Chrysler Engineering reputation 4

[thruthefence]

Years ago part of Chrysler's marketing, was it's engineering expertise. Is it deserved, either in the 1950's, or today? I had an uncle, would only buy THEIR products, and gushed about "Superior Engineering" at every family gathering. Can someone point to specific advances that would give them this cache'. Or, is there more "sizzle" then "steak" ? Mass produced the "hemi" engine, pretty good automatic transmission; anymore?? Seems like they had an electronic fuel injection system, predating Bosch, in the early '50's?

 

[MikeHalloran]

Like me, they used to be good.

Given any cataclysm that causes or allows a company to shed costs, modern managers always get rid of their most expensive, and most experienced, people.

The unfortunate side effect is that 'the company' forgets much of what 'the company' actually knew... particularly the "dear school" stuff that nobody wrote down.

We are all reaping that harvest now...



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[CoryPad]

Chrysler has much lower technical capabilities than GM and Ford, not to mention BMW, Mercedes, VW, Honda...

 

[IRstuff]

Well, now... but 60 yrs ago...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_LLC

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[MintJulep]

I recently interviewed several Chrysler engineers. Didn't hire any of them. They were unable to explain even the most basic of fundamental engineering concepts they were challenged with during the interview. Things like force = pressure x area, or simple springs.

I don't know how representative of Chrysler's engineering gene pool they may or may not be.

 

[dgallup]

Chrysler built some '58 300D's as well as a few DeSoto's & other miscellaneous models with the under developed Bendix Electro-Injector. Nearly all of them were retrofitted with carbs by the dealers. Not exactly one of Chrysler's finest engineering triumphs. Bendix decided there was no future in the technology and sold the rights to Bosch. The early Bosch electronic injection systems used the Bendix injector virtually unchanged. The big improvement was in the control system.

http://chrysler300country.com/rise_and_fall_of_fuel_injection.htm

 

[ivymike]

I did a bit of consulting work at a big office of theirs in Detroit. The engineers I interacted with were analysis types (dynamics and structures), and they all seemed pretty sharp.

 

[TheBlacksmith]

At some point the good engineers were replaced by stylists and accountants. Of course without the dreadful "K-car" and its many varients, I doubt Chrysler would have survived the '80's.

 

[strokersix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

Can't say this car is indicative of better engineering or not but I think it's very cool.

 

[evelrod]

Sounds like "piling on" to me. I've owned a few, eleven to be exact, Chrysler products over the years...All pretty good cars and trucks. I have four Dodge trucks and vans now and they are all good, no problems. One has over 200,000 miles with only normal service! The 'high mileage' king in all the cars I have owned in the last 50+ years was my 1977 Dodge 360 Camper Special one ton pickup...it went 358,000 miles before my son finally traded it for a '94 Dodge/Cummins! It ate a transmission, but the engine was all original.

Also, one of the vintage racers in the club is an ex Chrysler Engineering type. He left in the early 90's to start his own company. 'He ain't no dummy'!!!
I've tried to get him to join the forum, "Too busy" says he.

Rod

 

[swall]

Rod--maybe he just had bad experiences with other forums where they heap abuse on those that actually know what they are talking about!

 

[ewh]

While it may not be as evident today, they were at one time on the cutting egde of auto design. I've always admired the Airflow and the advanced engineering it represented for it's time. If I'm not mistaken, they also were the first to isolate engine vibration, making for a much more comfortable ride. Of course, this was a few years before my time...
I wonder if Lee actually did them a favor, bringing out the K car and making them financially solvent again. Maybe it would have been better for them to die an honorable death instead of being remembered for those awful econoboxes.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - [small]George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003[/small]

 

[ewh]

Sorry about that, I guess I should have read that wiki article a little more closely...

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - [small]George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003[/small]

 

[IRstuff]

While the K-cars turned out to be duds, the basic concepts of a common-unibody chassis wasn't really a bad idea, in of itself.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[evelrod]

It would seem the fate, looking back, of many smaller mfgr's to have their innovations capitalized on (stolen?) by the so called 'big three'. A good example, among many, would be Studebaker. Another would be Hudson. Still another would be Packard. I can think of so many innovations over the years that were taken over by Ford or GM and made successful that simply failed to catch on with the relatively smaller companies.

Such is life.

Rod

 

[RossABQ]

Not sure why anyone is vilifying the K-car. When it came out, it was a cheap, reasonably built car, and a clean departure from the rest of the American herd. Reliability suffered because of the cost-cutting and inadequate corporate resources, but to view them in hindsight and say they were garbage is not proper. In my mind the worst thing about them was the continual extension of the platform designed for a 2400 lb car into ever-larger boats like the New Yawkers.

It also ignores their variants like the Lebaron/Lancer GTS, with 2.2 turbo's and a halfway decent chassis. Some Chryslers were first to use electroluminescent instrument panels, and the optional computer readouts for mileage etc were class-leading innovations.

I owned a '93 Eagle Vision TSi, with a wonderful 3.5L OHC engine and a super chassis for the size of car. Compared to a Taurus or Celebrity or comparable foreign jobs, they were great cars IMO.

That was then, this is now, and I don't see a lot of the innovative stuff coming from their corner.

 

[BrianPetersen]

The K-car only looks particularly horrible in hindsight - and when compared to some imports at the time. If you look around at what else was out at the time from the big 3 ... GM's X-cars weren't any better (different set of problems, that's all) and the Ford Fairmont was dated - Tempo was two years away.

But, compare a K-car to a Honda Accord of the day - as long as you were okay with manual transmission. Hondamatics only had two speeds in that era. Having said that, I still see the occasional K-car out on the road, and I don't remember the last time I saw a first-gen Accord out on the road.

 

[TheBlacksmith]

Perhaps I was hasty in my judgement of the K-cars. I owned a 1985 LeBaron convertible with the GTS suspension package and 2.2 liter non-turbo. Good handling (I scuffed up the tops of the letters GoodYear Vector on the front tires) before increasing the pressure 2 pounds above the pressures on the door placard and it was still a beast at 135,000 when I sold it. But expanding the concept to the extra sized vans and big cars was a little much.

 

[IRstuff]

I meant dud as a consumer desire. My mom had a turbocharged 2.2-liter Lancer, which could blow away my stock 2.2-liter Charger (Arrow)... bummer...

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[dicer]

Good running gear/powertrain. Bad bodies IMHO