74 on was a struggle, the movement to fuel efficiency and the reality of the detuned engines hit them hard on company that lived on durability and Performance. The incoming models were so inferior to models they replaced it was hard to reconcile. Some of the best model were left over like the Dart. I remember it well. They got into the capacity and accounting focused spiral where the product or customer was no longer the focus.

 

Having lived through those times, I think another factor was that...somewhere along the way...Chrysler had lost its spirit of innovation..."edge", if you will. They seemed to be just content to be a follower of whatever the competition was doing.

Even in the designs of the period it seemed that they were warming over GM designs from the previous model year or two.

I suppose another word that would have described the time would be complacency.

 

Chrysler sold fewer cars, therefore the costs of new regulations (fuel economy, emissions, safety) hit them harder.
This is why, despite protests of chasing margins rather than volume, volume still counts for a lot.
GM sold 4.7 million cars in 1976, Ford sold 2.5 million, and Chrysler 1.1 million.
The cost to research and develop the solutions would not vary significantly per manufacturer so, for example, emissions costs would add around 4x the cost to a Chrysler Corporation car as it did to a GM car.
At the time anti-trust laws were very strict. Each of the Big 3 had to develop solutions separately. Only AMC benefited somewhat from the work other manufacturers did. However, the Japanese were free to share these costs among themselves if they so desired.

 

And let's not forget that they were also wasting precious resources on overeseas operations that they never should have acquired. Once again, bad management decisions almost sunk the company. They already bought components from companies like GM, so it wasn't prohibited. As I recall engines that required A.I.R. pumps used GM models. They cheapened the F bodied cars and they rusted front fenders bad. This made national news. I can go on and on. Not a good decade for them at all.

 

Bingo!!

It's too bad historical current events topics are banned here.

Rochester engineer Doug Roe called-- it -- a pell-mell rush to disaster.

Thanks
Randy


[QUOTE="valiant67,
At the time anti-trust laws were very strict. Each of the Big 3 had to develop solutions separately. Only AMC benefited somewhat from the work other manufacturers did. However, the Japanese were free to share these costs among themselves if they so desired.[/QUOTE]

 

It's too bad historical current events topics are banned here.

Wut?

 

"It's too bad historical current events topics are banned here."

Is that right?..... Is it breaking some kind of rule bringing up the real Chrysler Corp?

 

The real Chrysler Corp

Will the real Chrysler Corporation please stand up?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMS_DdEnYZ0

 

I’m still not sure what a “historical current event” is?

 

Sounds kind of like an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp.

 

In addition to the above mentioned engineering problems, the company management was taken over by John Riccardo, a "bean counter", rather than a car guy like Lynn Townsend had been. As mentioned above, those of us that had been raised with Chrysler Corp vehicles renowned for durability and performance slowly became disillusioned with what began to come down the Chrysler assembly lines after about 1974.

IMO, the company has never been able to get back to the durability and reliability level and reputation that they had back in the 60s and early 70s.

 

I really wish I could hit "like" button 1000 times. Riccardo was absolutely the wrong guy, Robert Anderson would've been the right guy. This wasn't the first, or last time the wrong guy led the company. 74 to about 82 or 83 wasn't a good time in their history.

Link to Bob's obit. Robert Anderson, 85; made Rockwell an aerospace titan (at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-nov-03-me-anderson3-story.html )

 

Economy of scale had a lot to do with it. Having to develop technologies independently was another. Diversity from the core business was yet another (except that the defense and Huntsville divisions may have been profitable). Federal requirements for passenger cars for emissions and safety regulations cost the smaller companies dearly.
I was at Highland Park engineering in 1977 on a field trip.
Engineers were spinning a door latch with a weight on it in a centrifuge to see at what 'g's' the latch would fail. There was a Federal spec on the g-force required to break the latch open.
They were measuring the torque required to raise and lower a door glass with an inch-pound torque wrench at the crank handle. Of course the door assembly didn't have a trim or bolster panel attached. There was a Federal spec on that limit as well. Later in the field, we would find out that those torque measurements were bogus as the bolster trim rubbed the glass and made the window very stiff to roll up. It also scratched the glass.
This was just the tip of the iceberg for Federal interventions and rush to development while the engineers could be spending more time and money actually making cars better in a smarter way.
I am all for well-executed, safe and clean vehicles, but Chrysler may have been hamstrung and wasteful more than most other manufacturers. It was a big company at the time, but they seemed to fall the hardest when it came to being adaptable and lean.
They seem to almost go out of business about every 10 years and wind up reinventing the company and clawing their way back from the precipice. Morale tanks and the company implodes. I hope that those days are over.

 

I'm sure what you're saying is correct as well. But after reading the companies history from about 73 to 79, I still can't put a finger on why their cars fell out of favor with the consumers. There was also the recall issues. In those days recalls almost stood for "failure". They were saddled with the biggest recall in auto history(later replaced by GM and it's crappy x-cars). It just seemed like everything that could be made a big deal of, especially with the media went against Chrysler. Chrysler's management and factories at the time needed an overhaul. Neither of which happened until Lee I stepped into management position.

Playing from behind didn't help as well as they fell into a trap of coming out with "right" cars late in the game. They were so straddled keeping up with Federal laws that the closest thing getting ahead was just breaking even. The Carter administration had basically told Chrysler, "you got yourselves in this mess, and you can dig out of it as well."

But when Lee took over and saw how the company had been managed it became apparent to him that he had a total mess on his hands. After Lee had really gotten into the past workings of the company from management, engineering and communication with the factories stand point, you wondered how they were able to produce what they did.

A LOT of Chrysler's downfall could be contributed to the oil embargo as well. Once that set in the fickle consumer now demanded gas mileage cars. The media acted like the entire problem was somehow Detroit's failure at producing nothing but big thirsty cars. They needed a whipping post and Chrysler was a convenient source. 1979 was the end of the road.

 

I do not troll.

Which part is untrue??

valiant67 and myself obviously read the same book re emission collaboration.

Thanks
Randy

PS: I see you liked valiant67's post on the topic!!!!

"Each of the Big 3 had to develop solutions separately. Only AMC benefited somewhat from the work other manufacturers did. However, the Japanese were free to share these costs among themselves if they so desired."

 

I highlighted the part of your quote that was untrue. I'll post it again so that it's clear:
These topics have been traditionally banned at Allpar as they are considered political.

 

My first new car was a 1979 chevy Malibu. My dad had a friend there so I got a deal. I ordered the malibu, there wasn't a ss option but I ordered it option out like one. 305 was the biggest engine I could get. It was the worst car I ever owned. long story short....By 79 The F body at chrysler had all the bugs worked out and was better then chevy and ford. I could've got a much better drivetrian 318 or even a hot 360. In 79 the F and B body was better then chevy or ford.

 

Caught out with no small car or equivalent when the gas crisis occurred didn't help. By the mid 70s Ford had the Mustang II and Pinto, GM the Vega/Monza derivatives. VW's Rabbit, Toyota's Corona, Corolla, and Celica, Datsun's B-210 the decision not to match Ford GM and AMC in the subcompact arena was a bad one.

Thankfully Chrysler had the Dart and Valiant [near midsize rather than sub or compact] and while way larger than the other manufacturer's offerings sold massively well.

But they were caught out with a line of major gas hogs. The Cricket didn't add much volume, nor did the Colt from Mitsubishi, sort of the same as the others but not the same [and ironically in the case of the Colt, better cars than Vega, Pinto and Gremlin]. People were running from big cars with their 10 mpg fuel consumption

Chrysler also laid off a bunch or engineers in the mid 70s according to "Going For Broke" a book that chronicles the 70s at the company. That torpedoed the quality control on the F Bodies and added to the decline of their reputation.

 

We could wonder what if Chrysler had a plant to make the Cricket in North America instead of importing it from the UK if things could had been different? Some others had saw a bigger potential for the Cricket-born Hillman Avenger derivative Dodge 1500 in Argentina when VW acquired Chrysler South America operations and continued to make the Dodge 1500 to the early 1990s. The same question could be applied for the Simca 1100 alias 1204.
Simca 1204 USA: la frenchy de Chrysler ! (at https://www.carjager.com/article/simca-1204-usa-la-frenchy-de-chrysler )

I always thought then the Datsun B-210 was a subcompact when the Datsun 510 was a compact but the 510 was replaced by the lesser successeful 610 and 710. One big mistake from Datsun until they do a more bigger one by replacing the Datsun name by Nissan.

 

Here is the distinction;
You can discuss current and former reactions of Chrysler and and the auto industry to regulations.
Where topics go off the rails is when politics are injected and the discussion moves to the validity or non-validity of the regulation. That’s when topics get shut down.

 

I'm still a bit confused and am trying to figure out the difference between these 2 posts:

You posted:

"At the time anti-trust laws were very strict. Each of the Big 3 had to develop solutions separately. Only AMC benefited somewhat from the work other manufacturers did. However, the Japanese were free to share these costs among themselves if they so desired."

Thinking along the same line and in agreement I posted:

"Some of Chryslers problems were self inflicted but many were due to the federal govt.

EG: Illegal for Ford, GM and Chrysler To collaborate on emissions where the Japanese could.

Etc, Etc, Etc......"

There are many more regs I think were detrimental but I only responded in agreement to your post.

Then Bob Lincoln commented on my post:

"Absolutely ridiculous and untrue. This is trolling."

I can't see why I'm a lying troll and you are not.

For the record, I don't think your post was trolling or in any way incorrect.

Anti-trust laws are no doubt govt laws.

I'm sure we have read the same books, mine was not opinion, I also read it and agreed with you.

At the same time, Bob Lincoln gets to openly disparage me and my post.

For the record I try and post things I know to be true, not just my opinion, unless clearly stated.

Also, I think it's unfair some members are allowed to bash other members, while others are not.

Not that it matters as I would never accuse another member of lying and or trolling.

Thanks
Randy

 

We had an R body. Other then the trans issue it was a decent car. Can you elaborate?

 

I remember reading a study on these cars years ago. There were several examples, but the only one I remember now is that the paint was mismatched between the metal body, the fiberglass (like the header panel) and the soft bumper fillers. Plus they built these cars (and others) stacking them up on lots to keep the factory running. Then pushed them off to dealers.

 

Remember the Simca connection actually became the Horizon.

The two cars that the company actually sold thousands of were the Horizon and Omni. It was another case of having a product come out late in the game. And they were good cars but Chrysler needed to sell more than one line to stay afloat.

 

And that could've been. Our car was an ordered car. It was black with a red interior. It also had their first electronically tuned radio which the dealer advised us not to get. We did anyways. I've been racking my brain trying to remember what our friends car had that made it come with a 360 4bbl and 727. It had to.have been trailer tow, because ours had what was called open road handling package. This was basically a police suspension with heavier springs, bigger shocks and rear sway bar. His though had increased cooling and even a power steering cooler. I remember on the left valve cover it said Windsor engine, premium 360.

 

There were only a few ways to get a 360-4 in the R body:
1) You ordered a police car, code A38 on the data tag. Generally not for the public to order.
2) You ordered the A36? (I think) heavy duty trailer prep group. This gave you the same 360 motor the police got, the 727 transmission, and 3.2 gears (at least in 1979). This option may have disappeared for 1980 and was definitely gone for 1981.
3) You ordered the 360-4 emissions motor. This motor was identified by a J code in the VIN (unlike the L code motors above). This wasn't a HD motor so it likely had the 904 based transmission. You had to either get California emissions or high altitude emissions packages to get this motor.

 

I know it wasn't a police car. He bought it new in 79. So It had to be trailer tow.

 

The 1979 Chrysler New Yorker 5th Avenue edition was a 360-4v and dual exhaust standard. It originally came with one 2-tone paint scheme. Later, more 2-tone combinations were added.
It was a premium luxury car with everything on it.

 

My father didn't like the color it came in, so he ordered a regular New Yorker. We had a 77 before, but the 79 got really good mileage for the day and was way more nimble. But I still like the big Imperial/New Yorkers styling to this day.

 

I did not accuse you of lying. I said that it was untrue. Lying is a deliberate untruth. Untrue statements are simply that, not true.