Peter Cheney and his K-car rant......

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

addyguy

Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
16,412
Location
Canada
I know it sounds petty, but i'm really starting to dislike the Globe and Mails automotive writer, Peter Cheney.

He is always writing articles taking extreme view points. In this particular article, he totally derides the 1980's Chrysler K-cars, and makes the rediculous claim that these cars are what destroyed Chrysler, even though it is generally agreed that, in the 1980's, these cars are what SAVED Chrysler.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dri...article1819443/

I REALLY wonder how some 'auto writers' get thir jobs when they are clearly clueless, or so biased to one POV that they are blind to other stuff.

Sure, the K-cars wasn't a great car overall, and with hindsight, they have their share of faults - but in their day, they were preety decent cars, and what as needed.

Rant off.
 
My blood cells are shaped like little Pentastars, but I'd never own an 80s Chrysler, other than a truck. That said, the ONLY car of any brand during the 80s that I even find remotely interesting is the Buick GN. The 80s were a lousy time to be a car guy. Thankfully I was in college so all I could afford was old (and better) 60s/70s iron anyway.
 
I would disagree with his view that it destroyed Chrysler. It actually saved Chrysler but he is right when saying that it was a awful car to drive. It was basic transportation and at that time it did its job well. K-cars are basically disposable modes of transportation. Cheap to buy, and when they fall apart. They really fall apart. My 2 cents worth anyway.
 
Well-you know-when they went EFI after '88, they still weren't the greatest car ever-but I can think of a WHOLE BUNCH of cars that were MUCH worse than a K-car! The thread on Pintos & Vegas comes to mind, along with the Escort/Lynx exploding cylinder heads (which continued right up until the Mazda engines replaced the Ford 1.6/1.9), numerous rust-prone GM offerings such as the Chevette, the Monza/Starfire RWD small cars, even some Japanese makes such as Mitsubishi & their JUNK rings & valve guides! The K-car 2.2/2.5 liter was a noisy sewing machine of a motor-but I can think of several I've seen that made it over 200K!
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
My blood cells are shaped like little Pentastars, but I'd never own an 80s Chrysler, other than a truck. That said, the ONLY car of any brand during the 80s that I even find remotely interesting is the Buick GN. The 80s were a lousy time to be a car guy. Thankfully I was in college so all I could afford was old (and better) 60s/70s iron anyway.



Serious? I love 80's Chryslers, I always wanted a Shelby Lancer because I had an 88 LeBaron GTS hatchback that I miss dearly. That car was great. It was reliable, cheap, comfy, handled excellent.. I think although that generation had a lot of generic cars, they were decent vehicles.
 
When did he write this and whose k-car? 22 years old and still on the road, that says something good right there.

I had a 94 dodge spirit that was completely adequate. Its boring styling is timeless. Has just enough chrome and velour to make you comfy without being ostentatious.

The author needs to look at the competition, that was the cutlass ciera and tempo. They're all first generation lightweight FWD midsize cars, and the 25-28 MPG they got beat their 1970's Volare, Fairmont, and Nova counerparts handsomely.
 
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
The K-car 2.2/2.5 liter was a noisy sewing machine of a motor-but I can think of several I've seen that made it over 200K!


I consider the 2.2 the slant 6 for the 4 cylinder world. Not a lot of power, but they just don't die.

I sold my 89 Horizon 2.2 5-speed for $500 with 219k miles on the clock.
 
My Grandpa was a mopar man and he had an Aries with an 8 track, it wasn't a Bentley but it lasted just fine until he got the Neon I'm driving now.
I've always want to try a Plymouth Duster with the 3L V6 and a manual. We had that engine in our 89 Grand Caravan and it would one wheel peel for quite a ways...
People also forget the turbo dodges of that era, which still have their fans even now.
 
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
My blood cells are shaped like little Pentastars, but I'd never own an 80s Chrysler, other than a truck. That said, the ONLY car of any brand during the 80s that I even find remotely interesting is the Buick GN. The 80s were a lousy time to be a car guy. Thankfully I was in college so all I could afford was old (and better) 60s/70s iron anyway.



Serious? I love 80's Chryslers, I always wanted a Shelby Lancer because I had an 88 LeBaron GTS hatchback that I miss dearly. That car was great. It was reliable, cheap, comfy, handled excellent.. I think although that generation had a lot of generic cars, they were decent vehicles.



Seriously. I agree that the turbo Mopars are probably going to be collectible, but the 80s just weren't my cup of tea. Yes, the K-cars and the 2.2/2.5 engines were like cockroaches- they run FOREVER with just the most basic care. I was thinking this as I sat at a stoplight behind a 2.5-powered first-gen Plymouth Voyager minivan with moss and lichen growing on it this morning- no smoke like a Mitsubhisi-powered one would produce, and it appeared to just be running great despite its outward appearance. But I always got the feeling that every knob, every lever, and every handle inside an 80s Mopar FWD was just about to snap off in my hand. Yes they were tough and reliable, but they just felt so flimsy. Of course I would say the same of every Honda, Toyota, and Nissan of that era too- and those were the ones that were making huge inroads in the market because they were cheap and lasted a long time. So the K-cars were indeed what the times called for... but I didn't like the times! Just my personal slant on things. I have a good friend whose most reliable miles in all his years of driving were in AA-body Dodges (K-car derivatives). So that's still his favorite vehicle. Go figure.
 
the K car was what made my father a Dodge man after years of being a GM guy. after his 350 diesel Chevy truck blew up at 100 miles (and things went downhill after that) he got a Dodge Aries to drive until he got all his loans paid off on the upside down truck he sold. he liked the Aries so well (three box school of styling, but it ran 170k without issues) that he bought two Dodge small trucks over the following years.

he is a toyota man now....
 
Quote:
Of all the lousy cars I’ve ever driven, the Aries took the cake. It handled like a shopping cart, the brakes had the grip of an arthritic 90-year-old, and the engine sounded (and performed) like a worn-out vacuum cleaner.


Compared to what?!

Seriously. Has this douche-nozzle ever driven an X-body(Citation) GM? How about or an A-body GM (Celebrity/6000) with a 2.5? Ford Tempo?

The Aries was at least as good as those cars. In many cases better.

The Aries certainly had better brakes than the Citation.

Put a 2.3 Tempo, a 2.5 Celebrity, and a 2.2 Aries in a drag race and you will die from boredom before any of them finish. None of these cars is what you would call "quick".

And if he thinks the Aries is ugly, he has forgotten the 1st generation of the Camry. Now that was an ugly car.

No clear advantage for the competition.

And I would have gladly put my Aries derived '86 Daytona up against any Cavalier Z24, Sunbird Turbo, or 2nd gen Honda Prelude and won.
The Quaalude is the only thing that might have handled better...maybe. The turbo 2.2's hp and torque advantage is enough to bury the Honda in the straights.
Still no clear advantage for the competition.

My Daytona's engine did self destruct at 120,000 miles. But getting 100,000+ miles out of a hard driven turbo engine from that era was considered pretty good. There are LOTS of 4CZ1 Isuzus, 4G54 Mitsubishis, and SOHC Pontiac turbos that died well before hitting the 100,000 mile mark. So again, no clear advantage for the competition.
 
"Put a 2.3 Tempo, a 2.5 Celebrity, and a 2.2 Aries in a drag race and you will die from boredom before any of them finish. None of these cars is what you would call "quick"."

Driven all 3, and the Tempo would win, hands down. Not from sheer power, but Tempo's were geared very aggresively, and had a lot of grunt off the line.
 
I checked a few sources and both the ATX equipped Tempo 2.3 and A413 equipped Aries post mid 13 second 0-60 times. I'll give the Tempo it's win by a fenderlength.

The Celebrity, in spite of having the largest engine, pulls up the rear with a 15.7 second 0-60 time.

By comparison, the lowly 3 cylinder Suzuki G10 powered Chevrolet Sprint is a veritable hot rod ripping off 0-60 in 13 seconds flat.

But my point wasn't to single out how bad the Celebrity and Tempo were. Just that they weren't any better than the Aries. The Aries gets this horrible reputation but in actuality, it was no worse than it's primary competition.

And the Aries was fairly roomy. With the front bench seat you could put 6 adults in it....of course that would put the 0-60 time around a minute and stopping distance....ahh, forget it - you ain't stopping in time for anything. But you could carry 6 people.
 
I grew up riding around in these cars, my dad's company would issue him one for 3 years - had an 83, 86, 88 K car and and a 91 Acclaim. They were reliable, never let us down and I never thought they were that bad. Boring 80's economy cars. After they added EFI in 86, all of the drivability problems they had with the timing and Holley carb issues went away and they became very solid, cheap transportation.
 
I have had no less than 7 turbo Dodge cars. Some had their issues and some were great.
Lets see hmmm...
85 Laser Turbo
85 Daytona Turbo
85 Chrysler Lebaron Turbo
86 GLH Turbo (12 second 1/4 miles
smile.gif
)
87 Shelby Lancer number 24 I put 250,000 miles on that, I would sitll have it but it got wrecked.
frown.gif

88 Dodge Daytona Pacifica 5 speed Turbo
88 Dodge Daytona Pacifica auto Turbo
I miss them all. Fun little cars to mess with!

Opps forgot one. I bought a fully load 87 Dodge Lancer Turbo with 72,000 miles on it at auction for 135 dollars in 1996. I put a new axle in it and put another 100,000 miles on it running 14 second 1/4 miles with very cheap mods. Cheapest and one of the best cars I have ever had.
 
i had an early 80's dodge 400 (sporty k-car) 2.2 auto ,charcoal gray with a padded silver vinyl half roof,gray cloth interior.bought it cheap and drove it for years.put 3 of the lousy holley carbs on it and the cat had a tendency to clog if you ran regular gas for more than 1 tank.that would lead to the car choking til you put it in nuetral and revved it to heaven.that left a foot diameter pile of soot on the pavement.but when it was running right it was pretty quick 0-45.i surprised a few mustangs and camaros at stoplights,of course once i hit third gear i got passed.but they were embarassed til then.lol
while i was driving it i saw a gray silver 2 tone 400 that had a floor mounted shifter and console.i would have bought that one if my finances had been better.
my local mail carrier ordered an aries for her route and it ran for years.they were pretty good cheap vehicles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom