K-cars

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by Username1

I have heard that the dodge 2.2 was the best motor in the K's. In the photos
of the K's for sale that are still around and running it always seems to have a 2.2.

As for the smog era cars, and I like that term, My uncle's last Chrysler was a 74-76? Dodge Monaco like the ones on Blues Brothers, and it kinda came apart like in the movie, just not all at once. It use to take a lot of cranking to get it running, it had no power, 6mpg, lights and horn were active together at times, turn signals came with audio accompany. It was the worst car he had, he followed that with a 4WD Eagle, AMC I think at the time.

The 2.2 probably is the best K motor, the 2.5 seemed rather problematic to me.

I doubt your uncle's Monaco was a '74 because it's a model made before catalytic converters so it runs good on regular gas. For '75 I believe only the Royal Monaco came with hideaway headlamps, and all '76 models have them.

[dishdude]

Originally Posted by Jon A.

The 2.2 probably is the best K motor, the 2.5 seemed rather problematic to me.

Did you mean 2.6? The 2.5 is just a 2.2 with a larger bore and longer stroke with a balance shaft added. The 2.5 adds a lot of low end torque, and the balance shaft really smooths the engine out.

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by dishdude

Did you mean 2.6? The 2.5 is just a 2.2 with a larger bore and longer stroke with a balance shaft added. The 2.5 adds a lot of low end torque, and the balance shaft really smooths the engine out.

I meant 2.5, but I only have experience with one car so equipped and none with the 2.2 so I'm not really a good barometer. The head gasket cracked letting coolant into the oil, the timing belt broke and it blew a handful of frost plugs but never suffered any major damage. It was rather loud for a gas engine, noisy lifters maybe? It seemed sluggish sometimes but I reckon that had a lot to do with its temperamental 3-speed slushbox. If I recall correctly I often had to let up on the accelerator briefly to get out of low gear. I used to drive on a long stretch of level road and make a left at the end to go uphill; it wasn't very steep but that's when I would be mashing it and still be unable to keep up with traffic, no idea why.

Edit: Apparently the engine was getting tired, it sounded just like the one in this Aries (startup at 6:10).

[DavGoodlin]

Originally Posted by Jon A.

The 2.2 probably is the best K motor, the 2.5 seemed rather problematic to me.

I doubt your uncle's Monaco was a '74 because it's a model made before catalytic converters so it runs good on regular gas. For '75 I believe only the Royal Monaco came with hideaway headlamps, and all '76 models have them.

+2 on that 2-2, Jon - My '78 Celica GT 5-spd with a 2.2 could not catch the Mopars, which had an edge for some reason My Dad traded a 1975 Rabbit 1.5 L for an '81 Horizon with 1.7L 4cyl with a horrible-shifting 4spd, (VW or Peugot-built IIRC) and what a pooch that was.

That '81 was involved in 4 accidents, last one a sideswipe requiring half a body from a junkyard. Being Orange I guess it was hard to see. They just would not total it, so it was traded for the 2.2L in the '85 Omni, which had an automatic, which he always shut the car off leaving it in "D" with the parking brake on, being used to manuals. Even with a 3-spd auto, the 2.2 could spin the tires on dryypavement, with the expected torque-steer of MoPar's front wheel drive.

For my first ride, and under $1000, all I had to chose from were gas hogs nobody wanted in 1980. I had a choice of a 76 Monaco with a 360- probably a lean-burn 2bbl; A 75 LeSabre with 350 2bbl. Since both were smog-sleds, I opted for the 73 Fury II 400-2bbl - the small-town's unmarked squad car, dark green. I was not sorry.

I know of a few 2.5 Liter 4 cyl Caravans turning out to be reliable beaters. Cheap parts is one reason.

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by DavGoodlin

+2 on that 2-2, Jon - My '78 Celica GT 5-spd with a 2.2 could not catch the Mopars, which had an edge for some reason My Dad traded a 1975 Rabbit 1.5 L for an '81 Horizon with 1.7L 4cyl with a horrible-shifting 4spd, (VW or Peugot-built IIRC) and what a pooch that was.

That '81 was involved in 4 accidents, last one a sideswipe requiring half a body from a junkyard. Being Orange I guess it was hard to see. They just would not total it, so it was traded for the 2.2L in the '85 Omni, which had an automatic, which he always shut the car off leaving it in "D" with the parking brake on, being used to manuals. Even with a 3-spd auto, the 2.2 could spin the tires on dryypavement, with the expected torque-steer of MoPar's front wheel drive.

For my first ride, and under $1000, all I had to chose from were gas hogs nobody wanted in 1980. I had a choice of a 76 Monaco with a 360- probably a lean-burn 2bbl; A 75 LeSabre with 350 2bbl. Since both were smog-sleds, I opted for the 73 Fury II 400-2bbl - the small-town's unmarked squad car, dark green. I was not sorry.

I know of a few 2.5 Liter 4 cyl Caravans turning out to be reliable beaters. Cheap parts is one reason.

A guy in the building I used to live in had a '79 Celica with a 5-speed. I think he had a second set of keys so he would sometimes leave it running with the windows up and the doors locked. In spite of that it still got pinched one day. He got it back but not quite in the same condition.

I didn't know the Omni/Horizon came with a 1.7L as standard equipment. Now it's easier to understand why they were named 1982's lemon of the year. A quick check on Wikipedia reveals that the 1.7 and the 4-speed were VW-made.

Ouch, hopefully that 1985 Omni was never parked on steep hills. I wouldn't want to risk leaving a slushbox in gear while parked. I never knew torque-steer was a problem with FWD Mopars; I guess I was just extra careful in slippery conditions. As I recall it was even more of a problem with GM's FWD X-body cars.

Oh yeah, RWD Mopar with a cop motor with a 400 cubic inch plant, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks and made before catalytic converters, the logical choice in my opinion.

Little wonder the Blues Brothers were able to beat the heat to Chicago.

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by DavGoodlin

which he always shut the car off leaving it in "D" with the parking brake on, being used to manuals.

tfw when no ignition-shift interlock.

Originally Posted by DavGoodlin

I had a choice of a 76 Monaco with a 360- probably a lean-burn 2bbl

You know, I've only ever been under the hood of just ONE lean-burn vehicle (outside of a junkyard, anyway), and I never had a chance to work on the motor, because it ran just fine. It was a 70-something Dodge pickup, with a slant-6. I've read a lot about the Lean Burn™ system, and it's quite fascinating. But I'd really like to work on one to actually get a feel for it. It was basically a computer controlled engine, except carbureted, and no, the carb was not at all controlled by the computer. It handled ignition only. The only problems I can speculate about the system would be A: it's a 'computer' from the '70s, before computers were really a thing, and B: they put the damn computer in the hottest place they could pick - right on top of the engine.

Chrysler has a long proud history of technological achievements, but putting a computer on top of a hot engine was not one of their brightest moments. Though to be perfectly fair, many carmakers today continue that practice. Mostly GM.

Originally Posted by Jon A.

Oh yeah, RWD Mopar with a cop motor with a 400 cubic inch plant, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks and made before catalytic converters...

Huehuehuehue.