(first posted 9/18/2016) When we use the phrase, “separated at birth”, we often apply it to similar looking celebrities born to different generations. It also spawned this post, because the two cars in it, found available for sale online on October 15, 2016, are fraternal twins separated by eras. As Mopar offerings in the same size/price segment but offered nearly a quarter century apart, the 1963 Valiant and 1987 Reliant K wagons illustrate changing market dynamics, packaging and evolving styling trends. They are, at once, similar and different. And, they’re both blue…
The last Plymouth compact designed under the direction of Virgil Exner–with late assist by Elwood Engel–the 1963 Valiant (for sale on the Hemmings.com) took an abrupt about-face from the love it/ hate it first generation’s fuselage with wings design motif. It was more conventional, with 3-box styling, noticeable shoulders and attractive if not striking looks. At a wheelbase of 106 inches, a length of 186.2 inches and weighing in at 2715 lbs., it fit perfectly in the American Compact category. And, you can count me among those who find it the handsomest body style offered by Valiant that year.
1987 was the seventh year of production for the Plymouth Reliant K (this one for sale on eBay), which was approaching the end of its cycle. The boxy, sharp edged styling was not particularly sophisticated, but was voguish in its implication of space efficiency and economy. reflecting its space-efficient FWD design, the Reliant was nearly 8 inches shorter than its Valiant forebear at 178.5, wheelbase was almost 6″ shorter at 100.3″. But it probably weighs roughly the same, given its turbo, a/c, and other options. (base weight was 2588 lbs). Both cars were considered compacts. (note; the image is flipped.)
The 1963 Valiant’s face was one of its best features, with a large, open grille flanked by alert looking headlights enhanced by an application of black mascara, under a vestigial Exner clamshell hood. It was simple and attractive.
Benefiting from a 1985 facelift that softened the original K-car “layer cake” grille, the Reliant wore period rectangular sealed beam headlamps and body color bumper covers. Its central pentagram had migrated down from hood ornament status in 1984, occupying the same space as a round Valiant emblem appearing on high end Signet models in 1963.
A significant difference between the two generations in length and wheelbase also shows itself in the relative axle positions. The Valiant’s torsion-bar suspended front axles were placed under the front of the longitudinal engine, and its body overhang was more pronounced at the rear. It had a commodious cargo area between seat and tailgate. The latter is a one piece affair housing the window when it rolls down.
Due to its drivetrain configuration, the Reliant’s front axles are positioned well rearward. And although the K-Car’s cargo area is somewhat truncated, its floor is low and space is useful. Its tailgate lifts in one piece like a hatch, and the top of it is cut into the roof, helping loading. An optional roof rack (also available on Valiants) adds a bit of cargo capacity.
The 1963 Valiant had a serviceable if slightly spartan interior. This example has the all vinyl seating, but nylon weave inserts were also available. The big steering wheel made up somewhat for the standard manual steering (power steering was optional). Shifting is by pushbuttons linked to the legendary Torqueflite 3-speed automatic.
The Reliant K is, as was necessary in its era, plusher than the Valiant inside, but nothing to drool over in 1987. However, it does retain a bench seat even though they were falling out of fashion toward the end of the decade.
For 1963, your choice was between the 170 cid, 101 hp Slant Six, or this longer stroke version, the 225 cid, 145 hp option. Owners reported 0-60 times in the 12 to 13 second range. One year later, Chrysler Corp. improved on those figures with introduction of the 273 cid V-8.
Surprise. This Reliant’s original 2.2 or 2.5 liter normally aspirated engine was replaced with a Chrysler GTS intercooled turbo developing “almost twice the original’s horsepower” so it undoubtedly wins the acceleration war. If you noted the larger wheels wider tires and performance decals, you must have suspected…
The family resemblance between these two generations of Chrysler Corporation wagons extends to their popularity. According to Allpar, the total production figure for the 1963 Valiant station wagon was 23,011. Amazingly, one quarter century later, its grandson, Reliant K sold 22,905, a difference of just 106 units. It seemed to foretell a constant future for wagons of the size originated with the first American compacts. Given my 2007 Subaru Outback’s length of 186.2 inches– exactly that of the Valiant– and its wheelbase of 105. 1 inches–within an inch–I’d say they were right about that.
It did occur to me at the introduction of the K-Car that the names “Valiant” and “Reliant” differed by only the first two letters.
Also that the name of the Reliant’s twin, Aries, derived from the longtime Dodge “Ram” moniker.
Chrysler still had a memory of its past.
I’ll take one of each.
+1
If it came down to picking only one, it’d be pretty much of a coin toss. That turbo Reliant is sweet, but that /6 and pushbutton Torqueflite really speak to me.
The big slant six engine, pushbutton torqueflite automatic tranny and power steering would suit me just fine.
Was factory air conditioning an option….or would I have to farm that out to Western Auto for installation?
1965 was the first year for integral factory air on the A-bodies; until then it was under-dash knee-knockers; better ones than the aftermarket units, installed only by dealers through ’63, and either by the factory or the dealer in ’64.
As I was looking at the photos, I was imagining which one of these cars I would rather have. For decades my choice would have been the Valiant. Today I would choose the Reliant K.
What an interesting comparison. That the sales were so close is amazing.
I love the 63-66 A body wagons. Exner really did clean these up, but there are quite a few really graceful touches to the design. I especially like the ingenious way that he mated the station wagon roof to the sedan doors. This treatment is so much more attractive than the “Rambler dip” seen in the roofs of early AMC wagons. The first AMC wagon to avoid the awkward roof transition was the 64 American, which used a toned-down copy of the Valiant in the C pillar area.
I don’t think there is a K car that I like better than the wagon. The K car also used sedan doors, but in a way that made the sedans look dumpy and the wagons look right.
I am obsessed with Valiant wagons, having learned to drive on my Mom’s ’63. I always thought I would like to have one more of them, but the older I get, the more the K would suit me. I would love it if this one were not a continent away.
I do like the AMC dip, even though it probably cuts an inch or two into the cargo space. But if you are talking of sedan doors on a wagon, you have to bring up the word, “Volvo”.
One wonders why they didn’t lower the windowtop and rain channel behind the door. Maybe they didn’t want to anger the folks at Thule, who would have had to make two different clamping ends for their roof racks!
I’ve often wondered if Volvo would’ve sprung for different rear door windows and frames if they’d had any idea how long they’d be building those cars and what the take rate for wagons would be.
Agreed, this is a surprisingly apt comparison, and the kind of esoteric post I really enjoy. Well done, Barry.
I hadn’t focused on the rear of the Valiant wagon before. It’s a close echo of the ’50-54 Chrysler and DeSoto (all-steel) wagons, in overall shape and taillight position.
Intentional? Probably not. Retro-ing wasn’t yet in fashion.
If not exactly “retroing”, but referencing the not to distant past was done in the ’60s The ’63-’64 Cadillac styling is more connected to the ’59-’60 than the ’61-’62.
The ’71 also paid homage to the ’59 in its body contours, particularly the front and rear fenders.
Surprise. This Reliant’s original 2.2 or 2.5 liter normally aspirated engine was replaced with a Chrysler GTS intercooled turbo developing “almost twice the original’s horsepower” so it undoubtedly wins the acceleration war.
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. That’s the first Reliant I ever had any lust for. Get the goo-gone and the heat gun and get all those performance stickers off of there so you’d really have Grandma’s Sleeper.
Too bad they kept the automatic, though.
I like both, but for some reason the Reliant wagon looks really appealing right now. It reminds me of an ’83 Aries I had, but with a nicer, fuller figure!
I have to disagree with the author regarding the 63 Valiant. I’ve always found the grille the most hideous looking part of the car.
Yup, totally agree. It reads to me like a cheap and nasty home radiator cover. The Australian 1963 Valiant (their “AP5” model) got a much nicer front end design. Same fenders, same hood, same headlight bezels, different grille and turn signals. The AP5 roofline and backglass and deck lid and taillight treatment are likewise a lot nicer to my eye than the American arrangements.
I had an AP5 wagon (Regal Safari). A small number of them had the same rear lenses as Barko’s blue example, although IIRC there were some with a round element to them as well. Mine had the more common vertical strip lights. Totally agree that our oz versions had a nicer front end.
The “some with a round element” are AP6 wagons, which used the US ’65 Valiant rear lamp configuration except the reversing lamp had an amber lens rather than the US colourless one (in the US the indicator function was done by flashing the brake light on one side or the other; Australia began requiring amber indicators in the ’59-’60 timeframe.
The vertical taillamps are US ’64 Valiant items, again with an amber rather than colourless reversing lamp.
The nicer Oz front end trend continued with the ’65 AP6, and the Australian ’66 VC model was quite a hell of a lot nicer than the US ’66 Valiant from just about any angle.
Agreed on the VC. A wagon is still on my ‘to-buy’ list.
I like it better than the 64 and 66 Daniel. The 65 is the ultimate for me. They also got rid of the “hairpin” to nowhere line on the front fenders and had the prettiest tail lights of the generation.
I’ve had my 63 Signet for many years now and those styling elements bother me more than the grille. And the big Valiant “V” in the middle of the grille takes away some of that home radiator look.
But then, I think AMC screwed up the 62-63 American by dropping that honeycomb grille of the 61.
+1
I’m not a fan of these Valiants’ front clip either. Its not ‘horrible’, but a major step backward from the first gen Valiants which very likely helped inspire the ’05 300C. This version looks very Rambler-ish.
People have asked the same thing of my 63: “Is that a Rambler?.
Both (now) appeal to me in perhaps equal measure; I would not have said the same as little as a decade ago. Both look like very nice examples and are interesting variations on the theme of fairly basic transportation.
Great article and comparison Barry. I was especially impressed Chrysler got the K-cars right, out of the gate. Leap frogging the X-cars in most reviews. At the time I regretted my dad bought a later year Aspen wagon, when he could have held out for an Aries. The wagons were always my favorites of the A and F bodies. As well as the Ks.
I’d take the Reliant. This one has a nice interior, and the bench seat is the upgraded one with the armrest – these seats were very comfy and far better than the standard bench seat which was a flat, shapeless affair. How do I know? Like most people I owned a couple of Ks back in the day.
The Valiant does’t do a thing for me.
I didn’t like the K cars when new, but the design has held up well over the years. Not surprised to see this sentiment in the comments from others as well.
Rode in a 64 Dart GT growing up, decades later the folks got a K-wagon, but never connected them until now. Brilliant work.
Count me as a fan of Valiants, having owned a 69 Signet 2 door. Like a previous poster, I think the front end treatment on the 63 Valiant is “hideous”, I’d gladly own a 65 or 66 over a 63.
If you took the Reliant’s turbo engine out of the equation, I think these cars would be closer to being “separated at birth”, and that might also change some opinions here. Me? I would have a VERY tough time picking between either of these wagons. The old car/Valiant lover says I would want the 63, but that turbo engine is also tough to ignore.
BTW, what were the asking prices and indicated mileages? Maybe that would make a difference?
Would love to get the Valiant and then put a “ton” of performance mods on it to more closely emulate the turbo Reliant’s Spirit…..no pun intended?
The Valiant on Hemmings was $14,995 negotiable with 42K original miles, quarter repair and a repaint. IMHO that is very high, especially for a car that needed metal work. The Reliant has shown up on ebay a couple of times over the last 6 months. It was listed as “sold” in August at $6100, but it just finished bidding again at $3800 (apparently unsold) last week. It has 62K miles.
When we bought our 1981 Reliant coupe, we really wanted a wagon, or a sedan, but the fixed glass in the doors killed that. Later, we could have used one, especially when the glass rolled down!
Interesting that the Valiant and Reliant were virtually the same size!
Long term, the slant 6 & TorqueFlite wins for durability.
The picture of the Slant Six in the engine compartment shows how accessible the engine is for servicing. The distributor and spark plugs are easy to get to.
Roll-down rear door windows were a mid-model year upgrade for 1982. You think maybe Chrysler learned from the unhappy GM customers about fixed rear door glass?
I never knew the windows were fixed on the early K sedans and wagons. I never would have purchased one either, just for that.
Of course I considered the 2 doors better looking at the time and would have gone with one of those anyway.
Not these days. One of my biggest pet peeves along with frameless door glass and ridiculously sized consoles. All deal breakers for me these days.
If the Reliant was stock I’d take the Valiant in a heartbeat.
But removing the stickers would make it a fun little sleeper, makes the decision tougher.
At first I thought we were looking at a picture of Aaron’s ’65 Valiant.
The original, more “Plain Jane” K-car dash makes a better comparison with those of their ’60s predecessors, for it reminded me of them at the time.
The Reliant is the one speaking to me. The Valiant with it’s sensible size and durable drivetrain seems like such a good choice for sixties motoring. Some of that seemed lost in the seventies to new requirements and changing taste.
In the eighties, the big change to front drive lead to the same size package on the inside with a smaller footprint. Power was similar to the slant six. What was new was achieving it with much better economy and crash worthiness. The mid life restyle also softened the lines and got rid of some of the excess decoration.
What really puts the Reliant over the Valiant was the ease of use. The soft cloth seats instead of hot vinyl and the A/C and maybe even cruise control make it a better family road trip car. What wagons are all about.
Perfect paring, even the colors match. I always enjoy comparing details of cars that seemingly look nothing alike at first glance, only to come to realize just how similar they actually are, 80s cars especially since there was still a progressive mindset amongst car designers, not bogged down by aero-at-all-costs shape or heritage throwbacks yet.
Are the wheels on the reliant from a later Lebaron? They look positively massive on it!
Just say no to wrong wheel drive. I’ll take the Valiant.
Im about 99% positive that no Reliant/Aries ever got a turbo. But between that and the more performance oriented wheels/tires…hats off to the hellion that put this together! Id love a turbo’d K car just for the Whisky Tango Foxtrot factor!
Yes, there were some turbo Reliants. In particular, the military had sedans and wagons for MP/SP use.
I’ve never been a K-car fan (other than the 2nd-gen LeBaron coupe/convertibles and the Lancer/LeBaron GTS), but i’m starting to come around. This one in particular, in wagon form with the powerplant transplant, appeals in particular. It’s a tidy design, and the upgraded wheels fill the fenderwells nicely without looking too obviously large.
At the first mention of “turbo” I was thinking “there was never a turbo Reliant..” Obviously an oversight that has now been corrected!
Nice wagon! I’m still not sure if I like the Valiant or the Dart better, but MY Dirty Dart just got a present from me, a NOS Holley 1945, and it’s running better than ever!
That looks a lot like one I owned in the ’90s. I see you have big tires on it. I had a ’65 270 Wagon and put ’90s wider radial rubber on 14″ wheels on it that I removed from an ’80s Cutlass. They were almost new. When I took the Dart out on the road, it was a bear to steer, and very tiresome on the highway. I ended up reverting to the original wheels and skinny tires.
I have P205/65R15s on the Dart. It doesn’t seem to steer too hard, or maybe I’m just used to cars without power steering. I need to rebuild the steering box (or have it rebuilt), and I plan to replace the suspension bushings next summer. I’ve already put new ball joints in it. It’s a bit wandery.
IIRC, the K Car engine had a significant number of former designers of the Slant Six during it’s development.
Supposedly, some parts will interchange. Ive heard that when turboing the /6, the pistons from the 2.2 turbo can be used.
Thanks for that, Mopar. Things seem to leave my heads faster than they come in these days.
I love ’em both! It is hard to believe that only 24 years separates these two cars. Amazing how much cars changed in that short (relatively speaking) time. If we look back 24 years to a 1992 model, we have made huge advancements in technology and safety, even more than overall design.
Never much liked any of the later Reliant grilles. For me, the original, ’81-’83 Mercedes-clone was the best. An ’83 would be my preferred choice.
What’s fascinating is how well the wagons apparently continued to sell, even after the introduction of the runaway success minivan. I wonder if it was simply a case of limited supply/high price.
I have a weakness for wagons of any type. I spent most of my childhood in the back of a ’64 Chevy Impala wagon. However, in this case, I’ll take the K version.
I felt Chrysler did a good job with wagons thru the years (T&C C-Body, LeBaron M-body, Volare F-body, and the Reliant K-body).
Today, the SUV is the surrogate for the wagon;-}
Blur your eyes a little and the same with the full-size BOF 4 door pickup substituting the full-size sedan of bygone eras.
If there was ever a situation where fake wood applique was out of place this Reliant is the poster child for it. I like the car, both inside and out, but I would have to tear that applique out or tear my eyes out.
I would’ve agreed with you back in the day, but now it’s part of the “1987-ness” of the car.
True. So I guess that leaves me only one choice. I need to tear my eyes out cleanly.
I have been enamored with 80s Chrysler products lately. I’m thinking of buying one. I love the K cars and the mini vans. Anyone have any opinions on their compact cars of the decade?
Objectively they’re not fine cars, but they were generally better engineered than the competing offerings from Ford and GM.
Since I would use something like this for occasional hauling, and would have the garage-space to preserve it, the smoothness of the slant six, and the sturdy simplicity of the Valiant wins it for me.
A couple years back, I saw a ’63 Valiant wagon in New Jersey, on craigslist, for $2000.
With some rust and chalky beige/grey paint, the body definitely needed work. But at least it was ‘honest’ – not a ‘quicky’ Earl Scheib cover-up, like the repainted craigslist ’65 Valiant wagon I looked at previously. And best of all, this ’63 wagon already had the floorpans replaced, a rebuilt suspension, a 2V carb, and a conversion to dual circuit brakes with front discs. Plus a load of spare body parts, including an extra tailgate.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t just run up to Jersey and check it out. But it was tempting!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Over the years, my Dad and I owned six Valiant/Dart wagons during our “collector” period. I’m not 100 percent certain, but I believe that $2K Jersey car, if it was tan, might have been part of my Dad’s collection in the ’90s, as I saw photos of it and it looked very similar. That car had an interesting background. When Dad bought it, there was a US Army license plate under the PA plate on the rear, plus an Army base bumper sticker. It had been bought new by an officer, and shipped to Italy for his personal use while he was stationed there.
When I saw the word “pentagram” I thought “Oh, No…The Mark of the Antichrysler!” ?
I loved my K-car. A surprisingly wonderful car that was comfortable, unstoppable (on all levels, including bad snowy weather), and having the best visibility for a car making parallel parking a non-issue — at least for the 4 door sedan version.
The fact this wagon has the surprise turbo gave me hope for the future of mankind.
Anyway, a true sleeper would keep the original steel wheels with those K-ubiquitous dense snowflake hubcaps (maybe secretly bolt them on somehow so they don’t blow away). I would lose the stickers too, retain the saggy rear springs for more effect, and THEN have fun at the stop lights or onramps with the full load of shopping loot in grand view.
I like the Valiant but prefer the Aussie version I’m more used to no 170 in them they were all 225 engines not many left now especially wagons though I have seen a daily driven AP5 sedan locally.
Interesting about the production numbers – I wonder how the Dodge versions did? At a guess I’d say ’63 Dart wagon sales were substantially less and ’87 Aries wagons sold more but not sure how much more.
Couldn’t find numbers for the Dart wagon, but I seem to remember darts usually sold better than Valiants. But in 1987, the Reliant wagon sold BETTER than the Aries wagon, by nearly 2,000 units.
Gawwdd…this is what the state of Chrysler was in 1987….as a young man I remember getting a drive around town in one. i thought it wasn’t too bad considering where the rest of the big 3 were. But I always thought the state of automotive was in bad shape during this time. Apparently, lots of folks thought I was wrong and bought the wagon. True story,…I was driving my (don’t laugh it’s paid for) 1981 ratty Aspen tank over a blind crest one sunny afternoon, when I noticed a beautiful brand new, fake wood panelled, 87 T n’ C pulled over the right side of road with a brunette leaning way out the drivers window, chatting it up with some other gals across the street. Her brand new car signal was on correctly. No. big deal, as I came thundering down through. But, alas, just as i was upon the poor, new little Town and Country, the brunette pulls out directly across my drive line to pull a U-turn! Fate was not kind to the newly minted wagon. I impulsively jumped on the binders, full skid, cut through the drivers fender and tore the nose (everything radiator forward) off. The hit sent my skid ricocheting towards the girls across the street! I realized this and somehow thought in split second to lift up on the brake and hit the gas! My wild Aspen bucked back out into the centre of the road and missed those girls. ….After I regained control, I pulled over the side of the road. Walking back towards the stricken little Chrysler, I could see everyone was shocked, but O-K. I picked up parts along the entire road, including the front bumper which I hoisted up onto my shoulder. It was quite the mess of a scene. The hit to the T n C was fatal. I lifted the hatch and placed the bumper inside. When the dust settled, the girls came and looked at the damage to my car. It’s passenger front bumper had dented. No body damage. I didn’t even put in a claim for it. True story. Thank God no one was injured!
I love the Valiant wagon [of course], but always thought the 63 Dart won in the style competition.
When my parent’s 63 Dart 270 wagon was new, I thought it was very futuristic. And it still looks good.
In 1974, Mike Lamm took his 64 wagon and and “rebuilt” it as an answer to the high price of the new 74 car cars.
Refurbished everything at a third of the cost of a new car. I have never forgotten that article and Lamm has been a favorite writer of mine since I was 12 and his “Used Cars” column in MT.
It was his influence that has kept a record book in every car I have ever owned, recording gas, repairs, oil changes, etc since my first car purchase in 1974.
The 63 Valiant wagon was 100 percent Exner. Elwood Engel didn’t change the wagon rear fenders.
Interesting comparison. I’m having an attack of nostalgia for the Reliant – I once owned an ’87 sedan. I always preferred the wagons, too, and the engine swap makes it even better. It’s a really nice little wagon, perfect in so many ways. But I wouldn’t kick that Valiant out of bed, either.
CC effect: there’s a clean and straight ’69 Valiant sedan, same blue as these, that parks in my neighborhood. It’s been curbside for several years, often with weeds growing around it through cracks in the pavement, sometimes with a parking ticket under the wipers. But just today I saw it drive by my house, under its own power. First time I’ve ever seen it move.
I would love to see pictures! My first car was a ’69 Valiant 4-door in red. 225 Leaning Tower of Power. Great car for a teen driver to learn the ropes on.
Well both cars in fact were related by niche’ so therefore the Reliant Wagon was the “spiritual successors” to both the Volare’ Wagon and Valiant Wagon. No doubt about that one.
dude, that was my car, except I had the non turbo in my 1986 Plymouth Reliant SE. Same colour.Car was grenade proof. Thanks for the dual flashback.
I’d take the Valiant. Briefly owned a Reliant, really didn’t like it.
What kills me is how much the federal regulations forced sealed beams and the angle this picture was taken makes this look so much like a K car to me, especially at a glance.
Yup. I noticed the same effect the other way round from certain angles with my Spirit R/T:
+1 on that one.
On that note, ever notice how a later 90s C-class resembles a Ford Tempo from the front 3/4 view? The marker/signal lights almost look interchangeable with a 90s Tempo.
Mercedes
88-91 Tempo GLS
Hadn’t noticed that! I’ll add that to the file with the Jaguars that look like Buicks, the E36 Bimmer coupés that look like Honda Civics, and the evergreen Plyncoln Concclaim:
Most of these are undoubtedly coincidence, but what of the Kia Amanti? Trying to be a Mercedes, Jaguar, Lincoln Town Car and Bentley all at once.
A significant advantage for buyers of both cars, was the longevity of their drivetrains. Aided by the high sales of the A, F and K bodies, with their lengthy production runs. My dad kept his new ’78 Aspen wagon with the Super Six (2 bbl carb.) as a second car for 14 years, and never had issues with the ready availability, and affordability, of parts. He lived in a small town of 5,000, 80 kms from the closest city. And the garages there always had his parts. I bought a Dodge Shadow new in 1991, and kept it as a second car until 2013. Again, parts were never an issue. As late as 2011, I was able to walk into a Partsource and buy two new headlight assemblies from their in-store warehouse stock. I was shocked, and impressed.
That’s a Spirit-Acclaim headlamp, tho. 😉
Doing a Google image search for ‘dodge shadow composite headlights canada’ gave me this pic on the right among my choices. With the caption IDing it as a Shadow assembly. So, I quickly downloaded that incorrect pic. Clicking the link (which I didn’t do), goes to the seller’s page with a pic of what appears a well-worn Shadow assembly. Yes, it does appear too tall for the Shadow.
The link misfire is actually kind of appropriate in its own way; my experience was that PartSource (which Crappy Tire set up to create the illusion of competition) was just like Crappy Tire itself: happy to sell you the wrong part, in piss-poor quality, for a not-very-good price.
I couldn’t agree more. CTC has been selling garbage since after WW2. Yet, they maintain this illusion with the public. I usually never go to Partsource, or Mark’s Workwear (another in the Canadian Tire conglomerate of cheap product sellers). But looking for new headlight assembles for a 20 year old Shadow, they seemed a valid choice. Plus, they were only a few blocks away.
The counter staff was good. And they pulled the correct Shadow light assemblies, on the first try. No issues with the new assemblies the rest of the time I had the Shadow. Lighting was again satisfactorily close to original, given they would be inferior quality. Going on vague memory, I think two assemblies were under $140 together, plus tax.
Regular shady practices with Ebay sellers. Using a pic of a new Spirit assembly to sell a well-worn Shadow assembly.
Mark’s Work Whorehouse used to have some good stuff mixed in here and there with the shoddy garbage, but then so did Crappy Tire.
Never realized it but the Valiant seems to have alot more room in the wayback.
Somewhere I have an old issue of the WPC Club magazine where it’s pointed out the K-car wagons and the ’60-’62 Valiant wagon had nearly identical cargo space.
A nicely done article, an enjoyable read.
One of the better features of the K car was its dash to axle ratio, something endlessly discussed in the magazines as cars moved to front drive. The K has almost enough metal behind the front wheels to pass for RWD, and if I recall correctly, the Ks didn’t suffer as much wheel house intrusion in the floor as many FWD cars did. It helps with appearance as well, the GM FWD A bodies always looked a bit off in this area.
Overall, Chrysler was lucky the Ks rolled out when gas prices were frightening people. They really were a bit too small to be a major manufactures main line of volume selling cars. The later E body derivatives solved some of the interior crunch, and made for much better proportioned sedans.
A reworked line of ’63 Valiants would have made a nicely sized line of cars in the mid 80’s, the M bodies were retrograde in some respects compared to the early Valiants.
My parents 1965 Valiant, with 225 slant six. This was actually a hand-me-down from an uncle who used it for delivery on his rural mail route. No idea how many miles it actually had, but we ran it into the 1980’s. And peeking over the hood, our 1961 Buick LeSabre 9 passenger station wagon. Still looking for a good photo of that one. It also lasted into the 1980’s, hit 190,000 miles, IIRC.
That is a great photo! Our rural mail carrier, when I was growing up, also drove slant six-equipped Valiants and Darts (early 70s models). And she too kept winter tires on hers into the late spring. Presumably, to ensure a better grip in mud.
Wasn’t the Reliant still called the Valiant in Mexico and/or some South American countries? I know I’ve seen the Dodge K cars badged as Darts in Mexico.
Yep, the K-cars were Darts and Valiants in Mexico.
Mexico gets/keeps nostalgic names, and models sometimes. The “Square Body” half ton Chevy continued production there long after the GMT400 replaced them here.
Today, you can buy a new (Fiat Tipo) Dodge Neon or (Chinese built) Chevy Cavalier in Mexico. All Ford needs to do is import the Chinese Escort and you’d have all 3 nameplates on updated cars competing in the same market again.
With the K-Car, Chrysler somewhat successfully recaptured the almost bulletproof reputation the A bodies had for ruggedness. Only more rust resistant. Impressive how the Valiant and Reliant dovetail so well in this article’s comparison.
The Shadow I owned from 1991 to 2013 remains my most rugged, and long-lived car. If not the most refined. When I bought it new, I thought it was direct K-Car underpinnings. But the suspension was apparently derived from the Daytona. And the floorplan was a shortened version of the Lancer’s. Each of course, K-Car based. After 350,000+ kms, it retained all its original major parts, including the transmission. Body and paint were excellent. And it was entirely roadworthy when traded-in. Two of Chrysler’s biggest hits here.
Loved re-reading this article; it’s a twofer for me, as I’m a fan of both A-bodies and compact wagons.
A general question about older (say, ’50s thru ’70s) wagons: Did any have a retractable/pivoting/removable cargo cover? All of the wagons/hatches I’ve owned (oldest of which was a ’97 Outback) have had one, which to me is a must to hide the contents from prying eyes. I’ve never seen such a contraption in older wagons, either in real life or in brochures.
Wagons of that era had too much cargo space to make a practical cover. Even “compacts” like the Dart/Valiant had a surprising amount of room. Depending on spare tire placement and third row seat, there was often some covered storage under the seat.
The Valiant was still ugly, but in a more plain and less interesting way than the goofball looking 1960 model.
Id take the Reliant though. Just not that particular one.