The Aspen, new and old
steve
be assembled in Newark, DE, the same plant as many of the original
ones. I know I used to live nearby.
Personally, I think that DCX made a mistake by reviving that name. The
origianl Aspen is to myself and many others a prime example of what was
wrong with the US auto makers back in the 70s and 80s. Yea I know it is
a completely different car and probably even the lug nuts are
different. But why reuse a name that brings back so many bad memories.
Should Ford bring back the Pinto and GM the Vega ? IMHO, they are all
in the same league.
Charlie Deludo
According to marketing research "Aspen did not leave an indelible
negative mark on Chrysler imagery, it's just not there." Of course
marketing people haven't always been know for making smart descisions.
kmat...@sisna.com
Names are re-used often. In the 1970's, AMC re-used the "Hornet" name
that was used by Hudson in the 1950's. They also re-used the "Pacer"
name that was one of the doomed Edsel names.
The "Lancer" name has been used at least three times that I am aware
of. Most recently, by Mitsubishi.
I would like to see the "Fury" name used again, but it would sound
strange without "Plymouth" in front of it.
-KM
OldeChrysler
<Rt309ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Should Ford bring back the Pinto and GM the Vega ? IMHO, they are all
>> in the same league.
>
>According to marketing research "Aspen did not leave an indelible
>negative mark on Chrysler imagery, it's just not there." Of course
>marketing people haven't always been know for making smart descisions. <snip>
I'd believe this. The Volaré/Aspen twins, while lousy cars, weren't
any worse than any other US-made cars at the time. Remember, the '70s
was the nadir of the US auto industry...they'd become fat, dumb and
happy and were abusing customers badly. You might recall GM's "less
car for more money" campaign, started with its 1971 full sized models
and later extended to its intermedates and compacts in '73. Ford was
scarcely much better, but had better build quality. Also, as if in
retribution for the passing of the Clean Air Act, US automakers built
and sold cars that wouldn't run acceptably right off the lot, blaming
"government intrusion." The dictum for the removal of tetraethyl lead
in '75 actually helped the automakers build better running cars. The
public wasn't completely oblivious to all this; the Japanese were
building cars that ran far better and got far better economy, even
though the material quality was shaky in the early days.
Against this backdrop, Chrysler certainly wasn't making any big fans
after about '72, but didn't sink into the abyss that GM did. Both
Ford and GM had really stuck it to themselves royally...GM with the
fraudulently engineered Vega, and Ford with the "exploding" Pinto, the
latter of which was yet another example of the Big 3's "non-thinking"
mentality. The Pinto, for what it was, wasn't all that bad a car at
all...certainly not very good, but it was the Ford design trademark of
using the top side of the gas tank as the trunk floor, a design
feature in nearly ALL Fords since 1961, that got them into trouble.
Their arrogant attitude about having customer pay for a $5 (plus shop
rate) "skid" on the rear end pumpkin, a policy that probably came
directly from King Henry II himself, is what did them in more than the
NTSB reports. The J-bodies, while really shaky cars early on, didn't
have the widespread reputation for crappy quality and engineering as
did Ford and GM cars, and they escaped the wrath of an
intergenerational bad reputation.
Funny this comes up, as I saw a Volaré wagon still in service,
although truly well worn, just the other day. When's the last time
you saw a Pinto or a Vega? For that matter, when's the last time you
saw ANY running Ford or GM car from the mid-'70s? For old timers of
that era, I see more Chryslers still in service than either of the
other two. While the J-bodies had lots of bugs, the basic design
proved to be long lived and hardy when it was stretched into the
M-body, probably one of the hardiest chassis designs of its time, and
certainly longer lived than competitors from GM and Ford. When's the
last time you saw an '80s Caprice or LTD on the road? Never. I see
M-bodies still running all the time.
Green Acres is the place to be
When's the
> last time you saw an '80s Caprice or LTD on the road? Never. I see
> M-bodies still running all the time.
there is a 67 Ford galaxie, and a 68 Mustang running around my town, used
every day
DeserTBoB
>every day <snip>
...and there's a '66 Ford Galaxie 500 4 door for sale a mile away from
me, also a "daily driver" since new. Ford was making pretty darned
good vehciles at the time, probably up until '71 to '73, when things
started going down the dumpster pretty fast. The '67 and '68 Ford
lines were probably some of their best ever.
>
Doug
wrote:
Bad comparison to use the 1980's LTD.
I've had both an '85 LTD wagon and the Mercury Colony Park equivalent.
Their 5 liter V8's were bulletproof with only one chronic defect: the
intake manifold gaskets would go bad around 70K to 90K miles causing
oil or water leaks. Their AOD transmissions, except for early
production units, were excellent.
I still see many in use in New England. Those that are not in use are
often laid up due to their poor fuel mileage.
The 70's to early 90's LTD's to me only have one major problem:
They are GAS hogs. Typically they get around 12MPG in the city and
around 18 on the highway.
My girlfriend back then had a 1977 Volare 2dr "coupe".
It's biggest problem? Rampant body rot within 5 years of production.
The entire bottom of both doors literally fell apart. I don't think
the interior panels of the doors were properly coated. The slant six
engine was fine.
As a matter of fact, I think that the Volare/Aspen used the same basic
mechanicals as the older highly regarding Dart/Valiant.
The only difference was the body design and lack of body quality.
Doug
Hachiroku
Isn't Aspen some Indian Dialect for "Runs slow, rusts fast"?
duty-honor-country
A close friend of mine built up a ' 76 Aspen, back in 1988. He pulled
the 318, and replaced it with an early hi-po 340, ported the stock 340
iron heads, added a tunnel ram and 2-4 Holleys, and a 4-speed. Geared
it with 4.11's
that engine would rev to the moon- and it launched like a missile. He
use to hold the gas to the boards and sidestep the clutch. The
G-forces it created were like flying in a jet.
it wasn't the most graceful styling body-wise, but a unique buildup of
old and new...
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>The 70's to early 90's LTD's to me only have one major problem:
>They are GAS hogs. Typically they get around 12MPG in the city and
>around 18 on the highway. <snip>
Meanwhile, a "P" code 318 equipped M-body could get 16-17 around town
and mid-to-high 20s on the road. So much for the vaunted 302!
Actually, the small block Ford was a good engine, but Ford's emissions
and fuel package was the worst out there at the time.
>As a matter of fact, I think that the Volare/Aspen used the same basic
>mechanicals as the older highly regarding Dart/Valiant. <snip>
Driveline, yes.
>The only difference was the body design and lack of body quality. <snip>
The J platform replaced the really durable and long lived A body. The
idea was to offer more car with the same or less weight, but the
execution wasn't good at all. Bad corrosion resistance was a problem
back in the "Rust Belt," for sure, as well as in coastal and southern
areas. Out here in the desert, where cars never rust, you'd never see
it.
duty-honor-country
2 more posts of yours, with no reply
give it up already- you've been KILLFILED
Joe
news:on35i2dqueqassbn8...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:28:48 GMT, Doug <sparks06...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The 70's to early 90's LTD's to me only have one major problem:
>>They are GAS hogs. Typically they get around 12MPG in the city and
>>around 18 on the highway. <snip>
Can you say "tune-up"?
> Meanwhile, a "P" code 318 equipped M-body could get 16-17 around town
> and mid-to-high 20s on the road. So much for the vaunted 302!
> Actually, the small block Ford was a good engine, but Ford's emissions
> and fuel package was the worst out there at the time.
Everybody had smog controls; they all sucked. On the whole, a 302 can
easily get upwards of 18 to 20 mpg if driven lightly. My '93 Mustang
gets 17-18 on the average.
duty-honor-country
notice how DeserTBob can only judge a car by it's mileage...there were
lot of great cars that are now highly valuable $100,000+ priced, that
got 12 mpg
mileage does not a good car make- my lawnmower gets good mileage too-
you wouldn't want to drive it to work everyday though...
good cars will have a solid, safe ride- be comfortable enough to drive
in for 6 hours with no problems- be dependable for years with minimal
maintenance work- have engines and drivetrain with high nickel content
steel/iron parts that dont' wear quickly- have styling that lasts- and
have plenty of power- and finally, be easy to fix and work on, and easy
to get parts for
GM fits all those categories the best overall
Joe
news:1159999992.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
An opinion at best, and certainly one I disagree with.
DeserTBoB
>"duty-honor-country" <dutyhono...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:1159999992.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
<snipping most of Noodles' BS>
>> GM fits all those categories the best overall
>
>An opinion at best, and certainly one I disagree with. <snip>
It's not an "opinion." It's Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA, trolling
again.
Noodles...go troll elsewhere.
Doug
>DeserTBoB <des...@rglobal.net> wrote in
>news:on35i2dqueqassbn8...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:28:48 GMT, Doug <sparks06...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The 70's to early 90's LTD's to me only have one major problem:
>>>They are GAS hogs. Typically they get around 12MPG in the city and
>>>around 18 on the highway. <snip>
>
>Can you say "tune-up"?
Can you say NO - it's not related to a tune up.
>
>> Meanwhile, a "P" code 318 equipped M-body could get 16-17 around town
>> and mid-to-high 20s on the road. So much for the vaunted 302!
>> Actually, the small block Ford was a good engine, but Ford's emissions
>> and fuel package was the worst out there at the time.
>
>Everybody had smog controls; they all sucked. On the whole, a 302 can
>easily get upwards of 18 to 20 mpg if driven lightly. My '93 Mustang
>gets 17-18 on the average.
Yep, and your Mustang is only about 2/3 of the weight of the LTD's
that we were talking about. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The opinions were expressed about the CAR, not simply the 302
engine...
Doug
Joe
"steve" <h90...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159816482.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> My first car was a '76 Aspen. I noticed that the new Chysler Aspen will
> be assembled in Newark, DE, the same plant as many of the original
> ones. I know I used to live nearby.
>
will. I had a slant 6 4-speed version - 25 mpg on the highway. I was
suprised they revived the name too. I suppose they are mostly remembered
for being unappealing. You can't say they weren't reliable, though.
I notice their advertising is now "more bling per buck" so that tells you
the target audience. They want to get Escalade buyers to take a Durango
instead. I guess that makes perfect sense.
Joe
news:2n59i21g3kcfpavha...@4ax.com:
Sure the LTD was heavier than the Mustang hatch, but almost the same as
the convertible. The LTD in good tune should get around 15/19.
Joe
>
> "steve" <h90...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159816482.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> My first car was a '76 Aspen. I noticed that the new Chysler Aspen
>> will be assembled in Newark, DE, the same plant as many of the
>> original ones. I know I used to live nearby.
>>
> Here's the really bad news. The 76 Aspen got much more mpg than the
> new one will. I had a slant 6 4-speed version - 25 mpg on the
> highway. I was suprised they revived the name too. I suppose they
> are mostly remembered for being unappealing. You can't say they
> weren't reliable, though.
Since the new Aspen is a gussied up Durango and the old Aspen was a car,
of course the old one will get much better mileage.
> I notice their advertising is now "more bling per buck" so that tells
> you the target audience. They want to get Escalade buyers to take a
> Durango instead. I guess that makes perfect sense.
Chrysler=upscale, Dodge=standard. Just like Cadillac & Chevy.
Jalapeno
Joe wrote:
>
> Chrysler=upscale, Dodge=standard. Just like Cadillac & Chevy.
I think Plymouth was standard. I'd say it more like "Chrysler=upscale,
Dodge=performance. Just like Cadillac and Pontiac."
But that's just IMHO.
DeserTBoB
>Dodge=performance. Just like Cadillac and Pontiac." <snip>
It was. Plymouth was Chrysler's head-on competitor for Ford's Ford
Division and GM's Chevrolet Division for years. Since GM has managed
to lose all brand identity through years of "badge engineering" and
morphing of all formerly semi-autonomous divisions into just combined
operations, DC no longer felt the Plymouth marque was of any value,
preferring to hold on instead to the more valuable Dodge marque as
their "bread-and-butter" line. A mistake? No...Dodges have been
gussied up/better equipped Plymouths and vice versa since at least the
mid 1960s. With that, they've also allowed Dodge-type product to slip
into the Chrysler marque, such as minivans and the PT, which in
another time, would've probably been Dodge branded products.
duty-honor-country
3 posts by you in this thread- with no replies
get the picture, troll ??
Joe
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Uh, Plymouth is gone. So DC's "standard" line is now Dodge.
Loosely put, Dodge is to Chrysler as Chevy is to Cadillac (especially
the SUVs), except on the GM side the performance is reversed. Cadillac
offers the most overall performance compared to the other GM divisions.
DeserTBoB
>Loosely put, Dodge is to Chrysler as Chevy is to Cadillac (especially
>the SUVs), except on the GM side the performance is reversed. Cadillac
>offers the most overall performance compared to the other GM divisions. <snip>
Odd the way things have unraveled over the years. Back when Chrysler
was the #2 of the Big 3, they were a full line manufacturer, with the
economy Plymouth at the bottom battling with Chevrolet, and a marque
to compete with just about every GM offering. Ford passed up Chrysler
due to increased sales due to Ford's completely new '49 models that
included popular Merc and Lincoln models. I believe Ford ran around
Chrysler in 1952, even though Ford was still clinging to its
hopelessly outdated flathead V8s, while Chrylser had such things as
Gemmer power steering, air conditioning and their new hemispherical
V8s.
In the '50s, De Soto competed with Oldsmobile directly, with flashier
styling and "Firedome" hemis. Chrysler chose to abandon that market
segment, probably because of Ford's resurgent Mercury lineup, in the
'60s. By 1961, De Soto was basically a stripped down Chrysler Newport
with a really funky looking grille, and nothing more. Dodge more or
less, especially after Exner started stirring the styling pot,
competed directly with Pontiac Division, while Chrysler itself ate
away at Buick. The Imperial competed directly with Cadillac into the
'60s, but fell flat later on.
Joe
"DeserTBoB" <des...@rglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gh7ei2d8uadnvnoev...@4ax.com...
It don't take much to keep you boys entertained, does it? This has got to be
the least interesting off-topic thread wreck I've ever seen.
Joe
DeserTBoB
>Well, _you_ read it, eh? <snip>
That's right, eh.
Which Joe is Joe??? Who's on first??
Joe
Count Floyd
wrote:
My grandfather wouldn't have anything BUT a Dodge! He really knew
that they were, as the ads said, "Dependable". He love FluidDrive as
he didn't like shifting, but still kept his left foot touching the
clutch out of habit! I wish that he would have kept his Dodges, a 50,
51,55 and his last one, a 64 Dart.
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"
Joe
"Joe" <nob...@home.now> wrote in message
news:Xns9855EE87B9...@216.77.188.18...
No. After you said "Dodge is to Chrysler as Chevy is to Cadillac " that was
as far as I got. You're right of course, and I agree completely.
Jalapeno
Joe wrote:
> "Jalapeno" <jala...@mac.com> wrote in news:1160141724.466423.160380
> @m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> Chrysler=upscale, Dodge=standard. Just like Cadillac & Chevy.
> >
> > I think Plymouth was standard. I'd say it more like "Chrysler=upscale,
> > Dodge=performance. Just like Cadillac and Pontiac."
> >
> > But that's just IMHO.
>
Yes, I know that. Hence the term "was". ;)
> ... So DC's "standard" line is now Dodge.
And this was the point of my article, Dodge is still the "performance"
line. Just because Plymouth is gone doesn't make Dodge "standard". It
was a less than perfect analogy to begin with, anyway.
>
> Loosely put, Dodge is to Chrysler as Chevy is to Cadillac (especially
> the SUVs), except on the GM side the performance is reversed. Cadillac
> offers the most overall performance compared to the other GM divisions.
Um, no. I see it as "Dodge is to Chrysler as Pontiac is to Cadillac".
YMMV.
Steve
> Joe wrote:
>
>>"Jalapeno" <jala...@mac.com> wrote in news:1160141724.466423.160380
>>@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>>Chrysler=upscale, Dodge=standard. Just like Cadillac & Chevy.
>>>
>>>I think Plymouth was standard. I'd say it more like "Chrysler=upscale,
>>>Dodge=performance. Just like Cadillac and Pontiac."
>>>
>>>But that's just IMHO.
>>
>>Uh, Plymouth is gone. ...
>
>
> Yes, I know that. Hence the term "was". ;)
>
>
>>... So DC's "standard" line is now Dodge.
>
>
> And this was the point of my article, Dodge is still the "performance"
> line. Just because Plymouth is gone doesn't make Dodge "standard". It
> was a less than perfect analogy to begin with, anyway.
That's the rub- its a very imperfect analogy as there was a lot of
overlap. I doubt that owners of Plymouth Barracudas, Roadrunners, or
GTXs would agree that their cars are "standard" (if anything, the GTX
was a bit nicer than its Dodge equivalent, the Coronet R/T- and I say
that as an owner of a Coronet R/T). And I doubt that you'd get much
argument that a slant-6 Dodge Dart is a "performance" car any more than
a slant-6 Valiant.
Fast forward to the 90s up to the end-of-life for Plymouth, and I still
wouldn't agree that Plymouth was the "standard" necessarily. However, it
was neglected to death. It never got an LH car, and its only "special
interest" car was the Prowler, which was a little TOO "special" for most
people.
>
>
>>Loosely put, Dodge is to Chrysler as Chevy is to Cadillac (especially
>>the SUVs), except on the GM side the performance is reversed. Cadillac
>>offers the most overall performance compared to the other GM divisions.
>
>
> Um, no. I see it as "Dodge is to Chrysler as Pontiac is to Cadillac".
> YMMV.
You can argue over that all you want, but the one definite is "Plymouth
is to Chrysler as Oldsmobile is to GM." I mourn the passing of both of them.
DeserTBoB
>Fast forward to the 90s up to the end-of-life for Plymouth, and I still
>wouldn't agree that Plymouth was the "standard" necessarily. However, it
>was neglected to death. It never got an LH car, and its only "special
>interest" car was the Prowler, which was a little TOO "special" for most
>people. <snip>
Saw a purple one on the street yesterday...I instantly wanted one! An
OEM street rod...a great project car, but not for the faint of heart.
duty-honor-country
especially for you, since no one answers your posts anymore, you've
been outed as a troll, and you don't even know your wrench sizes.
Prowler for you ?? that's a laugh...you're driving a 1978 HONDA,
remember ? Your other car is a 1986 Chrysler POS.
where would YOU get money for a Prowler ? Your only prerequisite for a
car, is gas mileage. You can barely fuel a 4-cylinder, let alone a V-8
performance rod.
Dave
>
> where would YOU get money for a Prowler ? Your only prerequisite for a
> car, is gas mileage. You can barely fuel a 4-cylinder, let alone a V-8
> performance rod.
>
The Prowler only had a V-6, not a V-8.
DeserTBoB
>The Prowler only had a V-6, not a V-8. <snip>
He wouldn't know. Charlie Nudo aka "duty-onner-country" (also aka
"D-O-C", hence the misspelling of "honor") is the "Dumpster Diver from
Drums." He thinks GM crap is somehow good, and only came into this NG
to harass and stalk me.
But yes...I wouldn't mind having a Prowler for a grocery
getter...except they don't hold many groceries!
Charlie Deludo
What do you expect from Charlie Nudo? He's only here to troll.
DeserTBoB
<Rt309ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What do you expect from Charlie Nudo? He's only here to troll. <snip>
...and to "dildow" himself.
who
Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> It
I
>never got an LH car
The best.
My '95 Concord is running too well to trade. Engine, transmission and
body are almost as new, with no repairs, just normal maintenance service.
Thank goodness Chrysler stopped making cars that interest me. <:)