Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[80 Lebaron Coupe]

K cars were cool, and ahead of their time.  They saved the company so it could continue to make our M's that people could not afford to drive, as fuel prices went through the roof.  As for Iaccoca he was a genius with the K car, and the minivan.  The other US auto makers struggled to play catch up with both platforms, which broke the business as usual mold for the US automakers.

X2

[Dippy.org]

[80 Lebaron Coupe]

Actually the K car kept the M body alive.  M was supposed to die after 1983, then 1985 or so then finally did die in 1989.
So how did Chrysler still manage to have the best CAFE average despite selling M bodies that often were stuck with a gas guzzler tax?  By selling all those K cars and their variants.  Otherwise, the fines would have been huge for Chrysler and the M could not have continued without Ks to offset it.

X2

[Prospect62]

Well I guess my opinion depends on how you define "win" or "lose". You guys are correct in what you say. I just always viewed Iacocca as such a proponent of FWD that his mindset is the reason the M was slated to die in 1983 in the first place. His vision and his K-car may have saved the M, but he was only saving it from himself - and it died anyway. The Caprice and the Crown Vic survived and became better cars on the other side of the 80's. If not for Iacocca, the same may have happened with the M.

But I suppose you could argue (and you guys are doing just that), that if not for the K-car Chrysler would have required yet another bailout (either government or corporate buyout) sooner than Diamler. And because of the fuel economy of the FWD cars, Chrysler kept marching on. Spitting out silly looking yet pioneering front wheel drive crap. You can call him a hero if you want, I don't think the man saved anything.

But you guys aren't wrong.

[MoparDan]

Actually the K car kept the M body alive.  M was supposed to die after 1983, then 1985 or so then finally did die in 1989.
So how did Chrysler still manage to have the best CAFE average despite selling M bodies that often were stuck with a gas guzzler tax?  By selling all those K cars and their variants.  Otherwise, the fines would have been huge for Chrysler and the M could not have continued without Ks to offset it.

funny since my Dodge 600 convert. was a lot worse on gas then any of my Ms were. Fun car though, and it and a Plymouth Acclaim I had were both good cars

[270SE]

Well I guess my opinion depends on how you define "win" or "lose". You guys are correct in what you say. I just always viewed Iacocca as such a proponent of FWD that his mindset is the reason the M was slated to die in 1983 in the first place. His vision and his K-car may have saved the M, but he was only saving it from himself - and it died anyway. The Caprice and the Crown Vic survived and became better cars on the other side of the 80's. If not for Iacocca, the same may have happened with the M.

But I suppose you could argue (and you guys are doing just that), that if not for the K-car Chrysler would have required yet another bailout (either government or corporate buyout) sooner than Diamler. And because of the fuel economy of the FWD cars, Chrysler kept marching on. Spitting out silly looking yet pioneering front wheel drive crap. You can call him a hero if you want, I don't think the man saved anything.

But you guys aren't wrong.

How they stacked against competition was very telling. The trucks and SUVs were about the only place they really had ground after the Fs and Rs went away. It may've made them money, but the investment in unpopular FWDs with low market share undoubtedly contributed to Chrysler's failing. Chrysler failed to create a desirable flagship car in that time period and while they may've saved money, a longterm plan did not grow from the ashes. Most people have largely inflated memories of those cars which aren't that quick and weren't that quick and weren't better in anyway. Sure, the little SRT4s actually were quick- when the SVT Cobras from 10 years before they were dreamed up were quicker.

Chryslers mismanagement goes back a lot further than 2008, and the '80s were not a highlight that saw the company on a path to lasting success. They lagged behind competitor trends, technologically, and by demand. They often mimicked other brands' designs when individuality was their only chance at success or aimed towards upper echelons in price where the buyers desired more prominent names.

[Prospect62]

the investment in unpopular FWDs with low market share undoubtedly contributed to Chrysler's failing.

Agreed.

[wolfsblood07]

Agreed.

Depends on how you look at it.  The Dodge Dynasty sold very well, no?  Interesting no one restores them, so they are rare nowadays.  But they were all over the place in the late 80s/early 90s.  Great undercover cars, they did not attract unwanted attention. 

[Patrick]

The Dynasty's were sold to more fleets than users, made them an offer they couldn't refuse. I had a friend who was the fleet manager for the company I was with at the time and Chrysler offered those cars up cheap compared to other manufacturers.

[Mike]

How they stacked against competition was very telling. The trucks and SUVs were about the only place they really had ground after the Fs and Rs went away. It may've made them money, but the investment in unpopular FWDs with low market share undoubtedly contributed to Chrysler's failing. Chrysler failed to create a desirable flagship car in that time period and while they may've saved money, a longterm plan did not grow from the ashes. Most people have largely inflated memories of those cars which aren't that quick and weren't that quick and weren't better in anyway. Sure, the little SRT4s actually were quick- when the SVT Cobras from 10 years before they were dreamed up were quicker.

Chryslers mismanagement goes back a lot further than 2008, and the '80s were not a highlight that saw the company on a path to lasting success. They lagged behind competitor trends, technologically, and by demand. They often mimicked other brands' designs when individuality was their only chance at success or aimed towards upper echelons in price where the buyers desired more prominent names.

Dynasty and Intrepids sold well as did minivans. A huge amount of Ford and GM sales were also to fleet customers.  Chrysler put time and money into K cars because that was the hot seller and the easiest way to expand their model range without having to spend tons of money on R&D and it worked for them. Chrysler was doing good until the whole Daimler thing came along and that happened because of poor management and decisions. But one thing good that came about that was Daimler started selling more of the products worldwide. They were already selling their minivans in other countries for years but the 300/Magnum and Jeeps were added to it. Trucks weren't overly big sellers for then until the 90s redesign and they were slow in coming out with a decent truck based SUV. Then again they didn't really need that when they already had Jeep for that market.

Chrysler got into the FWD market at the right time when everyone else was going that way, they were right in there with fuel injection, modern suspensions, the first to roll out air bags, one of the first with electronic transmissions. They were matching everyone else as far as technology went and sometimes beating others.

[Darth-Car]

The only area they missed in the 90's and today is the family / toy hauler market.  They never used the full size truck platform to make a full size 4 door SUV to compete with the likes of suburpon, or navigagor.  My family is just to tall for the likes of Durango.  So when our Grand Wagoneer went away, we had to get a navigagor.

[Patrick]

Chrysler had $9 B in the bank when Daimler took over as the "merger of equals". Daimler needed the money and Chrysler needed the market.

[270SE]

Dynasty and Intrepids sold well as did minivans. A huge amount of Ford and GM sales were also to fleet customers.  Chrysler put time and money into K cars because that was the hot seller and the easiest way to expand their model range without having to spend tons of money on R&D and it worked for them. Chrysler was doing good until the whole Daimler thing came along and that happened because of poor management and decisions. But one thing good that came about that was Daimler started selling more of the products worldwide. They were already selling their minivans in other countries for years but the 300/Magnum and Jeeps were added to it. Trucks weren't overly big sellers for then until the 90s redesign and they were slow in coming out with a decent truck based SUV. Then again they didn't really need that when they already had Jeep for that market.

Chrysler got into the FWD market at the right time when everyone else was going that way, they were right in there with fuel injection, modern suspensions, the first to roll out air bags, one of the first with electronic transmissions. They were matching everyone else as far as technology went and sometimes beating others.

So they were't in a decline until they bought Jeep? I thought selling fewer cars than even 1975 would do that. I kind of thought that through the '90s Ford sold more under its own name than all the names Chrysler sold under besides Jeep- some years maybe even including it.

Depends on how you look at it.  The Dodge Dynasty sold very well, no?  Interesting no one restores them, so they are rare nowadays.  But they were all over the place in the late 80s/early 90s.  Great undercover cars, they did not attract unwanted attention. 

Low market share as in no they weren't all over the place. Yes they were cheap cars competitive with other cheap cars for those markets but there were other price classes than the lowest. They had not even a quarter of the market. Fords and GMs of different varieties were far more common.

[wolfsblood07]

Low market share as in no they weren't all over the place. Yes they were cheap cars competitive with other cheap cars for those markets but there were other price classes than the lowest. They had not even a quarter of the market. Fords and GMs of different varieties were far more common.

In the early 90s Ford Taurus and Toyota Camry and Honda Accord were the really huge sellers as I recall.  But unless my memory is off, the Dodge Dynasty was also way up there in sales.  Had to be Dodge's top model, correct?

[Prospect62]

The Taurus came out in 86 and beat the pants off every other front drive American car and some imports. Next to anything Chrysler was producing at the time, the Taurus was the superior automobile. I maintain my opinion that K-cars were stupid and the public didn't like them. If I'm wrong, explain why they were dead in 1989 right alongside the M-body they were supposed to replace. And the crap that came after the K-car didn't sell either.

As I remember, Chrysler's reputation didn't start recovering until the 1994 Ram update and the introduction of the LH platform(Intrepid, et al) around the same time. Jeep sales (high profit margin) most likely helped keep Chrysler relevant during that 87-93 time period when all Chrysler had to hang it's hat on was the Caravan and it's siblings. Although at the time of the Chrysler purchase of AMC, Chrysler was doing well and AMC was bleeding money.

Either way, it would have been nice to see Chrysler keep the Diplomat and/or Gran Fury alive. That's my main point. The platform was tossed aside by a short-sighted Iacocca who made some smart moves but just as many dumb ones. Imagine if the Diplomat had been kept alive and the M-body platform improved with technology like Ford's Panther platform (Crown Vic) and GM's B-body platform (which ultimately died itself but at one hell of a peak - 96 Impala SS and 9C1 anybody?).

Finally, my apologies to the OP because this thing has gone completely bananas.

[wolfsblood07]

Since we're on the subject, does anybody have any thoughts on the car everybody forgets existed, the early 90s Dodge Monaco?  From what I understand, Dodge dealerships could not give them away.