Memories, SWEET memories. I had an '89 Reliant LE 2 door from '94 to '97 and it was like a Timex, took a lickin' and kept on tickin'! My car looked like a MAACO model. Mint condition on the one side, JACKED UP on the other side (I got hit by a bus and STILL kept goin')!
Shockingly all that happened was a scratch on my rear bumper, but that loud pop scared the bejesus outta me big time! Like I said, baby, MEMORIES indeed.
@indyfan22k heck no. The K's were totally Chrysler engineering, bumper to bumper, except for that sorry 2.6 from Mitsubishi. The K platform was reused to build the Caravan and Voyager, Lancer, 400, 600, New Yorker, Dynasty, Lazer, Daytona, Shadow, Sundance, LeBaron, and others. It made Chrysler a heaping load of money which they then invested in the next generation of cars that again, leapfrogged everyone... The Viper, Neon, Ram, Intrepid, Stratus, and related - which beat everyone.
They should have had a V6 option in this by the late 80's. WTF Chrysler. Even the lowly Cavalier had a V6 option. Even the Citation had a V6 engine! Even the mother loving Ford Tempo had a V6 engine. I rented one of these in the late 80's and it was so slow I got angry at it. I muttered nasty words about an inanimate object, does that make me nutty?
they wernt going to put a v6 in these since they already were doing good with the 2.2l/2.5l chrysler motors that were put into them they didnt because of that and they didnt want to because they wanted to keep the gas milige up and they only wanted them to be a 4 cylinder car not a v6 and plus the aclaim/spirit that replaced the -kcars had the option of having a 3.0/3.3lv6
@Silvertrine Why? The 2.2 and 2.5 turbo engines had a LOT more oomph than did the competitor's V6. The Mitsu 3.0 wasn't a good engine, as the 2.6 Mitsu wasn't either. Finally, the 3.3 Chrysler was introduced, which had an awesome run, for an an awesome engine, for many years. Incredibly reliable and low maintenance. Besides, if you just wanted to get moving, you got the 5 speed instead of the automatic, and the little K's would get right up and go!
@65crewcabpw The turbo engines had high insurance costs and lacked the torque of a V6. Chrysler should have recognized the trend toward lower fuel cost and the desire for more power and had a V6 ready to go in the lower end K cars by the mid 80's. Chrysler would have made a lot more money if they had a comparable engine to the 2.8l-3.1l Chevy V6 for these K-cars, and something comparable to the GM 3.8l V6 in the upper end cars. They gambled on turbo motors and gambled wrong like Ford.
All they need to do to put six people in a car is put the shifter on the colume. Shifter on the floor takes up a lot of wasted space. Back then even manual transmisions shifters were on the colume. Remember three on tree?
I currently own a 27 year old 82 Dodge 400 COnv. It runs like new, gets 30 mpg, AC works, cost $20 to fill up. It is an AMAZING car then and now. Most 80's cars were junk esp the Mustang but these cars for the era were well built and very roadworthy. I drive mine every day!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are right I would never buy a chrysler car I dont trust them at all. Last week i rent a 2009 Dodge charger It broke down on the highways. Toyota are the best..
No, they weren't. Don't judge - especially if you weren't old enough to be there. They were "OK" cars as they were, but more significantly they played a huge role in automotive history. For what they were - they were amazing.
They already have. Depends on what you read - but yes: for what they were - in 1981 they were the leaders in American ingenuity, and yes - you can hardly argue that Lee Iaccoca and the K-car did undisputedly save Chrysler. Every front-driver that America designed after 1978 was because Chrysler did it first - as well as the revival of the convertible. People thought a K-car ragtop was rediculous: when in fact, they sold like crazy! Long live the K-car !
@Illousion1 No, not at all. They were decent looking and all. The NEXT year, all the K's were upgraded to electronic fuel systems, and after that, all of the k's were very decent cars.
One of the greatest of all the K Car commercials.Only closely matched by the 1981 Aries on a wrecker actually pulling the wrecker after they mistakenly lifted it by the rear end and not the front ("Americas not going to be pushed around anymore").
The Aries/Reliant were replaced by the upgraded and roomier Spirit/Acclaim of '89 - basically the same platform, but upgraded. The Spirit/Acclaim were so successful, that at the end of their run, the rights and the castings were purchased by an Asian company, so they could continue making them! So much for Asian envy!
I think it was the Chinese who bought the rights to make the Spirit/Acclaim, but they scrapped the plan due to budget. China's not quite the same as Japan, if that's what you meant by Asian envy.
Too bad it didn't make it into the 90s, the Acclaim had taken its place the year that the Reliant was discontinued! :=(
jvlivs2 1 year ago
Memories, SWEET memories. I had an '89 Reliant LE 2 door from '94 to '97 and it was like a Timex, took a lickin' and kept on tickin'! My car looked like a MAACO model. Mint condition on the one side, JACKED UP on the other side (I got hit by a bus and STILL kept goin')!
Shockingly all that happened was a scratch on my rear bumper, but that loud pop scared the bejesus outta me big time! Like I said, baby, MEMORIES indeed.
jvlivs2 1 year ago
@indyfan22k heck no. The K's were totally Chrysler engineering, bumper to bumper, except for that sorry 2.6 from Mitsubishi. The K platform was reused to build the Caravan and Voyager, Lancer, 400, 600, New Yorker, Dynasty, Lazer, Daytona, Shadow, Sundance, LeBaron, and others. It made Chrysler a heaping load of money which they then invested in the next generation of cars that again, leapfrogged everyone... The Viper, Neon, Ram, Intrepid, Stratus, and related - which beat everyone.
65crewcabpw 1 year ago
@65crewcabpw Are you serious??? Every car you mentioned SUCKS excluding the Viper.
FixFalcon 1 year ago
@FixFalcon Y our automotive knowledge is sorely lacking.
65crewcabpw 11 months ago
@FixFalcon I guess you don't know much about cars.
65crewcabpw 11 months ago
They should have had a V6 option in this by the late 80's. WTF Chrysler. Even the lowly Cavalier had a V6 option. Even the Citation had a V6 engine! Even the mother loving Ford Tempo had a V6 engine. I rented one of these in the late 80's and it was so slow I got angry at it. I muttered nasty words about an inanimate object, does that make me nutty?
Silvertrine 2 years ago
they wernt going to put a v6 in these since they already were doing good with the 2.2l/2.5l chrysler motors that were put into them they didnt because of that and they didnt want to because they wanted to keep the gas milige up and they only wanted them to be a 4 cylinder car not a v6 and plus the aclaim/spirit that replaced the -kcars had the option of having a 3.0/3.3lv6
jakesaintsrow124 2 years ago
@Silvertrine Why? The 2.2 and 2.5 turbo engines had a LOT more oomph than did the competitor's V6. The Mitsu 3.0 wasn't a good engine, as the 2.6 Mitsu wasn't either. Finally, the 3.3 Chrysler was introduced, which had an awesome run, for an an awesome engine, for many years. Incredibly reliable and low maintenance. Besides, if you just wanted to get moving, you got the 5 speed instead of the automatic, and the little K's would get right up and go!
65crewcabpw 1 year ago
@65crewcabpw The turbo engines had high insurance costs and lacked the torque of a V6. Chrysler should have recognized the trend toward lower fuel cost and the desire for more power and had a V6 ready to go in the lower end K cars by the mid 80's. Chrysler would have made a lot more money if they had a comparable engine to the 2.8l-3.1l Chevy V6 for these K-cars, and something comparable to the GM 3.8l V6 in the upper end cars. They gambled on turbo motors and gambled wrong like Ford.
Silvertrine 1 year ago
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 2 years ago
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 2 years ago
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 2 years ago
my parents just bought me a 1985 reliant k only 43,000 miles and its in great condition gettin it painted tommorow
maxyeti4593 2 years ago
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 2 years ago
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 3 years ago 3
exactamundo
folgers69 3 years ago
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 3 years ago
All they need to do to put six people in a car is put the shifter on the colume. Shifter on the floor takes up a lot of wasted space. Back then even manual transmisions shifters were on the colume. Remember three on tree?
EdwardPack1988 2 years ago
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 2 years ago
My friends ford pick up also had three on the tree.
EdwardPack1988 2 years ago
Huh? My family has an Aries LE but it has a front bench seat and column shift.
ScubaSteveM45 2 years ago
@ScubaSteveM45 Sorry to hear that.
FixFalcon 1 year ago
I currently own a 27 year old 82 Dodge 400 COnv. It runs like new, gets 30 mpg, AC works, cost $20 to fill up. It is an AMAZING car then and now. Most 80's cars were junk esp the Mustang but these cars for the era were well built and very roadworthy. I drive mine every day!
DA90027 3 years ago 2
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 3 years ago
No, you are thinking of the Eagle Premier.
420asebring 3 years ago
The best "nerd" value!
IntellectualAddict 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
everyone incl my Dad had one of these sac-O-shits.
600SELV12 3 years ago
I have an 89 Reliant LE with 226K mi.. still running strong!
sths0609 3 years ago 5
Am i alone to think that these cars look good?
Illousion1 3 years ago 10
They look pretty good.
jeep2003912 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, you are alone. These "cars" were complete pieces of shit.
dynamic717 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are right I would never buy a chrysler car I dont trust them at all. Last week i rent a 2009 Dodge charger It broke down on the highways. Toyota are the best..
bryanharricharan 3 years ago
Sounds like another Toyota nutswinger... Toyotas are throwaway cars.
420asebring 3 years ago 3
yes...'cause CLEARLY Toyota's never break down.
RitzyTrailer 3 years ago
No, they weren't. Don't judge - especially if you weren't old enough to be there. They were "OK" cars as they were, but more significantly they played a huge role in automotive history. For what they were - they were amazing.
RitzyTrailer 3 years ago 6
Comment removed
jakesaintsrow123 3 years ago
They already have. Depends on what you read - but yes: for what they were - in 1981 they were the leaders in American ingenuity, and yes - you can hardly argue that Lee Iaccoca and the K-car did undisputedly save Chrysler. Every front-driver that America designed after 1978 was because Chrysler did it first - as well as the revival of the convertible. People thought a K-car ragtop was rediculous: when in fact, they sold like crazy! Long live the K-car !
RitzyTrailer 3 years ago
1968 Cadilac Elderado and Oldsmobile Tornado was front wheel drive. i guess back then they tried it as an experiment. Plus its much cheaper to build.
EdwardPack1988 2 years ago
@Illousion1 I'll tell you what, I'd rather have a K car than a new 300!!!
rw93090 2 years ago 3
@Illousion1 No, not at all. They were decent looking and all. The NEXT year, all the K's were upgraded to electronic fuel systems, and after that, all of the k's were very decent cars.
65crewcabpw 1 year ago
One of the greatest of all the K Car commercials.Only closely matched by the 1981 Aries on a wrecker actually pulling the wrecker after they mistakenly lifted it by the rear end and not the front ("Americas not going to be pushed around anymore").
hpspeedster 3 years ago 3
why did they discontinue the six passanger aries?
borzinboss 3 years ago
The Aries/Reliant were replaced by the upgraded and roomier Spirit/Acclaim of '89 - basically the same platform, but upgraded. The Spirit/Acclaim were so successful, that at the end of their run, the rights and the castings were purchased by an Asian company, so they could continue making them! So much for Asian envy!
RitzyTrailer 3 years ago
but u dont find those anywhere in asia, six passanger aries were so nice its to bad no other car companies make six passanger cars
bachspirit 3 years ago
You can buy a Buick Lucerne with a bench seat.
I think it was the Chinese who bought the rights to make the Spirit/Acclaim, but they scrapped the plan due to budget. China's not quite the same as Japan, if that's what you meant by Asian envy.
cheezgrated 3 years ago
Amazing!!
SistemasNormales 3 years ago 5
Thanks!
takutaq 3 years ago