K-cars

[dieseljeep]

Originally Posted by WISCOJIM

I wouldn't believe their 33 mpg estimate, these were only rated at 21/22 combined mpg.

The ad has also been viewed by more than 650 people. If that many looked at a listing specifically for a Reliant, and all of them decided against buying it, that should tell you something.

.

My '92 Dodge Dynasty with the 3.3 CID V6 got upper 20's on the HY with AT and AC using the cruise control. I was surprised that the 6 was that quick, compared to the other 6's I owned. The car weighed 3008 lbs.

[davet753]

I had a tech who worked with me back in the early 90's who had a nice little Chrysler LeBaron coupe, late 80's model. It was dark blue with tinted windows, and I always thought it was a sharp looking car. It served him well until it got close to 100k miles, and then went south in a hurry. I remember he replaced a bunch of front end parts, followed by a transmission rebuild and a head gasket. He wanted rid of it when it was about 8 or 9 years old, and despite it's looking like new, he liked to never have sold it.....nobody wanted it.

I remember my father trying to talk mom into buying a Dodge Dynasty when he bought a new Dodge Dakota pickup in 1990. She wouldn't hear of it, and readily admitted that while she knew very little about cars, she knew better than to buy a Chrysler product. The little Dakota pickup dad bought went on to serve him well, racking up well over 100k trouble-free miles by the time he passed away in 2001. Mom hung onto her old Monte Carlo for several more years before buying a Lincoln.

[dieseljeep]

Originally Posted by davet753

I had a tech who worked with me back in the early 90's who had a nice little Chrysler LeBaron coupe, late 80's model. It was dark blue with tinted windows, and I always thought it was a sharp looking car. It served him well until it got close to 100k miles, and then went south in a hurry. I remember he replaced a bunch of front end parts, followed by a transmission rebuild and a head gasket. He wanted rid of it when it was about 8 or 9 years old, and despite it's looking like new, he liked to never have sold it.....nobody wanted it.

I remember my father trying to talk mom into buying a Dodge Dynasty when he bought a new Dodge Dakota pickup in 1990. She wouldn't hear of it, and readily admitted that while she knew very little about cars, she knew better than to buy a Chrysler product. The little Dakota pickup dad bought went on to serve him well, racking up well over 100k trouble-free miles by the time he passed away in 2001. Mom hung onto her old Monte Carlo for several more years before buying a Lincoln.

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.
The Chev M/C was a larger rear wheel drive car which could've had a V-8. The earlier models were super-fugly. I gave them a different name after many of the people that bought them. There seemed to be five on each block in a particular neighborhood.

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by dieseljeep

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.
The Chev M/C was a larger rear wheel drive car which could've had a V-8. The earlier models were super-fugly. I gave them a different name after many of the people that bought them. There seemed to be five on each block in a particular neighborhood.

Yup, one will find fanboys/fangirls of a particular make anywhere who will disparage just about everything else. If I'm looking for pictures of a particular car and stumble on a junkyard find from "The Truth About Cars" I'll usually skip it. I don't know if I've ever seen the writer say anything good about the cars he finds.

I have no idea what a Chev "M/C" is but it sounds like they were almost as popular as Hondas are today.

[maxhifi]

Originally Posted by Jon A.

Yup, one will find fanboys/fangirls of a particular make anywhere who will disparage just about everything else. If I'm looking for pictures of a particular car and stumble on a junkyard find from "The Truth About Cars" I'll usually skip it. I don't know if I've ever seen the writer say anything good about the cars he finds.

I have no idea what a Chev "M/C" is but it sounds like they were almost as popular as Hondas are today.

Monte Carlo....

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by maxhifi

Monte Carlo....

I see. Well, the 1970-72 Monte Carlos are nice but the 1973-75 models are just nasty. Little wonder a brand new one was deliberately wrecked in Street People. The 1976-77 models were a slight improvement and seems GM decided to wash most of the mud off the name for 1978.

The colonnade-body GMs are at best rather "blah" to me. I'm not ragging on GM though, I'll admit that Ford and Chrysler also made plenty of oversized, underpowered and unattractive cars in the 70s. I am rather puzzled though as to why Khan - or Mr. Roarke - or Ricardo Montalban if one wants to be formal, was willing to plug cars for a company that was doing so badly before Lee Iacocca stepped in.

[davet753]

Originally Posted by dieseljeep

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.
The Chev M/C was a larger rear wheel drive car which could've had a V-8. The earlier models were super-fugly. I gave them a different name after many of the people that bought them. There seemed to be five on each block in a particular neighborhood.

Her Monte Carlo was a '77 with a V8. It was a big, ugly, and (despite the V8) slow car that got terrible gas mileage. I never liked it, but she drove it until 1991, ran up over 100k miles, and never had any problems other than regular maintenance.

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by dieseljeep

She probably heard some of her so-called friends bad-mouthing Mopars.

Hehehe lol! Mopar or no car.

Originally Posted by davet753

Her Monte Carlo was a '77 with a V8. It was a big, ugly, and (despite the V8) slow car that got terrible gas mileage. I never liked it, but she drove it until 1991, ran up over 100k miles, and never had any problems other than regular maintenance.

Eh, the big American cars in the 70s were strangled with emissions junk that they really didn't have the tech to compensate for. Ironically, those emissions standards that were trying to help the air quality basically necessitated burning WAY more gas, which I'd imagine would pollute even more. That's also where the notion that foreign cars are better on gas comes from. Because the only foreign cars you could buy at the time were miniscule Civics and Beetles, when all the Americans were land yachts.

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by WISCOJIM

The ad has also been viewed by more than 650 people. If that many looked at a listing specifically for a Reliant, and all of them decided against buying it, that should tell you something.

It tells me that nobody wants to buy an old ass Reliant. Big surprise.

[MIPS]

Alberta country, yo.
Why spend your hard earned rig drilling bucks on some junky 80's K-wagon when the Edmonton dealership can sell you a 2018 Dodge Ram pickup that can seat 12 and is equipped to drive across arctic tundra?

I've had a better offer come up it seems. Why kiss goodbye to the sleek body and tin can interior of a Geo Tracker when you can get another one for only $1000? It will seat four, get 22MPG and fit two laserdisc autochangers with room (for the driver) to spare.

[maxhifi]

Originally Posted by MadMan

It tells me that nobody wants to buy an old ass Reliant. Big surprise.

I think that the seller is confusing rarity with value, if it was half that price I'm sure it would sell. It is kind of neat to see one still on the road.

[Username1]

That little red K-Wagon is really nice looking ! That is the same price the good looking
ones sell for here. And it's got the cloth seats ! Very cool !

I would believe that gas mileage. My 88 Dakota 3.9 v6 long bed 2WD can get 26
highway @ 55-60 It has a OD Automatic.

My parents '79 Colony Park (LTD) wagon with 302 and vacuum run VV 2700 Carb
engine and 3 speed also got 26 pretty solid on the highway 55-60.

MPG pretty much depends on how you treat the car. Gunna be the first from
one red light to the next, well then yer gunna get single diget mpg.

That is a nice wagon, same thoughts I had with the wagon, good for tv's
Hope you get it, I would love to see more pictures !


.

[Username1]

Well, my first car was a '73 Mustang, AKA Rustang. And yes it was a kinda not that
great a car compared to later models..... And the thing I hated most was that if you
didn't see it, they didn't paint it. And the frame rails seemed to rust from the inside
out Also galvanized outside, but rusted inside....

I also hated the 9mpg it got, 12hwy. I put a VV carb on it and got mpg up to 17, and
21 hwy. I was impressed, and again 55-60 mph, not racing it. So the engines as built
were capable of some economy. It was really something, the tail pipe ash went
from black, to light grey almost white ash with the VV well tuned. Spark plugs
never got dirty...... really freaky..... 351C engine, FMX Auto Trans.

I really can't complain about the service I got out of it for the 140K miles it lasted,
and I had fun with it too....

I see at car shows that the old cars are capable of running really well, and good fit
and finish when restored. They were what they were.

If I had to pay $20K or more for a car, I have thought about this a lot, I think I would
put it into a '73 mustang, or a 78 TA. I see reasonable looking ones on ebay all the time.
I read about how people hate the functionality of new cars, and I hate the idea of all
those electronic dashes, knobless radios.

It's the overall experience. And the "Start" button really bugs me.....


Lee Iacoca was a good guy, a car guy, and did a lot to get the company back on track.
I remember reading that the K-cars were the lengh they were so one more row would
fit on the train cars that carried them to market. Kinda like the gimmick they had for
the Chevy Vega, they packed them on standing on their nose.

Growing up my parents had a 70 Coronet 225 six station wagon. Dad had a 74 Dart
with a 318 I took my driving test on. They were cool and very tough cars. The Coronet
was our pickup truck. And as kids we rode in the cargo area and lived !


.

[dieseljeep]

Originally Posted by Username1

Well, my first car was a '73 Mustang, AKA Rustang. And yes it was a kinda not that
great a car compared to later models..... And the thing I hated most was that if you
didn't see it, they didn't paint it. And the frame rails seemed to rust from the inside
out Also galvanized outside, but rusted inside....

I also hated the 9mpg it got, 12hwy. I put a VV carb on it and got mpg up to 17, and
21 hwy. I was impressed, and again 55-60 mph, not racing it. So the engines as built
were capable of some economy. It was really something, the tail pipe ash went
from black, to light grey almost white ash with the VV well tuned. Spark plugs
never got dirty...... really freaky..... 351C engine, FMX Auto Trans.

I really can't complain about the service I got out of it for the 140K miles it lasted,
and I had fun with it too....

I see at car shows that the old cars are capable of running really well, and good fit
and finish when restored. They were what they were.

If I had to pay $20K or more for a car, I have thought about this a lot, I think I would
put it into a '73 mustang, or a 78 TA. I see reasonable looking ones on ebay all the time.
I read about how people hate the functionality of new cars, and I hate the idea of all
those electronic dashes, knobless radios.

It's the overall experience. And the "Start" button really bugs me.....


Lee Iacoca was a good guy, a car guy, and did a lot to get the company back on track.
I remember reading that the K-cars were the lengh they were so one more row would
fit on the train cars that carried them to market. Kinda like the gimmick they had for
the Chevy Vega, they packed them on standing on their nose.

Growing up my parents had a 70 Coronet 225 six station wagon. Dad had a 74 Dart
with a 318 I took my driving test on. They were cool and very tough cars. The Coronet
was our pickup truck. And as kids we rode in the cargo area and lived !


.

I like the start button concept on the new cars. The only thing is, I keep forgetting to take the keys out of my pocket when driving my Dakota pickup or my Jeep Wrangler.
My Prius has the start button and the engine first starts about 10 seconds after it's put in drive or reverse.

[davet753]

Many of Chrysler's problems when Iacocca came on the scene were mismanagement and not necessarily the products. Over-dependence on rentals, excessive production capacity, over-dependence on the RV industry, as someone else said "poor planning". I've had 70's Chrysler products that were pretty good compared to some of the garbage coming out of Detroit back then.

That's not to say they didn't have their fair share of lemons (e.g. Volare/Aspen). I know people who bought those and that didn't outrun their payment books before (literally) falling apart.