Four generations:

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

Nice Pics and cool cars! I always wanted a K car convertible!

_________________


1968 Valiant V200-a Work in Progress

Thanks Todd.

I purchased that Lebaron May 19, 1982 at Framingham, Mass. It has gone 67,800 miles in twenty six years. That car had not been started since last October, yesterday I turned the little green knob on the battery disconnect, pumped the go peddle once, turned it over for two seconds, and she fired up.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

And the fun part is that these four cars were made by four basically different companies.

Dart made by the old/original Chrysler Corp (American, public)
K-car made by the new Chrysler Corp (American, public)
LH car made by DaimlerChrysler (German, public)
300C made by Chrysler LLC (American, private)

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

/6 Dan,

Interesting observation you have, never entered my mind. I was thinking what goes around comes around...

Engine & drivetrain configuration:

Dart, I6 or V8, RD, Ignition key in dash
K-Car, transverse mounted engine, I4, FWD, ignition key on column
Concord, V6 properly mounted north & south, FWD, ignition key on column
300 C, V8, AWD, ignition key properly placed back in the dash...

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

Meeeeeahhh (in the woyds of the great philosopher B. Bunny), get back to me when they put the headlight beam selector back on the floor and reintroduce the vent wing windows!

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

I didn't want to push the envelop too far wishing for a floor mounted dimmer switch, and the glorious vent widows to be reintroduced in 2010.

Do you realise that if a car had the wing widows today they would need to have a floor dimmer switch. That little post is so important for proper driving position as a place to rest ones hand it would be tuff to have to let go to fondle the multi tasker shaft for a quick dimming... Guad I hate those stinking stocks.

Yeah I know I'm stuck in the past, but damn it I was born in the past. Anyone tried out or own a Dodge Nitro? My wife, the non car person that can see no difference between a car and a refrigerator, has one of those infernal machines. After one cracks their skull on the door frame getting in, he is confronted with reverse multi tasker stock osmosis. There are two of the damn things located a odd angles covered in little unreadable icons directing one as to its function.

The west stock operates the dash lights, dimmer, driving lights, and directional signals... I think. The east lever operates the variable speed wipers front and rear as well as the washers front and rear none of the functions are intuitive. The problem with the right lever is that it mimics a column shifter. So I jump into that thing rubbing my head, grab the east lever and pull it into gear just like in my old suburban, and on come the damn wipers squirting their guts out... Gezzmrice that thing drives me nuts. I won't get into the madding shifter pattern differences from the 300C.

The Dart's lower left door hinge just arrived, got to go install it.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

Great line. I'm going to steal and use it.
This "everything controlled by steering column stalks" BS is the bastard child of GM's be-all/do-all turn signal stalks of the '80s (turn, beam select, wipers, cruise) and Japan's fascination with stalk controls. Somehow it's been Decided (I didn't get a vote...did you?) that the best way to do headlight beam selection is "push stalk forward for high beam, pull stalk back for low beam". Wrong! This is the worst way to do it. Way too easy to knock the stalk into high beam position while trying to operate turn signals or wipers or any of the other functions crammed onto that stalk. Just drive around all night with your high beams blinding other drivers, they won't care

It's right down there on the stupidity scale with Ford's "Push inward on end of turn signal stalk to honk horn" crapola of the early '80s.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

And what was the reasoning of getting rid of the foot control headlight dimmer?

That location makes lots of sense to me.

You have your left foot over the dimmer (the foot that doesn't do a thing with an automatic) ready to dim the lights when you're on a 2-lane country road (while your hands are busy steering)...........

_________________
Ed
64 Valiant 225 / 904 / 42:1 manual steering / 9" drum brakes

Wellll...despite my comments above, it's just as good a location if your car is automatic (no preference either way) and it's significantly better if your car has a manual transmission (your left foot's already got enough to do). The signal stalk location also facilitates a "headlamp flash" function you can't have with a kickswitch. Also, with the column location you can use a less costly switch (built into the turn signal switch rather than a separate switch that also must be waterproof due to the floor location) and you've saved punching/drilling and waterproofing two floor holes, as well as removing one "gotta get it right" indexing location for the carpet and carpet padding. These kinds of things add up at the production level.

I don't object to the turn signal stalk beam selector as long as it's the kind you pull to change the beam (low to high or high to low). As I've already complained, the "push forward for high beam, pull back for low beam" types are dumb.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Oh well, at least they don't have a push-button selector in the center of the steering wheel. What kind of bone head company would come up with that rolling disaster? Oh crap, that would be our Mother ship, wouldn't it.

_________________

...eh? :shrug: The only thing I can think of that fits this description is Ford's pathetic attempt at copying Chrysler's pushbutton automatic transmission. The Edsel had trans pushbuttons which I think were in the centre of the steering wheel. Unlike Chrysler's dependable cable-operated system, Ford's was an unreliable nightmare of wiring, solenoids, relays and we all know how well (not) Ford does with electrics.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Now, now. Remember, the Mach 5 has push button controls in the center of the steering wheel, and it's the coolest car ever...

(Although I must admit I don't know where the high beam switch is.)

Thank you very much, folks! I'll be here all night! Don't forget to tip your waitresses!

_________________
vm

That's funny, I was pulling down the driveway when I remembered that it was Edsel and not Imperial that screwed it up for the rest of us. I almost came back to make the correction before I realized that I just barely care. Confirm or deny this fact. The treachery and danger (my words) of the steering wheel pushbutton transmission paved the way for standardized column shift automatics. Just curious since I had heard this but never had any hard facts on the topic and like to pretend I know what I'm talking about when I'm really just full of it.

_________________

Nope. One had nothing to do with the other. The Edsel's electric pushbutton shift was long gone years before anyone had taken even the first hint of a notion to regulate auto controls and displays in North America. Chrysler dropped the pushbuttons (which even Ralphie Nader described as safer than a shift lever) because driving schools weren't buying Mopars due to their "not the same as GM and Ford" shifting setup, and Chrysler firmly believed that it was important to get Mopars into the country's driving schools to breed the next generation of Mopar buyers. I think that's kind of lame, but there it is. There are a lot of cracker barrel explanations for the end of the pushbutton trans. Fact is, not only were there no laws current or pending at the time, but there wasn't even a regulatory framework in which to make any such a law until 1968. The closest thing was that certain large-volume fleet buyers (government agencies, state motor pools, etc.) adopted a set of specs and requirements for the cars they would buy. Had to have reversing lights, had to have an automatic shift sequence that didn't place any reverse position right next to any forward drive position (the end of GM's dumb and unsafe P N D L R quadrant), had to have front and rear seatbelts, etc. In the absence of actual regulation, buying specs like this caused automakers to phase in what would now be considered (and was eventually codified as) improvements in safety equipment and performance. In North America, our vehicle equipment and safety regulations run very heavily towards simple codification of what the industry is already doing (i.e., what they want to do). This is still significantly true today, but it was very much more so in the 1960s. Whether codifying industry practice counts as meaningfully regulating auto safety (it doesn't) is a separate question.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.