The Forgotten Cars Thread
- Thread starter el fayce
- 1,377 comments
- 165,832 views
- 5,065
- Fort Worth
- That_sneaky_azN
- 17,891
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
- 5,065
- Fort Worth
- That_sneaky_azN
AND IT STILL HAS A 4-SPEED AUTO.
- 1,817
- Weirs Beach, NH
- RS73private
Thank god for the manual transmission.
AND IT STILL HAS A 4-SPEED AUTO.
- 4,763
- Houston, TX
K-cars and J-bodies both suck.
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
I remember riding in a K car when I was little. I was maybe 5 or 6. I think it may have been a Reliant. Hard to say though. Anyway, the thing I remember most is that the rear window did not roll down. No handle, just fixed glass._Talk about basic.
This was a 4 door car just to clarify. I think the rear quarter window could flip out a little. I guess it was optional right...
This was a 4 door car just to clarify. I think the rear quarter window could flip out a little. I guess it was optional right...
- 3,594
- Connecticut
- SPhilli
- SPhilli911
I always forget the 288 Evo exists.
- 40,822
Yes. That's why I said as much.
You've elevated Chrysler's 1980s output to such an unreasonable level, and are generally so misinformed of what the overall automotive market was like after the very beginning of the 1980s, that a Nintendo Virtual Boy is less rose tinted. Some of this stuff goes beyond just bias towards Chrysler. Some of the stuff you've said in this thread, nevermind that one I saw unfold about the Dodge Spirit, makes you come off as completely unaware of what Chrysler was actually doing at the time and how their products were intended to compete on the market.
Let's start with a single post containing facts, and we can move on from there. You keep jumping on my posts for containing information that you think is wrong (when it isn't actually wrong) and repeating things that I've already said that I'm kind of wondering what you think the facts happen to be.
Chrysler in most of the 1980s was a company that had barely survived a horrific bankruptcy at the beginning of the decade, and as a result went so conservative that they didn't approve making a new engine design for 7 years. They didn't design a new platform for 12 years. They were cash rich, for sure, which tends to happen when you're running so lean that you're fielding an entire model range off of one drivetrain and chassis combo but stumble across an unprecedented runaway hit anyway; but Chrysler was not the forward thinking risk taking darling that they were in the 1990s except for the Caravan family.
They had the potential to be a powerhouse probably as soon as 1985, but it took the gift wrapped steal that the AMC purchase was and what was essentially a management coup for anyone at Chrysler to actually act on it.
The Seville was not a performance luxury car. Incidentally, the 1986 DeVille also had the same engine and drivetrain:
Does anything about that scream performance to you?
And no one believed that was a luxury car either. In fact, the 88 horsepower Cadillac Cimarron was a failure of infamous proportions. A universally derided attempt at marketing cynicism by GM that was hated inside the company as well, and one that Cadillac has fought against ever since. And no one believed it to be a luxury car even though it was pretty highly optioned from the factory.
Which makes it all the more interesting, then, that you insist that a stripper LeBaron of all things was an upscale car anyway.
I didn't say build quality. I said reliability. It's not remotely a stretch to think that if someone gave in to the weirdness and bought an Oldsmobile Silhouette, they probably didn't have as many mechanical problems as the person who bought a Town and Country; nevermind the person who bought a Lumina APV over a regular Caravan.
And I already gave what I felt as a very reasonable explanation for why it bombed.
The Cutlass Supreme nameplate dated back to 1965. The RWD model available in 1984 dated back to 1978, and was the sister to the Malibu, Bonneville G(/Le Mans), Grand Prix and Regal. Only after 1987 did it become the W-Body based coupe, convertible and sedan.
Which is fantastic, but no one gave a 🤬 about the environment halfway through the Reagan presidency, nor was that why Chrysler developed those engines in the first place.
America wasn't in a fuel crisis in the 1980s when cars like the Chrysler E-Class debuted. Let me repeat that: By 1983, America wasn't in a fuel crisis.
People were so worried about a fuel crisis by 1983 that they had already immediately gone back to buying full size sedans and sports cars. People were so worried about a fuel crisis by 1983 that GM was forced by dealers to reintroduce a full size Pontiac after discontinuing it in 1981. People were so worried about a fuel crisis that Volkswagen's sales completely collapsed in North America that almost led to them leaving the US entirely. People were so worried about a fuel crisis that further attempts by GM and Ford to continue downsizing their ranges blew up in their faces spectacularly, and they were hastily forced to continue building the older, larger cars much longer then they originally intended.
Let me repeat it one more time:
The United States was not in a fuel crisis in the 1980s.
So being painted different colors makes it more luxurious?
So you mean it was more luxurious if you optioned it up to be so. Which, once again, makes it a Cutlass Ciera/Century competitor rather than a luxury car, and is completely at odds with this:
Which, since I provided a link to the sales brochures, you should have no problem providing specific examples of luxury standard features. The only thing I can see was that it came with a center arm rest for its front bench seat.
Yet this is the third time I've asked you to do so.
Clearly.
That is true. Hence why I'm referring to Chrysler's official documentation about them.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of product differentiation for a company that knew better than to "rebadge every car that it made".
Last edited:
- 17,891
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
- 14,436
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
INEEDNAWZZZ
Premium
- 1,833
- Lincoln
- EGGSBAWCKS
- DigitalLuke64DD
Completely off topic but this...
Absolutely no offence to 87Dodge here, but why is it always people with relatively mundane, aging cars who tend to go on about them and recite facts like they're under appreciated gems that people should be buying up? Even W&N's Sunbird seemed more appealing at this stage, and that's saying something. I go on about my Toyota a lot and can rattle off a list of useless tidbits for sure, but I don't feel the need to throw it in everyone's faces.
I wasn't even aware what a K-Car was until I delved into this thread, and my first thought upon seeing one was that they seemed to use it as inspiration for the Manana in GTA III. Which just happens to be the slowest car in the game, just saying. Anyway, on topic:
The Fiat Idea was a strange one. Even as a kid (when I didn't pay attention to most common cars), I remember thinking it was completely pointless.
Another one I forgot until today:
The one I saw was brand new as well, which surprised me even more considering you can buy a Golf convertible now. Folding hardtop aside, it seems kind of redundant sold alongside it (then again, with the amount of cars based on that platform, they might as well carry on with it).
...might be my new favourite analogy ever.
Absolutely no offence to 87Dodge here, but why is it always people with relatively mundane, aging cars who tend to go on about them and recite facts like they're under appreciated gems that people should be buying up? Even W&N's Sunbird seemed more appealing at this stage, and that's saying something. I go on about my Toyota a lot and can rattle off a list of useless tidbits for sure, but I don't feel the need to throw it in everyone's faces.
I wasn't even aware what a K-Car was until I delved into this thread, and my first thought upon seeing one was that they seemed to use it as inspiration for the Manana in GTA III. Which just happens to be the slowest car in the game, just saying. Anyway, on topic:
The Fiat Idea was a strange one. Even as a kid (when I didn't pay attention to most common cars), I remember thinking it was completely pointless.
Another one I forgot until today:
The one I saw was brand new as well, which surprised me even more considering you can buy a Golf convertible now. Folding hardtop aside, it seems kind of redundant sold alongside it (then again, with the amount of cars based on that platform, they might as well carry on with it).
- 5,768
- Anoka, MN
- 13,288
- GTPlanet
- Street-King-07
- Quattro Saltire
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
Yes. That's why I said as much.
You've elevated Chrysler's 1980s output to such an unreasonable level, and are generally so misinformed of what the overall automotive market was like after the very beginning of the 1980s, that a Nintendo Virtual Boy is less rose tinted. Some of this stuff goes beyond just bias towards Chrysler. Some of the stuff you've said in this thread, nevermind that one I saw unfold about the Dodge Spirit, makes you come off as completely unaware of what Chrysler was actually doing at the time and how their products were intended to compete on the market.
Let's start with a single post containing facts, and we can move on from there. You keep jumping on my posts for containing information that you think is wrong (when it isn't actually wrong) and repeating things that I've already said that I'm kind of wondering what you think the facts happen to be.
Chrysler in most of the 1980s was a company that had barely survived a horrific bankruptcy at the beginning of the decade, and as a result went so conservative that they didn't approve making a new engine design for 7 years. They didn't design a new platform for 12 years. They were cash rich, for sure, which tends to happen when you're running so lean that you're fielding an entire model range off of one drivetrain and chassis combo but stumble across an unprecedented runaway hit anyway; but Chrysler was not the forward thinking risk taking darling that they were in the 1990s except for the Caravan family.
They had the potential to be a powerhouse probably as soon as 1985, but it took the gift wrapped steal that the AMC purchase was and what was essentially a management coup for anyone at Chrysler to actually act on it.
The Seville was not a performance luxury car. Incidentally, the 1986 DeVille also had the same engine and drivetrain:
Does anything about that scream performance to you?
And no one believed that was a luxury car either. In fact, the 88 horsepower Cadillac Cimarron was a failure of infamous proportions. A universally derided attempt at marketing cynicism by GM that was hated inside the company as well, and one that Cadillac has fought against ever since. And no one believed it to be a luxury car even though it was pretty highly optioned from the factory.
Which makes it all the more interesting, then, that you insist that a stripper LeBaron of all things was an upscale car anyway.
I didn't say build quality. I said reliability. It's not remotely a stretch to think that if someone gave in to the weirdness and bought an Oldsmobile Silhouette, they probably didn't have as many mechanical problems as the person who bought a Town and Country; nevermind the person who bought a Lumina APV over a regular Caravan.
And I already gave what I felt as a very reasonable explanation for why it bombed.
The Cutlass Supreme nameplate dated back to 1965. The RWD model available in 1984 dated back to 1978, and was the sister to the Malibu, Bonneville G(/Le Mans), Grand Prix and Regal. Only after 1987 did it become the W-Body based coupe, convertible and sedan.
Which is fantastic, but no one gave a 🤬 about the environment halfway through the Reagan presidency, nor was that why Chrysler developed those engines in the first place.
America wasn't in a fuel crisis in the 1980s when cars like the Chrysler E-Class debuted. Let me repeat that: By 1983, America wasn't in a fuel crisis.
People were so worried about a fuel crisis by 1983 that they had already immediately gone back to buying full size sedans and sports cars. People were so worried about a fuel crisis by 1983 that GM was forced by dealers to reintroduce a full size Pontiac after discontinuing it in 1981. People were so worried about a fuel crisis that Volkswagen's sales completely collapsed in North America that almost led to them leaving the US entirely. People were so worried about a fuel crisis that further attempts by GM and Ford to continue downsizing their ranges blew up in their faces spectacularly, and they were hastily forced to continue building the older, larger cars much longer then they originally intended.
Let me repeat it one more time:
The United States was not in a fuel crisis in the 1980s.
So being painted different colors makes it more luxurious?
So you mean it was more luxurious if you optioned it up to be so. Which, once again, makes it a Cutlass Ciera/Century competitor rather than a luxury car, and is completely at odds with this:
Which, since I provided a link to the sales brochures, you should have no problem providing specific examples of luxury standard features. The only thing I can see was that it came with a center arm rest for its front bench seat.
Yet this is the third time I've asked you to do so.
Clearly.
That is true. Hence why I'm referring to Chrysler's official documentation about them.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of product differentiation for a company that knew better than to "rebadge every car that it made".
Chrysler survived their financial misfortunes, and the K Cars were a big help. The Caravan helped too. But I do know that Chrysler isn't the perfect company that makes all the right decisions, but the good decisions outweighed the bad ones. Chrysler lost billions on the AMC purchase, and lost even more on unnecessary spending, an example would be the TC by Maserati.
Let's be honest. Some (not all) of your "facts" are not actually facts.
But Chrysler did take risks besides the minivans. The Laser, TC by Maserati, and the rebirth of the Imperial (Y-body)were not exactly ordinary for Chryslers. If they did not but AMC, who knows how far Chrysler would have come.
That Eldorado in the picture doesn't scream performance, because it's an Eldorado. But if you say that the Seville is not performance luxury, than don't go on and on about your how great your STS is.
When you say Lebaron, you mean which one (they all are luxury cars, anyway)?
I still see plenty more 89-95 Caravans on the road than Lumina APV's. So those "mechanical defects" must not be that serious, or they don't exist.
If no one gave a damn about the environment during Reagan's presidency, than explain why the E-Class did not get a 6.1L V8 making 300 something horses.
To be precise, the second fuel crisis happened in '79. But just because it didn't happen in the 80's doesn't mean cars of the 80's weren't affected by it. But even the full size and sporty cars in the early 80's, most had below 150 horsepower. If the environment was not so important, like you say, they would of have more horsepower than that.
Yes, it does. There's a reason why you can't buy a cheap car like an Aveo in a beige-ish gold with wire rims.
Please stop bringing up the CC. I know it's hard to put your bias down, but none of what you are saying about how the CC is a threat to the E-Class makes sense.
An arm rest centerpiece is definitely a luxury option back then.
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
If it weren't for @The87Dodge, I wouldn't have known about those K cars.
I think @Tornado is right though.
Last edited:
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
- 21,261
- United States
Compared to most of what you say not being true, I think I'll take my chances on his words.
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
I almost forgot this car in my country. Managed to see one past 2 weeks, not anymore any other. Ford Pampa.
And I miss it too.
And I miss it too.
- 399
- Melbourne, Straya
- M_Hocking
- Sp3edst3r
I saw this thread and immediately remembered my Supercar Calendar from 2009
And I remembered seeing this car, but it's so barely mentioned that the only thing I could recall was it was a 1-off car and was had a Mercedes badge on it
And a simple google search aaaaaaaaand:
Lotec C1000
Twin-Turbo Mercedes V-8 with ~1000bhp, and a guesstimated top speed of 268mph... One off though so I don't reckon we'd ever find out.
It's a weird looking car but I find it very cool to look at, very futuristic and stuff x3
And I remembered seeing this car, but it's so barely mentioned that the only thing I could recall was it was a 1-off car and was had a Mercedes badge on it
And a simple google search aaaaaaaaand:
Lotec C1000
Twin-Turbo Mercedes V-8 with ~1000bhp, and a guesstimated top speed of 268mph... One off though so I don't reckon we'd ever find out.
It's a weird looking car but I find it very cool to look at, very futuristic and stuff x3
- 2,205
- Island In The Sun
I still see a couple of these around, Matter of fact, I'm looking for a 2wd facelift model as a project car.The one for me was the late 80's/early 90's MPV. It was essentially a minivan mixed with an SUV, and originally only had 3 doors (later changed to 4).
Similar threads
