AF: The NEW Ongoing Allpar Blunder Recovery System | Page 24 | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The NEW Ongoing Allpar Blunder Recovery System

Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Dave Z, Mar 26, 2017.

  1. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    “While the Omni/Horizon body was based on the European Horizon the domestic chassis was not. It was totally different and engineered in the U.S.”

    The engineers who developed it believe the main source of both chassis was indeed Europe, even though there were numerous changes for the USA. I didn't know that the 1.7 was from the PA plant (I actually owned a car made there, and met one of the plant engineers who had previously worked for a domestic automaker; he was part of the VW attempt to replace USPS vehicles).

    I will clarify/correct the article when possible. We're working on that, slowly, but we are working on it.
     
    freshforged likes this.
  2. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes:
    663
    I guess technically you are correct!

    It seem odd the European versions never got the superior chassis the Americans insisted upon.

    The European version is eerily Valiant like with torsion bars and upper/lower control arms.

    Conclusion:

    The K car and all its derivatives, including Mini's had a European designed front suspension.:(

    Width aside, the L body and K etc front suspensions are the same, control arms interchange.

    L body enthusiasts often bolt on performance/H.D brake and suspension parts from the others.


    Thanks
    Randy
     
  3. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    “Superior” is in the eye of the beholder ;) Allpar has the benefits and drawbacks of both setups. Not sure who designed the USA-type front suspension; might have been Europeans, it seems like it was when I read the interviews again. So yes, the K front suspension may have been European in origin, but it may have been done by expat Americans, too !
     
  4. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes:
    663
    In another discussion it was suggested the L body suspension was VW Rabbit inspired.

    Comparing them, both front and rear, there is merit to that suggestion.

    K car etc. rear was a different, a lighter trailing axle rather than the sturdy L body trailing arm.

    I've bought several books on European Horizons and find their option list interesting.

    Along with available PS/PB/AC, also are PW, PDL, Sunroof, head light washers, trip computer and more.

    Appreciate the discussion, accuracy is always the goal!!

    Thanks
    Randy
     
  5. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    The Rabbit (Golf) was based on the SIMCA that provided the basis for the L body cars... I would guess the K rear suspension was developed entirely within the US while the front suspension was borrowed because, well, they had little money or time, and a good setup on the Omni. But the K cars were larger and comfort was more important, they were replacing (in customer driveways) the Volare, Aspen, Fury (B-body), Monaco (B-body), etc as Americans downsized. IMHO, the Reliants were surprisingly nice cars when new, based on my memories from the time. I thought the ride was smoother and the body tighter than the compact rear-drive Mopars I’d driven or ridden in up to then.

    The Chrysler trip computer was developed in the US for the Omni!
     
  6. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes:
    663
    I'm not sure what the "Rabbit was based on a Simca" story is based on.

    Spiritually maybe, as "Hot Hatchbacks," but certainly not chassis design.

    The European Horizon suspension is entirely based on the previous Simca design.

    This design isnt remotely related to the Rabbit/ L body/KCar ??

    Thanks
    Randy
    [​IMG]
     
  7. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes:
    663
    Ironically, it seems as though Simca was not a fan of McPherson strut type suspension.

    The only time I found Simca used struts was 1954-1961.

    Some other European must have designed the L body suspension.

    Thanks
    Randy
     
  8. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
  9. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    Well, exactly. VW copied the earlier FWD SIMCA hatchback pretty closely. Then when SIMCA and Chrysler did their next generation car, it looked like they had copied the VW. Think Mac and Windows there. The story...

    1) Apple created the modern operating system (based on their memories of a quick trip through Xerox PARC — and paying licensing fees to Xerox — so it’s not a perfect story, but they went pretty far beyond Xerox, mainly because they did not get a lot of time in there, so they made assumptions about what they saw... assumptions which proved far better than the original work)

    2) Microsoft copied the Mac operating system interface — licensing it, again

    3) Mac OS X comes out. Imagine, now, if the media said, “Hey, that Mac OS X is just a copy of Windows!”

    That’s the situation we had with “Chrysler copying Volkswagen.” Except without Xerox ;)

    If you prefer, you could use IOS 1, Android, and IOS 11. Same story, except Google never paid Apple any licensing fees. (Apple had one of the Google chiefs on its board, which saw the nascent IOS, a huge, huge mistake on Apple's part.)
     
  10. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes:
    663
    I thought I had read all your links previously but this one clarifies the suspension issue:

    It appears Simca designed the highly successful suspension but refused to use it?

    Also, it seems to suggest VW copied the front suspension Simca refused to use?

    Or VW copied the 1954-1961 Simca, the only time they actually used Struts !!

    Good info!!

    Thanks
    Randy

    "Then, European management, under the influence of a Sales/Manufacturing lobby, insisted on retaining the Simca 1100 torsion bar front suspension on the basis that this would save a bundle of investment money (an attractive argument in Detroit at the time) and assure for the new C2 the reputation of the Simca 1100 for comfort and surefootedness.

    While this decision saved investment money, it also added a significant piece-cost and weight penalty to the C2, as well as some loss of front leg room because the torsion bar suspension required a higher floor pan than the originally planned McPherson strut suspension, which was retained in the American design. The relative heaviness and cost of the torsion bar setup was to penalize the European C2 throughout its life. I always felt that this was a bad decision.
     
  11. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    You got it.

    Thanks for digging!

    The USA version was better after all. I agree with Burt Bouwkamp but then, I always do, because, well, he’s my source of information ;) And if he was wrong at the time, he says so. (I haven't found any places I really disagreed with him, except in his view that Dodge should not make trucks, back in the 1980s. But then, SM agreed with that.)
     
  12. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes:
    663
    I love the history!!

    Seems like Sergio agrees with Burt Bouwkamp, Dodge shouldn't make trucks.

    Ram should!!

    Thanks
    Randy
     
  13. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    I can understand the rationale for both of them. In the 1940s-70s, Dodge was a midrange car, above the Plymouth/Chevy/Ford price class. You'd pay extra to get the Dodge version of a Plymouth. In the 1980s, Iacocca decided to make Dodge into DeLorean's Pontiac, so to speak - take the Plymouth and warm it up, albeit on a budget. Again, trucks didn't fit. Today, with Dodge as muscle, trucks fit more than ever, but then Dodge couldn't claim the industry's youngest buyers; and they want to make Ram global. For whatever reason, that's easier than making Dodge global (though Dodge did sell trucks across much of the world, they were a minor player in most of it).
     
    Ryan likes this.
  14. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes:
    663
    Agreed, I would have prefered the truck remained a Dodge and many still call them Dodge's.

    Probably will take a few more years for most folks to think of them as Rams.

    Thanks
    Randy
     
  15. Scrounge

    Scrounge Got parts?

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes:
    554
    The 1970 models:

    Chrysler, Imperial, Dodge and Plymouth — 1970 (at https://www.allpar.com/history/chrysler-years/1970.html )

    Under the Chrysler heading, the first paragraph says 1971, when it should be 1970. Same for the third paragraph, about the New Yorker.

    First sentence under the Chrysler Corporation, 1970 heading: "Vehicle sales rose a little from 1969" -- according to allpar data, adding totals of Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth and Imperial, production was 1,461,018 for 1969 and 1,284,301 for 1970. Only Plymouth production rose, from 645,140 to 723,747, mostly due to the introduction of the Duster. This doesn't count pick-up trucks, sales of which were low 6 figures for each year. I didn't find truck production data on allpar, but according to this Sweptline page, which used the Standard Catalog as their source, the total dropped about 30,000:

    History Pages: '61-'71 Dodge Truck Website (at http://www.sweptline.com/hist/prod_info.html )
     
  16. Scrounge

    Scrounge Got parts?

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes:
    554
  17. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    Sorry. Will try to fix this. That page could have explained why it wasn't produced, all right.
     
  18. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
  19. srtdrew

    srtdrew Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Messages:
    52
    Likes:
    21
  20. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,736
    Likes:
    20,205
    Oh, I did fix that... on the news page, the forum didn't update... sorry! doing it now
     
    srtdrew likes this.

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.