Joseph James
Senior Member
He deals with the media
Lee Iacocca
- Thread starter Joseph James
- Start date
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
Joseph James
Senior Member
What he says about closed markets overseas is still a problem today.
Too bad he was promoting dubious cars with real quality control problems compared to his competitors.Tough times for Chrysler then. I would argue BMW and Mercedes at the time were still relatively good compared to the Chryslers of the time and had much more prestige because of their history and cult following. Not saying Japan was playing fair but were extremely conscious of high quality and pedigree . I would ask him " How did the Germans sell cars there with their real estate prices? Did they have an advantage some how? And what were they? Poor quality the Chryslers were in the 1980's and I should know as I still own one. I tore the whole car apart and even to a newbie this was really a piece of unthought through piece of **** and design that was very last minute. Also it was slammed together with good intent but no care on the assembly line . Basically survival ,,,Lee was a very good salesman. A great pitch for a poor quality product and backed with alternative facts. After all THIS WAS HIS JOB.
Last edited:
In case anybody wasn't looking, GM has some pretty poor designs in the '80s, too. But it was "GM" and people seemed to be used to it. Cadillacs that got "treated like Chevrolets" had more rattles and shakes in them that you could count. Close the door and the hardtop B-pillar moved and the front seat back would shake. Others, used by their intended market demographic (i.e., old folks) and they seemed to hold up better.
After Chrysler ventured into their turbo 4-cyls, GM was putting a turbo on the Buick 3.8L V-6. The first ones had seals that would fail and the turbo would suction the oil pan dry, unbeknownst to the driver . . . until the light came on. PLUS, if the oil wasn't changed regularly, with internal deposits increasing, that'd fail the turbo, too. But then the Mitsu V-6s had sinking valve guides.
Assembly quality seemed to be a Chrysler issue, somewhat magnified by the UniBody construction. Not as many issues with the same things on GM cars, though, as they didn't vibrate as much, apparently.
Chairman Lee was a good salesperson, for sure. He put a driver's side air bag on all of his cars as GM delayed such for financial reasons, which put THEM behind and got Chrysler more sales as a result. It took GM several model years to recover, by observation. At a time when they were first trying to kill Oldsmobile.
Sub-optimal build quality plus some financial-related purchasing issues (as in the carb mouting gasket for the Slant 6 Aspen/Volare cars, which got major news coverage, as GM's THM200 transmissions (some of which grenaded as they were coming off of the transports!) didn't get any ink. Seems like there were some Ford product issues, too? Chrysler might have been "the worst", but the others were not that much less so, by observation.
ALL makes had their issues, one way or another, back then. Just that Chrysler's usually made "the news" as others didn't.
Mercedes had issues with their a/c systems not keeping up with the TX summer heat. They did NOT upgrade them, which is probably where the dark window tint use came from? Other Mercedes issues had to do with their new complexity in "technology", back then. Many BMWs needed a particular viscosity of motor oil (10W-60?) for best longevity. Which is where their "all maintenance included" warranty coverage came from . . . as Mercedes has issues with some customers and dealers putting less-expensive oil in their cars, resulting in engine failures.
And what about the first Hyundais? Or paint-peeling VWs, much less GM silver cars?
It seems that the best-satisfied Chrysler customers came form long-time Chrysler dealers, whose techs understood the cars and could explain to their customers why they acted/sounded as they did. In a manner the customers could understand and believe. Most so the mass-market larger dealerships only worried about "moving iron", with little attention to service operations, by observation. One reason that many had an average life of about 3 years under one owner/operator.
CBODY67
After Chrysler ventured into their turbo 4-cyls, GM was putting a turbo on the Buick 3.8L V-6. The first ones had seals that would fail and the turbo would suction the oil pan dry, unbeknownst to the driver . . . until the light came on. PLUS, if the oil wasn't changed regularly, with internal deposits increasing, that'd fail the turbo, too. But then the Mitsu V-6s had sinking valve guides.
Assembly quality seemed to be a Chrysler issue, somewhat magnified by the UniBody construction. Not as many issues with the same things on GM cars, though, as they didn't vibrate as much, apparently.
Chairman Lee was a good salesperson, for sure. He put a driver's side air bag on all of his cars as GM delayed such for financial reasons, which put THEM behind and got Chrysler more sales as a result. It took GM several model years to recover, by observation. At a time when they were first trying to kill Oldsmobile.
Sub-optimal build quality plus some financial-related purchasing issues (as in the carb mouting gasket for the Slant 6 Aspen/Volare cars, which got major news coverage, as GM's THM200 transmissions (some of which grenaded as they were coming off of the transports!) didn't get any ink. Seems like there were some Ford product issues, too? Chrysler might have been "the worst", but the others were not that much less so, by observation.
ALL makes had their issues, one way or another, back then. Just that Chrysler's usually made "the news" as others didn't.
Mercedes had issues with their a/c systems not keeping up with the TX summer heat. They did NOT upgrade them, which is probably where the dark window tint use came from? Other Mercedes issues had to do with their new complexity in "technology", back then. Many BMWs needed a particular viscosity of motor oil (10W-60?) for best longevity. Which is where their "all maintenance included" warranty coverage came from . . . as Mercedes has issues with some customers and dealers putting less-expensive oil in their cars, resulting in engine failures.
And what about the first Hyundais? Or paint-peeling VWs, much less GM silver cars?
It seems that the best-satisfied Chrysler customers came form long-time Chrysler dealers, whose techs understood the cars and could explain to their customers why they acted/sounded as they did. In a manner the customers could understand and believe. Most so the mass-market larger dealerships only worried about "moving iron", with little attention to service operations, by observation. One reason that many had an average life of about 3 years under one owner/operator.
CBODY67
Thank god for brand loyalty ,,so many duped and Chrysler survived.
Yeah like this video,,never mind computers,injectors ,throttle bodies, hall effects,,catalytic converters,O2 sensors,knock sensors ,distance sensors,, air injectors and turbo's ,FWD,wastegates etc.
Sure ,,they are supposed to be like that.
My 5 speed on my GLH turbo [first one not pictured above] I bought new was so vague and sloppy I couldn't believe it. I knew that because I owned a 1968 English Ford Cortina GT a Fiat 2 door wagon that were superb as well as a 1960 Mercedes 220 4 speed on the column and hydraulic clutch. No comparison. I complained and had to get used to it. I switched the tranny in the car above with a bigger chrysler 5 speed trans with a GETRAG German geared one with a cable not rod shifter out of a La Baron GTS Turbo II I found. . Same guys that make gears for Porsche. Much better. Chrysler knew what they could do ,they were not stupid but the bean counters ruled.
Last edited:
Most 1980s cars are crap, not just Chrysler.
78Brougham
"Chump"
Completely the opposite. I had my own service station at the beginning of the '80´s. The old timer that i got the station from, overheard me one time bitchin about working on "effin Ford's" all the time, he said Kenny, if it was for them you'd be broke. Lol
I asked him what he thought was the best, he said which cars do you work on the least, I said Chryslers, he says well you answered your own question.
I asked him what he thought was the best, he said which cars do you work on the least, I said Chryslers, he says well you answered your own question.
Why did they install scissor door hinges on that mustang‽
3175375
Old Man with a Hat
One look at the wheels should explain it...
69 300 vert
Well-Known Member
Don't forget the myriad of broken Chevy crankshafts just about the time the 12,000 mile warranty expired and all the leaky heater cores. Seems like I recall some Pontiac (301) crankshaft bolts falling out and taking the balancer / hub & pulley with it. I never saw any broken cranks on these, no damage to the crank, most of the time the belts kept the other parts with the car and undamaged. Just the bolt would be missing.
The big Chrysler complaints I recall was the rusty fenders and lock up converter problems? I loved my Mirada, but the trim, T-Tops, door handles, upper door trim just killed it for me, mechanically it was great. Somehow GM and Ford have teflon reputations but Chrysler has super glue for ANY problems.
The big Chrysler complaints I recall was the rusty fenders and lock up converter problems? I loved my Mirada, but the trim, T-Tops, door handles, upper door trim just killed it for me, mechanically it was great. Somehow GM and Ford have teflon reputations but Chrysler has super glue for ANY problems.
Newport 66
Old Man with a Hat
For build quality, you got it right. For innovation and engineering you can just invert the list as presented but give the nod to Chrysler. None of them had anything over the other in styling. They all were ugly.
I didn't even bother looking at the wheels
mikedrini
Well-Known Member
One of the best books I've read as it pertains to the auto industry was
Wildly entertaining.
Wildly entertaining.
I tended to reach a similar conclusion about GM products, back in the middle '70s. The Exxon station I bought gas at, the operator was an old Ford guy. He could make them really work well, with just a screwdriver and hand-held dwell tack, by observation, in tuning them. So he had many loyal Ford owners as his customers, once they found out about him. Still, the bulk of his business was GM products. Chryslers the least, by numbers.
One of my garage customers used to smile and say that he liked working on Chevrolets because "they were easy to fix". GM had some common issues, within their vehicle brands, BUT everybody knew about them and how to fix them . . . because they'd "been there before". Chryslers, on the other hand, didn't fare so well as it was "new territory" for so many mechanics, back then. Which directly negatively-affected the repair outcomes, by observation. Which further negatively affected the ownership experience. PLUS each brand had their unique feel, back then. Chryslers were just "different", compared to the more common and generic Ford and GM products. Flaky/short-term Chrysler dealers didn't help any, either.
CBODY67
Joseph James
Senior Member
I remember my uncle buying a new Reliant in the 1980s. He got sick of the voice alert pretty quick but it was a very reliable car. I don’t recall them having any major problems.
Chrysler first tried to engage the lock-up (as on a Charger SE 360 2bbl) at 27mph, in high gear. Sounded neat as the engine sound got quiet, but as the clutch was locked-up in "N" or "P", it couldn't disengage soon enough when the trans shifted into "D" or "R" (which higher line pressure), so "harsh engagement" resulted. Usually got worse as the cars aged out of their first miles, so a warranty issue (which a friend's new Charger did). On my '80s, the engagement is more like 53mph, so not in a critical speed range. But when it started slipping, it'd shake the car. OR when the input shaft splines in the converter wore, it just stopped.
When the converter would lock-up, some drivers felt "a skip" that couldn't be tuned out or fixed, BUT nobody knew why or what was causing it, by observation. Same with some Chevy Caprices, too! No amount of tune-ups could fix it, to the point I happened upon one Caprice owner who was going to trade his car for a new Newport for that reason. Might they have believed "They all due that . . ." without an explanation of "Why" or "What it was"? Probably not. But after that first model year or so, the complaints went away (at least for the Chevys).
As the fuel economy issues tightened in the middle '80s, the standard rear axle ratios on GM light-duty pickups went more "highway" than "pulling", although the deeper ratios were still optional. So, many dealers' operatives didn't put the optional 3.42 ratios with the now-standard OD Automatics. End result, on hilly terrain, the transmissions were constantly downshifting/upshifting. Just the way they were designed. In flat areas, no problems and possibly a mph or two more.
Customers would call up wanting to price a lower rear axle gear set. I'd ask what their problem was and also verify what was in their pickup. When they told me about the "constantly shifting", I would explain that that's pretty normal, after verifying their rear axle ratio. As the load on the engine would increase, first the torque converter would unlock (which was perceived as "a shift", but wasn't), then it'd go from OD to Direct, then reverse that order on the downside of the elevation change. Once they understood what was happening (which nobody else had explained to them!!!), I'd tell them what a used axle assy might cost from a salvage yard, against what the parts would cost to change the gear, using GM parts. Past $1K USD back then. Which would buy a lot of gas. So my suggestion was that when possible, to just trade for a pickup with a better rear axle in it, which I'd gladly verify if they'd call me. Of course, I couldn't advocate an aftermarket "fix", of which there were probably several. Unhooking the vacuum switch for the lock-up converter might be one. Of course now, with later electronic controls and (later) the more power engines, those issues disappeared.
"Teflon", for sure! Possibly it was becuase of Chrysler's "engineering reputation", which everybody seems to be aware of. Their expectations may have been much higher than for the more common Ford and GM "low cost/less sophisticated/few complaints" designs?
CBODY67
Similar threads
- Locked
