The non-muscle American car thread (READ THE OP)

[Tornado]

blah blah K-cars are great blah blah.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

 

[The87Dodge]

The original K's, the Aries, Reliant, and Lebaron really were great cars and there's no denying that. It's the car that rescued Chrysler from bankruptcy, and Chrysler invested every last dollar in it. And the K-car's success was great enough that Chrysler earned over five million dollars in sales on the first year. Chrysler spent three years mastering the K-car before it entered production, making sure it's a cut above any of the other compact cars, which it was. Sure, it's slow, but it's a car that's affordable, practical, technological, and saved Chrysler. Just think about how many jobs would be lost if Chrysler went out of business, and Detroit would only get worst. So it really is one of the most influential cars Chrysler came out with.

 

[Tornado]

What does that have to do with your theoretical Aries V8?

 

[The87Dodge]

What does that have to do with your theoretical Aries V8?

Nothing, really. Just explaining why the K car is so great, and great cars can have V8s.

 

[Cowboy]

great cars can have V8s.

A great car can have any kind of engine.

 

[Tornado]

Great cars can have V8s. And the K-Family was much better thought out than GM's X-Bodies could have ever dreamed to be no matter how much more money GM threw at them than Chrysler did, and the Fairmont was growing old hat by 1981; and it was exactly the car that Chrysler needed in 1981. But regardless of whether the K-Cars were great or not, entry level FWD sedans designed in the late 1970s for (at most) 90 HP inline fours with basic suspension design would be much worse if you installed a racey V8 engine pushing over 200.

 

[The87Dodge]

Great cars can have V8s. And the K-Family was much better thought out than GM's X-Bodies could have ever dreamed to be no matter how much more money GM threw at them than Chrysler did, and the Fairmont was growing old hat by 1981; and it was exactly the car that Chrysler needed in 1981. But regardless of whether the K-Cars were great or not, entry level FWD sedans designed in the late 1970s for (at most) 90 HP inline fours with basic suspension design would be much worse if you installed a racey V8 engine pushing over 200.

Would a supercharged 4 cylinder or V6 work better?

 

[DurWinning]

Figured I'd pop back in to show two more car ads.

1st: One for the Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe

2nd: Another IMSA Cougar one (their is alot of these on the internet, which I find pretty cool).

 

[Tornado]

A lighter weight engine would help, but that chassis simply was not designed to deal with that much power. You need only look at the reviews of the really hot-rod derivatives to see that Chrysler eventually started pushing more power into them than they could actually handle, no matter what they tried to do with the suspension:

Skipping around on harsh roads, losing stability at higher speeds, handling worse than its raw grip implies it should, etc. are all things that suggest the chassis isn't able to do what the rest of the drivetrain wants. Dig up reviews for the Daytona with the high torque turbos and you get similar talk with them.

And other than perhaps the Shelby Lancer/Shadow, that's the best factory attempt Chrysler took making that platform sporty, and it was already two deviations away from the original Aries in terms of tuning/development. The chassis just wasn't designed with the amount of structural integrity required for that usage; a problem that GM ran into when they dropped the Quad 4 into the Beretta and made a great autocrosser that the much newer Eclipse and Probe still wasted as backroad bombers.

 

[The87Dodge]

A lighter weight engine would help, but that chassis simply was not designed to deal with that much power. You need only look at the reviews of the really hot-rod derivatives to see that Chrysler eventually started pushing more power into them than they could actually handle, no matter what they tried to do with the suspension:

Skipping around on harsh roads, losing stability at higher speeds, handling worse than its raw grip implies it should, etc. are all things that suggest the chassis isn't able to do what the rest of the drivetrain wants. Dig up reviews for the Daytona with the high torque turbos and you get similar talk with them.

And other than perhaps the Shelby Lancer/Shadow, that's the best factory attempt Chrysler took making that platform sporty, and it was already two deviations away from the original Aries in terms of tuning/development. The chassis just wasn't designed with the amount of structural integrity required for that usage; a problem that GM ran into when they dropped the Quad 4 into the Beretta and made a great autocrosser that the much newer Eclipse and Probe still wasted as backroad bombers.

Whoever wrote that article for the Spirit R/T should be fired, half of things said there is untrue.

 

[Tornado]

*sigh*

 

[The87Dodge]

*sigh*

But the Lumina doesn't stand a chance against an R/T, don't ask how it managed 2nd place.

 

[DurWinning]

Now I'm curious, what took first place in that comparison?

 

[Tornado]

The SHO.

 

[Heldenzeit]

Compared when it was brand new by someone who has actually driven them both.

Hmm.

 

[-Fred-]

The question is, though, is it faster/better than the other two GTP All-stars, the 2.2 Camry and the 3.1 Sunbird?

 

[DurWinning]

The SHO.

Well then. I completely forgot about the SHO.

 

[The87Dodge]

The SHO.

How un the world? The Spirit is looking lighter, has more horsepower, and is cheaper than the SHO, so if anything, the Spirit deserves first place. Seriously, that journalist is terrible.

 

[The87Dodge]

The question is, though, is it faster/better than the other two GTP All-stars, the 2.2 Camry and the 3.1 Sunbird?

How are those all stars?

 

[Tornado]

*sigh*

 

[The87Dodge]

*sigh*

What is that supposed to mean, I'm not understanding.

 

[-Fred-]

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

The question is, though, is it faster/better than the other two GTP All-stars, the 2.2 Camry and the 3.1 Sunbird?

Oh god! Not those cars again.

 

[The87Dodge]

So whats the joke?

 

[-Fred-]

So whats the joke?

They're all absolutely terrible cars, and members that owned them (well, 2 guys anyway) were defending them tooth and nail saying they were god's gift to motoring.

 

[The87Dodge]

They're all absolutely terrible cars, and members that owned them (well, 2 guys anyway) were defending them tooth and nail saying they were god's gift to motoring.

The Spirit is not a terrible car, neither is the SHO or the Lumina.

 

[DurWinning]

Sorry to interrupt but:

WHAT?????

 

[LM7325]

The Yamaha V6 in the SHO was a revelation at the time. Smooth and powerful with a delicious growl. I have driven several. It made you forget what car you were in honestly. Spirit's 2.2 turbo had power but no soul to spur you on... More to a car than raw numbers.

 

[The87Dodge]

The Yamaha V6 in the SHO was a revalation at the time. Smooth and powerful with a delicious growl. I have driven several. It made you forget what car you were in honestly. Spirit's 2.2 turbo had power but no soul to spur you on... More to a car than raw numbers.

The Spirit V6 was the best American V6 ever made in the '80s and early '90s. Smooth, high build quality, powerful, reliable, and sounds good. I'm sure the SHO's engine was good as well, but the Spirit's is better.