My uncle bought a 1988 in 1992 and drove it for 13 years. He said it was a good car but it just went from home to work and back and that was it. I don't think he ever took it for a long distance.
My first car in '97 was a 1983 Dodge aries 2 door. My grandmother gave it to me. Hated it at the time because all my buddies had slammed imports but now I am glad it was my first.
We had a 1986 Dodge 600 convertible turbo. Fooled a lot of other brands when I left them in the dust. I put a computer chip in that was offered by Chrysler that gave me lots more power
Yes Mr. Iacocca, these K-series cars were better than the junk your Chrysler was putting out in 70s but NO WAY they compared better than Toyota, Honda and Volvo. The first vehicle I ever owned that actually made it past 100,000 miles was a Toyota Celica and the thing wasn't even 'breathing heavy'. My current Volvo has over 344K; original engine, tranny, suspension, cat convertor and the AC and power steering still work. ZERO body rot also. NEVER on an American car.
Were standards for aerodynamics different back then I just hoping people just believe what they say? That windshield is fairly upright compared to a lot of today's cars.
Frank Converse who was doing Chrysler LeBaron commercials at the time....is the narrator/host. He starred in the TV Show, N.Y.P.D. and also "Coronet Blue"
The K-cars were pretty reliable compared to many other domestic cars of the same period. And, they were worlds better than the horrible Aspen/Volare. Ironic they were being delivered on a GMC Brigadier transporter at 13:26.
Happy that my family never bought one of these turds. We had full size Oldsmobiles that my dad bought 2-3 years old. Loaded and rode like a cloud. I couldn’t imagine a road trip in one of these clown cars
@@thefinalroman never any problem with the 307’s we had. Dad averaged 23mpg on highway. Gas was cheap then. He wanted comfort and luxury for our family and we did huge road trips. Maybe your 307 needed a tune up?!
Unfortunately, the marketing video seems better than the actual car was. If the quality control was as good as they claim they would've swept the Japanese competition under the rug which they clearly could not do. I know the K car "saved the company" at the time. However, I already know these were not as good as their Toyota competition of the time. When the competing Camry came out a few years later it was a far more refined and better made car. It was also more reliable.
@@jkeelsnc DOT registration data and actually seeing them. I found 0 80's Toyota's in running condition the last 2 years but over 50 K cars. Just checked marketplace and 6 80's Toyota's for sale all DEAD projects and 12 running 80's K car Lebaron's. And even More Daytona's,600,Carevelle etc... this thing is 40 years old still runs and drives $200 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NNSVPd6goDc.html
@@Channel-cm7yc Which is why Chrysler dropped The Mitsubishi, and kept the 2.2. It's not just that commenter. Most mainstream media consumers automatically assume that any union made, American manufacturer's products are worse than the Japanese.
Working for MOPAR dealerships all my life, these were TURDS from day one. What the engineers design and perfect in the Drawing rooms and laboratories are ruined by Accountants. Looking to cut costs at every stage of Production means a system that was designed to reliable, ended up failing. This caused by accepting the lowest bid from suppliers. Shame, it was a cheap car, that could have been somewhat reliable. Chrysler Dropped the ball on this and many other vehicle due to this failed edict.
What ball was dropped? At that time who wasn’t dropping it? Guess you’d forgotten consider the Ford Pinto an Lee Iacocca creation oh yes let’s not forget the Chevy Vega disaster. Yes costs were cut, but in deeper channels. Timing chains where dropped in favor of timing belts etc etc. but who at that time wasn’t doing that. I guess you’d know since I’m sure you bought them and drove them 100’s of thousands of miles right? I did and my experience was nothing close to a disaster many claim. But then I take of my stuff and most do not and thus this crazy bias is made up!
@@Channel-cm7yc . I drove more of these S**t boxes than anyone you know. I'm not going to get lectured by anyone. I know exactly what these cars were, low cost, cheap Transportation that proved unreliable. The only thing I liked about these vehicles is that when someone brought one in for service you could sell a lot or repair work. Everything Wore out. 100% junk. The only saving grace is the best K Cars were the last year of Production. Fuel Injection made them a bit better in the driveability category, and the redesigned interior made them a bit more plush. That's it. The models with the 2.6 Mitsu engine were a Disaster.
@@mikegimenez2629 2.6 was trash but 2.2 2.5's are still going strong today while most other 80's cars are long dead... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tBGBMl6QSEQ.html
The disparity between how Chrysler presents these cars and how crappy they actually were is unreal. My grandfather had an 84 Reliant. Biggest piece of junk car he ever owned. As it was constantly in the repair shop, the owner of our local Texaco station finally told him to stop buying Chrysler products, period. Same with his Lebanon sedan - constantly in the shop. All these years later and Chrysler continues to build total pieces of junk with the reliability ratings to prove it.
He must have had the Mitsubishi built 2.5 with the electronic feedback carburetor with all the vacuum lines lol. The TBI injection 2.5 to follow was nothing short of a little tank.
Total garbage. Just like the garbage the current Chrysler builds, "The New Chrysler" built nothing but crap. They haven't built a good car since before the oil embargo of 1973.
@@omarsmith8523 I know.....I was being sarcastic....it's not motivational or beautiful...this isn't a video about good triumphing over evil...it's a promotional video for a long dead economy car.
Yes, it did good for Chrysler but bad for the customer. They look so cheap and unsafe. Here is what someone wrote about it: Ahh yes, the venerable K-cars. These suckers (laughably) may have saved Chrysler from bankruptcy in the early 1980s (thanks to their small exteriors, six-passenger interiors, and fuel efficient engines). Their platform eventually spawned nearly every front wheel drive Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth developed during the 1980s, including the minivans. That would be fine if it was a well-engineered starting point, but the K platform wasn’t state of the art and was the victim of cost cutting. It was also engineered to be lightweight for fuel economy reasons, and in a cheap car, lightweight does not mean exotic materials, it means thinner materials and de-contenting. Like the later Neon, these cars had head gasket problems with the ubiquitous 2.2 liter fours, and Chrysler’s attempt at marketing a Japanese engine in them (supplied by Mitsubishi as a 2.6 liter) backfired because those engines blew themselves up. They did sell more than a million units of these cars in a single (long) generation, but it’s a safe bet there weren’t a million happy owners.
True but what did they do to us? They look so cheap and unsafe. Shame on Chrysler, Ford and GM for not making good quality small cars like Datsun and now Toyota. Here is what someone wrote: Ahh yes, the venerable K-cars. These suckers (laughably) may have saved Chrysler from bankruptcy in the early 1980s (thanks to their small exteriors, six-passenger interiors, and fuel efficient engines). Their platform eventually spawned nearly every front wheel drive Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth developed during the 1980s, including the minivans. That would be fine if it was a well-engineered starting point, but the K platform wasn’t state of the art and was the victim of cost cutting. It was also engineered to be lightweight for fuel economy reasons, and in a cheap car, lightweight does not mean exotic materials, it means thinner materials and de-contenting. Like the later Neon, these cars had head gasket problems with the ubiquitous 2.2 liter fours, and Chrysler’s attempt at marketing a Japanese engine in them (supplied by Mitsubishi as a 2.6 liter) backfired because those engines blew themselves up. They did sell more than a million units of these cars in a single (long) generation, but it’s a safe bet there weren’t a million happy owners.
Well, I can understand that Buck Gonsalvez. I guess I'm so bored I'm just trolling a bit. It looks like a lot of people were happy with theirs. Thanks.
You know what....these were really GREAT CARS. Today people live like bohemian prince and princesses with every excess know and available but I realize only now how the simple hard working clean living American lifestyle was embodied in the KCar. Pure and simple rugged durable and efficient well built cars. I have a feeling KCars will be reimagined and return again in some form. So will good simple american values. The times we live in now are corrupted by excess in all things and I can say I feel lucky to have lived during an earlier simpler time. Thank you for that lord. And thanks for posting this wonderful video from deep in the heart of the American memory. Thanks
I totally agree life was soo much simpler back in the 80s . I remember these K cars they were right for the times and were fairly reliable . My parents drove mid and full-sized cars RWD cars from Chrysler and GM back in those days .
As a mechanic i can agree.. Basic .sinple.reliable..good on gas. Had really good sound system. Brakes..seats and ride were as good as full size Lincoln. I had several. FAR superior to the volare line of cars. Drove mine from Miami to Quebec canada numerous times.
They may have been GREAT CARS, but they were kinda of expensive for what you got. The MSRP of a 1982 Reliant Custom was about $7,000 (NADA Guide as a reference) , which the Inflation Calculator tells us is about $19,000 in 2020. I don't know about you, but I'd rather get something like a 2020 Subaru Impreza (made in Indiana) for $18,600, and save the $400. At least Air-Conditioning and a decent radio come with the Subaru.
@@bob3zaaafs Not to mention the safety features and increases in overall engineering, reliability and paint/corrosion that all cars have today. Even a modern VW has 12 year rust and corrosion warranty these days - back then a Ziebart or Rusty Jones treatment would've been upsold to you for $500 more for a supposed "lifetime" corrosion warranty - where in reality the company went bust in 1988 and so did its insurance underwriters. Indeed, today you get a lot more reliability, features and safety for LESS money than in the early 80s.
These cars were p.o.s. we had a kcar..she struggled to get up to 35 and top speed was 40 lol...nobody knew what was wrong..my mom bought it new from the dealer to..lasted about 5 months b4 the things above started.
