Joined: Sat Dec 10 2005, 04:28PM
Location: United States
Posts: 4954
There is no doubt the K was the Chrysler Messiah. But they still were not as durable as the rear wheel drives of the 60's and early 70's. They had histories of blowing head gaskets, front end problems (Particularly struts) and rusted away before their time. The Floors on those were as bad as the late 50's cars
Joined: Mon Feb 20 2006, 08:12PM
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posts: 950
The early 80's J & M bodies were also a saving ground for Mopar too I think... If it wasn't for the police cars I don't think we would have rear wheel drive car up until 1989... With the big cop/taxi brake and suspension packages they handled quite nice.. even though they were way down on horsepower
Joined: Fri Oct 14 2005, 07:26PM
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 481
my vote for the lowly 170 model Valiant, 170 /6, 3 on the tree, manual brakes and steering, radio delete, but with a heater and rubber floor mat, gets no better than that, gets no cheeper that that as well, never had one, not sure if I know anyone who did for that fact. God Bless Tom
Joined: Sun Feb 05 2006, 11:51PM
Location: Pa
Posts: 3064
furyman67 wrote ... my vote for the lowly 170 model Valiant, 170 /6, 3 on the tree, manual brakes and steering, radio delete, but with a heater and rubber floor mat, gets no better than that, gets no cheeper that that as well, never had one, not sure if I know anyone who did for that fact.
I have exactly that car in a station wagon! It's going to get all the harnesses and fuel systems transplanted into it with the Magnum V6 from a '92 Dakota, hopefully this spring....
Joined: Thu Nov 03 2005, 08:18PM
Location: Denver
Posts: 34
sorry guys, a K car is not something I'm going to vote for. does a truck count? Cummins Truck would get my vote. Best product would be M1 abrams MBT. Most important may be a C300, the car that started the muscle car era
Joined: Mon Oct 31 2005, 12:48PM
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 1755
This question is unanswerable.
It's like asking, "What's the best movie ever made?" 100 people might give 100 answers - it's all subjective.
Even so, my answer would be the 1957 Chrysler Production line. Chevy was still making a shoebox, and even though the '57 Ford outsold all cars made that year, neither had the looks, suspension, styling, and horsepower available accross the Mopar board.
Chevy was so caught off guard, that the '58 was a one-year car. Heck, it can be said that they didn't catch up styling wise until '62.
The '57 Ford looked dated when it was new.
If only Chrysler's quality had not been so crappy, they might have changed their bleak future they would have in the early '60s.
It is my opinion that the '57 Chryslers, ond the others, set the bar for a decade.
Joined: Sat Dec 10 2005, 04:28PM
Location: United States
Posts: 4954
Snotty wrote ... This question is unanswerable. One man's opinion.
Well Yes it can be answered Snotty and several are on the trail already. Given the fact that Chrysler could out engineer the rest, be the most inovative. With everything they had going for them, they just couldn't put a car together. That was the big thing.
So the question still stands. We know, and hate to admit it, they put together some pretty crappy cars when it came to quality control. BUT! They still made a line of cars that were low in defects, were hard to kill, and were made well. Now Come on Scotty. . .take a stab at it. The answer is stareing us in the face. We're very close to the answer.
Opinion? Welcomed. Even if it is California logic. LOL
Joined: Fri Oct 14 2005, 07:26PM
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 481
ahhh 1958 the only year a Caddy looked like a Chevy,DOH! I would give another vote for the mini van as well, my 2000 T & C is the shiznit, loads of room for the family, best selling van in it class one draw back no power(3.3 only has 152 HP) and sucks gas down like a pig Tom