Alexander Sandy McInnes Agreed. That's what I tried to do with my series, Great Cars. It wasn't just about Ferraris and other exotics that few couple could own but also about the cars that really had an impact. The K-car sure did. I was always attracted to its spartan looks and simplicity. The faux wood paneling on some models wasn't great though. This car and the minivan were real breakthroughs.
I was fortunate enough to have a 1985 Mark Cross LeBaron Convertible, a turbo in gunmetal blue. I also had a J-body LeBaron with the 3.0 litre V-6, a Lebaron LX also fully loaded. Loved them both. In all total, I had about 9 Chrysler's during the 1980's and 90's. And I still have my mint condition Jeep Wrangler Renegade from 1992. I'll have it till I kick the bucket, LOL!
If my name looks familiar to anybody hello. I ran the very first engine when they were starting to develop the 2.2. Actually it was the first four engines. I worked on this project from the very beginning in Highland Park and even still have a shirt from the grand opening or the release day. The year before it was released I had a company car that was a debadged green station wagon Reliant but with the 2.6 Japanese engine in it and nobody knew what I was driving. About a 3:35-6:00 is all my stuff those were actually fun days. Actually anybody that worked there had to come to my class on computerized development and testing. Great memories.
After the purchase of a 1975 low mileage Plymouth Duster and a 1978 225 -CI -3 speed Volare my family never bought another Chrysler product again . Drive tranes are probably still going . The bodies were awful . Leaks, squeaks, poor fitting seams . All cars back then would rust but that Plymouth Volare must of had salt imbedded in the paint . I know in Crysler came back strong but those 1972 - 1979 years turned us off. I look at them after Mercedes unloaded them and feel sorry for the once great brand that gave us the Slant Six engine .
I miss 6 passenger cars. It would be such a relief to get into a new car with no center console up against my right leg and a nice flat floor. Reminds me of the old movies where the car would pull over and both the driver and passenger would get out on the right.
My wife and I call both the driver and passenger getting out on the passenger's side, "Mayberrying". As in, "We parked at the courthouse and Mayberry'd because of the traffic". 😂 No question where that originates.
Near but not quite. As a 34 year auto parts sales guy I can't count the head gaskets I sold on those engines. To be fair it wasn't the engine design that was at fault, it was the factory head gasket that just wasn't quite up to par with the movement action of a rapidly expanding/contracting aluminum head on a slowly expanding/contracting cast iron block. New multi-layer gaskets slip-slide around to eliminate those issues. A blown head gasket is almost guaranteed on the 2.2's.
@@tonychavez2083once fixed with a new gasket the engines really have no issues. I always wanted one of those rare 5 speed manual turbo K cars. You may have been lucky or you may have treated it with more care than a lot of my clientele did ha ha.
My mother had an 83 Reliant. We drove it over 400 miles in -14F weather one night and it held up just fine during the whole trip, although a rough ride on frozen chunks of ice in Kentucky.
I bought a brand new 1981 Plymouth K car. I don't remember the exact mileage on the odometer but it was well over 250,000 miles when I sold it to a friend of mine. He put another 10,000 miles on it before he bought another car. The only items I had to replace was the exhaust system, shocks & struts and tires. I great car at a reasonable price.
MY FATHER WAS AN ENGINEER FOR CHRYSLER, WAS INVOLVED IN CHRYSLER'S K-CAR CREATION. He's seen in this video at 1:25 in the background. He was hired right out of college (B.S. in Engineering, Texas Tech) in 1961 and spent his entire 45 year career at Chrysler. When he retired in 2006, he was Chief Engineer of structure and chassis development. Supervised 4 other engineers who oversaw 4 apprentice engineers. Today, he is retired and living on his pension. So many comments here dis the K-car for it's poor reliability. Even my father will agree with you, but he was not involved in the engine/ mechanical design. He worked in structure and chassis. The K-car was designed as a "level 1" family Sedan. "Level 1" refers to lower priced cars such as Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fairmount, etc. Level 2 cars are those made with better quality materials and sound insulation such as Buick Century, Ford Granada, and Dodge 600 & Plymouth Caravelle. (He worked in designing chassis and frames for those too.)
Timbrock1000 Thank you for sharing your personal story. It was a great time to be involved in American industry. While product quality suffered from mismanagement, employees earned good wages and had pensions they could rely on.
+Timbrock1000 Ford Granada was a level 2??? Wow. I inherited my dad's '77 and drove it for some years. POS. Worst car I ever drove by a huge margin, and the "better quality materials" were cheap plastics that broke and snapped off, vinyl, and fake wood that was basically contact paper with a wood design stuck to the plastic surfaces that after years began to peel off. Just amazing how far we've come in materials engineering.
You should see the crap we had from GMH in Australia, the Holden commodores from the 80's dashboard felt like they were made with recycled cereal boxes and then hardened slightly, the climate switches were toothpicks that broke as soon as you touched them, the only good thing about at least the VL, 1986 to 1988 model was the engine, because it was sourced from nissan, the RB30ET motor. Meanwhile ford was destroying them with the Ford Falcon.
This series of cars saved the Chrysler Corporation from extinction way back in the early 1980'S. They were not the greatest cars in the world, and neither were the competitive models they were up against, but these vehicles did a great job and the platforms led to other more expensive Chrysler creations that all led to the rebirth and strength of the company, that helped to lead them into the future and the eventual takeover by Daimler-Benz, then eventually Fiat!
You mean the taxpayers save the company back in the 80s seems like everyone forgets that the Government baled them out. Along with Ford and GM later on in the 90s
The automatic transmission was a big wet blanket on the Chevette; the manual ones weren't even that slow for their times and price class (they were of course still slow by any absolute standard).
Well i was on this project from day one. I ran the first 5 engines and stuck with them till they ran. (Barely) i can't believe i can't find me in any pictures. I'm directly responsible for four cam bearings. I also demonstrated the 2.2 with the turbo to the big wigs and we sold more turbo cars then anybody back then. I helped build a 2 dr. K CAR with flared wheel wells and a turbo 2.2 for the ppg pace car competition and out accelerated the Pontiac turbo V8 Trans Am in that competition I thought that was pretty entertaining.
These were a great little car. They had the stigma of poor quality control from previous Chrysler cars which was sad. My dad had a K-car, and it was always reliable.
My grandmother got a Reliant K, in light green metalic, as a retirement gift from her church in Kirkwood, Missouri. The car was in perfect operational order throughout her retirement and until she passed and we sold it to another happy owner.
I currently have three K-Cars. A 1986 Plymouth Reliant sedan and two 1987 Dodge Aries Wagons. (One is from DavidsFarm) I love these cars they are AWESOME!! I currently have two on the road, a wagon and the sedan and they have treated me very very well. Awesome video thinks for sharing!
The front and rear bench seats were cool, I liked the front end on the 81's vs the 85's. But boy were these cars problem laden, even the mitsubishi 2.6 was not much better. Resale took a nosedive that seems to be a Chrysler tradition. Still wish I could go back to '85 Chrysler or not!
@@nasiriyah110 In the Air Force, "white tops" or officer staff cars may have been kept around that long, but after about 4 years they would paint the top blue and would become part of the motor pool.
those carbs where garbage. they ran soo mush better when injected. we had a butt ugly yeller 4 door K car. it lasted 8 years without any problems other than a timing belt.
The K platform served Chrysler well. It was the basis for the Voyager/Caravan minivans, and a host of other products. Without it, the company wouldn't have survived.
I have a 85 lebaron woody convertible 83,000 orig miles drives great comfortable car...i get compliments on it daily i love the late 70s boxy design todays cars are ugly plastic bubbles with oversize hot wheels looking rims
Later models were pretty reliable, with simple design and controls, roomy and easy to see out of. Just the opposite of today's cars, which are larger and much heavier, but have smaller interiors, and terrible visibility. Today's cars are going back to small engines, but Turbo's and especially direct injection with the problem of carbon buildup on the valves, is reducing their reliability and longevity.
Still miss the 83 Reliant K-car I originally bought used, then gave to my mom. She drove it until she quit driving, then sold it at 160,000 miles - engine and trans still running great. Had to be tuned by ear, would not idle correctly if set to specs - had to mark it where it ran great, then tune it back to specs to set california's stupid emissions laws - then set it back again to where it ran great. Mechanic showed me almost no difference in emissions between the two settings. Still had original engine and auto trans, and was fun to drive - and comfortable.
the 2,2 was great, but they should had a performance k-car with a v-6 and black buckets...kind of like the cougar- business and speed all in one....maybe some graphics like the TCI omni...v-6 with a 4 speed manual
My 1988 Plymouth Caravelle which was a version of the K Car, blew a head gasket at 88,000 miles which also cracked the head. It was an expensive repair to say the least. It needed a new distributer at 69,000 miles. Nowhere near as reliable as my 1970 Dodge Dart swinger, my 1977 Plymouth Volare', or my 1980 Dodge Diplomat. All slant six powered and just such good cars, they never gave me any problems.
My understanding of what evolved as Chrysler's K Car began at Ford Motor Company with Lee Iacocca and Hal Sperling. When Iacocca was later hired by Chrysler, Ford was asked if it still wanted the project. Ford was not interested and handed over the drawings.
You asshole, that was not the K car. That was Fords thoughts of a minivan. It was not drawings that they gave L.A. Iacocca, it was the research that showed Americans wanted a smaller van for families and business. You sir, you are a complete moron.
We had a 1982 Reliant wagon, pretty blue color with blue interior. It was a great wagon, too bad no American companies make such a practical and comfortable size vehicle today. Yes it would hold six adults. The only problem with the K cars and just about everything else in the early eighties were the wimpy engines. It took fuel injection and computer controls to finally start giving us power, economy and low emissions. If I could have a new Reliant station wagon with a modern 180 hp engine, it would be the perfect car.....well, and maybe with air bags. We shipped the Reliant to Kauai and it may still be rolling around the island but I expect the salty sea air got to it. RIP K cars, you helped save Chrysler. 🙂
elton john That's what the 7/70 drive train warranty was for. I had the head gasket replaced twice on my '88 LeBaron with the 2.2 Turbo... both under warranty.
Twaddles McGee Hmm - I have to guess that maybe there was a change in head gaskets (after your '85) and it was a problem batch. Mine was a late 1988 (it had an air bag) and one day when I was in picking mine up and paying the modest $100 deductible, the service manager quietly pointed over to another customer who's LeBaron was older and out of the warranty period. They were paying the full bill on a head gasket. I had that car for 7 years as I said above, and the first gasket went at 35K miles, second one was when I was coming up on 70K - indeed JUST within that warranty! Still overall it was a really good car, and in retrospect I am glad I bought it. Also the dealer was excellent - and that is saying a lot. In '95 when I decided to trade it off, Chrysler didn't have anything I really liked - bought a new Bonneville.
Alan Maier the non turbos were a bit underpowered maybe some of the problem was drivers pushing them too hard I don't know but I still see lots of these 30 year old cars being driven around Los Angeles.
Just because people hate these cars, for what it's worth they are still out lasting modern cars today if any are still on the road. It can't get any better than that. If any are still around that probably means their the ones that haven't rotted yet, were garaged kept and well maintained. And some were probably California or Texas cars for a fact. Over there Cars don't seem to rust much because of the air.
Outlasting today's cars? Some are still around, although I haven't seen one in years. As for longevity, when a Plymouth Reliant goes 350,000 miles on an original engine and drivetrain, I'll believe it. My current 1997 Pontiac Bonneville with 287,000 miles is a testament to its quality.
itsmegp46 I see lots of K cars still being drive around Los Angeles all the people I know have no trouble with them including me. I've had 6 of these cars over the last 7 years all of them ran like tops.
Twaddles McGee I'm just curious. If your cars were so reliable, why did you own six cars in seven years? I've been driving the same cars for fifteen years.
I remember my dad had an Aries. It was the biggest pile of junk he ever owned. Every month the engine had some problem that required the dealer to fix. Total junk.
With all the risks that came with saving 38 lbs on an aluminum head, I wonder if it was worth such a risk back in 1981. Here it is in 2017, and aluminum heads are still blowing gaskets more than we are told by manufactures. Pulled head bolts, and excessive friction on the gaskets were never solved. And of course, once a waterpump fails, and causes an engine to slightly overheat, the engine is toast - at least till the head is milled to correct the warp.
My Mom bought a brand new 1981 Omni. What a pile of garbage. It was at the dealership more than it was on the road. THIS is why Detroit failed. Had she bought a Honda.... she would have never had all of these problems.
I had a 10 year old '81 Omni. Nice solid body - the Japanese cars from that era were already rusted out - but it's the only car that ever left me stranded (it vapor locked while driving at 50 mph!) I don't miss carburetors.
The iron block and aluminum head resulted in many valve problems, The two metals expand at different rates under stress and heat. it got BAD valve rating by Consumer Reports.
In areas where it snows it's better traction and in general it saves space by putting all of those components together. Can build lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient cars that not only get better mileage, they have lower emissions.
The older American rear drive layout was primitive, heavy and had compromises in handling (except for drag racing and freeway driving) compared to what the Europeans were offering with independent rear suspension and lighter weight drive trains, the Japanese were providing this as well in what few rear wheel drive cars they produced. Since the drive line would require re-engineering vs. just down scaling going to front wheel drive in addition to improved traction and handling saved weight which increased mileage. The other benefits were lower costs in that you did not have to develop a rear differential and drive line and that the assembly operation was easier. However, I think that the American companies took front wheel drive too far in the 80s (especially GM and Chrysler) and even employed it on higher priced car lines where they should have utilized a re-engineered rear drive layout. This saved them money on costs, but comprised the cars performance against the more sophisticated rear wheel drive layouts and put the higher line American vehicles into a less-than stigma (all Lincoln cars and crossovers still use this layout) that they still live with today. Ford used a down-scaled rear drive layout in the Fox body, but it still suffered from the pitfalls of a live rear axle as opposed to Independent rear suspension.
Chrysler has allways been my favorite and allways will be.Sure they made mistakes and fumbled but if I recall both ford and Gm have too nobodys perfect.I do think chrysler was a head of the other 2 in inovation and research..I wish chrysler had not dropped the slant6 in the 80s and had made it more modern instead of v6s.Nothing has the torke a slant6 dose and durability nobody has ever beat them slant6s.
We had a couple of engineers in our neighborhood when I was growing up. They always bought Valiants with the slant 6. Said it was much more reliable. Not being an engineer, I had no idea why, but their cars lasted longer than everyone else's.
Watching this video makes me want a K car even though we had a 1981 Reliant K wagon when I was a kid. Talk about a piece of sh*t! I remember being a little kid and hating that car. It was a lemon and was always breaking down. However I have known people with K cars that loved them and had them for years and hundreds of thousands or trouble free miles.
Sound is only bad if you combine both channels, it's out of phase. Try headphones. Sounded pretty decent through mine but through my phone speaker it was barely audible.
Chrysler built the K car to compete with Japan. a unibody car is cheaper to build then body on frame. I worked for Chrysler, there was a memo to extol the virtues of the front wheel drive car.
King Rose Archives before they stiffened the frame in upcoming years in order to add a second sliding door, the vehicles only had a two and a half mile an hour impact bumper rating. the signage in the dealerships was reduced in size to make the vehicles look more normal sized comparatively.
The industry switched to front wheel drive to make more room in ever smaller cars. As for Chrysler, they switched to unibody construction with their 1960 model year cars except for Imperial.
itsmegp46 Nope, I used to work for Chrysler, it was totally for economic reasons to compete with the Japanese. The early unibody cars that you're referencing were hand welded, nothing like the ones that came out later.
+Lucas Kroon Lots of things to like about RWD, especially in racing. A good weight balance. But my experience in snow and rain was that FWD handled those conditions better. That said, a lot always depends on the driver. Any technology can only do so much alone. FWD does open up cabin space reduces weight and gets better mileage. All of which is a matter of personal preference and deciding what's important.
It's amazing to see this documentary and related information, today. This all came from a car company that once had the drive and passion to reclaim itself within the marketplace and then take it farther, through the eighties and into the nineties. Still owning several versions of each K-Platform vehicle and witnessing how they have withstood the test to time, has been a ownership of pride and passion that continues to this day. I sincerely miss those days but appreciated the ride along the way!
My brother used to drive a 1984 Plymouth Reliant, that he had bought second hand, Once driving from San Diego to Indio the car stopped running, he called me long distance and I went to rescue him, and both of us not being technicians were able to diagnose and repair the little wagon, we performed a timing belt change in the middle of the Temecula mountains with limited tools, they were easy to work on
The understeer was truly overwhelming. Someone referred to the K car as handling "like a gallon of milk." Nonetheless, I loved my Dodge Aries K. I would buy one today if they still made it...
I had limited exposure to driving K-cars with my only times being in a US Army staff car in the '80's. Chrysler Corp. should have used that understeer to their advantage though: "We engineer an exhilirating driving experience into our K-Cars!" 😛 You have to give Chrysler credit though. They turned one design into about 14 profitable car lines lol. PS - My dad had a 1984 Chrysler New Yorker based on the K-chassis that was a plush, luxurious ride, but man was the 2.2 underpowered. He loved that car though...poor man's Cadillac lol...and it WAS a very comfortable ride that I'd take today. And it talked to you!
Our family sure had its' share of this promo video. '81 024, '81 Aries wagon[exactly as in the vid], a '83 powder blue 4 door, '85 400, '86 LeBaron sedan, '87 E-class, 2 '88 P cars[1 Shadow ES and 1 Sundance RS],a '88 Daytona Turbo Z and a 88 LeBaron coupe that I still drive now after just hitting 100k last year. Easy to find/fix parts, even now. And that 2.5 engine with the 3 speed auto just won't quit after all these years.
The K-cars were indeed better than the GM X-cars and awful Ford Farmount. If you think about it they were the best cars in their class at the time. In 1983 Toyota introduced the Camry that looked just like the K-car. By the mid-eighties the Accord and Camry were gaining traction in the market.
+Andrew kear accords gained traction long before the eighties. I was on a 100 day waiting list when they came out in 1977. Instant success $4,145 delivered.
