Chrysler’s new-for-’71, standard-for-’73 electronic ignition system means the car is virtually sure to start—even if it’s wet and splashy out! We take such things utterly for granted nowtimes, but back then it was a novelty. To a degree utterly unimaginable in the 1960s and ’70s (and ’80s), today’s cars are indifferent and adaptable to whatever ambient conditions might present. Time was, “Will the car start?” and “What if the car breaks down?” warranted planning for—and supported the gas station service bays that are now almost extinct because they can’t pay their way any more. Electronic ignition gave cars a big shove forward towards those questions’ obviation. (Also: Remember how hoods used to flex like that if you grabbed them at one corner to close them?)
Yyesssssss, electronic ignitionnnnnnnnnn is just one of the many, many advances in qualitehh to be found in Chrysler-Plymouth’s fiiiiine 1972 caaaaaarrs. To learn about more of them, watch this next movie. When you hear this sound ( »doong!« ), advance the film:
That’s not just any ol’ random ol’ seventieslicious educationa/advertising film music in the background, by the way. No, it’s an instrumental rendition of Chrysler-Plymouth Comin’ Thru, of which here’s the full two-minute-and-46-second version with Andy Griffith-style intro and very eventual vocals (not til 1:18…your what? Your inviction for the morning?) and all:
…Yeah, no problem; I know you were looking for a weekend earworm. Glad to help out. Still not convinced yet? Okeh, then watch this 1973 spot—now with 100% more space!
My family often talk of the long trips we used to make in cars–taking the car to the garage for a going over before you left was a must back then. Seeing cars stranded at the side of the road, overheated or something else, was very common til the 80’s. Electronic ignition was a good start but it wasn’t until fuel injection became standard that no start conditions became a rarity.
I’d have to say that the point of electronic ignition was to provide a fatter spark ( to burn a leaner mixture) and to eliminate the need to adjust the contact breaker points frequently. The cars that failed to start were generally ones that hadn’t been serviced. Even my old flat-head 6V Ford 8 would start reliably on the frostiest of London mornings, because she got plenty of TLC.
When transistor ignition arrived, it usually highlighted weaknesses in the distributor cap because of the higher voltages involved. And how can I forget that the transistorised Chrysler Alpine my boss bought for me in ’79 incorporated a ballast resistor just to make life less predictable…
BAH! In my day, we had POINTS! You could fix ’em with a MATCHBOOK! And everybody had a matchbook because we all SMOKED! And smoking was GOOD!
And when your points fail, you can get new ones for a BUCK! Not those fancy electronical points that will cost you a WEEK’S WAGES when they fail, and you know they will, because you can’t fix ’em with a MATCHBOOK!
Now get off my LAWN!
Listen here wipper-snappers; matchbooks are for the unprepared.
My tool box still has a set of feeler gauges, a small thin file, and some points cam grease (not sure if that’s still good) in it.
I’m waiting for someone with an old car to get stuck near my condo so I can confidently stroll to the rescue.
Waiting …
– – waiting …
Well, back in MY day our cars were powered by STEAM! And we didn’t have your fancy-pants *matches*! We lit our boilers with a flint and tinder, like you’re supposed to! And if the boiler exploded? That built character, dadgummit!
Matchbook, schmatchbook. You couldn’t fix ’em with a matchbook, all you could do was gap ’em. Now, if you wanted to fix ’em, like when they stopped working and left you marooned out by some fishin’ hole in the middle o’ nowhere, why, for that you needed a chopped-off bit of rubber hose from the vacuum wipers! Don’t believe me? Just ask Gus Wilson!
Cars? Cars?????
In my day we pedaled bicycles! 28″ wheels, rod brakes, and if you were lucky, a three-speed Sturmey Archer rear hub.
None of this new-fangled gasoline explosion engines, or stomping stem power, or those electric thingamabobs that’ll take your wife ten miles from home before running out of power, stranding her.
Bicycles. Real power for real men. Fit men!
POINTS ? POINTS ? You sir, you’ve got a POINT there !
I remember a TV ad on the Groucho Marx show; You Bet Your Life, where they drove a 1953 or 1954 Desoto through surf without a hood to show the moisture resistance of the ignition system. It must have been the sun and the salt surf, because my Father’s 1955 Desoto , bought one year old, did not like damp weather.
My Father’s mechanic was small and would climb into the engine compartment to file points etc. on my Father’s Mopars. Why replace spark plugs or points when you could sandblast the plugs and file the points? I still have my point file, but my plug cleaner broke years ago.
I seem to remember Chrysler products having a lot of trouble in wet weather. Maybe it was just the ones that I was exposed to?
They tended to be cold-blooded, especially beginning in ’73, but that was more to do with the choke calibration rather than the ignition system.
Just for you Daniel, the complete collection of Gus Wilson stories:
http://www.gus-stories.org/index1.htm
That’s on my favourites list, that is. 🙂
Its’ interesting to think that US-Canada market is the only one where automatic chokes ever caught on. I’ve seen so many dash pics of Japanese and Euro domestic market cars from the ’80s with very factory-looking choke knobs right up until EFI came in.
The Valiant was retrofitted with a Pertronix electronic years ago. Instant on. Starts like a fuel injected car, [pump gas pedal {carburetor} ] hit the key: ignition. Major improvement.
Chrysler could use some advertising like this that features at least lip service to reliability, dependability and quality. But nothing.
Just read Allpar for discussions of the lack of focus on dealer satisfaction and quality. Even Mopar fans are having second thoughts. Not a slam, it’s what’s being discussed. They’ve got problems.
Just read Allpar for discussions of the lack of focus on dealer satisfaction and quality. Even Mopar fans are having second thoughts. Not a slam, it’s what’s being discussed. They’ve got problems.
Inevitable when beancounters are in charge. The customer doesn’t see the lack of quality or customer service until after they have written the check. Then it’s too late. Same thing when John Riccardo ran Chrysler. Same thing when Lynn Townsend ran Chrysler. When Iacocca took over at Chrysler, he discovered no-one could tell him what it actually cost to do anything. First thing he had to do was put in a decent cost accounting system. What must have been going on is Townsend and Riccardo fired all the cost accountants to cut costs, then when they cut costs more, repeatedly specified cheaper materials and sloppier production tolerances.
Now, Marchionne, a beancounter, wants to shop FCA, to anyone. He drops his lowest profit models, cuts quality and cuts customer service to put lipstick on the company.
Among the owner reviews on Edmunds is one woman who needed three tries before her new Renegade made the 40 minute drive from the dealer to her home, without breaking down.
In Australia, Jeep ads are promoting a,” Get you there and back guarantee.”
makes you think there was some doubt before this.
Makes me think of the 5 year 50,000 mile powertrain warranty in the early 60s
I hate the fact that Chrysler seem to always have a poor quality rep, after all they have been through, I just don’t get why management doesn’t deal with it once and for all.
I hate the fact that Chrysler seem to always have a poor quality rep, after all they have been through, I just don’t get why management doesn’t deal with it once and for all.
At this point, Marchionne is managing for the short term as he retires at the end of 18. He wants to go out with a bang, and he apparently figures selling the company for more than he paid for it, making a big profit, is his monument to himself.
In my earlier list of how Chrysler cheaps out on everything I forgot some ways. Remember a couple years ago when the government had to sue FCA for dragging it’s feet on executing government ordered safety recalls? Recall campaigns hurt short term profit. Remember how FCA had to restate it’s sales numbers because the numbers had been inflated, and because FCA was inflating the numbers while Marchionne was shopping the company, it drew the attention of the SEC? Making the company look more prosperous than it really is inflates the price of the stock and the price an acquirer would pay.
FCA management isn’t going to fix it’s quality problem, nor the customer service problem, because that would hurt short term profits. The way they have been going, they will more likely run closer to the edge of securities fraud, wire fraud, and breech of contract.
Someone else mentioned reading about the quality issues on Allpar. I think the Allpar discussion was triggered by an opinion piece in Automotive News.
Here’s the meat of the Automotive News article.
The fault lies in a company trying to do too much with too few resources; one that boasts of instantaneous decision-making but ignores that those decisions have consequences for suppliers, employees and partners. It lies with those who cut corners for expediency or profit, who choose the cheap over the good. And it lies with a company that prioritizes the growth of its North American profit margin and its share price to the detriment of almost every other consideration.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20170222/BLOG06/170229952/fcas-quality-woes-are-systemic
I’d shop a Buy-Here, Pay-Here before I’d set foot on a Chrysler/Dodge lot. Terrible reliability and driveability reviews by the more reputable sources and even Challenger and Charger owners are telling you to avoid the V-6 models.
When the next recession comes, FCA will go belly-up and we’ll be down to the Big Two. Sad
how does Automotive News reconcile that last statement with how much money FCA has been blowing trying to resurrect Alfa Romeo?
how does Automotive News reconcile that last statement with how much money FCA has been blowing trying to resurrect Alfa Romeo?
Better yet, ask Marchionne to reconcile the money he is blowing trying to resurrect Alfa with his comments about VW and Bugatti (biggest waste of capital he’s ever seen)
I’m sure what Marchionne is looking at is the cachet of the Alfa name, which, he thinks, allows him to command a premium profit margin on the cars, just as he thinks sticking a Jeep badge on something automatically increases the profit margin the car can command.
By the way, I agree with Marchionne wrt the money VW blows on Bugatti, Lambo and Ducati. I looked at the 2016 VAG annual report the other day. They break out the operating earnings of every division, except those three halo brands. I wonder if they have burned more money on those 3 brands then the diesel scandal is costing them?
To be fair, Bugatti was stupid. It was also unlucky, because VW unexpectedly ended up owning Porsche after most of the money was spent.
Thanks for filling it all in, Steve. It grieves me.
I’ve got an irrational attraction to the Avenger/Sebring/last gen 200, even the 500 X and the 1957 trimmed 500.
The first three have strong drivetrains and stout construction, yet electrical problems are one of my greatest dreads.
A new [er] Chrysler branded vehicle would make a nice complement to my 63 Valiant, and yet I hesitate because of the trend and reported customer dissatisfaction with the dealers.
Say what I will about the stupid ignition switch in the ONION, GM eventually got it fixed and the SASPs have been great with overall service.
The electronic ignition seemed to work well for Chrysler. GM developed its own version called HEI (High Energy Ignition). Not sure what Ford had. These were the first steps in allowing electronics to manage engine performance due tighter emissions controls.
The next phase of Chrysler engine management was the Lean Burn which I’ve heard one or two mechanics cuss and curse under their breath. I think GM got it right with CCC (Computer Command Control) which I had on my ’83 Buick 231 V6. Not the most powerful, but the engine started 99% of the time on the first try, even in winter.
Neither Ford’s nor Chrysler’s system was as good as GM’s ’75 HEI. Ford’s was called “Dura-Spark”, and they faffed around with a bunch of versions of it from ’74 on. Driveability techs grew very familiar with all of them. Chrysler’s system was not troublesome, but also didn’t exploit the potential benefits of the technology to near the degree that GM’s setup did. But Chrysler were first to market with available electronic ignition—their own system in ’71, after offering a Prestolite system mostly to fleet buyers in ’66.
(HEI was not GM’s first electronic ignition; in ’74 Pontiac or Buick offered a sort of “proto HEI” setup, and prior to that they fiddled around with some transistorised arrangements as obscure options)
Chrysler’s Lean Burn was ambitious, and it was just too big of a bite to chew given the state of available technology as filtered through tight cost constraints. The only mechanics who legitimately cursed and swore about Lean Burn were the dealer techs doing poorly-paid warranty work.
I don’t share your high opinion of GM’s CCC; it was another halfassed, cost-centric effort. Sure, the engines started and ran okeh when everything was working perfectly…but the same could be said of Lean Burn and Dura-Spark.
Ford developed their “Duraspark” electronic ignition starting in late 1973. It was similar to other systems in that it had a magnetic trigger in the distributor and an electronic spark amplifier. Unlike the HEI system, the coil and amplifier were not integral with the distributor. But it was very reliable and worked well.
I agree the GM’s HEI was the best of the early OEM ignitions. Unlike the Ford and Mopar systems, GM eliminate the resistor wire or the ballast resistor which increased the current to the coil, and thus produced a “high energy ignition.” The more current than can be applied to the coil, the more energy the ignition system will produce. And while aftermarket ignition always focus on voltage, energy is what really matters.
The early GM HEI 4-pin modules are quite popular for being incorporated in all sorts of ignition systems, including using a Ford Dura Spark or a Chrysler Electronic Ignitions distributor to trigger it. BTW, Daniel Stern, I recently read one of your HEI conversion articles on the slant six form while looking for some info on an ignition system I am building. It was a great read.
Ford’s early electronic ignition in 1974 was called “Solid State Ignition.” Although very similar to Dura Spark, it was not the same and people often call all Ford systems of this era Dura Spark. Solid state ignition used a resistor wire with a value similar to points ignition, a higher reistance coil and use a small diameter distributor cap. This system had an externally mounted “amplifier” (module). There were minor variations made to this system between 1974 and 1976. For the 1977 MY, Dura Spark II was introduced. While similar in appearance to Solid State systems, it had a number of changes. This included a lower resistor wire value which increase the ignition energy, lower resistance coil and allowed for larger plug gaps and a new larger cap to help prevent crossfire. The most common Dura Spark II system is the blue strain module. There were some other variations including one for high altitudes as well.
At the same time for the 1977 MY, Dura Spark I was introduced in California. It was similar but much higher energy system to help reduce emissions. Unlike Dura Spark II, Dura Spark I use no resistor wire and had a much lower resistance coil. This made for a much higher energy ignition, more comparable to GM HEI. It also had an dynamic dwell incorporated which could decrease dwell at low RPM and increase dwell at higher RPM. Dura Spark I only lasted until 1979, and for 1978-79 was only used on CA emission 302 engines. These modules are commonly known as the “red strain” modules. You cannot swap modules between Solid State, Dura Spark I and Dura Spark II without altering the wiring and changing coils.
Dura Spark II is quite popular amongst Ford enthusiasts now, although typically the Blue Strain module is used. Many use this as an alternative to aftermarket ignition to upgrade to electronic ignition.
FWIW, GM did have a Delco-Remy Magnetic Pulse ignition system available in the early 1970’s on Crovettes as well as the 1973-74 Pontiac Delco Remy Unit Ignition (HEI predecessor). As we saw on CC earlier, Oldsmobile had a Capacitive Discharge Ignition (CDI) in the 1960’s (used on the Turnpike Cruiser and as an option) which also used an electronic triggered distributor.
I agree with Daniel on the CCC system. It was half-assed, but more with the half breed electronic carbs than the ignitions. GM should have dumped carbs in 1981 and went to TBI systems. While you could get a GM Feedback carb to run okay, they were needlessly complicated, and many techs didn’t have the tools, knowledge or knowhow to get them running properly. The TBI system was so much simpler and more reliable.
Thanks for the detailed rundown on Ford’s electronic ignition systems. My sense is that they eventually arrived at a system that worked pretty well, but on the way there they did a lot of beta testing with a lot of not-quite-sorted systems on a lot of customers’ cars.
The big-diameter distributor cap really was an important key to GM (and eventually Ford) unlocking the high-energy potential of a system such as this, thus allowing big spark plug gaps with resultant better light-off.
Hey, remember the Dura-Spark variant Ford used on V8s with EEC-III? Very complicated bi-level cap and rotor, which made giant space between adjacent cylinders’ cap/rotor contact junction. This allowed for up to 50° (IIRC) of spark advance without risk of crossfire, though it also meant there were some pretty freakin’ long sparks jumping under the cap. Even this one Ford had to have a do-over on; the early units used a rectangular rotor and the later ones had a redesigned round rotor—maybe a different cap, too—and the early and late caps and rotors were not interchangeable, to my recall.
Meanwhile, GM’s incorporation of the coil right into the cap directly above the rotor (on applications where space permitted it) was ingenious and correct engineering.
Chrysler kept small distributor caps and the same 0.035″ plug gaps they’d long specified with points-condenser ignitions. Probably this was mostly cost control (continued use of existing distributor, cap, and rotor tooling) with a side of cost control (large amount of re-engineering would have been required to fit a large-diameter distributor cap on a Slant-6 and at least some of their V8s). HEI conversion of Mopars is routinely done with good success these days, but one must be fastidious about the cap and rotor. That’s not easy, given the poor quality even the “premium” caps and rotors present with today; fortunately the Slant-6 community have come up with clever solutions both simple (read the whole thread) and radical (ditto).
UNIT IGNITION! Thank you, I couldn’t remember what Pontiac called their proto-HEI. Parts for this weird system (plug wires not replaceable separately from cap, etc) appear to be just about extinct.
“Hey, remember the Dura-Spark variant Ford used on V8s with EEC-III?”
Yes, that was Ford’s Dura Spark III, which did not and does not have a great reputation. It seems quite a few 1980’s Ford truck enthusiast’s dump this system to go back to the simpler and more reliable Dura Spark II.
Interesting today that there’s a company offering HEI distributors that fit all kinds of non-GM engines. They seemed to have updated the HEI design flaws. They offer an easy one wire install which I think is the appeal of most people, but I think the real appeal is that it offers all the benefits of the HEI system. They seem to have a decent reputation, but personally don’t know what their component quality is like. I am sure it’s much better than most of the cheap Chinese knock-offs on eBay.
I was an assistant wrench in the ’90s; IIRC it was that particular generation of Duraspark which was famous for leaving the owners stranded, yet after being towed to the shop would start up perfectly.
Yep, I remember it the same way. My folks had an ’80 Stinkoln Clown Car. TBI 302 with EEC-III (aptly pronounced “Eeek!”) and its nonstop nonstart antics certainly inspired plenty of Dura-Snark.
@Bill Mitchell: Don’t you believe it! From scrutiny of some of their stuff, that company you saw is just one of many selling grossly overpriced, poor-quality Chinese trinkets also for sale elsewhere all over the internet, including notable Chinese virtual junk shops like Alibaba.
@Daniel Stern
I re-read my post, I forgot to put that I was talking about Davis Unified Ignitions. Like I said, never use there stuff, but it looks like they offer all kinds of distributors even for less common older engines the aftermarket has ignored, like Nailhead Buicks or flathead Fords. They even have slant six distributors.
At the prices they charged I assumed they were made in USA, but now that I go to there website it seems there is nothing that says that. It’s too bad that it’s so hard to find decent made in USA products today.
@Bill Mitchell Yep, I knew who you were talking about. They make out like they’re a bunch of clever engineers and such, but they’re just importing and hawking the same Chinese knockoff garbage as everyone else, using high prices as a marketing tactic (“Ooh, for that much money, it’s gotta be good stuff!”). I’ve been known to call this the “Slick-50 ploy”. It’s a very effective ploy—it sold a lot of Slick-50, probably still does if that gunk is still on the market…and it snared you in the case of these ignition parts, eh!
There are a bunch of other “H’mmm…maybe better not” clues on their website. On the distributor body is the wrong place to put an HEI module in a Slant-6 application (down there in the road-splash-and-oil-leak zone) — the module wants to be up on the inner fender as described here. Clear plastic distributor caps are a fun gimmick, but their dielectric performance is pathetic compared to the correct materials for the job. Et cetera.
About engines ignored by the aftermarket: if I couldn’t buy or make a (legitimate) HEI setup, my next stop would be Pertronix.
As for finding decent parts: I don’t insist on US manufacture; there are many countries capable of turning out good products. But I do my best to avoid Chinese car parts, for a variety of sturdy reasons having nothing to do with nationalism or ethnocentrism and everything to do with experience in various parts of the auto parts industry.
@ Daniel Stern,
Thanks for the info on DUI. The big red flag for me when I was browsing the site was the fact that they had zero specs on any of their coils or modules. Most other aftermarket ignition suppliers at least give a detailed run down. The more I read, the more it seems like smoke and mirrors. I wasn’t interested in their products, just thought it was a neat idea. Too bad it’s such bad execution.
For what it’s worth one of my vehicles has been using Pertronix for years and I have no complaints. Although I supply a full 12 volts to the Pertronix while the coils still goes through the resistor wire. On my current project, a Ford engine build, I was planning on using a Duraspark Distributor triggered by a HEI module. That’s how I came across your posts. Again thanks for the info.
Electronic ignition was a success, but moisture problems with distributor cap and wires continued.
I had an ’85 Tempo that hated rain and powdery snow, it would blow through the radiator and condenser and land right on the distributor cap and that would be that…
As a kid in 1970s Québec, starting cars in the winter was akin to voodoo. Everybody had their own formula, but in those days anything less than -15’C you’d really better have it plugged in, as chances were it wasn’t going to start without it. The fuel couldn’t vapourise during the long trip from the carburetor to the intake valve, leading to flooding.
If you really needed to get a car started, using a downspout pipe and a propane torch, aimed right at the oil pan, will usually get it going, especially if you bring the battery indoors and warm it up.
Then came EFI, my first experience with it in cold weather was in a 1985 Toyota 4X4 that belonged to my girlfriend at the time. It was a revelation how well it started and ran in -30’C.
These days even little hatches, like my Kia Rio, start and run perfectly in all weathers. I like that a lot!
I drove carbureted cars exclusively until 2006 and never had any issues with starting in the -30C weather we see every winter. Mind you, most of my DD’s had electronic ignition not points and I was pretty good at keep my carbs and chokes in tune. My last 1985 Delta 88 which a daily drove until 2006 was great in the cold weather and always started well on cold days. People were always impressed that such an old car ran so well in really cold temperatures. It was a Canadian emissions car which had a fully mechanical Q-Jet ,a HEI 4-pin distributor (no electronic timing) and no ECM.
I’m no Mopar expert, but that didn’t sound like my memory of a “Hamtramck hummingbird” when Arthur Godfrey supposedly started the car at around 0:28… ?
Yeah, it does — it’s just a very quick fire-off so you only hear the starter briefly, and there’s a lot of water noise masking it.
Ah…found on the net…the black art of cold starting a Highland Park Hummingbird.
That’s more of a chilly start. This is a cold start:
That sound used to be much more common than a cell phone ringing in someone’s pocket is today. Now a historical footnote.
Yes, that is the really, really cold start sound I remember.
I need that for a ringtone…
My 1985 Renault 5 has got points and always starts – if you keep them correctly adjusted. And when it doesn’t start you already know what’s wrong!
I love my mopars but even I have to admit to carrying a can of WD40 in the glove box for years to spray the wires on damp * days.
* definition of damp varied with each car. some could handle a thunderstorm, others wouldn’t start if a dog wet the tire.
Those were the days!
Agree. I always found Mopars much more subject to problems with dampness than anything else I ever owned.
Cold weather car starting was a real dark art in the 60’s, especially before the days of automatic chokes. Pull the choke out <just so far–. Pump the gas as you cranked the car – no point in pumping before cranking as a mechanical pump doesn’t pull any gas till the engine cranks over. Use short cranking cycles cause batteries in those days got weak in the cold and you could kill it pretty fast. However, don’t pump the gas too much as she cranks or you’ll flood ‘er, son. When she catches, the real dance begins. Tap the gas, but gently, gently. A little too much gas and she’ll die; not enough and she’ll stall. Repeat until she’s running pretty smoothly and then start pushing in the choke while keeping your foot very lightly on the gas. Now wait a minute or two till she’s warm enough to drive away. A good time to light a cigarette while you wait cause you sure have time. Once you can trust her to keep running by herself you can get out and scrape the frost off the windshield.
Note – after a while you get to know your car and it’s pretty easy. However, no matter how good you get at your own car, it doesn’t mean you’ll have any luck starting your friend’s car on a winter day.
…which doesn’t matter a whit, because the accelerator pump—not the fuel pump—is what you’re activating by pressing the accelerator. It squirts gasoline from the carb bowl into the carb throat. There’s usually still plenty of gasoline left in the carburetor bowl from last time the car was driven, unless your fuel pump has leaky valves or your pump-to-carb line has a leak and your carburetor’s inlet needle doesn’t seat…or your manifold heat control is stuck in the heat-on position, boiling the gasoline out of your carburetor after engine shutdown. Without those faults, there most certainly is a point to pressing the accelerator a time or two or three—depending on the darkness of the art required on the particular vehicle you’re starting—before engaging the starter.
(Also, automatic chokes were very common in even the early ’60s.)
The big threes Australian efforts all gained electronic ignition eventually Chrysler was first and we learned to carry a spare ballast resistor in the glovebox smarter people replaced the distributor with the pre electronic model and just fitted points at regular intervals and had no problems GMH fitted the electronic box to the side of the distributor making replacing it easy, Ford put the module under the plate inside the distributor making replacement impossible you simply replaced the entire unit with a points model if you could find one, Of course these units were known to fail hundreds of kilometers from anywhere so carrying parts just became a habit, but electronics were a curse.
Great googly-moogly! Y’ever hear of a full stop? Americans call them “periods”, and by either name they don’t cost extra. Neither do apostrophes.
That’s just classic KiwiBryce, just roll with it 🙂 .
What may be more remarkable is Arthur Godfrey as a spokesperson. By 1973 he was 70 years old and walking through Chrysler commercials with a cane. He was the same age as my Grandfather at the time, a man that bought just one more car in his life in 1978. Godfrey’s career peaked in the 1950’s and he became a somewhat controversial figure in the entertainment business, enough that he was used as the inspiration for a 1957 movie where Andy Griffith portrayed a thinly veiled Godfrey like character as a megalomaniac monster.
Not exactly a top pick to try and pitch Chryslers and Plymouths to anyone below about the age of 69.
That’s a good point, that is. Shall we file it with Wilfred Brimley informing us there’s some kind of moral imperative to eat oatmeal (“It’s the right thing to do”)?
I thought eating oatmeal prevented “diabeetus”. 😉
Hiring a younger spokesperson can bite you as well, unfortunately; consider Matthew Mcconaughey’s baffling turn in Lincoln commercials. Still can’t figure out if they were aiming for the hipster demographic, or drowsy drivers, or just seriously jaded people.
All three???
My reaction to these spots, too. Although endorsers known for what they’d done were more common back then – Nike’s investment in Michael Jordan’s career really changed the game. Never knew Godfrey was the model for Lonesome Rhodes, though!
Speaking from personal experience, the electronic ignition on the ’72s worked great – and was one of the last tangible examples of Chrysler’s vaunted engineering, but it couldn’t do anything about vapor lock…
Re the hood flex, that’s really not indicative of quality, those hinge springs were powerful, and when you push on one side only the other naturally resists. Even modern cars with gas struts will flex if you close it from one end, in fact if you gently push down on the opposite side of a hood with a prop rod holding it up the hood will flex too. That’s just a bad way to close a hood, period.
…particularly if you’re talking about build quality. On camera. In a commercial.
Okay, Daniel, okay. We’ll all get off your lawn.
I loved the way Chrysler kept talking up quality in the ads when everyone knew that quality in the dealer lot was a complete crapshoot. The biggest Mopar fan I knew in the 70s steadfastly refused to ever order a car because you couldn’t see what you were getting.
Choosing a new Mopar in the 70s was like buying fresh fruit from a bad selection – you had to really pay attention.
Back in 1966 my brother and I each purchased one of these C-D-I kits at our local Radio Shack store for prob. around $20.00. We soldered and assembled according to the plans. We mounted each on the firewall our 1960 Chevy Impalas. His was a 235cu. 6cyl mine had a 283. I can remember that each had a very high pitched whistle sound when the ignition was switched to on. Did they really do anything to improve cold starting or fuel economy, don’t really remember. Probably not.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-NOS-ArcherKit-Deluxe-Capacitive-Disharge-Ignition-Kit-Gasser-Motion-Perf-/140684080312?hash=item20c16cb4b8:m:m7C8mpY_jY7QsyJR6S87rMg&vxp=mtr
My Dad and I also purchased one of these Radio Shack Electronic Ignition kits, but much later, during the first gas crisis in 1973, for our 1973 Country Sedan (really a wagon, not sure why they called it a Sedan). It was a father-son project, he taught me how to solder, and we duly installed it on our Country Sedan (which still had conventional for the time points ignition). I don’t know if/how it effected the economy of the 400 CID engine, but I do remember a trip to visit relatives where the car died coming off the highway and we had to get my Uncle to come out to rescue us. It turned out that the ignition coil went bad; my Dad blamed the Electronic Ignition (for better or worse, though I’m not sure it had anything to do with it, could have been a coincidence since coils fail even on cars without electronic ignition).
Having owned some older vehicles myself, I learned how to regularly do a tune up (I’m not sure what a tune up consists of anymore, other than maybe changing spark plugs?). Depending on the state of the points, if they were burned or badly pitted I’d replace them, along with the condensor (guess the condensor was supposed to minimize pitting, not sure why they didn’t just call it a capacitor?), then set the gap, dwell, and timing with meter and timing light. I had one of the cheap timing lights you had to put in series with the 1st spark plug (couldn’t afford the neat inductive pickup lights back then) and put a bit of grease on the lobe of the distributor shaft to contact the arm of half of the points. Haven’t done in about 37 years, since I started buying cars which came standard with electronic ignition. Nowdays, can’t even find the distributor cap (probably because there isn’t one) on my current car. (what do you rotate to set the timing?)
You want a good excuse for electronic ignition? Put a Boyer-Bransden unit in any classic two or three cylinder Triumph or BSA. Suddenly, all those smart ass comments about “Lucas electrics” disappears, and you’ve got a bike just as reliable as anything that Honda made in that year.
I would have never kept Pidge (my ’69 Bonneville cafe racer) for 21 years if I hadn’t converted it to a Boyer setup immediately after purchase.
There are actually two sorts of “qualitehh” The reliability related “qualitehh” then the quality of how the vehicle performs when everything is operating as intended.
The Chrysler 200 was criticized for poor ride and handling and people complain about the calibrations of the ZF 9 speed trans. Did Marchionne direct the engineers to address these shortcomings so the car would be more competitive in the segment? Nope. He claimed he was looking for an offshore producer who would make it cheaper.
And it isn’t just FCA in the US. Consider Fiat’s latest science, the Tipo. Very nice looking car, particularly the wagon. The instrument panel looks quite straightforward, free of Italian eccentricities. I have read several road tests of the Tipo and they all say the same thing: first the testers criticize the quality of interior materials, but then concede the Tipo is intended to be cheaper than it’s competition. Then the drive starts and things get worse, a lot worse. Excessive engine noise, road noise, wind noise. Rubbery steering, rubbery shifter, poor handling, poor ride, horrible shock absorber calibration. One tester said the Tipo has all the parts in place to make a nice car, but due to either incompetence or indifference, nothing was properly developed.
Ironically, the Dart, which came out a couple years before the 200 has been praised for it’s ride and handling. The Fiat 500 has been praised for it’s engaging driving experience. The 500 and it’s Panda platform mate utterly dominate the European minicar segment, each selling nearly twice as many as the third place model, the VW Up!.
I get the idea in the back of my mind that, having squeezed so much out of product development for reliability, to boost short term profit, Marchionne has moved to squeezing money out of development for performance.
Haven’t looked at an FCA annual report to see if they have written off the Dart/200 tooling. Marchionne may keep alive the excuse of “looking for a partner to build it cheaper” to avoid the write off and the resulting hit to short term profits.
I had a thoroughly disagreeable ’16 Chrysler 200 as a rental last Winter for about 750 miles and five days. I’ll give it this: the driver’s seat is passably supportive and comfortable for long trips.
The electric power steering feels like it’s on a toy kiddy-car (steering wheel not connected to anything). The controls are clumsily designed: you get turn-dials of similar size, shape, and feel and all located close to one another for the blower speed, radio volume, and gear selector (Shifters don’t need to be sticks any more because they’re just selector switches, but the dial-a-gear shifter is silly. Okeh, I get it, they were trying to ape BMW. They failed.)
Some of the HVAC controls are poorly-labelled buttons; others you have to navigate to on the touchscreen. None of it is at all intuitive or thoughtfully configured. The 9-speed transmission is sluggish to engage and kind of drunken in its shift quality. You feel like being on the hook for its overhaul when it fails? Me either, and Chrysler’s reputation in transmission durability is deservedly lousy. The electric parking brake sometimes required two switch pushes (pulls) to release (apply), sometimes three, sometimes just one. The 4-cylinder engine idled with noticeable roughness.
The analog speedometer was easy to read, and the blue lighting on the IP isn’t obnoxiously piercing like that on VW products, but the digital speedometer/message center is a damn pain. Push any button that affects it and you get to read all about how you’ve pushed that button for multiple long seconds until it remembers that oh yeah, the driver might’ve maybe kinda wanted to see the speedometer. The tachometer is pointless. The rearview mirror is this pointlessly giant, chunky thing (it contains no compass, no auto-dim, no reading lights, etc) and it is positioned such that it blocks an unreasonably huge proportion of the view through the windshield. I’m sure the sideview mirrors meet the minimum legal field-of-view requirements…and I’m equally sure that’s all they only just do.
The headlamps aren’t abjectly inadequate, but they’re also a whole hell of a lot less thoughtfully engineered than they could’ve and should’ve been for no additional money: way too much foreground light and not nearly enough seeing distance on low beam; high beam almost marginally adequate. Taillamps are functionally pathetic.
And inside, outside, and throughout, one gets the feeling of chintz and cheapness and the worst of American and Italian indifference to materials, build, and haptic quality.
But really, none of the above complaints matter at all. Know why? Because you CANNOT TURN OFF THE RADIO. There is no way to turn it off. You can mute it, but only until you next start the engine (or you happen to touch one of a fairly long list of buttons or dials), then it comes blaring back. I looked in the owner’s manual: not a thing on how to turn it off. I looked on Google: lots of threads in the forums with people saying “I just bought/rented a 200, how do you turn off the radio?” and the answer is uniform: You don’t. WHAT FLICKING IDIOT DECIDED AN OFF-SWITCH ISN’T NECESSARY?!!!
The cruise control switches are on the steering wheel…where the cruise control switches were on the Spirit/Acclaim of twenty-six years ago. Right place for them, but the ones in the 200 could not be operated by touch because they all felt alike — not like the ones in the AA-body. Speaking of which, this car felt very much like a direct successor to the AA-body: competent, adequate, and not a bare shred more. Nothing about it is any better than it minimally has to be. It’s only better than the AA-body because people’s expectations, even the bottom end of them, have advanced in the last two and a half decades.
I cannot see buying this car. In a word, it is uncompetitive. For very similar money one could have a very much better Buick Verano, Chev Malibu, Hyundai Sonata, Mazda 6, Subaru Legacy, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, etc. Let someone else take the new-car depreciation, and for similar money you can get a bigger car (Taurus, etc) for comparable money.
“I just bought/rented a 200, how do you turn off the radio?” and the answer is uniform: You don’t. WHAT FLICKING IDIOT DECIDED AN OFF-SWITCH ISN’T NECESSARY?!!!
Seems I have read that the 200 is supposed to have an active noise cancelling system that no doubt uses the amp and speakers of the radio, so most of the radio needs to be on anyway for the system to work. Beyond that, maybe they are trying to save another 12 cents. A coworker had a Swedish built Saab, about an 07, and made a discovery: there was no “off” switch for the traction control. From time to time, he would stop for a traffic light and be on the patch of ice that frequently forms at lights. When he tried to move, the hypersensitive trac control would come to life, determined to prevent any and all wheel spin, with the result that he couldn’t pull away from the light. No matter how much throttle he applied, the trac control would apply brakes and cut fuel and leave him stationary. When I bought my VW, I made sure it had an “off” switch as the “off” switch is being eliminated by every European manufacturer. Turns out that VW spent the time to get the trac control dialed in so it doesn’t create the problems the Saab’s system did and I have never had to use the VW’s off switch.
I’m not finding statements that the 200 has active noise cancellation—the Pacifica, yes, and I’m seeing exactly what I’d expect to see: people complaining it makes their ears feel funny, like altitude changes in an airplane. I’m very dubious of active noise cancellation’s net benefit; I’d rather the maker put the time, effort, and money into building an inherently quiet car.
The Saab TCS screwup you describe is not forgivable. It reminds me of Volvo’s sudden-onset amnesia that caused them to forget how to make reliable, durable sockets for exterior light bulbs (of all the basic, simple things) around 1995.
Given your talking to a family that has one of each: my car is a 2013 Fiat 500c Abarth (manual), the wife’s is a 2015 Dodge Dart GT (automatic), I can’t back you up strongly enough on the ride and handing aspects of either car. My Fiat is the first car I’ve truly enjoyed since I (stupidly) traded in my Porsche 924S. The wife is absolutely enthralled with her Dart.
Having spent a good enough time in both, it brings up the question, “If these cars are failures, then what the hell does a success drive like?” A year into ownership of each, we’re convinced that these are incredibly underrated automobiles, and the sweater-man should be taken out back and shot for his attitude on the Dodge.
This is definitely a car that should have been allowed to soldier on for four to five years, to give the market a chance to discover what they were offering. Definitely better than a Cruise, and a good reason to show why the Civic is overpriced, especially when bought used.
Oy. The market wasn’t going to eventually “discover” the Dart. Buyers were fully aware of the Dart, and rejected it as uncompetitive. That doesn’t mean your wife (or anyone else who likes his or her Dart) is wrong or dumb or crazy, it just means most buyers like other cars better than the Dart. This reminds me a lot of the Neon: everyone had high hopes for Chrysler to live up to the hype and finally field a really good small car—hope springs eternal—but it was not to be; the best praise the Dart could legitimately win was that it was better than Chrysler’s previous small cars. The Dart did a great job finally(!) fulfilling the promise of the Neon, but by then the entire market had moved onward and upward. Cashing the Neon’s checks with the Dart just wasn’t good enough, especially not with FCA’s ongoing quality difficulties. So people didn’t buy them, so it got discontinued. It’s kind of sad, but there it is.
The problem is that there aren’t enough sedan buyers at franchised dealers to sop up the available new and CPO sedans, period. Someone’s gonna have to quit that business.
The Journey and Compass are worst in class, but buyers want SUVs. Cut the price enough, and they sell.
Having spent a good enough time in both, it brings up the question, “If these cars are failures, then what the hell does a success drive like?” A year into ownership of each, we’re convinced that these are incredibly underrated automobiles, and the sweater-man should be taken out back and shot for his attitude on the Dodge.
Here’s my analysis of the Dart situation. Marchionne’s complaint was that the ROI was poor. The C and D passenger car segments are hotly contested in the US, because everyone has an offering in that segment. Manufacturers need to bring their A game product and margins are going to be narrow. iirc, in 2015, before they were killed, FCA sold some 87K Darts and 177K 200s. While the Dart was well reviewed, the 200 was not, making me think that, in the intervening couple years between introduction of the Dart and introduction of the 200, FCA made a decision to cut the budget for development, so the 200 never got dialed in like the Dart did.
Then Marchionne gives us this song and dance that the Dart and 200 will carry on *if* he can find a partner that can build them cheap enough for the cars to hit Marchionne’s profit margin target at the price at which the cars sell.
Such a partner exists. Fiat in China. In China, Fiat offers the Viaggio. The Viaggio *is* a Dart, with a different grill and tail lights. The instrument panels are virtually identical save for the badges. While the Chinese plant has a capacity of some 130,000 cars/yr, the Viaggio has been a failure only selling about 43K in it’s best year and falling to only 7K last year. Plenty of capacity to build 80K Darts. Ship the Dart tooling, with it’s dialed in ride and handling to China. Add the Korean built Hyundai 6spd auto that seems to work well in the Dart and the US built engines and Marchionne has the lower cost, better margin car he claims he wants.
But nooooo. My read is Marchionne simply does not want to compete in the C and D sedan segments, because the margins are lower than on Jeeps.
What of the underutilized plant in China? Marchionne wants to use it to build Jeeps.
Chinese market TV ad for the Viaggio
The Chinese also get a 5 door hatchback version, the Ottimo. The Ottimo has been an even bigger failure in the Chinese market than the Viaggio.
The Chinese did a Crossover concept based on the Ottimo. Marchionne would probably complain it might take sales away from Jeep.
I know it’s completely ridiculous to demand realism in TV commercials, but, um, where was this filmed? The Viaggio, if I’m not mistaken, is a China-only model. Must be some part of China I’ve never heard of, where nobody’s Asian (or anything else other than Caucasian), the music lyrics are in English, and there are stores with names like “THE FLOWER SHOP”.
I know it’s completely ridiculous to demand realism in TV commercials, but, um, where was this filmed?
heh…I noticed that too. Actually, the kid in the back seat looks Chinese, but the “parents” sure don’t look the part. As far as I know the Viaggio/Ottimo are exclusive to the Chinese market and I can see a badge on the lower left corner of the trunks that appears to be in Chinese characters.
The first thing that comes to mind as to why Fiat would produce an overwhelmingly Anglo appearing commercial is that perhaps the entirely domestic automakers, like Geely and Chery have such a sketchy reputation that Fiat wants to highlight the car’s non-Chinese roots. Or maybe Marchionne figures he can get a fatter profit margin by trying to tell people the car is higher quality by not being domestic Chinese.
This article from two years ago does indicate a preference by Chinese consumers for foreign brands over domestic Chinese cars.
https://www.ft.com/content/91d1bd62-9a2e-11e4-8426-00144feabdc0
Thanks Daniel for the trip down memory lane. Yes indeed,”Will the car start?” was a common frozen morning concern. We had three Mopar wagons during my childhood . 61 65 and 68. Dad worked weekends so Mom dutifully marched us 5 kids out to the car each Sunday morning for church. I can still hear my mothers soothing voice as she talked to the car as she cranked the engine on frozen mornings. “Oh come on now Betsy” (They were all Betsy).Despite her encouragement occasionally Betsy would’nt start . Sometimes when we could smell the gasoline and hear the the starter slowing my brother and I would look at each other and shake our heads “no” careful to conceal our glee like a kid about to get a snow day.
Another contributing factor to cold start issues of those days was battery technology . The average good quality battery had a cold cranking amp rating of just over half of today’s batteries. The general rule of thumb was you needed a battery with a CCA rating to equal or exceed the cubic inch displacement of your engine. The CCA rating was based at 32f so as the mercury dropped so did the available amperage. So it was’nt hard for a couple maladies to stack up against you in winter. Say a worn starter,and single digit temps that during cranking robbed available voltage from the coil with resultant weak spark.
All of that for sure, plus chill-thickened oil. Lookit this 1967 Popular Science report, the data basis for which is here.
But wait, there’s more! Points-condenser ignition systems began degrading the instant the engine was cranked after the installation of a new set of points. The gasoline of the day was very dirty-burning and crapped up the carburetor, intake valves, combustion chambers, and spark plugs—though some progress was being made on that front by ’70, as described rigourously here about a decade after this tantalising report that has led to a dead end every time I’ve tried to forensically chase it over the last ~30 years. So add two more big, heavy weights to the bet against the car starting if the weather were unfavourable.
Daniel,
You and I have a lot of similar hobbies: tinkering with old carburetors, reading endless Gus Wilson stories online, watching cheesy Chrysler films on YouTube, seemingly on the same channels. 🙂
You didn’t happen to strip one of the lower strut rod bolt holes out of your Corvair’s differential this afternoon, did you? That’s what I managed to do today.
I’ve never owned or wanted a Corvair, but I’m sorry to read of your misfortune. Time for some Time-Serts, maybe?
As for tinkering with old carburetors and other old car parts: I’m trying to quit.
I went out this morning and fixed the stripped hole with a Helicoil in 30 minutes. Whew!
Regarding your distancing yourself from tinkering…quitter! 🙂 On the other hand, it’s probably a smart choice when one applies any sort of psychological or financial logic.
I remember when W(ater)D(isplacement)40 was your friend. Kept a can in the car for that very reason…
I miss car company jingles.
Who can read Dutch here?
A couple days ago, I was suggesting that FCA could have moved Dart production to the Chinese plant that builds the Fiat Viaggio, which was doing poorly in the Chinese market, leaving plenty of capacity for the Dart, if Marchionne wanted to stay in the C segment passenger car business.
Just found this report, published Sunday. I have zero knowledge of the Dutch language, but I read the headline as “FCA Stops Production of Fiat Viaggio and Ottimo” Looks like Sergio really doesn’t want to build a C segment passenger car anywhere.
https://www.autoedizione.nl/fca-stopt-ook-productie-fiat-viaggio-en-ottimo/