1981 Plymouth Reliant Sedan
I was always kind of aware of the various vintage and classic cars that my extended family collected, but I didn’t really see the point. With all the accumulated wisdom of a 13-year-old fed a steady diet of automotive buff books, I was much more interested in new cars. My first trip to Hershey changed all that.
For those not in the know, “Hershey” is the shorthand name for the Antique Automobile Association of America (AACA) Eastern Regional Fall Meet, held on the first full week of October every year in Hershey, PA. You can see why refer to it simply as “Hershey.” Hershey has the distinction of being one of the largest antique automobile show and flea markets in the world. It is impossible to describe how large it is – words simply cannot do it justice. I would guess to walk from one end of the field to the other is approximately one mile.
In the fall of 1982, my freshmen year of High School, my Dad’s brothers (who had been attending Hershey for a decade or more) invited him to attend. Dad in turn invited me. I didn’t really know what to expect: I vaguely knew that Hershey, PA was the headquarters of the Hershey Co. and that the streetlights were shaped like Hershey’s Kisses. Honestly, I was looking at it as much as an opportunity to get to miss a few days of school and go on a road trip with my family as anything else.
For this trip, I was riding in the back of my Uncle Jim’s Buick Electra station wagon. And when I say in the back, I literally mean in the back: There was no room for me in the front two rows of seats. I remember two things about this car: It had a buzzer that alerted you when you exceeded a preset speed (It went off a lot, and I wondered how this was supposed to be better than cruise control), and that my uncle had modified the cornering lights so that they were always illuminated when the headlights were on, which nicely illuminated the side of the road. In retrospect, I guess I had just experienced my first mod, long before the term was invented.
Suffice it to say, my first trip to Hershey left a huge impression on me. There is much more that I can and will say about Hershey, so we will be spending more time here in future COALs.
Author in his younger days with the two most common things you will see at Hershey: Old cars and mud.
Back on the home front, we were still getting by with the 1981 Pontiac Bonneville Diesel that my Dad drove (covered in my last COAL), and a 1981 Plymouth Reliant that my mother drove. Again, I don’t have any photos, so you will have to make do with the representative images (this will be the last COAL to be so afflicted, I promise!).
To say that my Mom didn’t share Dad’s and my interest in cars is an understatement. She is a strict utilitarian and viewed cars as little more than appliances. There is nothing wrong with this view: indeed this is the most common, as we car enthusiasts are in the distinct minority. So when Dad and I went out shopping for her new car, she had but one instruction – no options!
I’m not sure how we decided upon the Reliant, of all the possible cars we could have gotten (A patriotic fervor to support a company that had just received loan guarantees from the US government might have had something to do with it). My Dad was not a Mopar fan, and had never previously owned any Chrysler products that I know of. However it came to pass, there we were at the local Chrysler-Plymouth dealer, taking delivery of a silver 4-door Reliant with absolutely no options.
Chrysler Corp. Chairman Lee Iacocca, right, sits on the fender of K Car Number One, a Plymouth Reliant, Wednesday, Aug. 7, 1980, Detroit, Mich. The automaker showed off its new front-wheel drive model. The car will also be sold as the Dodge Aries, and will be manufactured in Detroit and Newark, Delaware. (AP Photo/Dale Atkins)
An early 80’s car with no options is quite a bit different than what you would expect in modern base model. Sure, there was no A/C and crank windows. Yes, it also meant a bench seat and a four-on-the-floor (with no tachometer, natch). But it also meant doing away with such “luxuries” as power steering, power brakes, and a passenger side mirror. That four-speed, by the way, had no center console – just a lever sticking through the floor with a rubber accordion boot. The only concession to style was a standup hood ornament.
Plymouth Reliant with rare four-on-the-floor transmission.
Mom hadn’t driven a stick shift for decades, but after some initial head jerking and stalling it didn’t take her long to pick it up again. She seldom complained about the extra steering effort during parallel parking, or the lack of vacuum assist on the brakes.
K-car aficionados (if there is such a thing) will know that 1981 was the only year that the rear windows of the sedan did not roll down. Instead, it made due with a pop-out quarter window in each rear door. This, combined with the lack of A/C, made the back seat a miserable place to be in the summer. While Chrysler was quick to address this oversight with proper roll-down rear windows for the 1982 model year, it was of little comfort to me.
For all its shortcomings, I was quick to appreciate the USS Reliant (as we came to call it, after the starship in Star Trek II) for its many virtues, especially once it became my hand-me-down daily driver at college. With four long gears and a forgiving clutch, it was an easy car to learn to drive stick shift on. As a result of this positive experience, I drove only manuals for decades afterward. The front-wheel drive (the first I had ever experienced) was unstoppable in the snow, the same of which could not be said about the Bonneville.
On non-AC cars, the center “vents” are just knockout panels.
The minimal complement of options yielded other unexpected dividends. Without the added weight and power loss of engine driven accessories accessories like A/C and power steering, the Reliant was surprisingly quick and nimble (everything that the Bonneville was not). The direct feedback of unassisted steering and brakes made for a level of driver involvement that even modern sports cars can only dream about. Who knew a family sedan could be so much fun to drive? In retrospect, with its light weight, manual transmission, and unassisted steering and brakes, the Reliant was as close to a true sports car as I would come to own for a while.
The mechanical simplicity meant that there was very little to break down. Other than a propensity for the aluminized exhaust system to rust out every couple of years, the only other issue I can recall is that the instrument panel illumination went out at some point. I solved that problem with a clip-on reading light.
I must also give props to the 2.2L four-banger: It gave us years of trouble-free motoring with minimal maintenance, occasionally bordering on neglect. Unlike the Bonneville, the Reliant never left me stranded. I recall one time driving home, when I noticed some smoke and a burning smell coming out from under the hood. I pulled over and opened the hood, and the entire engine compartment was covered with oil. Apparently, the oil filter had sprung a small leak and was spraying oil everywhere. I pulled out the dipstick, and there was not a drop of oil on it. Not knowing what else to do, I continued driving home, where I promptly changed the oil filter and added several quarts of oil. To its credit, the engine never missed a beat, despite being driven God knows how far with a basically dry oil pan.
I honestly don’t remember what happened to that car – it probably drifted off in one of my Dad’s many trade-ins that took place while I was away at college. But it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that it was still chugging along somewhere.
As for Dad, the Reliant had the exact opposite effect on him that Bonneville Diesel had: He became a lifelong devotee of Chrysler, buying a long succession of Mopar cars and trucks for the remainder of his life.
Interesting. The first Ks really were light, around 2300 pounds. In theory light enough for manual everything. Yet of course most had PS, PB and auto. It is good to hear they worked so well with out.
The early production K cars often had a big load of options which Iacocca admitted was a mistake. They were promoting the car at $5880 and when you got to the dealer you found $8000-$9000 cars.
I worked in a Dodge dealership when the K cars first came out. They arrived from the factory without power steering, power brakes, and air conditioning. OEM kits were provided and installed at the dealer when required.
I am a “K-car aficiniado,” currently owning a 83 LeBaron convertible,and a 88 Plymouth Reliant sedan (20,000 original miles) and having owned a myriad of other K cars and derivatives. They are simple to drive, although more power would often be appreciated. Simple to work on too, as long as you don’t need to change the starter or adjust the alternator. No myriad of body computers like my current 2001 and 2001 Buick LeSabres where you need to visit the dealer to program the VIN into replacement modules for $100.
However, a true K-car lover would be the gentleman in Richmond who is trying to sell his collection of 22 Chrysler LeBaron convertibles. Now, that was true love.
It was the K car that saved Chrysler. During the 70s, they didn’t have a small car of their own, and had to rely on captive imports from Mitsubishi , Simca , English Cricket. Other than that, their smallest home grown was the Volarie. sp ? which wasn’t a small car.They had the small Rabbit sized Omni , which had been rated unacceptable by Consumer Reports for handling problems. This hurt Chrysler financially to a point where they didn’t have the finances to develop a new small model of their own, and almost closed down. They got help from the government to develop the K car line.
The CR “unacceptable rating” came from a BS CR “test” they invented in which they jerked the wheel left, then right and took their hands off the wheel to see how the car reacted.
I am not sure if they ever tested another vehicle in the same way, but their “method” caused a bit of a scandal back then.
That was the impression I had…somebody at Consumer Reports said,”Let’s find some reason to judge this American car Not Acceptable. If you can’t find something, make up something.” I have not trusted Consumer Reports’s car ratings (or is it “Ratings”…at times they act like they have copyrighted the capitalized version of the word) ever since.
I bought a clothes dryer on the basis of a Consumer Reports rating (Rating?) but though it works well, it burns up thermal fuses with regularity. Turns out that it’s a well-known fault, corrected by the manufacturer in subsequent models by a retrofittable fix, but Consumer Reports apparently does not do sufficient long-term durability testing to find that sort of problem. The thermal fuse is cheap, and I keep a supply on hand and can change it in less than ten minutes; but for someone who can’t, it requires a costly service call.
Yup, anything for a complaint. Like when they tested the 76 Maverick. Said “we could not prevent warm air from entering the passenger compartment without shutting the heaters air flow off completely”. But they did say in the April 79 auto issue ( when they then rated the Omnirizon acceptable) that their “jerk than release the steering wheel test” was used by the auto manufacturers.
CR doesn’t do long-term reliability testing on dryers, so please don’t blame that on them.
No, CR did not make up this test in order to make the Omni/Horizon look bad. it was just part of a high-speed stability test (50 mph). And it was two different tests that it failed. from a Time magazine article:
In the first C.U. test, the driver suddenly tugs at the steering wheel, then lets it go while keeping the gas pedal down. The wheel, says C.U., is supposed to spin back quickly to its original position—but in the Omni-Horizon, wheel and car swung violently from side to side. Chrysler’s manager of automotive safety relations, Christopher Kennedy, says that Chrysler itself performed this test on Omni-Horizon with inconclusive results: “Some do, some don’t” perform the same way as the cars that Consumers Union examined. But, says Chrysler’s chief engineer, Sidney Jeffe, the test has no “validity in the real world of driving”; a motorist who actually had to swerve suddenly at high speed would let up on the gas pedal, and moreover would certainly hang on to the wheel. Consumers Union concedes that point, but says the way an auto behaves in the trial “can point to problems in the car’s basic design”—if confirmed by further tests.
Which makes the second test the crucial one. In it, a driver tries to swing a car around an obstacle, then pull back into lane—supposedly simulating the maneuvers a motorist would have to make to avoid a child suddenly darting into the road, say, or an object falling off a truck. When C.U. drivers tried it, the car fishtailed alarmingly and failed to recover.
Yes, not many agreed with the exact relevance of the test. But CR tested a total of 4 of these cars, and found the behavior in each one to varying degrees. It wasn’t fabricated; just the results of how they did these two tests. And guess what? The 1979 Omni/Horizon had a lighter steering wheel and more steering damping to keep it from happening. And CR re-tested the ’79s and rated them “acceptable”.
It was a controversial test and results, but they filmed it and showed it to the public.
Perhaps the test was a bit over the top, but to keep saying that CR created this test to sabatoge these cars is patently absurd. Why would they pick on it??
CR has been testing cars since the 1930s. if they got this test a bit wrong, well so be it. But to keep beating a dead horse, one of thousands of CR tests, is a lot worse than anything CR ever did.
Thanks for the comment, Paul.
It may seem odd considering what I wrote, but I do still have a subscription to Consumer Reports. Some of the things they report on do have relevance to my purchasing choices; but not their automobile ratings (Ratings?).
I agree the CR road test are a bit much, but their reliability ratingss are based on consumer surveys , and I find them useful.
This is the page from CU that explains things their way.
One of the bigger failures of my life is that having lived the most of my first 48 years in Johnstown, PA (and the remainder were in Erie) which was only about 120 miles west of Hershey, and having been very active in the Flood City Region AACA from virtually the day I got out of high school, I have never been to the AACA meet at Hershey.
I’m still trying to figure out why.
I know the feeling. I lived near Youngstown, Ohio most of my young life, Hershey was a 5 or 6 hour drive away. Never went.
I’ve lived in Grand Rapids for 18 years now, have never gone to the NAIAS (Detroit Auto Show) 2.5 hours away *OR* to the Chicago Auto Show, either a 3 hour drive or a three hour train ride (even easier!). I won’t make Detroit this year, and probably won’t go to Chicago in time for the show…
Like the true Cleveland Browns fan I am, “there’s always next year”…
I hadn’t realized base cars had dummy center vents — that and the fixed rear windows seem like the major sins of an otherwise honest car.
Did they at least have fan forced ventilation to the other vents ?
Yes, the outside two vents still had forced air. Without A/C they are not of much use, except for defrosting the side windows.
I may be wrong on this, but I believed the flip out vent windows on the four door K Cars were changed to REAL roll down rear door windows later in the `81 model run. Reminded me of the fixed rear door windows on the mid size GM four doors of the era. Cheap!
On the A/G body the claim is that it wasn’t to save money, but to increase hip and elbow room by making the door panels thinner with inset elbow rests. Still not the brightest idea in the book! That’s also why they never re-engineered it, that and the fact that the take rate for A/C was probably pretty high on the higher-trim A/G sedans.
We had one of these, the Dodge version (Aries) as a two-door in dark green with the mint green interior. No right side mirror, no A/C, no power brakes, no power steering (car was so light it wasn’t really necessary), AM/FM radio (one speaker), four on the floor with the bench seat as above, no stand-up hood ornament, and the light package (lights in the glovebox and trunk). We kept that car for 14 years from April of 1981 (bought new) until October 1995 with over 150,000 miles on the clock. Finally had to get rid of her as a trade in when the floor pans rusted through.
Thank you Tom for a refreshing story of how Chrysler made a loyal customer of your father rather than the opposite. The K cars were the butt of jokes for years, but I was impressed with the (admittedly well optioned) 1989 Dodge Dynasty K car variant I rented for a few weeks when I moved from Manhattan (where I did not own a car) to the suburbs.
Your likening it to a sports cars of sorts seems accurate considering the floor shift and its power to weight ratio.
It might be said that your Reliant was the VW Beetle of the day: cheap, efficient, bare bones, non-opening rear windows, and [mostly] reliable.
I too drove a Chrysler product that was the butt of jokes (5 speed PT Cruiser) and gave up defending it for most of the 13 years I drove it. It was one of the best cars I ever had.
And the love of old cars seems to get stronger as one ages. Like music and smells, old cars (which also have their own music and smells) are memory and nostalgia triggers. They add some magic to the often tedious duties of the day.
“Like music and smells, old cars (which also have their own music and smells) are memory and nostalgia triggers. They add some magic to the often tedious duties of the day.”
This is spot-on, RL! In Krefeld they pushed a Beetle into the garden of a Senior citizen home because it triggers memories in people that suffer of dementia: http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/krefeld/rollt-ein-kaefer-in-den-garten-aid-1.5212152
Here is a quick translation of the final paragraph:
The car is a good medium for demented inhabitants. “It’s about making their dementia as comfortable as possible” says the director of the institution. “Something tangible that takes away anxiety and provides something familiar, that’s where the beetle can help.” He is convinced that even severely demented elderly will recognize the Beetle as such and maybe even start telling old stories about it. “And they can go ahead and wash and polish it because they believe it is Saturday and that’s what they used to do Saturdays.”
Now, I am not saying we must be demented because we care about old cars. 😉
Wolfgang writes: “Now, I am not saying we must be demented because we care about old cars.”
Not me. Fact is, the old stuff I learned 50 or so years ago is still crystal clear to me. I could today do a complete tune up and measure the point gap with a book of matches (but I still have my gap gauges) on a 1961 Pontiac -or- do a pre-flight check and facing the wind run up in a Cessna 150 and not miss a thing.
But, every time I want to re-set my 1 year old digital watch, use its chronometer function, or re-program a garage door opener, I need to get out the instructions and read them slowly with my lips moving over the words.
But of course, I have no complaints about getting older considering the alternative.
Wolfgang: you can call me demented, no problem. No cure necessary !
Asperger’s syndrome I will admit to, with a major fixation on cars, but definitely not demented!
I always respected the K-car to the point where I can imagine having one for a while just to say I owned one.
A low cost beater in David Saunder’s style would suffice to scratch the itch:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/cars-of-a-lifetime-1986-chrysler-lebaron-mini-brougham/
And here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/road-trip/cc-road-trip-the-great-beater-challenge-day-1-part-2/
There is a certain simplicity to the K-car that one can’t help but appreciate. Between my parents and grandparents, there were five Ks or their derivatives (one Reliant, two Aries, two Dynastys); other than a wheel bearing on the Reliant and a transaxle on one Aries (fixed under warranty) they were almost flawless.
I hate to hear you looked for a picture of a manual transmission K for so long – we had one here! However, there is a lot of trash blocking the view.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-the-curbside-classic-comprehensive-chronology-of-the-chrysler-k-car-family-tree/
Consider me a K-car fan, also. I rode in plenty of them back in the day; in fact one of my former co-workers had a fairly average 1981 or 82 Reliant K-car that we commuted a 34 mile round trip everyday. It was super reliable and only as it aged did it display any issues. It was replaced by a 1988 Plymouth Caravelle, no less. I had an H-body Lancer turbo, while not flawless, was an honest set of wheels that I regretted selling. Even my then-eight year old daughter cried when we left it at Autonation.
I think that the K cars should have been called the LH cars, i.e. Last Hope cars. Their backs were against the wall in the late 1970’s and the gun was pointed between their eyes. Iacocca has been quoted as saying that if he knew exactly how bad things were, he never would have taken the job. But love him or hate him, he now owned the job and did a great job of making things happen.
There was a lot of crap being sold through the mid-1970’s to the early 1980’s, but at it’s most basic, the K-cars worked as advertised. I’m something of a GM fan, and if the X-cars had actually worked as advertised, I believe the K-cars would have been dead on arrival. I have to imagine that the folks at Chrysler saw what was happening with the early X-cars and doubled down on making them work as best as possible with the methods of the time.
It seems to have worked.
I missed two opportunities to own a K car and one opportunity to own one. The first was a clean 4-speed wagon at one of the junk car lots here back in the early 90’s that they only wanted $400 for. However my storage shed lady had owned one 83 wagon for many years and it wasn’t all that good ( broken door handles seem to abound) so I passed on it. It was super clean though. My second missed opportunity was back on 01/21/06 at a police impound auction. The photo below will show my car diary entry on that one. It’s the last three lines. However the third opportunity was not to be missed. It started with a trip with a friend who went to the Ford stealership. In the back ready to be wholesaled ( this was in 07) was a K car. Don’t know the year, but it was a 85 up 4dr. I asked and saleman said “what would you give for it?”. I said “how ’bout $500?”. He laughed and said they didn’t sell anything there for $500. So I got pissed ( just like an earlier time with a 85 Jetta i’ll tell you all about if you want to know) and became very determined to find a cheap one. Sure ‘nough, two weeks later I found a 85 LeBaron short wheelbase 4dr a college professor was selling for $200. Only catch? The head gasket had failed and it didn’t run. But boy was it super clean otherwise. When I get home i’ll post those pics. And I also had my revenge on the Ford bastard! However, as so often happens, life got in the way, the car sat around for a year, i took the wheels with the brand new tires they had on them, called the junk yard and had it towed off. Wheels and (now) useless tires are still in the shed today. I regret not fixing it. I was an idiot. So my quest continues.
Here are the pics of mine when I got it home.
Rear.
Front seat.
Rear seat
The K-Car wasn’t a completely bad car. They weren’t cheap to build, either. Chrysler was actually losing money on churning out the K-Car platform throughout the 1980s. They were selling, however. But, let’s not get too carried away. Both available engine options, the 2.2L and the 2.5L SOHC engines were about on par with that of a Saturn 1.9L SOHC, or a Cavalier 2.0L TBI OHV engine from that time. They were fairly decent on gas. I recall my Plymouth Acclaim averaging around 24-25mpg combined city/highway. That wasn’t bad, for a car that was designed during the 1980-90s era.
My dad had a LeBaron convertible, and it was hardly quick. If that thing ran under a 19 second 1/4-mile, I would be shocked. 100hp out of a 150 cu. in. block is hardly impressive, even in a 2,300 lbs K-Car. My sister had the Dodge Aries. It was her very first car. It wasn’t impressively fast by any means. My dad happened to be a big Mopar fan, when I was a kid. I also owned a Plymouth Acclaim, with the 2.5L, and a Dodge Shadow with the 2.5L. Neither one of those were very quick, at all. In fact, I believe I needed a sun-dial to measure my Acclaim’s 0-60mph times, once.
The starters were horrendously miserable to change, due largely to a brilliant design of placing BOTH the intake and exhaust manifolds on the same side of the cylinder head. This was also the same very reason that nearly EVERY single one of these engines developed hairline cylinder head cracks right between the valves, at which point oil consumption became and issue as well as the oil becoming contaminated with carbon deposits leftover from the combustion chambers. It was a belt-driven, instead of chain driven, for the camshaft timing gear. The Engine Control Modules were INTEGRAL to the friggin’ induction system. Who, in their right mind, would ever think that an electronic piece of the car should be a part of the engine, that sucks in COLD(and sometimes MOIST)AIR???? I can’t even count how many of these cars fried the Engine Control Modules, up in NE Ohio, where moisture is a common problem year round.
And trust me: The ONLY reason that transmission did not go out, was simply because it was a 4-speed manual. Had it been one of those lovely Mopar automatics, it would have gone through at least 2 or 3 of them over a 10-year span.
I have torn down plenty of K-Cars, when I worked for my family, at the salvage yard. I have seen what parts sold out of these things: engines, auto transmissions, engine control modules, fuel tanks, starter motors. And every single core engine I tore apart had a cracked cylinder head. Every……single…….one……of……them……
Chrysler was actually losing money on churning out the K-Car platform throughout the 1980s.
What’s your basis for making this very unusual claim? While I don’t have breakouts available, everything I’ve ever read about Chrysler during the 80s suggests strongly that the K car was instrumental in it becoming financially healthy after its near-death experience. Iaccoca was pretty conservative financially, and I can’t imagine him building the K cars at a loss.
And the K cars became the dominant vehicle in Chrysler’s line up in the 80s. Where were they making profits big enough to offset the losses on the K cars?
To the best of my knowledge, the three-speed Torqueflite transaxle enjoyed quite a good reputation, unlike the 4 speed that came in 1989 or so. The 3 speed had been developed for the Omni/Horizon, and was well-proven by the time the K Cars came along. I’ve never heard anyone say it was a weak unit.
The K-Car Torqueflite transaxles sales volume at my grandfather’s salvage yard would prove you completely wrong. But, you are entitled to believe whatever you want. Salvage yards LOVE Chrysler automatic transmissions, when they can get one in with a good transmission. It is an easy $500-1,250 sale, and we know they’ll be back for another one within a year or two, when that one finally blows up.
Kind of strange seeing as how the Chrysler rear-drive Torqueflite models are among the best for durability and performance. I’ve seen them work for decades at a stretch.
FWD transaxles are a completely different design, from a RWD transmission. More complex, internally, and more difficult to rebuild.
I had a THM 700r4(RWD OverDrive GM slushbox), that lasted 176,000+ in my Camaro, and watched many 4T series and THM FWD GM transmissions blow out before 150,000 miles.
It is like comparing Apples to Oranges by comparing a RWD transmission to a FWD for reliability.
FWD transaxles are a completely different design, from a RWD transmission. More complex, internally, and more difficult to rebuild.
No, the Chrysler A404/A413 family of transmissions was directly developed from the A904 RWD Torqeflite. And no, FWD automatics are not inherently completely different; it just depends on the design.
There’s plenty of both crappy and durable automatics in both RWD and FWD configurations. There’s nothing intrinsically about it being FWD that makes it more complicated.
“Trust you”? No, sir; you are misinformed. Paul’s right, Joshua; you’re misremembering and/or making up a lot of this what you gripe about. The cars were designed to be easy and inexpensive to build, and they were. The engine control modules were very dependable, in part because intake air flowing past the well-encapsulated components kept them cool. They seldom failed except as a result of the nut behind the wrench inflicting bogus “wisdom” on them. The 3-speed automatic transaxles (A413-A470-A670) were quite durable; it was the 4-speed
ProbleMaticUltraDrive (A604) that was junk, and it was not offered with the 4-cylinder engines.Yes, the camshaft was belt-driven in the 2.2 and 2.5…so what? The belts lasted a long time, didn’t make chain noise like the 2.6 Mitsu engine, and the 2.2 and 2.5 were non-interference engines so if the belt broke, the engine wasn’t damaged. Yes, the starter was harder to change than in a Slant-6 Dart. No, it wasn’t anything like impossible, and the Nippondenso OSGR or Bosch PMPGR starters didn’t frequently fail. Yes, the 2.2 and 2.5 had the intake and exhaust manifolds on the same side of the head. No, that’s nothing to do with their propensity to develop usually-inconsequential cracks between the intake and exhaust valve. And no, these engines weren’t prone to excessive oil consumption; you’re thinking of the 3.0 Mitsu V6 that had several large weaknesses in the valve guide/seal area.
Once again, I’m the guy that tore apart the wrecked ones and sold what was left of them, to the people that had them.
Couldn’t keep the engines in stock. Couldn’t keep transmissions in stock. Couldn’t keep the control modules in stock. As previously mentioned, where I live is a MOIST climate. Now, I realize that most people don’t realize that air does contain a moisture, which is bad thing when you have that air flowing continuously over an electrical device.
Want to test the theory: Place your $900 smartphone in front of a fan during cool, moist days, and leave it there for the entire day. Do this everyday, for about 3-4 years, and then open up your no-longer-functioning smartphone. You will notice plenty of corrosion inside the phone. The same thing happened to those control modules.
And if these cars are so “reliable”, why aren’t there any left on the roads?
I see plenty of old 1990s J-Body Cavaliers still running. My 1991 N-Body, with its 2.5L(an engine design that Chrysler ironically copied for the Jeep Wrangler, in addition to the GM 2.8L V-6 used in mid-1980s Jeep Cherokee Base models) is still on the road.
Like I said, they weren’t a bad little car. They certainly weren’t as great as this article makes them out to be, amd had their fair share of problems.
And I am sure you know this, but salvage yards will only need to sell a part off of a car, when that item breaks. So, if you can’t find yards with a huge supply of engines and transmissions, well, that is probably because the engine and transmissions were the problem.
http://www.allpar.com/fix/misc25.html
In addition to cracked cylinder heads, they suffered head gasket problems, and excessive camshaft failure rates in the 2.2L engines. In fact, on a cold start, it took as much as 6 minutes for oil to reach the camshaft, which hastened the camshaft failure rates, until the roller cams were installed. It was a poorly-designed cylinder head. An OHV engine would have been cheaper to design, allowed for an even smaller, shorter hood profile, and lasted much longer. OHC engines are no more higher performing or beneficial to design, unless you are running a mutli-valve-per-cylinder set up, such as a 12-Valve Honda 2.2L, or the Saturn 16v 1.9L Twin Cam, or my personal favorite: The 2.3L DOHC 16v Quad 4 “W41” engine, that came with 190hp, naturally aspirated, bone STOCK.
That link has some great, and consistent stories about the valve cover gasket leaking, and I especially love the guy that had a rocker arm just fall off inside his rebuilt cylinder head. Now, I wonder why he had to have his head rebuilt? Maybe because it cracked, like I previously mentioned?
The point is this: They were not bad cars. They filled a role in revitalizing an “all-but-dead” automaker back to life. They had their faults and weren’t nearly as rugged as some may believe they were. My Iron Duke could easily outlast any K-Car, which is why GM stopped making the Pontiac 2.5L.
And considering that Chrysler is sitting at the very bottom of the ranks, in Customer Satisfaction and Reliability ratings, today, they obviously didn’t learn how to capitalize from their successful K-car, and they failed to change from the very thing that brought them to the point that made them need the K-Car to begin with.
All anecdotal evidence. If you know what that means.
My Iron Duke could easily outlast any K-Car, which is why GM stopped making the Pontiac 2.5L.
And because you keep making nonsense statements, your credibility is zero.
https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2009/05/Pontiac-2-5-Litre/1814853.html
Even Chrysler used the Pontiac 2.5L, under AMC before the bailout. When your mail is being delivered, it is a Pontiac 2.5L Iron Duke, under the hood. I have two friends that work for the USPS, and drive those truck, with 30+ year old 2.5L engines in them.
A Pontiac 2.5L will outlast a Chrysler 2.5L K-car engine any day of the week.
The Duke has a proven reputation, that despite being out of production for the last 22 years, STILL is featured and mentioned in many auto articles for its reliability. Can’t say that about the K-car. Other than this website, nobody really has much to say on them.
And in terms of credibility, like anyone else posting on here: I have owned two K-cars, my sister had a K-car, my dad had a couple of K-cars(including a Plymouth Laser with 5-speed and a turbocharged variant). I have owned a Honda, a few Fords, and many GM offerings. I am abusive on cars, and aside from the Honda, my GMs have held up the best to the abuse of hard driving.
I have ripped apart and parted put more K-cars in the few years of working for my family, than most will have seen on the roads.
In fact, Hot Rod Network has some interesting things to say about the K-Car engine……..
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/0408phr-worst-automobile-engines/
As quoted: “The American public was not ready for technology such as an aluminum cylinder head, OHC design and a rubber timing belt. The American “drive it and forget about it maintenance” theory did not bode well with the 2.2. In addition, the anti-freeze engine coolant of the day did not have the proper additives for use in a mixed material cooling system, so head gasket breakdown and cracked cylinder head castings were common after a few years of use as were cam bearing failures.”
I am not the only person, that is aware of the K-Car engines having issues with cracked heads and engine problems.
Joshua, I’m quite familiar with the iron Duke, that noisy, rough, crude, gutless wonder which was indeed quite durable for the most part. No need to educate me further on its great charms.
I get the gist of the first part of your comment, but I still don’t understand the second part of it My Iron Duke could easily outlast any K-Car, which is why GM stopped making the Pontiac 2.5L.
I’ve read it several times now, and it still eludes me. Before you respond, please read it again. My Iron Duke could easily outlast any K-Car, which is why GM stopped making the Pontiac 2.5L. WTF? Why did GM stop making the iron Duke? Are you familiar with the concept of logic?
Do you understand the concept of business?
The same “logic” that MOPAR fans and mechanics alike can’t understand why Jeep stopped manufacturing the 4.0L Inline 6.
The Iron Duke was meant to restore GMs reliability reputation with consumers.
Anyone can see the engines that replaced the Duke were only good for using up on Lake Erie as a boat anchor.
Quad 4? Great on performance. Total boat anchor.
Chevy 2.2L? Decent, but ate through head gaskets faster than a fat kid eating a pizza.
Dude your Iron Duke in a Camaro LOL gave that car the dubious distinction of being on the List of 50 worst cars ever lol. In my Plymouth Reliant, I love my 2.5. In a Camaro thats hilarious. My Mopar 2.5 IS BETTER THAN YOUR GM 2.5 IRON HORSE by far. That’s SO FUNNY. That GM put that motor in a Camaro kills me. BTW I hate Cameros Mustangs and Corvettes So cliché. My mint 89 Reliant looks so much cooler than those dime a dozen See em everywhere, No imagination. Everybodys got one, Who Cares Cars. Footnote. My other car a 1982 Dodge Mirada CMX Is the most Bad Ass Looking Car Ever!!!!!!
No, you’re not “the” guy who handled scrapped cars. You’re just one such guy—one of many. You’re also just one of many people who live (and drive, and repair cars) in wet climates. One thing you’re not one of, at least not that you’ve told us, is a failure analysis engineer. Those are the people qualified to make and support valid assertions about whether or not a particular failure pattern exists, and if so to accurately assess and describe its causes. Taking apart cars other people have thrown away doesn’t qualify you (or anyone else) to do that.
But let’s talk for a minute about taking apart cars other people have thrown away: Why did you sell so many K-car parts at the wrecking yard where you worked? Well, probably for the same reason we sold so many K-car parts at the wrecking yard where I worked: people who owned them when they were well out of warranty and had years and miles on them, who didn’t have money to buy shiny new or rebuilt parts, considered the cars good enough to be worth fixing. If that hadn’t been the case, those parts wouldn’t have sold.
What you’re giving here isn’t even “anecdotal evidence”, it’s just anecdotes, otherwise known as stories. You’re telling us what you think you think you remember of what you think you understood of what you think you saw, filtered through your own collection of opinions and preferences. This, along with how many GM J-bodies vs. Chrysler K-derivatives you think you see still on the roads, is called confirmation bias. The fact that you think stories from your wrecking yard job are valid engineering assessments, that’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
(Your insistence that the Iron Duke is some pinnacle of engineering rectitude and durability, and that a non-crossflow head design causes cracks between the valves, that’s called hallucination.)
You mean like the bias that many respondents have in favor of Chrysler, despite the obvious failures of such a company that has been bailed out by the government more than GM?
What you fail to realize is that many people repair a used car, when it is cheaper than buying a new car, or it is all they can afford, which makes your statement just as invalid as you claim mine are.
Actions, buddy. Those postal trucks that deliver your mail, still use the 2.5L Iron Duke. How many K-cars are still on the road, today?
When I purchased my N-body, it had the lowest mileage of any 2.5L vehicle I had ridden in, and is the second lowest mileage vehicle I have owned. 93,000 original miles. Sat in a driveway for 6 years, for sale, before I finally purchased it. Now, almost 4 years later, it sits in the driveway at 137,000 miles and awaits its next trip down the road. Never stranded, doesn’t leak oil as the very first repair was the valve cover gasket that was known(another salvage yard teardown experience of every single one I had worked on) for failure on those engines(thanks to the brass being coated with silicone, a “great” idea, apparently). Doesn’t leak any fluids, in fact. Even started up during a winter of 2013, when the temps dropped to -43°F up here in NE Ohio. It was warmer in Antarctica, that day, and the Duke fired up after about 3-4 seconds of cranking. The ignition switch was more frozen than my engine was. The key barely turned forward. Almost every single 2.5L Iron Duke-powered automobile I have driven or ridden in was over 200,000 miles on it. Even my 1984 Pontiac Fiero had 6 figures on its clock, though I don’t recall the mileage when it got totaled by a full size Chevy truck. Only problem I ever had with that Fiero was a bad ignition coil that had to be replaced. A so-called “death trap” as many used to say, when they seen the car, and it held up against being rear-ended by a 5,000 lbs truck. Driver talking on his cellphone while driving. Go figure.
It is not the “Dunning-Krueger Effect”, when you see something happen in a personal experience at a 100% rate of occurrence. It can be called a “bias”, because it is based off of experiences. It is also called “Logic”. If something fails on 100% of items, it was obviously a problem. The bias is created by seeing that the same problem occurs, which means the problem will LIKELY occur on other vehicles. This is a natural logic process of the human brain, as it receives and stores information.
But, since you seem to think my statements are invalid. The “burden of proof” lies on you to prove it.
I can cite and find references to my statements that the K-car had reliability issues. Good luck finding anything about the Iron Duke being unreliable.
You might find a article about the 1984 Pontiac Fiero having issues with connecting rod failure, due to a bad batch of rods somehow getting past the QC inspectors, and that is about it. There are plenty of used Iron Dukes, that will never sell from their salvage yard graves, unlike the 2.2L/2.5L K-car engines.
In fact, let’s take a little look at remaining used engines. These engines were both in production for nearly identical years. The Iron Duke first appears around 1979, and ended in passenger vehicle production in 1991(though commercial production was retained until 1994). The K-car was born in 1981, and also ended production around the same time. Neons and the “cloud” junkers first started appearing around 1995. At least with Neons and the “cloud” junkers, the owner never had to worry about blowing the transmission, because the head gaskets and water pumps would fail well before the transmission could even think of burning up. And I am sure we are all familiar with that known “oil sludge” problem of the 2.7L DOHC LH engine, and its transverse-mounted “cloud” car variant 2.7L engine. Didn’t Chrysler get cited in a class-action lawsuit, over that engine? Wasn’t it something about the 6,000-mile/6-month oil change intervals listed in the owner’s manual, or was it from the poorly designed engine that had terrible oil flow through the cylinder heads and a thermostat that was too low temperature, from the factory? Or, was it the defective water pumps and junk timing chains failing, which resulted in poor oil circulation/coolant contamination? Just an FYI, Timing CHAIN replacements are NOT considered to be a “regular maintenance” item by automotive standards, like a Timing Belt is. They can fail, but their average service life is usually rated for well over 200,000 miles.
In fact, one average consumer from Canada is even familiar with the timing chain failure/water pump problems, and explains it in simple terms.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7fKYDl5vMI0
http://www.car-part.com
Go ahead, go year by year, and compare how many K-car engines have “Core”/”Parts Only” for condition descriptions, as opposed to Iron Dukes in the same year.
As previously stated, the K-car was not a bad car. It certainly wasn’t a good car, either. It certainly had its issues with reliability, and it served a purpose. It was a cheap, throwaway car, that Chrysler was able to recover from bankruptcy with. It certainly was not “Old Reliable” on the average, and it certainly wasn’t impressive in its performance.
But, as I read the articles on this website, I see plenty of respondents with their disposition of GM products. So, I expect to see plenty of people on here be less than willing to accept the facts about the flaws associated with any vehicle, except for GM of course.
I’ll bet if I posted an article about how my 1992 Achieva and my 1993 Grand Am were both junk heaps that never gave me anything but engine problems, I would hear no arguments from a majority of the readers. The article would be completely fabricated, because both of those vehicles were well-maintained, and my abuse of those vehicles eventually led to their salvage yard graves, a few years after I got them. I beat on those engines, and regularly ran them up to the redline. They both spent some time at drag strips, as well. The Grand Am had 162,000 and my Achieva was at 175,000 when they finally died. And those were on Quad 4s, even. How many K-cars had that kind of mileage, when they finally went to the bailer? I could probably count the number I ever seen, on 1 hand.
The point is this: The Quad 4 engine was notorious for reliability issues. Nobody will remember a Quad 4 High Output “W41” in the Achieva SCX trim being capable of competing with many V-6 offerings in other vehicles, or how it still remains the most powerful “naturally-aspirated” 4 cylinder that GM has ever produced, or how the Quad 4 without a catalytic converter could easily average around 33-35mpg(which was what my 1993 Quad OHC averaged after I chopped my converter off and swapped some Grand Am GT 16″ alloy wheels on it). Getting over 500miles on each 15.2 gallon fillup was quite impressive. That Grand Am was the only car I have ever done that with. My 1992 Camaro came close, on its 19 gallon tank, after I ripped the AIR pump and A/C off the engine.
A majority will remember how they blew water pumps, which mixed the coolant and oil, causing premature engine failure and the cracked cylinder heads.
This doesn’t mean the engine was a total failure, it was just a very bad engine for daily drivers, and being a stolen design from the Offenhauser racing engine, we can see why. Racing engines for race tracks are not really suitable for street-driven vehicles, and then factor in the General’s “cost-cutting” practices, and you have a recipe for disaster
Okeh, ace, \/\/hatever you say. Clearly all wisdom will die with you.
Try tearing them down and wire brushing the carbon off the combustion chamber, and you will retract your statement about the head cracks. Ask any engine rebuilder or salvage yard owner that has been in business since the K-car was first launched.
I am not misinformed. I am “experienced” in tearing these cars apart for a living. The guy that turned the wrench to dismantle them and had to inspect the heads for defects, since we sell our parts with a 90-day warranty, to beat out the typical 30-day warranty that many yards in the area offer. Every single head we pulled had cracks between the valves. We never got a good head off any of those K-car engines. Not a single one.
Engines were run tested on the vehicles that would start, and if keys weren’t present when they were brought in, we hot wired them to start and run for at least 5-10 minutes to watch for oil burning or a blown head gasket. The only exceptions would be cars that were wrecked to the point the radiator was punctured. We would run them for about 2 minutes, so they didn’t overheat. No start engines were turned over by hand and oil level was checked, as well as oil condition. If the mileage was too high, we didn’t take a chance on selling it. If it looked like it had excessive oil leaks and sludge all over it, we didn’t take a chance on it.
My compliments to the author, this is really well written.
Thanks for the kind words. Each post can take upwards of four hours to research, write, and edit, so I’m glad you enjoyed it!
I enjoyed reading it, too. Nice bit of writing and reminiscing. That really was a bare-bones car your Mom wanted y’all to buy! Yikes. Even my cheap ’64 Falcon sedan has a 2-speed automatic.
I wonder whatever became of this time-Kapsule.
As a 18 year old, my dad let me borrow his company car (actually a loaner because his 79 Crown Vic had to go back and his 81 CV hadn’t arrived yet) a brown Reliant with the optional Mitsubishi (2.something) engine.
After stowing the hubcaps in the trunk, colleague Rick and I drove out to the Chrysler PG which was having a Saturday open house for friends and family of Chrysler employees (my oldest sister was then dating Arnold, a Chrysler engineer).
After taking a bunch of laps on the high speed oval, and down the brake test hill, and seeing where the M1 Abrams tank was tested, we headed out onto the North Tortuous Road. I drove fast over hills and dips finding full jounce and rebound several times. Then as we were coming nearly to the end and ready to head over to the crash center and cafeteria, I crested a rise. In the other side there was a huge dip with really rough asphalt.
I stabbed the brakes. Bad idea, the car nose dived and it bottomed out several times. We crested another rise still moving smartly along. Deja vu! I stabbed the brakes again. Bam, bam, bam the car bottomed out again and again. Finally, the rises and dips, the broken asphalt and the dip behind the wheel stabbing the brakes came to an end. I was pretty sure I’d damages something.
We drove over to the crash facility and looked under the car. The oil drain bolt had been knocked loose in the hole and oil was leaking out.
I decided that the visit was over and that we had to get to a gas station to buy some oil. We topped off the oil and I drove Rick back to Ann Arbor. I called the local Chrysler dealers; nobody had or could get an oil pan before Monday morning. (At this point I was hoping to not tell my dad.)
So I drove the 40 miles home, stopping periodically to fill up the oil. I parked the car on the gravel strip at the side of the street and (not thinking of a catch pan) let the oil dribble out.
When my parents returned Sunday night (I had suffered all evening Saturday and Sunday) my dad wondered why the car was parked in the street and I duly confessed my sins.
Monday morning a wrecker took the car away.
My dad, who was a very honest guy, who I never knew to lie, told the fleet admin he had hit a pothole. I have always felt bad about putting him in that position.
Oh, and the hubcaps? I had forgotten to reinstall them, so when the car came back from the shop to the fleet guy, he called my dad and asked where they were. My dad said that I had taken them off (to which the fleet admin said “figured that”) and told him they could be found in the trunk. That ended the issue (the fleet guy seemingly more worried about the hubcaps than the bolt issue.)
Between my dad bumping nearly each of his fleet cars into things requiring body work, and my damaging mechanical things (79 CV reversing neutral slams removing teeth from the rear axle ring gear; 81 CV doing snow donuts and overspeeding the engine and breaking the alternator shaft; 81 K-car oil pan screw after which I grew up and stopped abusing the cars), the fleet guy developed a bit of a tic every time my dad came to his cubicle.
Ps after the 83 CV, my dad had an 85 Buick Century Limited. One Saturday evening, I left the car running and my buddy decided to do snow donuts while I ran into pick up something from the office where I had a part time engineering job. Upon coming out of the building, my buddy, driving with hiking boots from the passenger seat tried to cruise over to meet me.
He lost control, missed hitting me and the corner of the building, hit a parking block and grazed the side of the building scraping the paint off the bumper, creasing the sheet metal behind the fascia, breaking the turn signal and headlamp surround.
My dad noticed the next morning. Since my friend had begged me not to tell my day, I said it looked like somebody had hit it in the parking lot of the restaurant. I felt bad about lying to my dad about the cause – but only for a few days. Because we had a big snowstorm a couple of days later and my dad plowed into some guy that slid through a stop sign. The car needed big repairs then. After this I confessed the lie to my dad (who thought my buddy an idiot) and apologized for everything.
Guess I’m a better liar. Too this day my folks still don’t know I’m the reason the transmission failed in the 74 Montego.
I just remembered that we also took the reliant on the high-speed straightaway and tried to find terminal velocity. We shifted the column shift up and down while hot footing it in wide open throttle; there didn’t seem to be any great effect. In my mind, but certainly without certainty, the car hit 85 mph.
Glad to hear about so many good experiences people had with these. I had friends who bought an early Reliant automatic and had nothing but trouble. I think they sold it in less than two years and too a huge loss.
Wow-a mom voluntarily wanting to drive a stick (definitely not my mom-as she always said: ” If God wanted me to drive a stick shift, I would’ve grown a third leg….”–she never could get the hang of using a stick, especially on hills). I drove a myriad of K-cars in the Eighties when I worked at a detail shop. I remember the first K-car stick I drove (a silver 1982 Reliant wagon). I thought “Cool-a stick!”. Unfortunately, it was one of the loosest, most vague-feeling shifters I had ever driven, I didn’t miss a gear, but that thing sure had some long, sloppy throws. Since this was the mid-Eighties, I had driven other K-derivatives (Daytonas, Lancers, etc) with a stick and they were okay… they must’ve tightened up the linkage design (and cables) as they evolved.
I’m trying to think if you could have bought a better car in 1981, and with few exceptions, I really think not.
The Japanese really didn’t offer anything quite large enough to be considered a family sedan. I think the Accord had just come out with four doors. An Accord probably would have also been considerably more expensive than the K car, and Japanese cars were still not very common in many places so service may have been difficult.
The K was much better than GM’s X body,, and the A body was still RWD at the time. People wanted something which would be good on gas, still smarting from the last couple of gas crises, and the K was it. It was much more space efficient than GM’s RWD cars and considerably lighter and more fuel efficient, and depending on which day your K was made and which day your A was made, your K could be much better quality.
Ford’s fairmont, which was such a breath of fresh air in 1978, had been superseded overnight by the FWD marvels. The Escort was new but too small for a family sedan and the fairmont based sedans were generally more expensive than the K and certainly not as fuel efficient or lightweight or space efficient.
In response to Joshua, the K and its derivatives were about the only thing Chrysler produced from its debut until the Neon appeared and then the cloud cars in 1995 or so. Almost EVERYTHING was K based. The Omnirizon got the 2.2 K engine fairly early. The Big rwd cars were dropped and the Diplomat/fifth avenue got relegated to largely fleet sales and some luxury buyers, but Lido was able to pay off the loans early, even at the horrendous interest rates of the time (18%)? largely based on K profits, which then led to the minivan.
Yes. 100hp from 150 ci was VERY impressive, remember Cadillac was managing to get 140 hp out of the horrible 4.1 v8s it was installing in 5000lb cars, and 140 out of the Olds 307. Perhaps your Ks weren’t startlingly quick, but by the standards of the day, they were tolerable.
My grandparents had a couple of Aries after being badly burnt by a new Escort and I think they had a Volare/Aspen before that. You could fit 6 people in one, provided those 6 people were headed to Zumba class and not Weight watchers. Then Granddad bought a New Yorker Fifth Avenue, which he loved. My first car was an Aries (600) convertible and I loved it, so I have a soft spot for these little cars.
In 1962, Pontiac Motors Division figured out how to churn out 166hp out of a carbureted 195ci 4-banger, that was essentially a Pontiac 389 cut in half. That is 0.851hp/ci. The Chrysler 2.5L, with fuel injection, had 100hp out of a 153ci block..that is 0.653hp/ci.
The Buick Motors Division 3.8L engine was purchased from Chrysler, in the 1960s, because they failed to even get the engine to run. It would later become one of GMs most reliable and reputable engines they ever produced.
So, no. 100hp out of 2.5L engine was not impressive by any standard, even back then. The engine was an undersquare design, which is why the 2.2L did so well with fuel economy, however, most of the engineers designing that engine were too used to building performance out of oversquare engines(where the bore diameter is larger than the stroke length). This changes the performance characteristics quite dynamically, and makes tuning them the exact opposite of what the engineers were accustomed to. With undersquare engine designs, you will gain more power and economy by increasing your intake/exhaust VELOCITY substantially more than increasing intake/exhaust volume. The increased velocity allows for better volumetric efficiency and fuel atomization, because the air/fuel mix has to travel further into the cylinder to completely fill it. Whereas with an oversquare engine, the air/fuel mix merely needs to expand wider, which can be accomplished by having a higher temp thermostat(195°F), and velocity is not as relevant at lower engine speeds due to less piston travel distance. Oversquare engines benefit from larger air volumes for making their power, at the sacrifice of proper mixture and reduced fuel economy, as well as increased hydrogen sulfide emission from the unburned fuel. Long, narrow intake runners, as well as a cross-flow cylinder head design would have easily produced a noticeable increase of power near probably the 115-125hp range. This change would have also reduced wear and tear on the cylinder heads, which were prone to cracking as the heating/cooling thermal cycling was retained to only one side of the cylinder head, which causes uneven heating of the head surfaces. This type of design can cause premature head gasket failure, as aluminum conducts energy transfer much faster than cast iron, which can lead to warping of the head. Port design on the heads were very tall and narrow, as well, similar to that of the SBC cylinder head. Once again, not the ideal design for an undersquare engine design, which needs higher velocity to achieve proper volumetric efficiency and fuel atomization. And early 2.2L K-car engines were known for head gasket failure. All years of the 2.2L/2.5L engines were prone to getting head cracks between the valves. We never could get a good head off the core engines we took in on those cars. Every single one of them cracked between the valves.
Like I said, they weren’t a bad car. They certainly filled a role. I owned two K-car derivatives, both with the 2.5L. They definitely aren’t “Old Reliable” by any means. If they were, you would still see a great deal of them still on the road, today. They fit up to 6 passengers, and had a decent amount of cargo room. Why buy a gas guzzling SUV with variable valve timing and a bunch of crap you don’t need, when your 25-30mpg K-car can still tote the fam around to football, cheerleading events, and still runs fine? Doesn’t make sense, unless you have plenty of money to burn and just want something brand new.
In 1962, Pontiac Motors Division figured out how to churn out 166hp out of a carbureted 195ci 4-banger, that was essentially a Pontiac 389 cut in half. That is 0.851hp/ci. The Chrysler 2.5L, with fuel injection, had 100hp out of a 153ci block..that is 0.653hp/ci.
Apples to oranges, as the Ponitac’s hp numbers were gross, and the Chrysler’s net. On an equal basis, their hp/ci would be about the same.
Anyway, that Pontiac engine was a hi-po version, with a wild cam and four barrel carb. And without any emission controls. The base version of that engine made 110 gross hp, or about 85 net hp. Try comparing that to the smaller Chrysler four with 110 hp.
The Buick Motors Division 3.8L engine was purchased from Chrysler, in the 1960s, because they failed to even get the engine to run. It would later become one of GMs most reliable and reputable engines they ever produced.
This statement of yours is such utter garbage, that it’s not really worth rebutting. But…Buick bought it back from AMC, not Chrysler. And sorry, AMC did get it to run, they used it in tens of thousands of Jeeps. It ran every bit as well (or better) as it originally ran for Buick. You do know that Kaiser Jeep bought it from Buick, who originally designed it?
Due to your repeated lack of a grasp of basic historical facts here and in your other comments, I do not extend any credibility to any parts of your comments, and I’d ask you to seriously consider stop posting more garbage here.
There’s a lot to be said for a no-options car, if the underlying engineering is good enough.
My old Cortina was a base-trim car with only the automatic and a vinyl roof. It suited my ‘wrong-side-of-town’ upbringing and cheap sensibilities, and lasted about 25 years. The Ford Laser GL that replaced it was a no-options car; supposedly there was a lower trim-level but I never saw one. Still, the Japanese engineering and equipment level made you feel you were getting a good deal.
Our ’89 Mitsubishi Magna was a seldom-seen base model with the optional fuel injection (we keep cars for a long time, and I knew carbies were on the way out) and power steering (which should have been standard). That always made us feel like we were driving a much more expensive car, miles ahead of the Corona it replaced. It was the first manual injected Magna the dealership had in, and they were amazed at the performance. Sometimes basic can pay off big-time!
(Cortina COAL here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/car-of-a-lifetime-1974-ford-cortina-living-beyond-the-design-brief/ Must write another COAL some day.)
I’ve told my K-Car story on here ‘way too many times and I won’t repeat it. However, ours was also the basic one ($5,880.00) that was spoken about. A good car and yes – it was a ball to drive!
There is one EXACTLY like yours here in town that hasn’t moved in years. I’ll get ya a pic.
Heres the one here. Hasn’t moved in years.
In the pic with Lee Iacocca: the hood ornament seems to have a Fratzog instead of a Pentastar!
It must be one of the final cars to carry it; hard to believe that they didn’t use the Pentastar on such a pivotal car.
The Pentastar came later and replaced the “fratzog”. Our 1984 E-Class had the crystal(?) pentastar ornament.
You just made me spend a half hour researching “fratzog”.
Fratzog: Dodge’s logo from September 1962 through 1981 was a fractured deltoid composed of three arrowhead shapes forming a three-pointed star. The logo first appeared on the 1962 Polara 500 and the mid-year 1962 Custom 880. One of its designers came up with the meaningless name Fratzog for the logo, which ultimately stuck. As the Dodge Division’s logo, Fratzog was incorporated in various badges and emblems on Dodge vehicles. It was also integrated into the design of such parts as steering wheel center hubs and road wheel covers.
Anyway, the hood ornament on that one is the normal one.
Fratzog:
1981 Reliant hood ornament
The Reliant ornament is a combination of the new pentastar and the old rocket-like emblem used on Plymouths. Chrysler made some missiles (Redstone?) back then and talked about it in ads.
Valiant grille emblem:
The split rocket thing is maybe a rockety update on the Forward Look emblem.
The Reliant used this hood ornament in ’81 only, ’82+ had the corporate pentastar. I think it was unique to the Reliant, with the Gran Fury using the older “rocket” emblem.
My parents had a brown 1984 Plymouth Reliant with gold interior. It was a great car, especially after the pair of shitty 1970s-era Oldsmobiles they had (a 77 Omega and early-1970s Cutlass) that they had before them. They ended up replacing it with a 1986 Plymouth Voyager minivan – also very reliable – they had that until 1998. Chrysler in the early to mid 1980s really did seem to put their cars together more carefully than either Ford or GM. We’d probably still be a Chrysler family had dad not bought a 1990 Dodge Dakota with the awful ultradrive tranny and constant fuel injection issues.
There is a need for a car like this in Chrysler’s lineup today. I always liked the K’s. I’d love to be able to buy a modern version.
Non-interference 2.2L timing belt. That’s all that mattered. Ours snapped and we were pleasantly surprised to learn the valves would be fine.
Besides that, I’m a firm believer in K-cars and would consider myself an aficionado too. A pristine 2.5 LE Reliant loaded to the nuts would catch my eye just as much as any other coveted car while searching on carsforsale.com or eBay. These were really nice automobiles, actually. As a 14 y/o when our second M body Caravelle was totaled in an accident, my parents bought an ’89 Plymouth Reliant LE America with the plush velour seats; I was not impressed. At the time I thought it was an unrefined, hateful little car in comparison to my aunt’s newer 1990 Mazda 626 LX. Just the exhaust tone of the driveway pull-away, alone, between the two cars was a dividing force: one car sonorously hummed away, while the other chortled and chugged sounding like pistons were firing and a cat was being squeezed-too-hard-while-hugging-it at the same time — can you guess which was which? Those were the ignorant impressions I’d made before we actually got the K-car.
One thing I also had noticed about the characteristics of modern 4 cylinder engines like that of my Aunt’s 626 was how muted they were inside while driving. Up to this age of being passenger, our family not only had its share of loud-ish 5.2L Chrysler V-8s, we also had a few buzzy Datsun fours with OHV heads as well. The Datsuns were loud, buzzy, and invasive at highway speed, compounded by the fact none of them had overdrive. Contrasting those combined experiences with my Aunt’s relatively new modern age OHC 2.2 3-valve Mazda F engine (which I’ve later found it, not so much as it was a 1983 design, Wikipedia), and there really is no comparison as both are worlds apart in acoustic refinement.
The amazing thing about the so-called chortling K-car despite it’s superficial outside tractor sounds was that it also had this pleasant, muted, growling sound inside its insulated cabin. Outside may not have been as sweet sounding as the 626, but the interior sounded just as good; so, that was a start in my appreciation towards this new-to-me family car! (After awhile I got used to the Reliant’s exhaust note and even developed a fondness for it.)
After the acoustic discovery, one-by-one, I found other great things about the K-car. One other huge thing noticed about it was the fact that the interior was not much smaller inside than our lumbering M body 4 door. How could that be since it was some two and half feet shorter lengthwise and with one foot less wheelbase… not to mention about 1000 pounds lighter?? “Physics, Terry. Physics,” Neil deGrasse Tyson would say. Except in this case, “Science” is more likely a better term here and that’s mostly because I probably don’t know the difference well enough. Anyway, just imagine the M body emaciating itself to the bones and what likely would be left is the K-car — internals all being the same size.
Then there was the cool passenger side map-light in the visor that would flip back and forth making visor positioning irrelevant. Other cool features inherent to the design was a large trunk (again, perceptibly about the same size, if not THE same size as the M trunk), absolutely awesome front-wheel-drive traction, and the fact you could drive for miles on a flat rear tire and still reflate it undamaged once your found the hole and plugged it.
Going through university, I felt like a starving student (which is good for sympathy… you know for balance and equality), and was still able to limp this car around smartly even with an over-boosting transmission fluid pump that would spew tranny fluid anytime passing gear was used and cause white smoke behind. If I kept my foot out of it, the car would be fine. So at 300,000 kilometers or so, while the 2.2 engine hummed like the day it was bought, the tranny was robust enough to keep the car rolling even longer.
The car was reasonably peppy too, I might add.
So reliability and durability with a bit of zing were some great qualities our family and ultimately I had with this ugly duckling automobile. In the end it truly shined as the wonderful automobile that it was intended to be. Just like the lyric said in the million dollar song sung by the Bare Naked Ladies, “…a nice reliant automobile.”
I traded an 81 Bel Air in on an 85 Reliant. That Kar gave me over 300,000 kms of mostly reliable service. The only issue I had was repeated fuel pump failures, yes, multiple. I learned to not let the fuel gauge go down below 1/4 of a tank, and that eliminated further failures. The body held our absent of rust over 9 years of Ontario salt covered winter roads. I was quite pleased with that Kar.
My brother in law had an 87 Aries, and it was the best car he ever owned for reliability and longevity.
Very informative and interesting article! I did not know that the rear door windows in the 4-door sedans did NOT roll down in the first production year. What a cheezy, cheap, cost-cutting move. I feel the same way about 2-door cars of recent years; not only have they stopped rolling down, but they no longer even flip-out, as well! My Partner’s 1964 Pontiac Laurentian 2-door “post” sedan (with B-pillar), has rear windows that roll down. Anyway, here is a nice pic of the 1982 Plymouth Reliant from favcars.com, which shows the window “pins” of the rear-most flip-out portion of glass in the rear doors. And, oh yes, that snazzy hood ornament!!!
This brings back flashbacks to high school. A friend of mine drove an Aries 2-door, with the bench seat and manual trans in that same bordello red color. I rode with her once, and only once. I was very surprised to see that it had a manual trans. When I rode with her that bench seat was scooted all the way forward, to where the gear shifter was damn near touching the shifter. She was 5’1″ tall, and I was 6’1″ tall… so riding in the front seat was a very uncomfortable ride for me.
Yup, my wife is 5 ft and I’m 6 foot. Thank goodness for split bench seats!
When I worked as a contractor for the Department of Energy back in the early 1990s, we had a slew of stripper K-cars in the motor pool, all painted medium gray. And even more surprising, many of them had the four-on-the-floor. I drove one, and finding, not grinding, the gears was a real challenge as there was no real gating action left (if there ever was any to start with) in the shift linkage.
My dad had an almost identical ’81 or ’82 Dodge Aries 2-door (white, like the one pictured).
I don’t recall what options it had on it, but it had a 3-speed manual trans. And I’m sure it had A/C.
I don’t know whatever happened to it.
Love the mention of a clip-on reading light used for illumination when the dashboard lights quit working–we used the same lighting method in our ’79 Malibu after Dad and I shorted out the dashboard lights while installing a new stereo. Oops.
When the car eventually became mine they got the dash lights fixed, as presumably they didn’t want a 16 year old to have any excuse not to know how fast he was going!
1981 Plymouth Reliant aprx. 60, 000 miles
Must sell soon. Pictures available. Located Smith Mountain Lake, West Virginia
$3,200
607 786 8975 Steve