The GM and Ford guys had a head start on us.

[Kern Dog]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a theory to explain why the Mopar crowd may be behind the times as compared to the GM and Ford guys:
While Chrysler abandoned REAR wheel drive performance cars in the 70s, the other guys soldiered on. The Camaro/Firebird along with the G body Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Gran Prix and Regal Grand National kept the flame alive. They were the benefactors of engine management and EFI. The Mustangs packed a punch in the 5.0 and SVO cars too. The theme of "refining" the RWD platform into a good handling, good stopping car wasn't lost on the GM and Ford guys either. While our competition was still building tradional RWD cars, we were stuck with Turbo front wheel peel. The attributes of FWD performance don't cross over to RWD applications.
The guys today in classic Camaros and Chevelles are often using modern engines like the LS series. The modern engines are often matched with bigger brakes and upgraded suspensions.
If Ma Mopar had kept refining the Barracuda or Challenger instead of pulling the plug to focus on the Volare and Aspen, MORE of us would easily embrace a Modified approach to out Mopar build.
Instead, we have a greater percentage of stock or 90% stock cars that look great as a historical reference but are totally outgunned on a race track of any type.

[cdr]

WELL the fwd k car is what saved chry from diapering.

[68pplcharger]

I agree with what you have summarized about having a head start. The new Semi-Hemi is catching up fast 

[Aero426]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ma Mopar had kept refining the Barracuda or Challenger instead of pulling the plug to focus on the Volare and Aspen, MORE of us would easily embrace a Modified approach to out Mopar build.

You can't begin to compare the niche market 2-door E bodies to the Aspen and Volare.   The smaller cars were intended to be volume sellers,  and they sold a lot as people movers.     Gas was going up.    Fuel economy and emissions were a priority.    At the time, there was no benefit of electronic fuel injection.    1976 was a horrible environment for cars, and to sell cars in general.

No one liked it when they killed the E-bodies.   But in the perspective of today, it would be like saying that gas will shoot to six dollars a gallon,  "but we should focus on V8 horsepower".  

If they had not gone the FWD route, there would be no Chrysler today.   With limited resources, it was the only path to take.   The FWD cars and the ground work they laid for the minivan saved the company.  Period.  

[odcics2]

There is only so much $$$ to go around.

Here are the typical department sizes, back in the day. Examples given are for Competitive Teardown.

AMC  - 2 guys.
Chrysler - 10 guys
Ford - 25 guys
GM - 50 guys

We know what happened to AMC. Renault saved them long enough for Chrysler to buy Jeep. 
Anyway - see a pattern?  Chrysler is dinky!!   Not a lot of $$$ to spread around.  A business case is needed for all Product Planning.

As stated, FWD saved the company.   The original minivan did too.  The LH cars did too.   Grand Cherokees did too. (and continue to do so)  Rams do.

Also - the aftermarket guys tool up for the majority. Simple fact.  Wanna make a buck?  Make some Camaro junk!  Not too many guys buying 401 AMC tunnel rams these days...   

[Kern Dog]

I see the point made by a couple of you. I don't mean to piss on the importance of the FRONT wheel drive cars. I respect their history.
I saw Mustangs in 74-78 with crappy styling still selling.
The Camaro and Firebird sold well. Pontiac sold 98,000 Trans Ams in 1977 PLUSbase Firebirds and" Formula" birds. The market was there if Ma Mopar didn't shove the crappy Aspen/Volare on the public. Those turds drove away loyal Chrysler buyers with their atrocious quality control problems. A redesign of the Dart/Valiant series would have cost far less than the F body development did. They could have retained the E body cars and refined it as time marched on.
The engineers and bean counters responsible for the F body cars should have been punted in the crotch.

[Aero426]

The market was there if Ma Mopar didn't shove the crappy Aspen/Volare on the public. Those turds drove away loyal Chrysler buyers with their atrocious quality control problems.

The F-body models when introduced were pretty well received.   On the performance side, there was enough hardware to satisfy the 2 door sporty car segment without keeping a redundant low volume  model like the E-body.    Even though the E-body still looked good, it surprised me that it never sold in big numbers after 1970.   There was a large production drop off in 1971.

I agree that Chrysler did some of their development work on the F cars at the hands of their customers.   That should also tell you something about the lack of resources and perhaps the urgency to get the cars to  market.       

We had three F-bodies in the 70's.    The worst problem was the rusted front fenders on my '77 RR.     That was it.    The other two cars, a '78 and an '80 were no better or worse than the A-bodies they replaced.     

[Mike DC]

  
Take a B-body, bring down the quality control noticeably, and build the rear seatback about 12" thick to reduce the backseat room.  Does that sound like a popular product?  


That's pretty much what an E-body was.  The car was the answer to a question that not many people were asking.  When you got over the styling and performance of the shorter wheelbase it didn't have much to offer IMO.  It's all the weight & operating costs of a B-body with less room.  

We love the E's because it's an A-body with the B-body's hardware but that is a drawback to everyone who isn't after performance.  Who was breaking A-bodies in everyday usage back then?  Durability & versatility was already a strong point for the A's.
     
 

[odcics2]

I see the point made by a couple of you. I don't mean to piss on the importance of the FRONT wheel drive cars. I respect their history.
I saw Mustangs in 74-78 with crappy styling still selling.
The Camaro and Firebird sold well. Pontiac sold 98,000 Trans Ams in 1977 PLUSbase Firebirds and" Formula" birds. The market was there if Ma Mopar didn't shove the crappy Aspen/Volare on the public. Those turds drove away loyal Chrysler buyers with their atrocious quality control problems. A redesign of the Dart/Valiant series would have cost far less than the F body development did. They could have retained the E body cars and refined it as time marched on.
The engineers and bean counters responsible for the F body cars should have been punted in the crotch.

I owned a '74 Charger SE back in the day.  What new MoPars did you own back then?   Cuda or Challenger??  

[odcics2]

 
Take a B-body, bring down the quality control noticeably, and build the rear seatback about 12" thick to reduce the backseat room.  Does that sound like a popular product?  That's pretty much what an E-body was.  The car was the answer to a question that not many people were asking.



When you got over the styling and performance of the shorter wheelbase it didn't have much to offer IMO.  It's all the weight & operating costs of a B-body with less room.  

We love the E's because it's an A-body with the B-body's hardware but that is a drawback to everyone who isn't after performance.  Who was breaking A-bodies in everyday usage back then?  Durability & versatility was already a strong point for the A's.

       
 

There were times back then when "A" bodies sold over 300,000 units a year.   

[Kern Dog]

Sorta making my point here.^^^
The A body was a workhorse of the Mopar line. They sold so many, the F body was not needed. The K member and steering of the F, M, J and all the variants was a terrible design placing too much weight forward. The exterior styling was fine. I actually like the Aspen/Volare 2 door cars.

My original point was that if ma Mopar had made some better decisions and kept at least ONE rear wheel drive performance based car, we'd possibly have keept pace with the competition. I recall seeing 67-73 Camaros with TPI 5.0 and 5.7 engines in the late 80s. We had to wait until 2005 to see someone slip a 5.7 Hemi in any of our classics.

[RallyeMike]

.... but are totally outgunned on a race track of any type.

They still can't beat an Imperial in a smash to pass demo derby.

[Ghoste]

Part of the federal governments deal to co-sign for Chrysler when they went to the bank (not to loan them money from the fed as so often erroneously reported) was that Chrysler had to go all fwd if my memory is correct.

[Pete in NH]

Part of the federal governments deal to co-sign for Chrysler when they went to the bank (not to loan them money from the fed as so often erroneously reported) was that Chrysler had to go all fwd if my memory is correct.

I think it had more to do with the new Federal fleet gas mileage requirements that all auto manufacturers were going to have to meet. FWD reduced the weight of the vehicles giving better fuel economy. FWD had been used in Europe for years and was late in coming to the US. The oil embargoes of the 70's drove the demand for better fuel economy. Waiting in those gas lines so you could get enough gas to make it to your job was not fun.

On the E bodies, I remember looking at them when they came out in 70. They were as wide as a B body but the shorter wheel base gave them less interior room and a choppy ride. Aside from the new styling on the E's which wasn't bad, why would you want an E body when the B's gave you more room and a better ride. I suspect many others felt the same way. The E's are prized today only because not too many were built. And as mentioned the quality level was noticeably poorer than the B body cars.

[crj1968]

Man, I dunno about the whole MPG arguement. Those late 70's Cordobas etc with the 400CI were absolute pigs.

[ODZKing]

I'll add my  in here. 
Chrysler was always an inovative company.  If you have ever been to the Walter P Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills you would see MANY "way before their time" ideas that became reality thanks to Chrysler engineering.
The front wheel drive K car was meant to sell cars. They were cheap transportation for the family who could not afford more, not intended to last forever. And as was said here perviously, that and the mini van saved the company (with Iacoccoa) from going under.
They have always been willing to try to improve instead of just trudging along as GM has done all these years. I have always said that GM has come up with very few, IF any new improvements to the auto industry.  They in many cases take anothers idea and simply run with it. Ford is not quite as stubborn but they were not as large as GM either.  They had their own ideas, good or bad.
Did Chrysler have their share of mistakes, ooohhh yeah. Lean Burn, need I say more. Great idea but poorly designed and executed.
To say the front wheel drive was not worth trying is like saying the alternator (replacing the generator) was not worth trying either. Chrysler invented it, everyone else ran with it.
The company has gone through so many hands, it is hard to compare then to now, IMHO.
My dad was a Mopar guy, I am a Mopar guy and now that my wife "understands" she is a Mopar gal.
Frankly, I'll walk or ride a bike before I drive a GM.
Again, just my 


PS, every car I have owned has been a Mopar.
67 Charger
(2) 73 Charger
(2) Monacos
67 Fury
69 Coronet
78 Magnum
80 Mirada
(2) minivans
87 Lebaron
Ram1500, Avenger, Stratus, Sebring
just in case you wonder the Magnum and Mirada were 318 and got single digit milage.

[Mike DC]

 
Chrysler invented the FWD as we know it?  Not quite. 

[Ghoste]

Yeah, I love Mopar but you can't take credit where it isn't deserved.

[ODZKing]

I didn't say they invented it.