For Sale Here Ya Go Commando1

Status
Not open for further replies.
An 8.25 Diff...on most Formal's I've dealt with, the 9.25 was present. Another weight saving measure for 78, I wonder?

Dang these are pretty cars...I'm glad I have one.
 
Yes, I saw how clean this was underneath and I was thinking that's the cleanest "Formal" I have seen underneath. Mr. C in regards to the axle I could see Chrysler doing something like that. I think it could be a weight saving or cost cutting measure who knows. Probably the same reason they used a 7.25 rear in most of the civilian M-Body platform.
 
Stan is quiet...too quiet.


Nice looking car, good to see one in original condition. Still not my thing but easy to see the appeal.
 
What a time capsule. The car needs to be totally photo documented.

The fellow that I bought my 64 300 convertible from in 2001 also had a 1978 formal coupe that he bought new, drove it home and that was the last time it was out, It was black with silver/gray leather. The plastic was still on the seats. He's since passed away and I don't know what became of his cars. (He had 5 or 6 almost new convertibles, untouched in that garage).
 
An 8.25 Diff...on most Formal's I've dealt with, the 9.25 was present. Another weight saving measure for 78, I wonder?

Dang these are pretty cars...I'm glad I have one.

More than half of the 1978's had 400's and everyone that I saw with 400 had a 8.25 axle. The 1978's also had thinner glass than the 74-77 Formal's. Also the 78 door panel's have plastic for the area surrounding the door handle opening's while the 74-77's had metal. There were a few other weighting saving measures on the 78's that amounted to about 7 lbs in total weight reduction. A total waste of time and effort in my book.
 
I am drooling over this!

Too dang bad it has ATC II and velour interior!

Very cool to see one without a cracked steering wheel!
 
Well, it's only the first day of the auction and I already had to bail at ten grand. And it's not even a Salon! :BangHead:
 
Too dang bad it has ATC II and velour interior!

OK, someone help me out here. I really don't know much about formals. So it has ATC II. I thought ATC II was the second generation system used in the 1971-73 Chrysler vehicles. That is the one that used the big servo underhood and had all the hoses and wires going to it, and the base of the unit was bakelite so it always cracked after about two years. But this system in this car doesn't have that big servo underhood, only a water valve. Did they basically keep the electronics and vacuum system but put it in some other housing that was put inside the vehicle then and just make the water valve a separate, remotely mounted one under the hood? If that were the case, couldn't Performance Analysis Company rebuild that unit if it really was pretty much the same as the ones in 1971-3 except for the configuration of the servo/water valve? Otherwise, why would they call it Auto Temp II? I don't really have problems with the 71-73 systems in my cars since Performance Analysis can supply me with rebuilt ones that work fine. Clue me in.
Thanks
 
There are two generations of Auto temp II as you already have figured out.
I have often wondered myself why the two different ones didn't have different nomenclature.
I have the Manuals to both and I'm very much relieved I don't have the the first gen ATC II.

The part I find odd is it looks like the Autotemp used by Mercedes in the 80's was the first gen. Strange....
 
There are two generations of Auto temp II as you already have figured out.
I have often wondered myself why the two different ones didn't have different nomenclature.
I have the Manuals to both and I'm very much relieved I don't have the the first gen ATC II.

The part I find odd is it looks like the Autotemp used by Mercedes in the 80's was the first gen. Strange....

Correct. Mercedes Benz bought the license from Chrysler Corp to the first generation Autotemp II and kept using it into the 80's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top