: Chrysler pentastar returns



Jesda
08-19-07, 09:11 AM
http://www.underconsideration....y.php (http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/chrysler_gets_heavy.php)

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/chrysler_logo.gif

The beautiful, aspirational wings-and-medallion corporate logo from the 90s gets supplanted by the Pentastar, which brings back memories of Dodge Aries K-cars, Spirits, and Lebarons.

The wings will still be placed on the grilles of Chrysler-branded cars, but the pentastar will become the new logo for Chrysler LLC.

Night Wolf
08-19-07, 09:23 AM
http://www.underconsideration....y.php (http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/chrysler_gets_heavy.php)

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/chrysler_logo.gif

The beautiful, aspirational wings-and-medallion corporate logo from the 90s gets supplanted by the Pentastar, which brings back memories of Dodge Aries K-cars, Spirits, and Lebarons.
The wings will still be placed on the grilles of Chrysler-branded cars, but the pentastar will become the new logo for Chrysler LLC.

Don't forget the minivan ;)

railven
08-19-07, 09:44 AM
I love how you can see it on the front of the Turbo Interceptor in "The Wraith." I don't care if many feel that movie sucked, that car was bad ass!

Stoneage_Caddy
08-19-07, 02:30 PM
The Wraith was a killer car .....too bad it never came to life ....it was the Fiero done correctly ....

Sandy
08-19-07, 06:38 PM
100 comments AND none of them know very much. did you see my comment?

Clink the above link, and scan to the bottom !!

Playdrv4me
08-19-07, 06:39 PM
New Old Stock.

Stoneage_Caddy
08-19-07, 07:10 PM
I dont think the 80s were that bad of a time for chrysler ....they were selling cars back then ....there are for more k cars still out there tappet noise and all then citations , chevettes and escorts ....

lee iccoca is gonna get the last laugh on this deal ....

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-19-07, 08:45 PM
Say what you will, I like the Pentastar. I think it was one of the best hood ornaments ever, especially on a 81-83 Imperial, where they used solid crystal.

Sandy
08-20-07, 07:54 AM
God, all that talk, and not a single person explained WHAT the PentaStar STOOD FOR !! The PentaStar has 5 points. When it was originally designed, each pont stood for a Corporation DIVISION !

* IMPERIAL
* CHRYSLER
* DODGE
* DODGE TRUCKS
* PLYMOUTH

There is no longer a Plymouth, Nor an Imperial. The Dodge Truck Division has been rolled into the Dodge Division - So....While I like the emblem, it's now obsolete.

Jesda
08-20-07, 08:18 AM
It stands for "COME TO BOB'S CHRYSLER-DODGE-PLYMOUTH FOR A GREAT DEAL ON A NEW ARIES! WE'LL BEAT ANY PRICE!"

The logo was ruined by engineering atrocities.

gothicaleigh
08-20-07, 08:48 AM
I always wanted to know why Daimler didn't bring back the Pentastar while they owned Chrysler. It would seem complimentary to their own tri-star Mercedes emblem.

Ah well...

Am I one of the few that actually prefers the pentastar emblem over the all too busy wing emblem? The seal thing in the center is not very memorable in my opinion (despite it's history). The pentastar is a proper logo.




It stands for "COME TO BOB'S CHRYSLER-DODGE-PLYMOUTH FOR A GREAT DEAL ON A NEW ARIES! WE'LL BEAT ANY PRICE!"
The logo was ruined by engineering atrocities.

Have you driven by a Chrysler dealership lately? Bob's is still running "great deals" (but now dumping Neons and bare bones 300's). The more things change... :p

I've never been a fan of Chrysler, and from the looks of their newer models and concepts, probably never will be.
Honestly look at some of the past offerings from Ford and Chevrolet though, and you would have to wonder why no one thinks they should also change their logos... Hell, even Cadillac had the Cimmarron and other (only slightly better) embarassments of the 80s, but the wreath & crest remains (yes it's been changed, but more to better match the new designs than out of shame).

Cadillac Tony
08-20-07, 05:24 PM
"Be sure to tune in next week for another episode of "Bad Ideas", when we examine Cadillac's idea to resurrect the "Cimmaron" name for the new CTS."

Sandy
08-21-07, 09:07 AM
i have often wondered (in silence) why it is that people can come on this forum and "bad mouth" Chrysler Corporation, -OR- Ford Motor Company, -OR- GM, or a particular division of GM, and that's all okay and others may even join in the frey and offer up two pats on the back, figuretivly-speaking - to the original poster. agreeing with his distain for ANYTHING Chrysler or Dodge, or Ford or Mercury or Lincoln, and on those boards, they can bad mouth Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac & Chevrolet, and it's all fine & dandy & business per usual.
But, when I say that i'd ONLY buy an American car, and would never ever buy, lease or in any other way, cause a BMW, VW, mer-SAAY-dees, Porche to be built, and likewise any cars of any Asian manufacturer to be built, that I get critized! ???? Why is my partiotism challeged while others lack of such deemed "fine"?
FYI, about 10% of mechanical "things" that are on the 2006 Cadillac, were "invented" by Chrysler and 1st came to market on the Imperial, back in the fifties !! The very first use of 4-Wheel Disc Brakes on all 4 Wheels, Platinum Tipped Spark Plugs, Anti-Lok Braking System, Power Windows, Power Stering and Cassette Stereo and before that, 8-Track Tape Player and Electronic Ignition Systems ALL appeared FIRST on the Imperial.
Not Lexus, Not Mercedes, Not BMW and Not Infiniti....but on the Imperial!

Jesda
08-21-07, 10:22 AM
The Chrysler that builds Stratuses has nothing to do with the Chrysler that created Imperial.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-21-07, 11:44 AM
Yes, exactly. Modern Chrysler is a sad remnant of what it used to be. Heck, I'll go so far as to say Chrysler of the '80s is somewhat better than it is now.

AMGoff
08-21-07, 11:45 AM
Well although I'm new here and new to Cadillacs in general (hell, this is only my second car from the General) I thought I had to chime in. First of all, the Pentastar is the corporate logo, the Chrysler division will retain the winged badge.

My entire life I've always been a Mopar man, I still own two and will always have at least one in my possession until the day I die. I've never understood why people like to bash Chrysler. We still have our '97 Sebring convertible that we bought new. Although it's been relegated to weekend duty during the summertime, we've only ever had to replace a tierod end in 85,000 miles. Even after ten years it is still one really good looking car. We also have our '89 Jeep Grand Wagoneer which I have owned for the past 13 years. It has 120,000 miles on it's 360 and the old gal barely feels broken in. Two of the four most dependable engines ever made came from Chrysler/AMC - the 5.9L V8 and the 4.0L straight six (the other two of course being the General's 3.8 and 5.7). A CJ-8 was my first car ever and I wish I never got rid of her. I've owned two Cherokees and each had over 200,000 miles when I got rid of them. My brother still has one of them with... wait for it... 302,000 miles, original motor and tranny. I also had a 300M which was my daily driver from 2000-2004, and then was my wife's dd from 04-last week, we gave it to my mom with 79,000 miles with never a single thing gone wrong with it.

Just remember, Chrysler was waaayyy ahead of both GM and Ford back in the 90's and would have continued putting out great cars if it weren't for those damn germans. Although I suppose if it weren't for the whole Diamler nonsense I probably never would have bought my Seville... but still Chrysler has never done me or a lot of other people for that matter, wrong. So quit the bashing, especially if you've never owned one... or six.

Playdrv4me
08-21-07, 12:28 PM
If it were not for the damn Germans, ruin it as they may have, Chrysler probably wouldnt exist at all today. For as long as I can remember, Chrysler has merely SURVIVED in the marketplace where it's two primary competitors often flourished and only until recently had serious turmoil of their own.

I've owned several Chrysler products, most of them Jeeps, which are the only Chrysler thing I will drive. Even though I love Jeeps, save for a 1996 Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.0L Selec-Trac I owned, they were the most problematic vehicles I've ever had. My 1999 Grand Cherokee Limited 4.7 AWD (designed well before Mercedes had anything to do with Chrysler mind you), was probably among the 2 worst vehicles I EVER owned. And I remember the constant chagrin I had over the fact that it was the cheesiest shit that would break, but it was always enough to leave you stranded somehow. Good riddance.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-21-07, 12:43 PM
I don't like a lot of modern Mopars for reasons that are found before a car is even bought. Things like exterior and interior design, build quality of interior pieces, etc etc. Aside from the 1st generation LHS and 300M, their whole "cab forward" design theme killed it for me...made a lot of big sedans that looked a lot like big elongated jellybeans. And I know this is kind of a moot point, but GM and Ford both have their luxury lines, and Chrysler hasn't really had once since 1983, when the Imperial was axed (yeah yeah, I know there was an Imperial made in like 1990 and 1991, but wasn't it just a Fifth Avenue with a different front end?). And it's like, yeah, Lincoln and Cadillac both offered a V8 in their large FWD sedans, Chrysler only had a V6. Granted, it was a great V-6, but still.

Other than those sort of things, Chrysler is ok in my book. And I really like old Mopars, from about 1957-72, that was such a great era.

AMGoff
08-21-07, 01:44 PM
If it were not for the damn Germans, ruin it as they may have, Chrysler probably wouldnt exist at all today. For as long as I can remember, Chrysler has merely SURVIVED in the marketplace where it's two primary competitors often flourished and only until recently had serious turmoil of their own.

Oh no no no... you don't want to play this game with me. Chrysler had been consistently profitable since the 80's when they had paid their loans back seven years ahead of schedule. Regardless of what you may think the K-cars and the minivans were wildly successful and were the key to their turn around in the 80s. It was those profits of the 80's which helped finance a string of successes in the 90's - the LH cars, the JX "could" cars, the Neon, the Ram, the Wrangler, the Grand Cherokee, etc... Before the "merger" they were one of the most profitable, per car manufacturers in the world, their quality and dependability were up (much more so than Mercedes and other Euro makes), Chrysler Financial was raking in money and they had 8-12 Billion in the bank. Do you honestly think Diamler would have leeched onto a failing company, Chrysler was in a stronger position in just about every area compared to Mercedes. In fact it was the 300M which was the linchpin for the deal, being such large, good handling, potent, well built, mass production car made Chrysler all the more attractive to Mercedes. It was supposed to be a "merger of equals," which we know was a crock... and the rest is history.

Bob Eaton screwed to pooch royally when we went forward with the deal. If you want to go even deeper I partially blame Iacocca for picking Eaton over Lutz, Lutz would have nixed the whole deal from the very beginning.

The point of all of this is that you are talking out your ass. I can already tell you're going to be one of those people who likes to contradict anything anyone says. Others may be fine with it but if you're gonna play the Chrysler game you better do your homework first. The fact remains that Chrysler would have been in a much stronger position right now if it weren't for Diamler, hell they could have started losing money on every vehicle sold and still have turned a profit with Chrysler Financial alone.

If this all isn't enough I can gladly pen part 2 about how exactly Mercedes went about screwing Chrysler, but hopefully we get my point.

gothicaleigh
08-21-07, 02:02 PM
i have often wondered (in silence) why it is that people can come on this forum and "bad mouth" Chrysler Corporation, -OR- Ford Motor Company, -OR- GM, or a particular division of GM, and that's all okay and others may even join in the frey and offer up two pats on the back, figuretivly-speaking - to the original poster. agreeing with his distain for ANYTHING Chrysler or Dodge, or Ford or Mercury or Lincoln, and on those boards, they can bad mouth Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac & Chevrolet, and it's all fine & dandy & business per usual.
But, when I say that i'd ONLY buy an American car, and would never ever buy, lease or in any other way, cause a BMW, VW, mer-SAAY-dees, Porche to be built, and likewise any cars of any Asian manufacturer to be built, that I get critized! ???? Why is my partiotism challeged while others lack of such deemed "fine"?

You begin by essentially telling people to keep their opinions to themselves and then wrap things up by playing the patriotism card? Something is amiss... :gothicaleigh:

Sandy, you are an intelligent guy whose opinions are well (and for the most part, deservedly) respected here. I would have thought that getting offended because some (okay, many) of us do not share those opinions would be beneath you.

For my part, I am very opinionated, and I don't think anyone would accuse me of being shy about it. If a manufactured product is crap, I'm not going to pretend it isn't simply because my opinion may tread upon someone else's preconceived notions or nostalgic feelings of said product.


FYI, about 10% of mechanical "things" that are on the 2006 Cadillac, were "invented" by Chrysler and 1st came to market on the Imperial, back in the fifties !! The very first use of 4-Wheel Disc Brakes on all 4 Wheels, Platinum Tipped Spark Plugs, Anti-Lok Braking System, Power Windows, Power Stering and Cassette Stereo and before that, 8-Track Tape Player and Electronic Ignition Systems ALL appeared FIRST on the Imperial.
Not Lexus, Not Mercedes, Not BMW and Not Infiniti....but on the Imperial!

Congratulations.
Now if they could just produce a decent car to attach all of those things to...

Face it, the best cars Chrysler has managed to produce to date have been based upon designs inherited from Daimler. If I wanted an old Mercedes design, I'd buy a W140, save $20k, and have a star that actually means something on the hood.

[flame on!]

Playdrv4me
08-21-07, 02:26 PM
Oh no no no... you don't want to play this game with me. Chrysler had been consistently profitable since the 80's when they had paid their loans back seven years ahead of schedule. Regardless of what you may think the K-cars and the minivans were wildly successful and were the key to their turn around in the 80s. It was those profits of the 80's which helped finance a string of successes in the 90's - the LH cars, the JX "could" cars, the Neon, the Ram, the Wrangler, the Grand Cherokee, etc... Before the "merger" they were one of the most profitable, per car manufacturers in the world, their quality and dependability were up (much more so than Mercedes and other Euro makes), Chrysler Financial was raking in money and they had 8-12 Billion in the bank. Do you honestly think Diamler would have leeched onto a failing company, Chrysler was in a stronger position in just about every area compared to Mercedes. In fact it was the 300M which was the linchpin for the deal, being such large, good handling, potent, well built, mass production car made Chrysler all the more attractive to Mercedes. It was supposed to be a "merger of equals," which we know was a crock... and the rest is history.

Bob Eaton screwed to pooch royally when we went forward with the deal. If you want to go even deeper I partially blame Iacocca for picking Eaton over Lutz, Lutz would have nixed the whole deal from the very beginning.

The point of all of this is that you are talking out your ass. I can already tell you're going to be one of those people who likes to contradict anything anyone says. Others may be fine with it but if you're gonna play the Chrysler game you better do your homework first. The fact remains that Chrysler would have been in a much stronger position right now if it weren't for Diamler, hell they could have started losing money on every vehicle sold and still have turned a profit with Chrysler Financial alone.

If this all isn't enough I can gladly pen part 2 about how exactly Mercedes went about screwing Chrysler, but hopefully we get my point.

Youre telling me that Daimler's entire financial decision to purchase Chrysler was based around the rework of a rework LH platform 300M? It was a decent enough car, but...Give me a break.

Funny you should mention homework... I did my homework on the subject of Chrysler's many mishaps LONG ago, in fact it was a school project. Rather than argue your stodgy position with me, read the book "COMEBACK" by Paul Ingrassia (among others). It details with GREAT substance, all of the mis-steps chrysler made in the 80s and well into the early 90s. And that was *before* MB bought them out. The LH car, Neon and Ram era of the mid 90s was nothing more than a temporary bandage on a serious underlying problem. And what ended up happening? Exactly what was expected, a revamped product line, HEAVILY praised by the motoring press at the time (I read most every article ever published on the Cirrus/Breeze/Stratus triplets), was allowed to languish and become again nothing but a few platforms reworked to death to produce mediocre vehicles. Combine that with the Dodge Truck division's mounting transmission problems, several thousand paint lawsuits during the 90s over Chrysler's piss poor handling of basecoat and primer applications, and the financial stresses the company was already dealing with from Iacocca's reign... Well, I can continue.

In the end, Chrysler only has itself to blame for selling out to MB. Mopar-heads love to paint a picture of the German Luftwaffe swooping down upon Chrysler headquarters and demanding a merger.

Oddly enough, Chrysler is once again in a unique position to prove it's worth to the rest of the auto industry again... *If* the new leadership can "turn the ship around" so to speak. The golden age for Chrysler was the 60s and 70s, some might even throw some of their 50s creations in there... but after that it just became a joke.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-21-07, 02:35 PM
Oh no no no... you don't want to play this game with me. Chrysler had been consistently profitable since the 80's when they had paid their loans back seven years ahead of schedule. Regardless of what you may think the K-cars and the minivans were wildly successful and were the key to their turn around in the 80s. It was those profits of the 80's which helped finance a string of successes in the 90's - the LH cars, the JX "could" cars, the Neon, the Ram, the Wrangler, the Grand Cherokee, etc... Before the "merger" they were one of the most profitable, per car manufacturers in the world, their quality and dependability were up (much more so than Mercedes and other Euro makes), Chrysler Financial was raking in money and they had 8-12 Billion in the bank. Do you honestly think Diamler would have leeched onto a failing company, Chrysler was in a stronger position in just about every area compared to Mercedes. In fact it was the 300M which was the linchpin for the deal, being such large, good handling, potent, well built, mass production car made Chrysler all the more attractive to Mercedes. It was supposed to be a "merger of equals," which we know was a crock... and the rest is history.

Bob Eaton screwed to pooch royally when we went forward with the deal. If you want to go even deeper I partially blame Iacocca for picking Eaton over Lutz, Lutz would have nixed the whole deal from the very beginning.

The point of all of this is that you are talking out your ass. I can already tell you're going to be one of those people who likes to contradict anything anyone says. Others may be fine with it but if you're gonna play the Chrysler game you better do your homework first. The fact remains that Chrysler would have been in a much stronger position right now if it weren't for Diamler, hell they could have started losing money on every vehicle sold and still have turned a profit with Chrysler Financial alone.

If this all isn't enough I can gladly pen part 2 about how exactly Mercedes went about screwing Chrysler, but hopefully we get my point.

Boy, 11 posts and you're already flaming moderators. You're gonna go far here. Like the man said, he's owned multiple Jeeps before, so he's done his homework.

Playdrv4me
08-21-07, 02:38 PM
You begin by essentially telling people to keep their opinions to themselves and then wrap things up by playing the patriotism card? Something is amiss... :gothicaleigh:

Sandy, you are an intelligent guy whose opinions are well (and for the most part, deservedly) respected here. I would have thought that getting offended because some (okay, many) of us do not share those opinions would be beneath you.

For my part, I am very opinionated, and I don't think anyone would accuse me of being shy about it. If a manufactured product is crap, I'm not going to pretend it isn't simply because my opinion may tread upon someone else's preconceived notions or nostalgic feelings of said product.



Congratulations.
Now if they could just produce a decent car to attach all of those things to...

Face it, the best cars Chrysler has managed to produce to date have been based upon designs inherited from Daimler. If I wanted an old Mercedes design, I'd buy a W140, save $20k, and have a star that actually means something on the hood.

[flame on!]

I agree with you to a point, absolutely.

However, let us not forget that the brand that carried Chrysler through most of the 80s and early 90s was Jeep (the Caravan played a role there as well). Up until VERY recently, Chrysler had left Jeep mostly to it's own devices, which resulted in some stellar 4x4s over the years. The ZJ and even the WJ Grand Cherokee while problematic, were no doubt some of the most capable luxury equipped off-roaders on the planet, on par or just behind anything Land Rover had to offer, with far more reliability. Jeep has for the most part, been immune to the problems affecting the company's other divisions, but now that they finally ceded control over to the top brass... The writing is as much on the wall for Jeep as it is any other division of Chrysler. Things started getting curious when the Liberty showed up... but the Patriot, Commander and especially that hideous Compass atrocity are an embarrasment to everything Jeep has stood for for nearly a century.

AMGoff
08-21-07, 03:17 PM
Boy, 11 posts and you're already flaming moderators. You're gonna go far here. Like the man said, he's owned multiple Jeeps before, so he's done his homework.

Moderator? Am I to be impressed or worried?

What's gonna happen, I get banned? If so that would certainly show the caliber of those running this site. He has an opinion and I think he's wrong. If that is what you call "flaming," then you are correct sir, I am. I think there are worse things in this world than disagreeing with some moderator on a Cadillac message board. I've never shut my mouth with anyone I've disagreed with before so why would I start now?

When I signed up I didn't realize this was some "good ol' boys" club run by arrogant snobs. Needless to say I already know there are some good people on here who like to talk about Cadillacs and give advice on them without bragging, pretension, or looking down on others.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-21-07, 04:24 PM
http://www.slowsandfilter.com/digging-a-hole.jpg


A educated and mature discussion is one thing, we love those, flaming is another. This is flaming and we don't tolerate that, especially by someone that's so new. We're not an arrogant bunch, heck no, not at all, but we don't need a bunch of people running around insulting everyone. And we don't particularly like being called a bunch of arrogant snobs.

Playdrv4me
08-21-07, 04:37 PM
Moderator? Am I to be impressed or worried?

What's gonna happen, I get banned? If so that would certainly show the caliber of those running this site. He has an opinion and I think he's wrong. If that is what you call "flaming," then you are correct sir, I am. I think there are worse things in this world than disagreeing with some moderator on a Cadillac message board. I've never shut my mouth with anyone I've disagreed with before so why would I start now?

When I signed up I didn't realize this was some "good ol' boys" club run by arrogant snobs. Needless to say I already know there are some good people on here who like to talk about Cadillacs and give advice on them without bragging, pretension, or looking down on others.

No one is threatening to ban you, and no one is certainly asking you not to disagree with anything you see posted on this site.

What we *are* merely asking is that if you want to play in our sandbox, you check that south Jersey attitude at the door. You are certainly entitled to run your mouth all you want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen, especially with an abrasive attitude.

Take Sandy for example, a fellow Jersey-ite of yours, and a man with whom I share MANY disagreements on imports, however no matter how heated our debates get, he has NEVER accused me of "talking out of my ass" or anything else of that caliber. Nor have I ever made such a comment toward, or about him. I consider Sandy a great personal friend and have nothing but respect for him, despite our disagreements.

Also, no where is it written that anyone has to share your opinions/views/thoughts on Chrysler to be a "good person" capable of giving quality advice and information about an entirely different car. We are all equals here with differing points of view.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-21-07, 04:45 PM
Yeah dude, we like a interesting discussion from time to time, it keeps things fresh around here, but please, keep the attitude at the door. I think it's great that we have people on here that like cars other than Cadillacs and talk about them, it keeps things fresh, so you're more than welcome to stay as long as you abide by our meager rules. :)

dkozloski
08-21-07, 04:50 PM
i have often wondered (in silence) why it is that people can come on this forum and "bad mouth" Chrysler Corporation, -OR- Ford Motor Company, -OR- GM, or a particular division of GM, and that's all okay and others may even join in the frey and offer up two pats on the back, figuretivly-speaking - to the original poster. agreeing with his distain for ANYTHING Chrysler or Dodge, or Ford or Mercury or Lincoln, and on those boards, they can bad mouth Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac & Chevrolet, and it's all fine & dandy & business per usual.
But, when I say that i'd ONLY buy an American car, and would never ever buy, lease or in any other way, cause a BMW, VW, mer-SAAY-dees, Porche to be built, and likewise any cars of any Asian manufacturer to be built, that I get critized! ???? Why is my partiotism challeged while others lack of such deemed "fine"?
FYI, about 10% of mechanical "things" that are on the 2006 Cadillac, were "invented" by Chrysler and 1st came to market on the Imperial, back in the fifties !! The very first use of 4-Wheel Disc Brakes on all 4 Wheels, Platinum Tipped Spark Plugs, Anti-Lok Braking System, Power Windows, Power Stering and Cassette Stereo and before that, 8-Track Tape Player and Electronic Ignition Systems ALL appeared FIRST on the Imperial.
Not Lexus, Not Mercedes, Not BMW and Not Infiniti....but on the Imperial!
The disc brakes on old Imperials were not the disc brake we know today. They were stacked up discs kind of like a clutch and were adapted from brakes originally intended for utility trailers. The first U.S. car with disc brakes like those on cars today was the Crosley "Hotshot". The first car with disc brakes that actually worked were on the "C" model Jaguar. GM had electronic ignition that actually worked before Chrysler. In fact, Chrysler had a couple of disasterous tries at electronic ignition while AC Delco sailed along.

dkozloski
08-21-07, 05:03 PM
By the way 90% of the mechanical stuff on Chrysler products was invented by GM. The lifelong history of Chrysler engineering is "a day late and a dollar short". No worse series of transmissions has ever been put into a vehicle than the crap stuck in Chryslers in the forties and fifties. Their salvation came with copying a Ford effort. Anything innovative that came out of Chrysler was brilliantly conceived and poorly executed. The so-called Hemi took years to work the bugs out of the valve train. It was hopelessly overweight and still is.

Jesda
08-21-07, 05:17 PM
I happen to like the Chrysler of the 90s. It was among their most creative years (HOW CAN YOU FORGET THE VIPER YOU WHINY OLD FARTS), despite poor execution. Arrogance and apathy were big problems in Auburn Hills, just like at GM and Ford, but it seemed much worse because Chrysler always had much less of a pillow to fall on.

Oh and LOL@IAN for spending so much time reading about cloud cars!

AMGoff
08-21-07, 05:19 PM
You both are a trip... you think I have an attitude?

I'll just placate the both of you for now and resign myself from this conversation, don't want to mess up your sandbox or anything...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-21-07, 05:26 PM
Here's a list of Chrysler products I like. How well do they stand up in the annals of automotive history?

1970-71 Challenger/Cuda
1968-70 Charger
1967-75 Imperial
1957-58 all makes
1959 Imperial
1957-61 300
1981-83 Imperial
Omni GLH-S
Most any Turbo Dodge or Plymouth made in the '80s.
1991-93 Spirit R/T
Turbo Stealth
SRT-4
The pre 1993 style Dodge Ram
300M
1st gen LHS

There are more too, I jsut can't remember them. So anyways, it's not like I hate Chrysler or anything.

Playdrv4me
08-21-07, 05:36 PM
These were... interesting.

http://www.moparautos.com/images/ebay%20021.jpg

dkozloski
08-21-07, 05:48 PM
These were... interesting.

http://www.moparautos.com/images/ebay%20021.jpg
The car in the picture is a complete fake. It's not even a plausible poser. All genuine IROC cars, no matter what the make, had inline engines and RWD.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-21-07, 06:07 PM
No, I'm pretty sure the Daytona IROC was a turbo I-4 and FWD. I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn they were all FWD.

dkozloski
08-23-07, 12:20 AM
No, I'm pretty sure the Daytona IROC was a turbo I-4 and FWD. I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn they were all FWD.
That's the fake cars sold to the public. The real IROC cars were tube frames and V8s.

TomDeville
08-24-07, 12:21 AM
You both are a trip... you think I have an attitude?

I'll just placate the both of you for now and resign myself from this conversation, don't want to mess up your sandbox or anything...

Come back to the sandbox;
It is evident that your exclusion
is self imposed; and, as such,
warrants reconsideration.


Regards,

TomDeville
:cool2: