(first posted 4/5/2016) How long since you saw a first-generation K-car? In one piece, I mean? The facelifted ’85-’89 versions are still seen every odd and then, but the ’81-’84 units seldom are. And that’s kind of a pity. That’s the car aptly depicted making this happen:
…not long after this happened:
It’s fish-in-a-barrel easy to mock the K-cars; just ask Tim. But they really were quite a sensation when they came out, protuberant 5-mph bumpers and all. Advertisements played on themes of jubilant-throngs-fill-streets (and served as what might diplomatically be called “inspiration” for Reagan’s 1984 morning-in-America schtick), and some of the trade-in fodder shown is risible, but the excitement was quite real; the last new small family car range so successfully, so transformatively, so seismically launched by Chrysler—or, arguably, any other American automaker—had been the 1960 Valiant.
For better and worse, the K-car became an enduring North American cultural touchstone, right up (and down) there with the likes of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Some years after the K-cars per se had given way to their various begats, Barenaked Ladies (from Canada, where we call it Kraft Dinner and the first few years of K-cars were configured to run on leaded gasoline) lovingingly namechecked them. But they were what they were: inexpensive, basic, one might justifiably say disposable cars. Pretty good ones, especially compared to their competition from GM and Ford, but disposable cars nonetheless. And that’s what happened to most of them: used up and thrown away.
Not this particular one, though (ad archived here). It’s got a bare 23 kilomiles on it, still on its original little-old-lady-and-only-to-church-on-Sunday story, and its near-new condition is all the more astounding given the car’s location in the suburbs of Detroit. Yes, it’s for sale with an ask price of $7500; I repeat myself, when’s the last time you saw one? Check out the 55-in-a-box speedometer.
There’s a devoted purity to the design of the ’81-’84 K-cars. They are so unapologetically upright, so resolutely rectilinear as to make a Volvo 240 look swoopy; perhaps the only curve to be found on a gen-1 K-car is…erm…well, the muffler is round. If there’s a purer expression of the origami school of car design, I can’t think of it at the moment. From any and every angle, it’s all straight lines and corners. It’s boxes on wheels, but designed thoughtfully enough that it’s tidy, taut boxes on wheels—a justifiably extreme reaction to the Brougham brigade’s bloatmobiles.
The ’85 facelift spoiled the effect by randomly melting parts of the bar of soap. Corners were softened and the grilles and headlamps were fused into awkward rounded-trapezoid shapes that really didn’t belong on the still-square rest of the body; maybe that’s why Tim sold his.
But none of that sadness applies to this plucky ’83. It’s powered—at sea level; if you’re at high altitude we’ll just say it’s equipped—not with the regrettable 2.6-litre “silent [Not! -ed] shaft” Mitsubishi Astron engine, but with Chrysler’s carbureted 94-horsepower, 117 lb·ft 2.2-litre engine—penned by the same hand as the everlasting Slant-6—next to the transaxle iteration of the efficient Chrysler Torqueflite automatic.
Hey, what’s that aluminum thing with the vacuum pot on it, to the right of the cam cover, below the air intake flex duct? That’s the emission control air pump, which, yes, was belt-driven off the back of the camshaft because the alternator, A/C compressor, and power steering pump hogged up all the room and belt lines at the other end of the engine. The decal on the air cleaner reads “ELECTRONIC IGNITION SYSTEM”, which in 1983 was celebrating its 10th anniversary as an item of standard equipment on Chrysler Corporation vehicles. Look closer and you see the owner has installed an oil filter with an early-1960s Mopar label on it. Not quite era-correct, but still a nice touch:
Lookit there, the hood release spring and the A/C lines and the dipstick handles and strut mount bearings still have all the factory paint. The underhood decals are all intact. The original hose clamps are in place. Everything plated is still bright and shiny. We can see a dab of yellow paint on the transaxle, probably an assembly line inspection mark. This engine is clean enough to eat off or cook on.
The dashboard doesn’t know what cracks are—though it appears to be familiar with moulded-in simulated stitchwork—and this car was built before the shift from brushed chrome to black. The radio, which to me looks to be an AM unit, nevertheless bears one of the vacuum fluorescent displays Chrysler’s Huntsville, Alabama electronics centre was proud to have introduced for automotive service. Even here inside the car, it’s all rectangles ‘n’ lines, baybay! And some of the rectangles that don’t have brushed chrome have simulated woodgrain.
The windows and locks will still work perfectly even with a flat battery—roof don’t leak when there ain’t no rain—whether you’re sitting in front (lookit that impeccable door panel carpet and unsagged armrest!)…
…or in the back. I recognise that rear door armrest ash tray; the same type was used in Darts and Valiants of the 1970s. Ditto the window crank handle knob, which matches (scroll up) that knob that capped just about every column automatic shifter Chrysler put out between 1968 and 1983; its ’84 replacement was considerably less charming. But this is an ’83, and even the LOCK↑ imprint is still crisp and sharp on all four door lock rockers.
Now see here: I defy you—I dare you—to say the ’85-’89 restyle looks better than this:
One interesting detail here, or lack thereof, is the missing K behind the Aries callout. In one or another of Iacocca’s books, he describes how “K” wasn’t meant as anything more than just an internal car code, but marketing picked up and ran with it (“The K-Cars are coming!”), and so the cars were launched as Aries-K and Reliant-K. For 1983 the “K” was removed, but reportedly such was the outcry that it was subsequently restored.
It’s worth noting these cars were built and sold in Mexico as the Dodge Dart-K and Chrysler Valiant Volaré-K. Even without those names in the US and Canada, in many respects the K-cars were spiritual successors to the much-loved Darts and Valiants. They were not more and not less than what they were: simple, basic, affordable transport appliances for the masses. They weren’t so defiantly durable—the 1980s were not the 1960s; priorities had changed. And that’s why somebody needs to buy this and baby it; another like it will surely not be forthcoming.
Nice article and great find. Drove many K-car rentals during a 28 year government career. They were all absolute “penalty boxes” – cramped, cheap, and unrefined. I always worried they were going to crap out and leave me stranded – the exact opposite of my 68 Valiant.
The other reason I never warmed to the car was due to the over the top and hypocritical “All American” marketing campaign with Lido at the center hawking his “America is not going to be pushed around anymore” line – all the while selling badge engineered Mitsubishi products in the same showroom. What a huckster.
I had a K-car as a company car for a while. An absolute piece of crap, it was brand new from the dealer and started falling apart almost immediately. An old Valiant would have been a significant upgrade!
I too had a Plymouth K-car as a company car – I’d put between 300 to 800 miles a week on it. While my ego was bruised and embarrassed to drive it, it never had a mechanical issue, ever.
I told friends that it had great road feel: if you drove over a bottle cap, you’d feel it. But I never expected it to do more than what it was capable of -and it did that capably.
The one I had was a real lemon, I can tell you that. Frequent breakdowns, HVAC problems, electrical gremlins, etc. Then for a while there was a gas smell. When I looked under the hood with the engine running there was gasoline spraying all over the hot exhaust manifold! When I left the company to pursue a better opportunity I was not at all sorry to leave that POS behind.
I always found those ads grating as well, and for the same reason. Left me with a lurking distrust of Chrysler products to this day.
Okeh, you worried they were going to crap out and leave you stranded. Did that actually happen, though?
Yes, Iacocca was a hypocrite; while bleating and baying about the Japanese needing to be shut out of the American market, or at least made to pay heavily to play, he get Chrysler far too comfy in bed with Mitsubishi for regrettable engines and whole cars, he shamelessly lifted that “If you can find a better car, buy it!” line from Toyota (’77 Cressida ad on the back of National Geographic magazine, e.g.) and he built cars out of Japanese anti-rust steel because the American steel industry couldn’t or wouldn’t provide it (which is why Chryslers of that era withstood road salt so much better and longer than their GM and Ford competition).
“Okeh, you worried they were going to crap out and leave you stranded. Did that actually happen, though?”
Yes, it happened to me many times. Worst car I’ve ever driven, and I had a company Chevy Citation before that thing!
Don’t care how clean or low mileage it is. $7500 is a rip off. I could see maybe $3000 tops. It might be supremely preserved, but it’s a K car, not a Corvette.
But its the car that saved Chrysler what price can up put on that?. Treat yourself to a piece of preserved American auto history!.
Guess that’s why antiques are such a good investment..,they’re always going up!
According to IMCDB, Mr. Haney’s daily driver was a Dodge. I wonder if he traded in on an Aries.
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_234345-Dodge-Brothers-Four-Series-116-1924.html
The Smithsonian American History museum should buy it.
I agree althought there’s also the Henry Ford Museum who should buy it as well, they displayed a Dodge Caravan.
You can’t get much of a Corvette for $7500, which is not a “rip off” for this car, it’s just more than you would pay. Consider, $7500 in 2015 dollars is $3126 in 1983 dollars. The MSRP of the ’83 Aries 4-door with A/C was $6178, which means this car is being offered at the equivalent of 50% of its new-car price. I think that makes the ask price quite defensible.
Well Danial, you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t care how you slice it and dice it, or how many fancy words you put on the computer screen for justification, we just have a different sense of value towards a car like this. I still say it’s not worth $7500. If you want it cool, be my guest. I won’t get in your way.
What fun it would be to drive this to a LeMons concourse, with friends following in a bare bones 1st gen Neon sedan.
Hard to believe that something as outdated looking as this was being launched in the 80s!
“Outdated” is suuuch a relative term….
have a look at 70s cars interiors and you´ll know what outdated means in this context.
Fall 1980 was the height of practical boxy look, so no it wasn’t dated looking. Aero looks hadn’t caught on yet.
Outdated how exactly?
You could get your M body, B body, Panther, G body optioned out the same as this except those were RWD. If anything this was contemporary.
Agreed
These early Ks always remind me what a challenge it must have been to go front drive. The transverse four cylinder engine, the transaxle, and just giving the customer and giving a perfectly normal American car interior in a package way smaller than a current Corolla. The power levels had to be up to the older /6 compacts and the sound level had to be down at Volare levels, This had to be achieved while including the expected 50% economy boost. The factories had to be massively reconfigured.
Both the K and the GM X body went notably boxy. To a great extent it was the style of the time, but I think at the time it represented a certain efficiency. The domestics were going to give you what you always had but with new economy and traction. There were hiccups, but overall I think it was a pretty impressive challenge that largely succeeded.
Exactly this.
To say Detroit Jefferson underwent a massive reconfiguration is putting it mildly. In two years Jefferson went from the C-body Newport/New Yorker (unibody) to the Dodge Ramcharger (BOF truck) to the K-cars. (unibody and lots of automation on the line). No doubt those workers were glad to finally have a hit on their hands.
Yes, check out the 55-in-a-box speedometer, and also check out the black seat belts in that red interior!
I have to say it’s been a while since I’ve seen seat belts that weren’t color-keyed to the interior (optional on some models at additional cost, as the ads said). Of course, that’s not saying much, since today your choices are usually limited to gray and tan. That is, when you get any choice at all.
Rather than keying the seat belt color to the interior, they did exactly the reverse, in other words.
That may have been done as an option by the original buyer. We had a 1981 Aries (2 door, 2.2L manual) that had a dark green exterior and light green interior. The seat belts were color keyed to match the light green interior. Had that car 14 years (April 1981 to September 1995).
GM called them “Custom Seat Belts”. Checking off that box would set you back around $20 or so.
They were often included with an upgraded trim level, but not always. I know for sure that in ’78 buying a Malibu Classic over a base Malibu still required you to order the “custom” belts if you wanted them to match the interior. You also got metal trim on the buckles instead of black plastic.
Yup, Ford made ya buy em separate or as part of a trim package also. They simply called them “Color Keyed Seatbelts”.
My mother’s 79 Grand LeMans, which was loaded with power everything, still had black seatbelts in a red interior, because the dealership must have forgotten to check the box. Even in the custom 40/60 split bench interior, the colored belts were an option.
The surroundings are just as immaculate as the car. I count three blades of grass slightly out of place; the expansion joints in the driveway are free of dirt and dust; and the only stains on the driveway are a couple drops of condensation from the car’s exhaust.
SWEET ! .
It’s even red .
I’m one of those nitwits who actually likes K Cars and think they were good .
This one needs to go to a Museum or ‘ serious collector ‘ typ who’ll only take it out occasionally and pamper it….
-Nate
I must be a nitwit, too, because I respect these cars for providing honest, affordable, reasonably-efficient transportation. Room for six, a usable trunk, 28 mpg on the highway, and a price low enough that you didn’t need a 72-month loan to afford the payments.
What’s not to like about that?
Room for six? Just because it has six seating positions does not mean it has room for six.
I like em too and would gladly own one. Just not a $7500 one! I’m fact I owned a 85 LeBaron briefly. Decided not to replace the head gasket, so I ran it across the scales. I paid $100 for it. Made most of it back. I still have the cam and valve cover in the trunk of my 71 4Dr Maverick.
Consider, $7500 in 2015 dollars is $3126 in 1983 dollars. The MSRP of the ’83 Aries 4-door with A/C was $6178, which means this car is being offered at the equivalent of 50% of its new-car price. I think that makes the ask price quite defensible.
Outstanding piece, Daniel – great start to my day. It is really fun to reexamine a car I had long taken for granted. This specimen deserves the same love in-person as you’ve shown it in this article.
»doffs cap« Thank you kindly, good sir.
Good Lord, that reminds me of onions and kielbassa!
My friend’s parents had one identical, same colour, same everything that they bought brand new. They were very Croatian. One day I went along for a family excursion, and along the way the mother began distributing a snack: hunks of raw onion and home made kielbassa.
I choked it down, and endured everyone’s onion breath for the rest of the trip. Riding in that car left a big impression on me.
That K car is in fantastic condition, I will not show it to Mrs DougD as she has a soft spot for K cars. I’d rather she had a green dress 🙂
A great specimen of something that has become quite rare. A real time capsule.
I wanted to love these, but they just never lit a flame in me. All of the stuff that I had come to associate with the Cult of Mopar was gone. The starter, the full gauges, the fender mount turn signals and the legendary durability of the basic guts. Of course, also gone were the wrinkly door panels and the third-world assembly quality. They were competent cars, competently built. But not the stuff to inspire passion.
Some years ago I read an article about highly specialised engineers whose job is to make products sound the way the maker wants them to sound. More than once over the years I’ve thought it’d be nice if
DaimlerChryslerCerberusChryslerFiat Chrysler would pay some of those engineers to make a modern starter sound just like the Highland Park Hummingbird. That’d be a lot more credible flavour of nostalgia than the ridiculous direction Chrysler and especially Dodge have gone (entire model range designed to appeal to 7th graders of all ages and nominal adults whose recall of the ’70s is thoroughly faulty).Full gauges: ISTR the K-cars could be had with an optional upgraded instrument panel containing an ammeter and an engine temperature gauge. Few Mopars, even going back to the early ’60s, had an oil pressure gauge; most had a red warning light.
Fender turn signal indicators: Yup.
Seems to me I recall *someone* participating in this article once figured out that if you play back the sound of a Nippondenso offset gear-reduction starter on, say, a 3.3 v6 back at half-speed, it sounds incredibly like a Chrysler starter on a slant-6….
I’m sure I don’t know what you’re talking about. But if I did, I’d probably remind you that it wasn’t the Nippondenso, it was the Mitsubishi starter on the 3.5 in the LH cars.
All Chrysler cars (I’m pretty sure) had a battery charging gauge starting in 1960 to show how the alternator (which others didn’t have for several years) was charging at idle. But not an oil pressure gauge. Why bother – it would be showing what any car showed.
Oh wait….my 1988 Horizon had an oil pressure gauge. If it didn’t I wouldn’t have known it needed a new sending unit. The 1963 Plymouth had a light.
No need to pay engineers to make a modern gear reduction starter sound like the old Chrysler POS. Just take the gears out of the Mitsu or ND starter throw them out in the gravel driveway, run over them a few times and then put them in the starter being certain to keep the dirt/gravel bits on them and certainly don’t grease them. Seriously the reason they make such an obnoxious noise is the fact that the gears are cheap low quality pieces.
No, the reason you think they made an obnoxious noise is because you are remembering the sound of a “remanufactured” starter that has had its gears and gearbox sandblasted. Units not thus abused sound quite melodious.
No I heard many OE units and their obnoxious sound that makes me cringe. Sand blasting is not something done by the average rebuilder. It is a dunk in de greaser and then some black or alumablast paint.
Er…no, that’s not what rebuilders do, that’s what fraudsters do. And yes, sandblasting is a routine part of most all parts remanufacturing operations; note that remanufacturing is not synonymous with rebuilding.
I happen to have a clip of a new-old-stock (never “remanufactured”) Chrysler starter. Its a later (70s vintage) large-frame series-wound starter on my ’66 with a 440, so it cranks faster than what the ’66 would have originally had but otherwise sounds much the same. This is what a starter SHOULD sound like- very melodic to my ears, though I’m also familiar with the rock-crusher sound of parts-store rebuilts. Bad as those can be, nothing is worse than a wrongly-shimmed Delco on a Chevy, though.
Judge for yourself, Scoutdude, this is a factory-assembled, never abused Chrysler starter (and the gears are not “cheap low quality” if you’ve ever actually held a set in your hand and examined them):
http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v651/440_Magnum/66%20Dodge%20Polara/Startup_zpspw8kw2dv.mp4
I always wondered what they did in the late 70s when they switched to that “high speed” starter. 1977 or so, by my memory. I recall the first time I heard one, and did a double-take – “That’s not what a Chrysler starter sounds like!” 🙂
I put a rebuilt on my 68 Newport and was chagrined to find that a high speed was what it was. However, after awhile of that car’s difficult hot starts, I must have worn it down a bit because it sounded more normal.
No sand blasting is not done in the quality electrical re-manufacturing or rebuilding process. You won’t find sand blasting equipment at a electrical reman shop and over the last 30 years I’ve known a few. Only a complete and total idiot would ever consider sand blasting gears or anything that has bearing/bushing bores.
Yes the Chrysler gears from that era are low bidder crap and that is the reason that they make the noise that they do. ND, Mitsu, Ford PMGR starters don’t make noise even though they are gear reduction units and the reason why they don’t make the noise is that they used quality gears. I’ve held my share of them from all sorts of units over the years because I always used to rebuild starters and alternators instead of buying a complete unit.
Cue Indiana Jones: “It belongs in a museum!”
Actually, I think it does.
I had an 88 Dodge Aries and its successor a 92 Plymouth Acclaim. They were two of the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned…I kid you not. They were also two of the most boring cars I’ve ever owned but they never stranded me either unlike my more “exciting” automotive choices.
COALs here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1988-dodge-aries-america-o-k-car/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1992-plymouth-acclaim-1991-chrysler-new-yorker-pentastar-partners-redux/
Yup. My 2-decade-long string of AA-cars (Spirit etc) will be the subject of a future COAL.
Daniel—-Nice to see the K car feature and your reference to the AA bodies. My current project car is a 1989 Acclaim with the 2.5 Turbo engine and only 70K miles. Unbelievably quick and it has decent fuel economy. The body is tight and rattle free.
Even though they were on the same platform the Acclaim, although super formal also in shape, actually was a bit copied from Rolls Royce and looked like it would have been a lot nicer, but not having the pleasure I don’t know.
The Le Baron hardtop and convertible were still K Cars underneath, but I think one of the best production car designs ever. Yea that’s right, I can deal with front overhang.
I always wanted to see that hidden-headlamp front end grafted onto an AA-body (Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron sedan).
I had just hit my twenties when these debuted. Much hoopla over a genuinely big deal at the time. The Reliant K-Car 1 shot makes the aspirational riff on the Mercedes grille quite apparent. The horizontal fluted wrap-around grille with chrome trim along the bottom edges of the fluting on the Aries brings to mind another highly regarded make.
That is a really keen comparison, well seen—even the colour is the same!
I think the grille on the early Aries is supposed to resemble the grille of the short lived Dodge Magnum. I even named my ’81 Aries ‘Mini-Magnum’ before I renamed it, after installing a 2.5L turbo engine into it. Daniel S. knows that name well.
Normally with nice old cars, I say don’t daily drive them but do use them. But at least a few have to be preserved as museum and show cars, just so everyone else has a perfect exemplar to work from. This should be that car for the 1st gen Aries.
Pretty sure I’ve seen one recently but it was the Reliant and I don’t recall where. Where we lived in the early 90s, septuagenarian neighbors had two…Mister drove a cream 1st Gen Reliant, Mrs. had a red 2nd Gen Reliant. This was about 1993.
I’d love to drive it, just to experience it. But I’d rather own an Omnirizon.
I had a brief drive in a very well restored 1st-year Caravoyager, and yes, it was an experience worth having.
Sort of a fun trip down memory lane, but even if someone hadn’t actually ever ridden in one, just the pictures, alone, should be enough to show what a penalty box they were. But, then, they weren’t really worse than any other small car of the era. They were all pretty much nothing more than basic vehicles that were not much more than point-A to point-B transportation.
Unlike the later cars, at least the original K-cars were designed as a whole and looked okay. The ones that followed had goofy rounded corners not unlike how Studebaker kept recycling the same cars with poorly integrated, minor styling touches that didn’t match the non-restyled rest of the car.
In fact, the poorly executed 1985 K-car facelift might be considered the time when Iacocca began losing his could-do-no-wrong, Midas touch. Just a year later, he would enter into the ill-fated and expensive deal with de Tomaso to build the Chrysler TC by Maserati. Until the Neon and Cab Forward LH cars arrived (and they were more a product of Bob Lutz than Iacocca), the only bright spot for time for Chrysler was the continued success of the minivan.
He should have lost his chairmanship over the TC debacle. If I had been in that board of directors I would have made that very clear.
Iacocca’s big problem was his big ego. Again and again it made him do stupid crap that nobody (else) ever would even have been able to say seemed like a good idea at the time about.
True, but how do you fire an auto executive who was deeply involved (if not outright responsible) for not one, but two of the most ground-breaking and influential vehicles in automotive history?
Just because he introduced the Mustang and the Voyager/Caravan is no excuse for keeping him on when he screwed up later. You don’t keep a CEO for past triumphs. You keep him for constantly moving ahead. Which Iaccoca most certainly stopped doing.
Oh, come now; don’t let’s be unfair. Sure, the Chrysler’s TC by Maserati was an overpriced, poorly built, expensive-to-fix copy of a 2-year-old LeBaron, but he was an enduring pioneer in the fields of opera windows and padded vinyl landau half-roofs and wire-style wheelcovers.
BIL had one just like this, an ’84 model back about ’94 or so. Exactly same colour and same red interior with the base bench seats. It claimed to be a true 6-passenger car, and 5 of us could actually fit in relative comfort. It was nice not to have to ride shotgun on a rear axle hump, because I usually ended up in the middle back seat position, and it was pretty comfy. It was one of his best cars.
Fun fact: Chrysler found all kinds of neat ways to shave weight from K-design; in the early cars, 1981-84, the doors were held on by oversized cotter pins, rather than thicker heavier door pins, which were finally used in ’85-’89 models. I suppose an ounce of weight added up here and then, right? You might make fun of these things now, but at the time they came out they were revolutionary for Chrysler, and the top-line models with buckets and console could be quite comfy and even sporty.
That may be the nicest K I’ve ever seen. Incredible.
Incredible front seat too. Look at all that space! I wish they still made cars with such efficient interiors. Minus the bench seat, but a split bench like modern pickups would be great in a car. This thing could likely out-haul most modern CUVs in terms of usable space.
You high? And you would be ok to be seen in this little box? Too under powered for this day and age and simply not safe enough to drive.
Love it. It must just be “That Day” here at CC, as between this car and the Concorde post I’m in a swoon. I’m another one with a “thing” for the K’s. There’s something very loveable about these. That totally conservative and traditional American sedan styling, with the upright grille, standup hood ornament, concealed wipers, bench seats and column shift…all in a miniaturized package with FWD and a plucky little carbed 4 cylinder. It’s just so….hopeful. My view of these is probably influenced by being a teen during these years, when everything seemed kind of hopeful, but I’ve got a big soft spot for these, as well as their siblings, cousins and offspring from the late 70’s to the mid 90’s.
However: The most confoundingly annoying aspect of Mopars from this period has to be that ubiquitous push-pull HVAC switchgear. Damn, those little buttons always pinched your fingers, got stuck, had peeling chromecoat that would eventually become razor sharp as it cracked off, etc, etc, etc. Jeez, we’re talking heat, a/c and defrost here. Please explain to me how these three functions require so many little buttons.
and the wheezy vacuum leaks they all developed, and the slam of the defroster door as it moved back into position after accelerating and the manifold vacuum got back into the normal range.
Not new. My 59 Fury sedan used pushbuttons and vacuum lines to work its heating and ventilation too.
Chrysler innovated the integrated AC with vacuum doors starting in 1957, long before anyone else. (What the hell was in the Rambler system anyway?)
My ’88 Horizon had AC with a similar pushbutton panel to the K, and my ’63 Plymouth Sport Fury had a different version of the same idea and neither one had any button problems ever, over 130 K miles.
You said “Concorde” and I got excited that I might see an article on the cab-forward Concorde/Vision/Intrepid (LH platform) that was the successor, and in every way vastly superior, car that came about because the K-cars saved the company. Then I found the article and its about the AMC Concord… and I hate the fact that I was disappointed. The AMC Concord (no ‘e’) is an interesting and prescient car in its own right, with an advanced AWD system. but the Cab-forward story just *belongs* after the K-car story. I’ve never owned a K-car, I was so repelled by an experience with a Horizon that I didn’t touch a new car all through the 80s. When I finally did, it was a 93 LH that my daughter grew up in, and we put 250,000 reliable miles on before giving it away. Front-drive still stinks, but it was made tolerable by the longitudinal engine and excellent interior of the cab-forward LH cars.
Not quite in every way; the sealed-beam headlamps on the featured Aries were (literal) streets ahead of the useless mini plastic headlites Chrysler put on the LH cars. But I suspect you might be one particular Steve who knows that and who might’ve had some assistance doing something about it. 😉
Correct on all counts… And no doubt my memory puts a bit of a halo on things. The LH cars had their own faults besides headlights too (the biggest being the 42LE), but it was impressive to see what the engineering teams could do when they weren’t on the verge of unemployment, and when a little more time could be devoted to putting better touch/feel/smell into the interior materials as well as simply having better materials become available in the 10 years intervening. The same could be said of the later K-derivatives- they grew into so much more refined vehicles, even as some backward steps were taken with regard to things like lighting, exterior plastics, clear-coat paint, and overly complicated and failure-prone transaxles. People mock the K for its simple 3-box styling, and equally mock the LH now for what I’ll call “soap bubble styling.” But at least you could SEE out of both of those cars, unlike the high-beltline trends of the last 10+ years.
As far as owning a car I’m quite repelled by anything newer than 1993 as I worked as a mechanic for several years. I learned a lot about several makes and models of vehicles during that time. Moneymakers they are, however.
Actually it was not the Concord, but the AMC Eagle that had the AWD system – the Concord was rear drive. (Of course the Eagle was a modified Concord, but they were sold as separate product lines.)
I’ve never owned a Concord but did have an Eagle for a while. Despite a dated interior it was quite an advanced car for the time, and was an amazing achievement from a company that was considered down and out.
My friends step dad also owned a Eagle back in the day. Rode in it a few times.
My grandfather had an ’82 or ’83 Aries in that metallic sky blue. Bought it off one or another of the rental companies, and, as was his custom, treated it brutally. Oil changes every oh-I-dunno-thousand miles or when he remembered, whichever came last. One foot on the accelerator and one on the brake as he shifted from Drive to Reverse and back while parking. The car nevertheless held up over a hundred and something big thousand miles for him, as did the ’91 Acclaim that was second verse, same as the first. Punchline: he was a very talented and well respected mechanical engineer.
(They must have bought three billion of those six-button HVAC switches; they used them on more or less everything they built from ’76 to ’91. The push-for-AC-then-pull-for-just-vent-without-AC was somebody’s clever way of saving money by not fitting a separate A/C compressor switch.)
I don’t think they ever thought anyone would think of getting air in without controlling the temperature in AC equipped cars. In early cars like my ’63 Plymouth there was no way to get air in without the compressor running other than the COOL button pull out trick. But in later cars there was a fresh air in system (VENT button) that didn’t require the trick.
Back in the 60’s American cars didn’t normally have dashboard air vents, but had kick panel vents letting air in lower down. On Chryslers the AC co-opted the kick panel vents. Later when non-AC cars got the dashboard vents, the AC models typically got the VENT button.
On many later Chryslers, there was a snowflake icon button to turn on the compressor also instead of integrating the compressor automatically with certain buttons. Other cars differ on this. My 1990 GM doesn’t tell you if the compressor is on; it just turns it on with defrost, AC, and bi-level but not other functions. Later cars also of course have outside air/inside air choices with a slider or buttons.
(Oh boy, getting into the weeds…) Chrysler products of the K era and at least into the 90’s had a MAX AC button. It cut off the hot water valve to the system to make sure no heat was being added and switched to inside air only. Same with the ’90 GM, but it doesn’t have a hot water valve. In both, the only way to have recycled air flow is with the MAX AC button. At least with the GM you can drive through a dust storm in freezing weather without freezing yourself.
Just like AMC and their “Desert Only” setting.
Chrysler’s initial FWD products were the best of the Big Three; GM’s were a disaster while Ford’s were middling until the Taurus.
Boxy, yes, but not so bad as the initial Panthers.
Kilomiles? That’s a new one, one doesn’t see greek prefixes on imperial units all that often.
Also odd since the English mile comes from Latin mille passus, a thousand paces (of Roman soldiers). There are equivalents in other European languages.
Those 2.2’s were great for doing maintenance, everything easy to reach. The air pump disappeared when FI started by the way– it was a short little 24″ belt, and a serpentine belt came later too to clean up the passenger side. These cars were not exciting but they were good honest transportation and you could get a 2 door too. By the way anyone from Canada calls Kraft Dinner just KD 🙂
Chrysler’s carbureted 94-horsepower, 117 lb·ft 2.2-litre engine—penned by the same hand as the everlasting Slant-6
To my understanding (and from its external looks), the Chrysler 2.2 is mighty similar to the VW four, scaled up a bit. Chrysler certainly had plenty of intimate experience with it, having bought hundreds of thousands of them for the Omnirizon.
Even if it’s not a ‘copy’ in the strict sense, it certainly reflects Chrysler’s experience with it.
Perhaps you’re both right: that Hagenbuch was one of its designers, & that he may have been inspired by the VW engines. Nothing wrong with following a good design; Bach copied Vivaldi.
It certainly reflects Chrysler’s experience with VW engines in the early L-cars, and it looks similar from what we can see in this pic, yes, but that’s why we err to judge such things by what the cam cover looks like. 😉 There’s not much substantive similarity between the VW 1.7 and the Chrysler 2.2; it was actually a clean sheet design.
The ‘relationship’ between the Chrysler 2.2 and VW 1.7 is one of those inaccuracies that on the surface seems to make too much sense to be wrong… even though its wrong! Chrysler didn’t just ‘buy,’ but actually produced the VW 1.7 under license (and with a bunch of Chrysler-designed bits, including the cylinder head IIRC) for years for the Omni/Horizon, so it would make sense that they borrowed things for the 2.2. But really, the 2.2 was designed to fit the same application, and any similarity really stems from that. If two different people need a tool to drive a nail, they both develop something that looks a lot like a hammer. When you start looking *closely* at the parts, nothing at all even looks the same between the VW and Chrysler. Conversely, I think the 2.2 actually shares some internal engineering dimensions with older Chrysler engines and not with the VW. A good read on the whole family tree of Chrysler engines is this tome by the man who worked on many of them. And you’ll find a familiar name in the “thanks” section, as well:
http://www.amazon.com/Chrysler-Engines-1922-1998-Willem-Weertman/dp/0768016428
Chrysler didn’t exactly build the 1.7 under licence. They bought something like a long block from VW and then put on several parts of Chrysler’s own design to finish it up. This was what constricted supply of the L body in 1980 – the contract with VW was for 300K engine blocks annually. Chrysler could have sold a lot more cars but VW would not supply more blocks.
I agree that the 1.7 and 2.2 had very little to do with one another. The 1.7 was mostly VW with some Chrysler finishing while the 2.2 was completely home grown.
Given how wrong you are about “Chrysler producing the 1.7 under license”, I think I’ll pass on your judgement about the 2.2. Chrysler bought complete engines from VW, except for the intake manifold, exhaust manifold, carb and ignition system.
It would seem to me that Chrysler engineers would inevitably have taken a good look at the VW engine before they started designing their first-ever SOHC alloy-head four. Wouldn’t you? It would have been stupid not to. “No, let’s not open one of these VW engines up and see how they look inside; that would be so wrong. We’ll just do what GM did with the Vega engine, and start with a clean sheet of paper”.
The reality is that it may be difficult to prove one way or the other, but common sense tells me that what I have read, that the 2.2’s internal architecture resembles the VW’s in certain key ways, seems much more obvious than pretending/assuming they wouldn’t have done that. It would have been stupid NOT to. The VW was a well-proven engine. Everyone looks at everyone else’s work. The VW was right under their noses.
And I certainly don’t trust allpar on the subject, as they are inevitably Chrysler fanbois, and not always very objective. Do you expect a former Chrysler engineer to admit to copying certain key aspects of the VW engine?
That’s what I thought. The head and valves etc. came with the VW engine. One thing Chrysler did even at the start in 1978 was have a Lean Burn computer controlled air intake system to the carburetor. I have no idea how it worked, but I assume sort of a primitive version of what came later with fuel injection, but only controlling the air intake to the carburetor. I can say for sure that if the computer failed the car wouldn’t run and you had to get a new one for $300.
That Lean Burn computer exerted no control over air, fuel, or air/fuel mixing. It controlled the ignition timing.
“When you start looking *closely* at the parts, nothing at all even looks the same between the VW and Chrysler.”
You really couldn’t be much further from the truth with this comment.
Fact is the only significant architectural differences between the two engines is in the valve train. DAMB for the VW and HLA’s and followers for the Chrysler.
A couple of the things that even the most casual observer will notice that as substantially similar between the two and not commonly seen or not seen at all in other inline 4s besides these two engine families.
Non cross-flow head, by the 70’s most everyone who was doing a true clean sheet OHC inline 4 used a crossflow head.
Upper water outlet located on the side of the head between two spark plugs.
Cylinders not being perpendicular to the oil pan rail.
Water pump mounted in a separate housing hung low of the side of the block. Not a common way to do a water pump at the time nor really since that time.
So no it was not a true clean sheet design. Chrysler obviously just redrew the VW engine and the only real thing that was new was the HLA’s and that set up was seen on Ford’s 2.3
“You really couldn’t be much further from the truth with this comment.”
Actually, that comment is absolutely, literally, true. Are the connecting rod lengths the same? No. Are the bore-center spacings the same? No. Is either the bore or stroke the same? No. Valve angles? Don’t think so. Which one has the same size crank journals as the Chrysler 318? Not the VW 1.7.
The fact that they both have loop-flow heads and the water outlet in about the same position doesn’t really mean anything “architecturally” the way internal component dimensions and design do. Is the 318 a copy of the Chevy smallblock because the distributor is in the back of the block rather than in the front like a Ford or tilted to the side like a Chrysler big-block? Of course not. I don’t doubt the fact that the OmniRizon was built around the 1.7 made it very convenient to put certain features, such as water fittings, the carb, and exhaust manifold outlet in about the same location since the first application of the 2.2 was also the OmniRizon. But you’d be hard pressed to argue that putting features in the same general position is actually copying a design.
“Cylinders not being perpendicular to the oil pan rail.”
Looked at a slant-6 lately, which pre-dates the VW 1.7 by a decade and a half? And gee, how about that, the same engineer at the same corporation designed both it and the 2.2. Rather than assuming its a copy of a VW, why not observe that its more closely a copy of an even older in-house design?
“Water pump mounted in a separate housing hung low of the side of the block. Not a common way to do a water pump at the time nor really since that time.”
That’s a feature of the Chrysler Slant-6 AGAIN… although it was higher on the block in the case of the slant-6 because of the RWD installation. That mounting scheme of offsetting a water pump to the side of the block is a slant-6 innovation that’s later been adopted by other engines (including the 1.7), which helps to make an engine assembly shorter when that’s a critical dimension as it is for front-drive cars.
Steve, you’re being overly defensive and taking this the wrong way. Nobody said it was a direct “copy”. My point is that people who have examined both of these engines have noted certain design similarities, which is not surprising. Obviously, they didn’t copy the specific dimensions and parts, and obviously it made sense to re-use certain dimensions for bearings and such. There’s a big difference between “certain architectural similarities” and pointing out that parts don’t interchange.
Clearly, Chrysler put a lot of thought and experience into the 2.2. But as I said earlier, they would have been stupid to not to take a close look at the VW engine and learn form it. And yes, chauvinism is rampant in the industry, especially when it comes to taking credit for designs, no matter what it is. I’m not going to spend any more time on what is becoming a pissing match, especially since you are only making a point to argue about specific details which are not the issues that I initially brought up.
Paul,
Not being defensive at all, just stamping out revisionist history wherever I find it. To me, engineering history very interesting- and quite a bit of it is now ‘history’ that happened in my lifetime, and I read the articles and shopped the cars when they were new in showrooms. But its only worth talking about when the details are recounted correctly, and yes, I screwed upon one count of that myself. I was wrong about license production of the 1.7, as I confirmed in Weertman’s book last night. I was remembering a particular photo of a banner over an assembly line commemorating a milestone 1.7 engine built (100,000th, I think), but the banner said “for Chrysler” not “by Chrysler” as I mis-remembered. Mea culpa on that.
Dimensions of internal components have nothing to do with it, those change as displacement does and also happens over time.
Plain and simple the 2.2 uses much of the VW archetecture and it is obvious to anyone who has worked on lots and lots of engine families. They did not start with a clean sheet the started with a VW engine and copied its architecture.
Have you ever seen a Slant 6? The water pump housing is a integral part of the block. The VW and 2.2 has a separate housing that is hung off the side of the block.
That’s what I thought. The head and valves etc. came with the VW engine. One thing Chrysler did even at the start in 1978 was have a Lean Burn computer controlled air intake system to the carburetor. I have no idea how it worked, but I assume sort of a primitive version of what came later with fuel injection, but only controlling the air intake to the carburetor. I can say for sure that if the computer failed the car wouldn’t run and you had to get a new one for $300.
Crap, new or used that book costs $70-80.
It’s very well worth it.
Well worth it, and I need to re-read some of the details. But regardless of all the erroneous information propagated for almost 40 years (and any detail faults in my own memory), the 2.2 is totally unrelated to the 1.7 and the book makes it clear. As if noting that the bearing dimensions of the 2.2 are the same as (all but the 360) LA-block v8s wouldn’t raise the flag… Chrysler never threw away an idea that could be re-used, which is why the (Weertman patented) balance shaft assembly from the 2.2-derived 2.5 continued to be used in the DOHC 2.4 EDZ engine all the way until the end of production of the PT Cruiser.
Let’s face it, these saved Chrysler along with the Dodge Caravan. Folks that bought these weren’t buying them for prestige or style. They wanted efficient transportation that was inexpensive and these fit the bill perfectly. Just like most American made cars of the era, folks either loved their K-cars or hated them.
There was a local company in my area that had a fleet of these for their salespeople. They had about 20 of them, both sedans and wagons. They were painted white and red two-tone to match the company logo (now since out of business) and I can remember those cars for what feels like forever roaming the area. One time I was getting my car repaired and the mechanic had one that he was working on. He told me it had over 200k miles on it with the original engine and tranny. He worked on the entire fleet of them, and said a few of them had been a little more trouble-prone than others, but overall they were tough little workhorses.
Wow! What a write-up! Thoroughly enjoyed it.
During my mature era of 17 or so, I remember drag racing what I later suspected to be a 2.6 “hemi” K-car against my own (well family’s) “slant-4” FI 2.2 Reliant. I thought it would be a nice quick little kill for the ego on my way to the computer game rental place down the road and that would be that.
No such thing!
That 1st gen. Aries destroyed me, and not with one people inside, but two! — against my one-self on team 2.2 FI.
I remember it plain as day at the stop light. I thought pfft, whatever, smacking my gum like Rizzo on Grease confident my ’89 would defeat whatever K-saurus Rex I was parked next to with two country yokels egging me on.
“It’s on %!#$$@… ”
…and we were off!
WHAT!!!? This can’t be happening. That maroon “whatever you is” was pulling away from me like a friggen freight train with two grown adults (lol) inside. It just kept pulling and pulling and all I remember seeing next is black smoke absolutely spewing out its tailpipe.
I was humiliated (well at least internally; my ego would never let it show externally, eye tics notwithstanding). And baffled. I should have won just by simple physics of mass differences alone. So, unless that old K had some cockamamie (source: dictionary.com) 2.2 with a garden hose for a carburetor, I would have to suspect it was the 2.6. Since that was likely the case it being a big bore 4, I thoroughly salute the balance shafted 2.6 Mitsubishi going down as one of the great wonders in my K-car (and T-115 minivan too, I suppose) history books — at least in terms of raw power; reliability not so much. To me, it is the 80s equivalent of big block motoring from previous decades.
Of course, my current 2.5L Mazda/Ford Fusion would easily destroy it now… :/
Great find! Like them or hate them, I will say when I was moonlighting at the used car lot, for every one of these I had to work on I worked on 10 GM X-cars. Pretty clear which was the better product.
Count me in as somebody that both liked the K-Car and respected it for what it was(roomy transportation that could be bought cheap brand new). It seated 6 folks and even though it was unlikely that 6 folks would be ridding inside of a K car, it meant there was much more room inside then the equivalent Accord of the same era
We had a 1986 Aries wagon and it was pretty good for what it was. my folks bought it brand new and I learned to drive in it. It was our first fuel injected car.
I recently watched a vintage Motorweek where they had a test of a 1985 Aries K. This car had power windows.
Now I have never ever seen a Aries K with power windows out in the wild.
I just remembered, I wore something from our old Aries today. I wore my 1938 Omega pocket watch today and my watch fob is the Pentastar medallion from the keychain that came with one set of the keys. This was attached to a leather keyfob that rotted away. I resurrected the Pentastar to use on my watch.
When I worked for a federal government contractor back in the early 1990s, the government pool cars were a number of these, stripper models painted drab gray with manual transmissions and a four-on-the-floor shifter (they must have been cheaper that way)!
Of course it was a cable-operated shifter, and there was zero gating of any kind (if there was initially, it had long since worn out) – the shift lever felt like a fork stuck into a blob of jello – you just moved it around until it stopped grinding and prayed that it was the right gear.
But having lived through that era, these cars really were transformational for the domestic auto industry and they served their purpose well. The fuel-injected ones were a big step up in reliability.
Chrysler’s FWD shift linkage is generally acknowledged as the worst of that era. I drove my friends step dad’s Dodge Rampage with 5 speed once. The cheap Sparkomatic floor shift conversion on my 71 Maverick was way more precise. One time my friend and I watched a 20 something in a Dodge Daytona struggle thru two red light cycles trying to find first gear. And the car was new.
My first car was an ’81 Omni with a four-speed stick. It didn’t seem TOO bad but was the only manual I’d ever driven at that point – I replaced it with an RWD Corolla whose shifter sprouted straight from the transmission case. What a difference!
A writer back then compared the Chrysler shifter to stirring a wooden spoon in a bucket of ice cubes. With Chrylers back then the correct answer was always Torqueflite.
Oh this brings back memories of my dad’s last company car – an ’83 Reliant SE in blue, with a blue vinyl interior and no vinyl top. My friends all called it the “G Car” because it looked like a government fleet vehicle. But it ran pretty well and certainly saved gas….
I bought a very clean, used ’83 Aries Wagon in 1989 as a cheap beater to tow my gyrocopter and it’s fuel back and forth to fly-ins all over central FL. I believe I paid a $1000. I really disliked being seen in the thing, but it did exactly what was required of it, reliably, economically and reasonably comfortably. I look back on it with grudging respect for it being as solid as a rock. The AC always worked, and absolutely nothing broke during the 4 years I had it. It seemed to be built well mechanically, but I remember where they obviously cut corners to keep it cheap; every piece of stamped metal under the hood had edges like ragged knives, and everything attached with adhesive either fell off or was in the process of falling off.
Little did anybody knew that after the Dodge Aries, other models afterwards became “spiritual” successors such as the Dodge Spirit, Dodge Stratus, Dodge Avenger and even the Fiat based Dodge Dart which effectively replaced both the Mitsubishi Lancer based Dodge Caliber, the Dodge Neon, the Dodge Shadow, the Dodge Omni and the larger Dodge Compact/Mid-sized models mentioned above. Pretty soon there will be no more legacies afterwards since the Dodge brand will be dissolved by its parent company Fiat. So much for its family tree featured here along with its former ally Mitsubishi.
On one hand, why would someone so lovingly preserve a 4 door K car? On the other hand…Im glad they did. Certainly takes me back to the way cars looked when I was a tyke, as opposed to the globs of goo on wheels that we see all too often now.
And YES, Im absolutely thinking that Id like to stuff that thing with a worked up SRT-4 engine/transaxle!
Late reply but this type of car is usually bought new by an elderly person who seldom drives it and the car stays garaged. When that person passes on the car gets:
1. Handed down to a grandchild who thinks it’s ugly, hates it and beats it to death.
2. Nobody in the family wants it or wants to deal with, so off to the junkyard it goes. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/junkyard/curbside-recycling-1994-chrysler-lhs-i-would-drive-this-car-home-from-phoenix-and-so-would-you/
3. Someone sees a crazy value in it and tries to make a fortune off it.
4. Someone sees this car a a time capsule to be preserved. (I’m assuming is the case for this car).
We had a grey Plymouth reliant, not sure of the year…perhaps an 88…..the paint turned bad early on. Other then a blown head gasket replaced under warranty it was pretty reliable…We put 170,000 miles on it and it was running when sold it… Two things come to mind about it. The ac did not reach the back seat..the front would be arctic cold and the back sweltering.. Second was that my mom got the car up to 80 once…..it felt like it was going to shake itself apart.
If the vents were directed right (center vents directed up and together, side vents to the rear/side) and the fan on hi the AC should have easily reached the back seat. It’s not like a lot of radiant energy would be coming in the near vertical back window. Not up to modern mid to luxury cars with rear seat vents, but if run right it would have been fine.
My dad had an Aries coupe (1981? Whatever the first year was that it came out). His was white with a tan interior and had a 3-speed manual trans.
As I recall, it rode and drove – okay. I used it for a 3-day trip once, and it did the job.
Later on, I owned an ’87 Chrysler New Yorker that was an excellent car for the whole time we owned it (we even had a rebuilt engine and trans put in it). It wasn’t the prettiest car in the world, but the computer voices amused the kids, and as i said, it was reliable.
I know that the first year (1981) K-cars did not have roll-down back windows, not unlike GM’s 1978-87 A/G body sedans. Also, 1983 was the last year for the Ford-like instrument cluster with just a square speedometer and fuel guage, complete with an “engine” light (combining engine temp and oil pressure). In 1984, the instrument cluster regained a temperature gauge and volt/amp meter. Along with a round speedometer.
“I’d buy that for a dollar!”
Even though it’s not as luxurious and fast and poorly built as the 6000 SUX?
The price / value thing is interesting .
I like these cars and I think $7 for an essentially new car is good Dollar value but you won’t see me buying it .
-Nate
Anyone notice that ill-fitting ashtray with the big gap on the left side? That’s indicative of typical build quality back then.
I think many of us who lived through that era regard that sort of thing as normal. I didn’t even notice it.
Now if it had been a car I’d bought with my own money…..
id pay that money for an equally nice lebaron convertible, 2.2l with FI.
but for this? nah
I am wondering what the consensus is on here over price. Say Daniel, why don’t you or someone else just simply make an seperate COAL or something on who would and wouldn’t pay $7500 for it. Like a survey of all CC readers. I’m curious. Of course you already know my answer.
An Aries/Reliant, even one as nice as this, really is a kind of curio. Too nice to drive regularly, but nowhere near a classic in the sense of other, much more stylistic old cars. It wouldn’t even be such a great daily driver since finding routine maintenance parts would be problematic, as should be expected for a car over 33 years old (even one with less than 24,000 miles).
In that regard, if someone only had $7,500 for a car, even the most ardent CC’er would probably choose something quite a bit more prosaic, say, a one-owner, off-lease Corolla.
It would be perfect as a significant car for the Smithsonian collection. Well worth the money as an artifact, but not for anyone else.
Routine maintenance parts for an ’83 Aries are not difficult to get. They’re readily available through normal parts channels. Go take a surf through RockAuto.
The only cars I would remotely give $7500 for would be a 1905 16hp Knox, a 27 TT 1 ton truck, a 37 or 38 Barrel Nose Ford truck (preferably a one ton with a 10ft stake bed and Marmon-herrinton 4×4 conversion), or a 56 Buick Riviera 4Dr Hardtop like the one in the Sugarland Express (minus the body damage).
As someone else said above I’d say the top dollar for that car is about 1/2 the asking price. Yes it is an incredibly well preserved example but being a K its only real value is either as a museum piece, in a Chrysler specific museum. Or as a beater and you can get a modern beater that includes modern safety features, modern engine controls and a more trouble free experience for that value.
Even in a Chrysler museum, it wouldn’t be the most preferred of K-cars. The best choice would be an inaugural year car, and then a Reliant. Then there’s the absence of the letter ‘K’ on the trunk, evidently, an ’83 only feature.
At half the price, it would be kind of cool to have this nice example parked next to an equally pristine sixties’ 4-door Valiant or Dart. The fact is, an original K-car, even in the kind of shape this one is in, really does have very limited appeal.
Sometimes an old car is desirable. Sometimes it’s just an old car. This is just an old car. FWIW, I like K cars. The market is just not there.
I think the price is fair. Maybe the seller wants it to be preserved. If the asking price was $10,000-15,000 that would be a little crazy. At $3000 someone would just buy it as a throw away beater. As a car it’s not that special, but it is a time capsule and a significant piece of Chrysler history. If I were a seller I’d target a collector or enthusiast (don’t laugh, they’re out there: http://www.chryslerkcar.com/) or a car-centric museum.
I always feel very confused over these. I bought 3 of them, all base little cars like this. all 3 were 4 wheel disasters (2 of them lasted mere weeks) and yet when I saw this I was so happy I didn’t have the money cause I would have been on my way to Detroit in the morning. they just struck me as appealing little buzz bombs.
I had so many people at the time say how reliable they were I kept thinking it must be me. reading thru the comments reminded me what I came to find. everyone either seemed to have a really good one or a disaster. was that true or do our memories become one sided with time?
I wasn’t around for the heyday of these cars, but one of the biggest things I’ve learned from this site is that buying a Mopar resulted in either really really good or really really bad quality and experience. You could call them more of a gamble, but when it paid off, it paid off.
Very nice little car in a great color combination, hope it stays preserved forever.
Love that the shifter is the same as the one in my old Valiant.
Even the dash on the passenger side recalls the one in the A bodies from 67 on.
Wonder if that was the intention.
Being in the auto sales industry since the early 90’s I find it hard to warm up to this generation of K-cars. If anything the later models with fuel injection and the far superior 2.5 TBI engine that replaced the POS 2.6 Mitsubishi engine were a better car and were actually cheaper with there America packages. My high school friend’s dad bought a 1988 red 2.5 America series with A/C, automatic, AM/FM stereo and a couple of other minor items for around $8995 if memory serves. Even still after 5 years ownership the hood and trunk lid paint went to hell, the engine’s valve cover needed replacement gaskets 3 times, the engine had an annoying pin knock until it reached full operating temperature and the trunk leaked which took a full 4 visits to the dealer to correct. After his father was done with the car at a mere 50k miles it went to his daughter who had it a few more years before the sub frame broke in two from Upstate, NY rust rendering the car junk.
The 1981-83 models had no extra instrumentation and nothing was even available as an option leaving a speedometer, gas gauge and a bunch of idiot lights. The front seats in 90% of these were that damned solid fixed back bench that always seemed too reclined for me and worse there were no optional recliners or a center armrest unless you sprang for the extra cost bucket seats which were mainly seen on the cheaper stick shift models. We used to stock carburetors for the 2.2 engines because customers were coming in left and right with ill running engines that liked to stall and hesitate. Head gaskets were a common ailment along with engine sensors, axle shafts, motor mounts, cam failures and the 2.6 optional engine made a lot of money for our repair shop during the entire run of the 90’s. I won’t even get into the carburetor on that engine!
That little box carried an entire company for 15 years.
Not a bad epitaph, that.
I’ve owned three of these, plus three of their successors (Sebrings, including a sedan and convertible now).
I’d give them mixed reviews, but passable enough to keep going back.
Back in the day the 2.6 Mitsu engine was preferred to the 2.2 Chrysler. It was more reliable and longer lived. I had a Dodge 600 with the 2.2, and the engine was awful. My Dad had the 2.6 Mitsu in his ’84 Caravan…the engine that wouldn’t die. If you were looking for a good reliable used American car, getting a K with the 2.6 was considered a win.
Not sure when that perception changed.
There aren’t many (you appear to be an exception) who perceive the 2.6 as more reliable or longer lived or better in any other way than the 2.2—or ever did.
It just needs a fake wire wheel continental kit slapped on that rear bumper to really make it “pop”. 😉
Nearly two million sold and not a single one with a third row?
This car is a perfect example of taking care of what one has. A throw away car is only that if one treats it like a throw away car.
As other have mentioned, I would love to see that sort of space efficiency again with no to minimal consoles and room for knees, rather than a tub to sit in.
Really minor point, but that AM radio has an analog dial display. Digital vacuum fluorescent displays were reserved for top-end Chrysler radios in 1983.
Like many here, my family owned and rented innumerable K-Cars in the 80s. Our last one was also the oldest: a 1981 Aries SE sedan that was eight years old by the time Dad bought it. That car was as fully loaded as they came, painted in standard light blue with a surprisingly cushy blue cloth interior, and enough badges and fake woodgrain to do a convincing Brougham impression. And, apart from a large oil leak, the car was in surprisingly good shape and drove well, with impressive power (for the time and mission) from the 2.2L.
Besides fixed rear windows, the 1981 Ks also had metal dashboard tops; padded vinyl came along in 1983, I think.
I had an 84 Chrysler E-class which is a slightly better appointed version of today’s subject car. It had the 2.2 l engine and automatic. Acceleration was glacial and at 55-60 mph the engine would produce a very annoying harmonic vibration throughout the car. This was the time of heavily enforced 55 mph speed limits, so exceeding 60 mph to eliminate the noise could have been a costly proposition. It was reasonably comfortable and reliable for its day, but certainly a joyless mode of transportation.
Tall, stubby, and rather awkward, yet in an endearing way. I scoffed at them when they were common, but now? This pristine low-miler is actually quite tempting. Hopefully someone will give it the care it deserves.
Like pretty much everyone else who grew up in the 80’s, I had one in my family. My paternal grandfather had a brown 1st-gen Aries K, not sure what year but it was pre-facelift. When he passed away in ’86, my aunt inherited it, and she drove it for a number of years afterward. My maternal grandfather, curiously, also owned a K-car, a post-facelift (’86 I think) Reliant in yellowish tan. He was not so fond of the thing, though, and traded it on a Voyager LE in ’88 or ’89.
Tall…well…sorta. I used to smack the side of my head hard getting into grandpa’s ’83 Aries because it had the same general shape as my folks’ ’84 Caprice, but the proportions were quite a lot different.
I see an offer as to a car for sale, but no way of reaching the seller.
I’m with JP on this.
We had three Valiants and one of them was traded for a new Volare wagon. The wagon was a total nightmare and blew up any shred of trust we had for Chrysler.
So when the K-Cars arrived, I didn’t want any part of it. When the LeBaron and Fifth Avenue arrived, I didn’t want an part of it. Not until the Grand Caravan had been out a year did someone in my family, buy another Chrysler brand. For another decade, it seemed all Chrysler made was a K-Car in some form or another. Never bought one.
The K-Cars looked modern and frumpy, but we were rooting for Chrysler to regain their reputation. Didn’t really ever happen. The Volare/Aspen ended our relationship.
Another reason Chrysler lost me as a customer was that after the Volare disaster, I was open to other brands. Sadly, GM gave me a Citation. But Ford worked out. The Fairmont exceeded expectations, as did the Escort. By 1992, I was working for a Mercury/Lincoln rental car company and all the cars were pretty good.
My wife brought her GM background into my life, and we had many Saturns along with Fords.
So even when Chrysler got its act together, I was happy with other brands at the time.
Neighbors directly across the street traded their 76 Pinto for an 82 Airies right when they were the newest thing.
Was two door/ tomato red/ had a/c.
I recall it had that classic engine sound of the day in no time. (click, click, click, click)
It took our 73 Dart about a year and a half to develop that sound.
If your ’73 Dart or your neighbours’ ’82 Aries was going “click, click, click, click”, there was something the matter with both cars.
Fully agree Daniel, the original, more formal front clip on both the Reliant and Aries suited their boxy bodies more naturally.
It’s not obvious, but it appears from the c-pillar design, and windshield angles, Chrysler was going for an exterior design family resemblance with the restyled 1980 M-Bodies. Though I’ve never heard this attempted design association stated anywhere. Whether it was a specific intended aim or not.
I thought the light metallic blue ’81 Reliant used for the 1981 Motor Trend Car of the Year competition was one of the more attractive of all the K-Cars I have observed. Aided by a nice wheel cover design.
I have long perceived that same M-body familial design to the K-cars.
Also, a bit of the R-body (Newport/New Yorker/St.Regis) as well. From the sideview it looked like a shrinked R-body.
I definitely see that. The Mirada also donated its slatted and sloped grille design to the 400/600.
I also felt this steel wheel design Chrysler offered on very early K-cars was one of the most attractive designs offered during their production. Wished they were more popular at the time.
THIS is the exact car I’m looking for!!!!
If anyone knows where I can find this car….I’m a buyer.
I had the 2 door version of this article’s car, same color inside and outside.
It had the 2.2 4 cylinder engine, 4 speed manual transmission/trans-axle, factory air conditioning….and nothing else. The dealer discounted it heavily because “nobody wants a stick shift today”>
As long as I kept the tires “aired up” it the non-power steering did not steer hard at all. If you didn’t try to be “Speed Racer” the transmission shifted fine. Much better than my previous Fiat 128!
Although not Mustang GT; the 4 cylinder/4 speed powertrain combo was more than adequate for the time period…as long as you shifted properly. #IIRC the fourth gear was like a 0.98 to 1 ratio; making it a slight overdrive transmission. 70 mph was not too loud or unbearable.Merging on Interstate 10, using second and third gears for on-ramp acceleration, never bothered me or felt too dayum slow (again, unlike my previous Fiat 128!).
The cloth bench seat was comfortable and wore well; no fading or rips/tears.
The factory A/C worked well and coped unobtrusively with the extended torrential heat and soggy humidity New Orleans summers.
Other than oil & antifreeze changes, front brake pads and tires the car was “Maytag Reliable” for me.
When I sold it I had 3 alert co-workers laying in wait for it.
The little car that saved Chrysler a long, long time ago.
I have a soft spot for the K car as our radio station news department back in 88-90 had a basic sedan to use. The 2.2 4 cylinder blew a couple of head gaskets, but the car did its job and was eventually offered for any staff member to purchase. No one did.
The little red sedan I’ve attached has been sitting in a driveway in Calgary for a long time judging by the tag on the rear plate. It would make an interesting project as everything is all there.
Maybe the nicest one left? I recall the dash of my grandparent’s ’82 Aries as being metal– thin and collapsable, but a sharp edge on top. I was amazed at how the dash looked so much like the one in their ’75 Dart, which resembled that in their ’67 Dart.
Once as a teen, when chauffeuring my grandfather to an appointment, I hit a bump that made the suspension –and us–bounce so high, it mashed his Homburg down onto his head.
“…The radio, which to me looks to be an AM unit, nevertheless bears one of the vacuum fluorescent displays Chrysler’s Huntsville, Alabama electronics centre was proud to have introduced for automotive service…”
I’m not sure about that, though the photo doesn’t show enough to be sure. To me it looks like the same analog radio that was introduced in the 1974 Chrysler C-bodies, then the 1975 Chrysler B-bodies, then the 1976 Chrysler F-bodies, and the 1978 Chrysler M-bodies. The one in this K-Car has the newfangled satin chrome faceplate instead of the old black one, and shinier knobs, but it sure looks like the same radio, complete with mechanical pushbuttons for station presets. I believe the LCD radio had a bigger display window which was ABOVE its electronic pushbuttons.
I looked at the AM-FM Stereo version of that radio from 1976 to 1998!
This one is near me, it’s been sitting a long time.
After all these years the K-car still has this love/hate relationship given all the remarks decades after their passing. Sign that the car really made an impression on car society although I wouldn’t put it into the love/hate directed towards the Vega. I have driven a couple of 2.2 automatics and for around town they were quite capable cars which would have suited many locations other than places like Nevada where it is long freeway drives. I looked at one seven days ago. Not a sexy car but I appreciate the task the car was design for and it did it’s task well.
All these years later, I would imagine there still is very little love for the Vega (at least by any poor bastard who had the misfortune to own one), certainly nowhere near as much as for the K-car.
For the time, the Reliant/Aries was competent enough as basic Point-A to Point-B transportation (at least locally), certainly more so than its primary competitor, the equally unlamented as the Vega X-body Chevy Citation.
Wow, first time I’ve seen this writup. Very nice post, Daniel. Strikes a chord with me since as I’ve probably already mentioned in my forgettable comments here I spent the first 10 years of my life in a ’83 Aries. This one looks better-equipped than the one my family had, but the blood red interior is very familiar! I remember wondering why other K-cars had the “K” badge when ours didn’t.
My dad was quite fond of the car. He admired the clean lines, and I recall him passing lines of cars in the Colorado mountains, a feat only made possible by the fact that ours had a 4-speed manual, and possibly because there were still plenty of malaise-era-mobiles on the roads at the time with most likely worse power-to-weight ratios. That and Colorado drivers can be quite feather-footed. It was a reliable car that made it well past the 200K mark.
This is the only picture I could find of it. I’m sure that with the bikes on the roof, the 2.2 struggled to get the white box with my family in it to wherever this photo was taken.
Like JPC above, I had a hard time getting excited about these. On paper, the competing GM products just seemed better all around.
I recall reading that their stubby looks were partially due to a decision to limit overall length to allow them to get an additional car on transport trains – efficiency was the word for these cars. Add to that a rather unfinished look to the greenhouse, fixed rear windows the year they were introduced, cramped rear seat and I was pretty much done with them.
The 1983 E-Class resolved a lot of sins as perceived by me and I had a bit of wheel time in one. I rather liked it.
I’m glad to find this article Daniel, you know how much I appreciate the ‘K’ Car and all its derivatives. I’m sure you remember riding in ‘killer’ and wanting a car that was as ‘quick’.
It was a very early built 81 having been assembled in October of 1980. This was my first of many K platform cars I have owned and we still own and drive 3 variations, my wife’s 1994 Dodge Shadow a ‘P’ body, my 1985 Plymouth Voyager an ‘S’ body and my 1989 Chrysler’s TC by Maserati a ‘Q’ body. Those 3 vehicles have a combined mileage of 728,742 miles.
As far as dependability, I would rate them as excellent. Sure, there have been several major repairs over the years and lots of normal maintenance, but all in all we have not had to purchase a replacement car since purchasing the Shadow in Oct. 1999. And, they all still run GREAT!
I have read all the ‘ugly’ statements about the early ‘K’ cars, and, having been a dealership mechanic in those days, I can say that they had their growing pains but so did the other American manufacturers. This was all from scratch technology and there was problems, but mostly because they all had carburetors and early emission controls which made drivability headaches for us technicians working on them. Basic engines and transmissions were very reliable with the most engine problems coming from the import engines which includes the 2.6L MMC 4 cylinder. I have repaired them all, give me a 2.2/2.5L any day. The 3.0L MMC engine was the best if the lot, but it didn’t show up until 1987 in the S Vans and then later in the larger FWD cars like the Dynasty and New Yorkers. That engine had it’s problems too with valve guides and oil smoke to the point of mosquito abatement, until a ‘fix’ was found.
Keep crabbing about them, but they were the vehicles that DID save Chrysler at that time.
I had a 2 door 1982 Plymouth Reliant K that had the Mitsubishi 2.6L I4 and drove it every day until 1994. Never had a problem with it.