Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Dave Z, Mar 26, 2017.
Many improvements, but "lob" is still there.
Oops. Got it. I've been spelling it out lately.
Spelling it out works.
I also noticed this sentence: "The electric starter, once the engine was running, became a generator to refill the battery." Years ago, at a swap meet, I talked with the owner of a 1924 Dodge, who showed me that the generator was enclosed; if something went wrong with it, the outer casing had to be removed first. This is an extra step that I didn't like, but if the generator and starter were combined, then it's probably good for protection, given the location. It looks like the '22 engine is the same design.
It's interesting to compare vehicles from different eras. We might look at the '22 model as inadequate for today's transportation uses, but it was a vast improvement over the '02 models, and probably over the '12 models.
That's interesting, I had no idea. It makes a lot of sense.
Yes, the ’22 was very good for its time, and just compare it to a Ford of the era!, but today... you can see how the 1924 Chrysler was a BIG HUGE DEAL by comparison. but look at a 1924 Chrysler and consider it's very similar in a lot of ways to this Dodge Bros, more so than to a 2018 300C...
The starter/generator of course is what we're doing today, again. It's pretty interesting.
By 1922, just about every car was more technologically advanced than the Model T, but Ford remained the sales leader because it was much cheaper to buy than all of the others, which was a huge advantage, coming out of a major recession. The Model T itself was a major step forward when it was introduced in 1908, and within the next several years, standardized parts helped Ford to reduce its price. But innovations by other makes left the Model T behind, and Ford's insistence on not changing it made it a running joke during the Roaring Twenties. The base car was so cheap because the electric starter and demountable wheels were options, when they were standard pretty much everywhere else. Compare it to the Volkswagen Beetle, which was sold well into the 1970s, despite being essentially the same car that was designed during the 1930s. Had it not been for pollution and safety standards, it might have kept selling in the U.S. (I think it was still produced in Mexico into the 1990s).
Agreed, the 1924 Chrysler was another major technological step forward.
Fred Zeder bio:
Fred Zeder: a biography (at https://www.allpar.com/corporate/bios/fred-zeder.html )
The first sentence of the fifth paragraph: "Recognizing his engineering department’s weaknessess, Zeder brought in Owen Skelton and Carl Breer to form a team with a new engineering approach." "weaknesses" has an extra "s" at the end. The first sentence of the sixth paragraph: "When Studebaker began facing financial troubles, Zeder decided to bring in Carl Breer and Owen Skelton to form a new engineering team." Redundant. Suggest combining financial troubles and the titles that ZSB had with the fifth paragraph, and removing the sixth paragraph.
Toward the end, next to the last picture of him, "Fred Zeder was appointed vice president of engineering when Chrysler Motor Corporation was founded in 1925, became a company director in 1927, was was vice-chairman of the board from 1935 to 1951." "was" repeated before vice-chairman.
I'll take care of that. Thanks.
I should put in the contributions of his younger brother, too, who some credit with pushing the original-Hemi’s performance (at least from a leadership position) and trying to sell Chrysler on differentiating itself through performance.
Where's that first part from? I can't find it.
Zeder reads better.
First part of what? You fixed the first part of the Zeder typos that I mentioned. Or did you mean the Model T? If so, that was just in response to what you said about comparing the '22 Dodge to that era's Ford. It came from memory; I have several books about Ford at home. Maybe I should have omitted it, since it's not a correction, and therefore outside the parameters of this thread.
Oh, that makes sense! It reads like something I'd have written, except without the mistakes
I've been reading up on this page on whether to use ATF +4 in my 1985 Voyager when I noticed the sentence "You can use ATF+3 with all older Chrysler transmissions (except some Jeeps as noted below)."
There's nothing noted below. It would be nice to know which transmissions are backwards compatible.
Chrysler transmission fluids: 7176, ATF+3, ATF+4 (at https://www.allpar.com/mopar/transmissions/fluids.html )
Jeeps with the Borg-Warner automatics are not ATF+3 friendly. Will update when I can.
It might be implied that ATF+4 can also be used on all older Chrysler transmissions; you might want to make that explicit, too. Especially since no stores seem to stock ATF+3 any more.
Yes, ATF+4 should be a replacement for ATF+3. I'll see if I can get an official pronouncement to that effect.
The $100 million look:
The Hundred Million Dollar Look: Chrysler for 1955-56 (at https://www.allpar.com/history/chrysler-years/chrysler-1955-56.html )
In the Dodge section, one optional engine for the 1956 model year was described as 5.2 liters and 318 cubic inches. The 318 was introduced in the Plymouth Fury for the 1957 model year. For 1956, the top Dodge engine displaced 315 cubic inches.
It would help if the engine sizes were reported in cubic inches, which is how they were identified then, instead of the metric equivalent. The Dodge wheelbase was reported as 3.048 mm (millimeters), which seems much shorter than it actually was. Removing the decimal point might make it closer to accurate. Same for the rest of the wheelbase measurements. I'd also like to see them in inches (or feet) rather than millimeters.
Start of the third paragraph in the DeSoto section: "DeSoto was clearly a step up from Dodge, and it styling, though clearly modern, was more restrained..." should be its.
It was written by a Canadian using European conventions, which is why it is the way it is. You're right, 3.048mm seems like an error till one realizes (as I think you did) that Europeans use commas where we use periods and vice versa; it's 3,048 mm (or 3.05 meters, or, um, around four yards?).
It would make sense to do this. I'll pass the word.
No, I didn't realize that. I thought that the author might be Canadian, but the periods for commas is new to me. Do they use the comma as a decimal point? One of the European conventions that I'm aware of is the British habit of writing dates in day/month/year order, instead of month/day/year as we do.
The length should be closer to 10 feet (or 3 1/3 yards); most of the wheelbases for the '55 & '56 model years were ~120 inches. My books are at home and I'm not, but I think that the Plymouth wheelbase then was around 115 inches, and the Imperial wheelbase was around 129 inches. The Chrysler Windsor models had 122" wheelbases and the Saratoga, New Yorker and 300 models had 126" wheelbases into the early 1960s. Don't know about Dodge & DeSoto, but I think DeSoto shared the shortest Chrysler wheelbase and the longest Dodge wheelbase.
I was just trying to convert meters to yards and I think the 3 inch difference threw me off. 3 x 3 = 9 — 3/4 of a foot. So 3.05 m = around 3.3 yards — as you say! Oops. I think you are right about DeSoto.
Yes, Europeans invert commas and periods from US practice. Canadians usually don't.
I think Quebec does that with the periods/commas
The rest of the country doesn't for sure. $1,234.56 is how we write numbers.
2017 Dodge Journey: Updated face and feel (at https://www.allpar.com/reviews/dodge/journey-2017.html )
In the 2017 Journey Crossroad AWD review, the second sentence says "The last major update was in 2011, when the Journey gained a major update, with a new V6 engine, suspension tweaks, and interior and exterior recoats."
This should be reworded to something like "The last major update was in 2011, when the Journey gained a new V6 engine, suspension tweaks, and interior and exterior recoats."
At another point it in the article: "The (optional) stereo itself was quite good — not the best FCA mades, but still far better than most." Should be the best FCA makes.
Or at least “the best FCA made.”