For Sale At least it's a 4-speed.........

Status
Not open for further replies.
to their credit, sellers put a bunch of underside pics on auction. don't think anyone can say they are hiding anything in that regard.:)

here's ten of them .. you folks can form their own judgments.

I don't see anything that would have me "running for the exits" under here. Pass. side front subframe (pic 7) looks pretty bad if you can poke a finger through it.. but those have been repopped for FMJ's.

quarter panels low, from behind doors/wheel wells ... that bugs me the most, versus underside, cuz its a lotta metal/welding/finishing work potentially (or a bunch a body filler to half-a** do it) to restore as good used/NOS quarters for this car would be darn hard to find.

I still like it.. hope it does well for seller and ultimate new owner.

leb1.jpg
leb2.jpg
leb3.jpg
leb4.jpg
leb5.jpg
leb6.jpg
leb7.jpg
leb8.jpg
leb9.jpg
leb10.jpg
 
Amzingblue82 - I always like seeing your ebay auctions, you always have neat stuff, you've collected things other folks typically ignore pass by.

I agree on this car, it's a little crusty but nothing that can't be fixed over a few weekends, and it doesn't need to be repaired to satisfy purists, only to be structurally sound. To be realistic, this car is unusual, but would we be touting it if it was an automatic? If not, then IMHO just a 4-spd doesn't magically turn it into desirable. To me, this is not one of the best-looking LeBarons, I like the 80+ versions a bit better. This car would never be worth much, IMO, so converting a pristine car AT to MT would be a better choice if the goal is to shift a LeB. Personally, I'd rather shift an Aspen RT or a Volare RR instead. Or convert a SuperCoupe to MT.
 
thanks fury fan. like most folks, "I like what I like" and sometimes that leads me to cars that were under-appreciated by the masses :).

i really like this era LeBaron styling-wise tho. and as a t-top, four speed, deep dish road wheels (INTACT by the way), M body (maybe only 2-3 models years availability - 77-79?) this is a rare, rare Mopar.

I would not have ordered it as a manual back then, but i'm glad somebody chose to. youre right .. it may NEVER be "desirable" except to a few of us .. but that's the beauty of our hobby. something out there for everybody.
 
Reportedly the main issue with the ODs is that they were cost-reduced and the bushings for the shafts riding in the case were insufficient and so the cases will wear. But that is fixable, and/or you swap in an earlier cast iron case?

In addition, when running in 4th with a 1:1 4-speed the 2 shafts are locked and there is no gear mesh. With an overdrive the torque path goes from input shaft to countershaft and to the output shaft, so there is gear mesh and side-loading on the shafts, which adds to the bushing-case issue.

Another issue is the gear ratios, the OD has a 3.09 1st gear. For any given transmission with the same centerline distance between the mainshaft and countershafts, the trans with a deeper gear ratio will be weaker, due to the small gear getting even smaller, which reduces torque capacity.


I'd say instead of building an LA318 that installing a 5.2 Magnum would be even better. I think the OD trans would handle it fine provided it wasn't already worn.
You are right but the rear will break before the 3:1 first gear.
 
I came across that car a couple years ago on a craigslist search....doesn't look like much has changed on it. Very neat car, and I would love to own it...but just too many projects right now, and we are in the middle of moving 500 miles to a new area.
 
D24 is 4 spd w/OD, I think. So isn't that 5 speed technically? Get rid of the lean burn and rebuild the 318 with flat tops, higher duration cam, etc etc and you have a really cool driver. Question is, would that trans be able to handle the higher torque? Is that still an A833 variant?
No, it's a 3-speed with OD. Look at the picture of the shifter itself - 4th gear says OD. Ford and GM did this regularly with many of their mid-sized cars.

Do you remember the Dodge Pickup "Mizer" offering? It had the same transmission and a /6 motor.
 
Saw that on Moparts yesterday. ...I ALWAYS liked them since the day I saw the first ad on tv.

ok Dave, I found a difference in our tastes which are often similar.
I wouldn't buy it. I wouldn't drive it. I don't like compact cars.
 
I personally feel that this car was beat with an ugly stick but that's my opinion..
a lot of car went through this stage in the late 70's and early 80's...

The 4 spd is interesting though
 
Changing the wheels and tires would do a lot for the appearance. They wheels may be original and tires period correct but they bring it way down IMHO. Some COP rims and chrome lug nuts with RWL BFGs would really make it look cool.

and change the carpet and clean those seats up. GTG for 4 speed OD cruisin
 
It's not a compact.....

quite the polarizing design .. almost 40 years later it seems. that's my recollection .. people either loved it or hated it :) .

yeah, its not a "compact". at 3500 lbs and 17 feet long (my 2014 Chevy Tahoe SUV is 17 feet long btw) it was a "midsize" back then.

then, everything got small, and boxy, and way under-powered for the next decade or so :(

1978 Chrysler LeBaron-06-07.jpg
1978 Chrysler LeBaron-12.jpg
 
then, everything got small, and boxy, and way under-powered for the next decade or so :(
84 brought a spark of hope, although not a Mopar, with the 200hp Mustang GT engines in LSC and some Bill Blass. 87-92 brought the increased 225hp of the Mustang. And readily modifiable cheaply.

I wish there had been an Imperial version of this with 5.2 or 5.9 Magnum and with sportiness included.
1989-lincoln-mark-vii-americanlisted_30187243.jpg
 
84 brought a spark of hope, although not a Mopar, with the 200hp Mustang GT engines in LSC and some Bill Blass. 87-92 brought the increased 225hp of the Mustang. And readily modifiable cheaply.

I wish there had been an Imperial version of this with 5.2 or 5.9 Magnum and with sportiness included.
1989-lincoln-mark-vii-americanlisted_30187243.jpg

you're exactly right with vehicles you mentioned. probably a few others will come to mind if i think about it.

so not "everything" was a "box" and at 225 "net" horses in the late 80's was almost 300 "gross" horses in the pre-1972 era -- and with much better fuel economy given the cars were lighter/smaller and other improvements in air flow, tires, engine management, etc. by the end of the 80's.

but some "old timers" like me, who grew up on, or lived through, or wanted, or drove, or learned to drive on, or owned "big block" (6, 7, and 8+ liter mills) factory V8 cars, lamented that whole emissions driven/oil shortage/downsizing era, that rolled into the "pokey boxes" that were pale "shadows" of their predecessors of the previous 15 years.

at least some people lamented the largely bland 80's .. like me:).
 
but some "old timers" like me, who grew up on, or lived through, or wanted, or drove, or learned to drive on, or owned "big block" (6, 7, and 8+ liter mills) factory V8 cars, lamented that whole emissions driven/oil shortage/downsizing era, that rolled into the "pokey boxes" that were pale "shadows" of their predecessors of the previous 15 years.

at least some people lamented the largely bland 80's .. like me:).
I get that, too. My first car was a 77 Cordoba with a 400 (not exactly fast, but had great top end with 2.45 gears). My second car was an 80 Cordoba with a 120hp 318 and 2.45. Tremendous slug.
 
I wish there had been an Imperial version of this with 5.2 or 5.9 Magnum and with sportiness included.

You could always grow your own from a 81,2,3 Imperial and a rotted late model 2wd pick up, god knows a 04-05 ram with a 5.7 hemi in Indy is already flapping its bedsides and needs to be scrapped
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top