes out... You know what the sollution is? Put in one of the old
voltage regulators. If my water pump goes out theres one sitting on
the shelf at the parts store for $15. Thats all I need, nothing else
will be broken.. No chewed up timing belt.. No head that warped
because it got a few degrees hotter than normal.

I love the Cadillac too but have had it up to my ears with sensors
that cost $80, shocks that cost $800 and mechanics (including me) that
can't fix a damn thing on it unless the computer gives you a code.

Steve B.

 

Steve,
Though I never have seen anything in writing on this point, I always
heard that in the U.S. there is a Federal law that the car manufacturer
has to make all replacement parts available for a minimum of ten years
from when the car was sold as new. Is that not true?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Rick,

Quoted from "Custom Trucks, Vans & 4x4s"

Issue 1 (Page 32 - 34)

Article Titled "Li'l Red Express Truck" Written by the recently
deceased Steve Collison - (may he RIP.)

"But the truck's powertrain is really where all the action is. This
basis concept was originally introduced at the Chrysler Long Lead
Press Preview in 1977 as a possible production-line piece equipped
with a 360 4-bbl engine and special high-flow W-2 cylinder heads. But
because the factory didn't get the truck EPA-certified in time for the
model run, the W-2 package was scrubbed and the standard A-engine
heads were installed instead."

Nearly anything "properly built" can make decent power. Point is,
straight out of the box, the 340 is a much better engine.

Patrick

 

Steve,

I did, twice. Once with a factory replacement and once with an
aftermarket unit.

It's a proven fact that today's cars last longer than the old cars
did. The average age of a vehicle on the road today is the highest it
has ever been and it continues to rise.

That's because today the automotive world is hyper competitive. Years
ago, Detroit could produce a model and have it hang around for years
with just styling tweaks. There was no big rush to stay ahead. GM,
Ford, Chrysler, and to a lesser degree AMC, were really the only
players in town. And back then, unlike today, people would trade-in
for a new car every 3-4 years anyway (I wonder why that was?), so a
manufacturer could potentially have a once dissatisfied customer, who
tried out one of the other brands on their following purchase, back
shopping in their showrooms in 6-8 years anyways. There were plenty
of new car buyers/money to go around back then... why would they have
been overly concerned with quality?

So back then it made sense to carry large inventories of parts because
the rate of model changeover was so slow. But today, with the amazing
amount of competition, after 4-5 models years a product is no longer
competitive. So if you know a model is only going to be around for a
few years, why would you load up on replacement parts? You don't,
because it doesn't make good business sense.

That's because my brother's Intrepid used up all the factory
replacement parts. ;-) He bought it new in '93 and in the first
40,000-50,000 miles had to just about replace everything on the car.
However, after everything was replaced the car amazingly became quite
reliable. He traded it in a year or so ago after racking up about
125,000 miles.

Here's some interesting reading for you. It's from Jim Wangers' book
titled "Glory Days."

"The 1957 cars had been scheduled to be 1958 models, appearing
in midyear 1957. The 1956 cars were to be carried over as the 1957s.
But in early 1956, when Chrysler management saw how badly their cars
were selling, they moved the '58 cars up six months and introduced
them at announcement time. Jumping a production model ahead one year
was much easier to do in those days than it is today as there were no
government emission certification of EPA mileage requirements to pose
significant hurdles.
Unfortunantly, some corners were cut in moving those cars up, and
the '57 models were somewhat compromised in build quality. For
example, many side windows did not seal well, resulting in several
leaks. To counter this embarrassing situation, Plymouth prepared a
demonstration for the press to show how they were fixing the problem.
They set up a very elaborate water spray booth at the end of the
assembly line. Once the spray was turned off, a team of inspectors
would carefully examine each car for leaks. If there were any leaks
that car would be shuffled off to the "Hospital" for quick repair.
Cars without leaks would be taken to the marshalling yard and put on a
truck for delivery to a dealer. We had this show at the Plymouth
plant on Mt. Elliot Road in Detroit, and brought in news people from
all over the country to see this tremendous spray testing process,
making sure there were no cars shipped with leaks.
What we didn't tell the press was that the cars that leaked
actually went around the back of the plant and got on the same trucks
to be shipped to the dealers. There was no "hospital." One out of
every three cars leaked, and the factory relied on the dealers to fix
them before they were sold."

Read the book. It'll clear up your memory of the "good ol' days".

Ever ride in a turbo Eclipse? My friend's Eclipse is running 1.6
60-foot times and 12.0 1/4s at about 110-111 mph, on street tires with
its stock motor and turbo. It's a sweet car!

Here's his page:

http://www.arctic-racing.com/

Check it out! It'll change your mind about "Mitsushittis".

Steve, you are horribly biased. It's blatantly apparent you've lost
all objectivity... it's so bad in fact, I doubt anyone will EVER be
able to convince you that the 60's Chryslers were not the pinnacle of
automotive design.

Patrick

 

So is my belief stated in an earlier post about a federal (U.S.)
requirement that mfgrs. make parts available for a minimum of ten years
in error (in essence, and urban legend)?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

In Britain, agreed that even the E 200 is 'expensive', but not in Germany.
Although I posted the link elsewhere in this thread, here it is again:
http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_2003.html

In 2003 the E-Class at no. 7 sold half as many times as the No. 1, the VW
Golf/Bora. Some people even call the E a butcher's car (because it is so
common).

In Mar 04 the E-Class rose to no. 4 (though sales ration with Golf/Bora
still same)
http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_maerz_2004.html


DAS

 

I think most of your queries have received answers from other, e.g. Chrysler
having plants in Europe (Simca, France). Actually also Rootes(GB),
Chrysler's first shareholding being bought in 1964.
If you have the patience you can plow your way through this lot:
http://www.team.net/www/rootes/history.html

Here are some more interesting links:
http://www.allpar.com/world/rootesus.html
http://www.allpar.com/model/eurocc.html

The English factory (Coventry) was sold to Peugeot in 1978.


The English word "saloon" is, to my mind, entirely equivalent to the US
"sedan" in that it describes a shape ('three-box') and has nothing to do
with size.

On re-reading my para about "'American' Chryslers" I see that it was rather
unclear.

What I meant was that there are many more US-factory-made and
designed-for-US cars from Chrysler in Europe than from GM and Ford, as these
two companies manufacture in Europe in several locations in vast quantities,
so would have little commercial interest in importing 'American' cars in
large volumes.

Ford sells its mainstream cars with the blue oval, i.e. under the Ford name.
(Rest are Volvo, Jag etc.

GM sell its mass cars under Vauxhall in the UK and under Opel everywhere
else. For the last 25 years or so the difference between Vauxhall and Opel
has been the badge. Before that Vauxhall had a distinct product line. (I
bought one of the first Vauxhall-badged Opels -- Vauxhall Cavalier -- in
1979, when it was about two years old. It was still slightly distinctive in
that its nose was that of the sportier Opel Manta and the rest of the Opel
Ascona.)
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Vauxhall Cavalier

It caused quite a lot of amusement and puzzlement when I took it into an
Opel dealer in Germany for a service, as they had never seen one (wasn't
sold in Germany).

Finally, you may be right about the UK writer having insufficient experience
of US Chryslers and, indeed, I don't agree with another poster that the
Viper etc are available officially everywhere in Europe. I don't think it
was ever sold through Chrysler in the UK.

For the current 'official' range sold in the UK see here:
http://www.chryslerjeep.co.uk/chrysler/r5/home2.asp

They have started selling the Crossfire:

The Neon has been sold in the UK for some years. Numbers are probably quite
small but one of my acquaintances has one with a 2-litre engine. As it
happens, I saw him last night so asked him for his opinion (bearing this
thread in mind). He is quite happy with it and is on his second, with which
he has done about 98 000 miles over 4 years. He feels that for the money it
offers quite a decent package and is a bit different.
However, he is soon looking for a new car and will consider others as he
already had two and there has been little development in the shape etc.

What I find puzzling is this statement from one of the websites:
"Chrysler stopped importing Neons into the United Kingdom in 2004"
http://www.allpar.com/neon/euroneon.html

Yet the Neon is shown on the Chrysler website.

DAS

 

I have heard of that supposed law, but I cannot find one on the books to
that effect. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, but if it
does, it's pretty well buried in the USC.

--Geoff

 

Not true. Manufacturers are under no obligation to make parts
available at all (though they do have to be able to honor their
warrantees).

 

The parts guys at the dealer said that the legal limit is 8 years, and
they've NEVER seen anything go NS-1 RIGHT AT the 8-year mark (96 model
year to 2004) before.

Daimler trying to squeeze old Chrysler parts out of the system? Who knows?

 

Patrick wrote:

Better in a Duster or Barracuda? Heck yeah.

Better in a pickup truck? Not even close- not nearly the low-end torque.
there's a reason the 340 was never offered in trucks.

Better in a Monaco or Newport (where the 360 was the base engine)? Nope,
same deal.

The 360 was a lighter-weight more efficient replacement for applications
that previously got a 383 2-barrel (or back in the 60s the 361
big-block), its not really intended for the same applications as a 340
although it served admirably in the last year of the Barracuda and
Challenger. Factory 360 Barracudas are actually quite rare and collectible.

 

In large part because there are 60s ande 70s cars like mine still on the
road and racking up miles.

ROTFL! do you think that is "news" to me? Or let's talk about the first
model year of the Aspen/Volare while we're at it. Yeah, there were some
"bad years" in the past, but nowdays its a new flawed model every YEAR,
and we're talking major engine design flaws and not just poor assembly
quality or poor rustproofing (as if I care about rustproofing, I live in
a decent climate).

In the next edition of that book, yet to be written, we'll be reading
about Honda Odyseeys that can't keep an automatic transmission in them,
Toyotas getting engines replaced en-masse at 80k miles because grit
blocked their oil passages and caused the bearings to seize, the first
Nissan minivan that had to be pulled off the market and BOUGHT BACK from
customers because it was such a disaster, and the Honda ignitor module
debacle of the mid 90s.

Yeah, if you like burning a quart of oil per tank of gas by 50,000
miles, yeah they're GREAT. WONDERFUL. Thankfully, the writing on the
wall is there, and Mitsubishi will be out of the car business entirely
in another year or two.

Nothing will. They're crap. Fast crap sometimes, but still crap.

No, you've swallowed the Import Quality Myth, hook line and sinker.
Enjoy your Bic Disposable Transportation Devices. No skin off my nose.

it's so bad in fact, I doubt anyone will EVER be

The actual pinnacle was somewhere between 68 and 72.

 

Bill,

That's a very good question. I don't know, but perhaps someone else does.

Patrick

 

Ever ride in a turbo Eclipse? My friend's Eclipse is running 1.6

Stock motor and turbo, maybe but otherwise modified. These cars stock were
no where near that quick. I've seen quicker ones too. If you have enough
money you can make almost anything scream these days.

 

My 1994 Chevy pickup is in great shape after 10 years of PA/NY winters.
The newer cars last MUCH longer than the 60s and 70s cars did from a
body perspective. My 1970 Fury III had rust through by 1978. My dad's
1970 Falcon and 1973 Maverick didn't even make four years before they
had rust through. I suspect my Chevy truck will make at least 15 years
before serious rust problems. I don't know of any car made prior to
1985 that would last that long in PA.


Matt

 

Steve disagrees, though so far it seems to be hear-say.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Except for the upholstery and dashes. 8^)


Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Good point, on paper. You'd think with the bigger crank the 360 would
be a torque monster in comparision to the 340. As I'm sure you know,
in '73 the 340 was factory rated at 295, and in '74 the 360 had
figures only as high as 320, in later years the 360's numbers trailed
off and went down to 280. Even for a truck application, I'd still opt
for a 340 to get its bigger valves and stronger crank and make up for
the slightly less torque with a little more rear gear.

I liked the looks of the 70's 'Cudas and Challengers, but was never a
big fan of them. They were too big and too heavy. IMO, the Demons,
Darts, Dusters and 60's Barracudas with the 340 are the ones to get.

Patrick

 

LOL That's a good one!

I don't know; I don't know you.

The only reason it seems worse now to you than years ago is because of
all the news sources we have these days. Now as soon as a company's
product slips up it's broadcast instantly all over the internet/hourly
news channels. Back in the day, it would often take months/years
through word of month for defects to get well known by the public.

Let someone do some poor assembly quality on your engine/trans and
you'll care.

Lucky you. However, most people don't live in a decent climate. So
if their car starts rotting out in only 3-4 years (like the 60's cars
did in the north, midwest, northeast/west or some coastal areas) that
would make them more "disposable".

No. The next edition will be about cup holders that are too small,
stereo systems that don't produce perfect sound quality, lack of
non-heated seats/a DVD player/automatic climate control, etc.

I know a few people who own them. They've never mentioned oil
burning. Do you know something these owners don't?

Let's hope not... Let's hope they end up getting a government bail-out
or some rich German company buys them out.

A closed mind is a wasted mind.

FYI - I've been driving a 5-liter Mustang for the past 17 years. I
just don't wear blinders like you do.

'68-'72: Poisonous leaded fuel, noxious and planet killing emissions,
drum brakes, bias-ply tires, poorly designed safety belts, cheap vinyl
interiors, shoddy build quality, recirculating ball steering,
distributor points, virtually no rust control measures, no overdrive
transmissions... yeah, after those "glory days" it all went down
hill...

Patrick
'93 Cobra

 

'68-'72: Poisonous leaded fuel, noxious and planet killing emissions,

Now you're starting to sound like a real goof ball. Times have changed,
that doesn't mean that things like bias-ply tires, drum brakes, point ign.
etc. were necessarily bad, it was the standard at the time. Cars now are
certainly better in most respects than cars built in the '60's. 40 odd
years of technology ought to count for something. Also keep in mind when
you're shitting on 60's cars, they cost a whole lot less than modern cars do
now. And they still perform pretty damn well compared to modern iron. And
what the hell's wrong with vinyl? At least you had a choice then. You could
cheap out on the interior and get a beefier drive train. As far as
durability is concerned, do you really think any auto maker wants their
car's to last too long?