The Basic Truth About the K

[88AriesLEwagon]

Imagine for a moment,Chrysler's predicament in the late 70s.
Sales down,no money for engineering,a lousy reputation for building problem vehicles....
and they had the task of creating a new line of cars to replace Aspen/Volare.
With Hal Sperlich's urging,it was decided that FWD instead of RWD (which almost was used instead),was to
power its new cars.With the development on Omni/Horizon,a FWD K body was a natural offshoot.Using what they learned with the L cars.However,needing a new engine,with funds limited,they chose to emulate the VW 1.7 basic design,throwing in some of their own engineering changes (like the slant back).Originally planned for 2.0 liters,it was decided that a larger displacement was needed for torque to run optional automatics and AC (and a 6 passenger car).The 2.2 displacement was chosen instead.With the creation of the 2.2 and the almost all new K body,Chrysler's funds were almost tapped out.Here's where the cost cutting came into play.Rather crude/brittle interior plastics,non reclining seats,no roll down rear windows,prop rod hoods,thin gauge underbody sheet metal,narrow tires,lack of gauges,metal dash "pad",hard plastic dash surfaces,rather flexible body structure,tiny rear brakes,4 lug wheels,stub shaft control arms,absolutely flat door panels,welded on door hinges,nearly flat glass....all obvious moves to save money on manufacturing all the while charging about what other similar cars cost (Chrysler admitted that they probably marked the cars up too much) in order to quickly get to profitability.Overly hyping the cars as the next big thing,the answer to all America's problems....making the imports look like the enemy (1981 advertising,1982 and up ads did not compare the K to the imports at all,just Celebrity/Citation and Tempo).And gas mileage that never met EPA 25/41 ratings.The whole scenario was carefully planned to pull on America's heartstrings,creating business for Chrysler in the short term,and not looking to the future if owners were not pleased with their new cars.
Thankfully,everything worked out in the end.
The cars turned out to be good-enough,and with time were able to get better,Chrysler's image and quality standings improved over time,and sales never dipped.
Of course development on the 2.2 never progressed past Turbo additions,MPI/DOHC and other improvements never came for the bread and butter engines due to development costs.Making the basic 2.2/2.5s seemingly uncompetitive against the smaller import engines that could put out higher figures and gas mileage.
Taken into account that a large inspiration for the K was the Ford Fairmont,a stodgy RWD box that was as bland as could be,the K was no worse in comparison,and largely ahead of its time with interior room,smallish exterior and lightweight.
Its just a shame that due to circumstances,these cars came out cheaper than they really should have been,and far from silky smooth.They could have had a world beater there,had things gone differently.
Those Ks still alive prove that even when overall cost is the overriding concern,good basic engineering can still save the day.

[nszotovich]

As compromised as the initial engineering was, they were fairily durable (If not refined) for their time. They were better than their domestic rivals (Escort,X-cars). The Japanese were more experienced with small displacement engines.

[88AriesLEwagon]

Yes,it all comes down to correct engineering from the beginning.While corners and costs were cut,the basic hardware did not fail.However...
I remember talking to a Victor gasket rep years back who mentioned that when Chrysler contracted Victor to make the 2.2 headgaskets for them,they did but when they presented Chrysler a gasket and the cost,Chrysler demanded a gasket for 1/2 the cost of the original.Victor told them they were making a mistake,but Chrysler held firm.And we all know what happened with that head gasket...
At least it wasnt as bad as the Xs....They had some serious issues early on with the rear axle mounts....scary.
And that TH125 transmission (complete with drive chain) would fail without warning.
Usually reverse would still work though...

A fellow classmate's father bought one of the first X-cars sold locally (1980 Phoenix LJ sedan)...the son proceeded to speed on a winding road,broadslided it around a hard curve,the rear wheel caught the ditch and sheared off the spindle/hub/wheel allowing the axle to dig in and roll the car over totalling it.The father bought an exact duplicate as an insurance replacement. I had never heard of a rear wheel breaking off before just sliding into some dirt....
Tainted my view of the Xs right from the start.

[82Lebaronconv]

I owned both a GM "X" body ('81 Buick Skylark Limited) and a Chrysler "K" ('84 Lebaron Convertible) back in the 1980's In addition, my sister owned two different Chevy Citations ('80 and '81, both two door hatchbacks) and my wife owned a 1980 Citation Club Coupe. So I can attest to the relative strengths and weaknesses of both cars.

My sister's first Citation was a totally stripped base model with standard shift. It was one of the first Citations I ever saw. She picked it up Fourth of July weekend in 1979, just weeks after the "X" cars had been introduced. At the time, the new Citations and the other GM "X" models were being incredibly hyped by the media. The dealers quickly sold out their original alottments and there were long waiting lists for them. Hard to believe now. My sister was only able to get hers because my Dad was a manager with GM and was able to order one from the factory through a special employee purchase program. But when I drove it for the first time, I was not impressed. The car seemed rather crudely built and the interior was really cheap looking. It shifted so hard that I could hardly drive it. My sister kept it for less than a year and was able to trade it in for the new and better optioned 1981 for more than she had originally paid for it (thanks to my Dad's hefty employee discount!). The 1981 was kept much longer, but my sister ended up having some serious problems with it. Once, the entire rear axle assembly broke away from the car on one side, apparently due to defective bolts. After this, my sister swore off American cars forever and soon replaced the Citation with a Volkswagen Golf. She now drives a Mazda 6.

I purchased my 1981 Skylark Limited in May, 1981. I drove it for 7 years and put about 100,000 miles on it. I was actually quite pleased with the car. It was a stick shift, one of the few Limiteds so equipped, and it was fun to drive. Mine shifted alot better than my sister's Citation, but I did have a problem with throwing clutches (went through two). Being a Limited, it had very plush interior appointments and the quality of the interior materials was first rate, actually quite comparable to the larger and more expensive Buicks of the time. I did notice some sloppy welds in the body, especially around the doors and there were noticeable runs in the paint. The metal bumpers had very sharp edges and I once gashed my fingers quite badly while washing the car. So it did have its flaws. Aside from the clutches, I also had problems with the power steering unit and the steering rack. Apparently, these issues are quite common with X-bodies. By the time I sold it, both the power steering unit and steering rack were so badly worn that the car was barely driveable.

My next car was the 1984 Lebaron convertible that I bought used from the original owner in the summer of 1988. In comparison to the X-Cars, I definitely thought the Lebaron had the edge in styling. I thought that the sloping grille was especially attractive and much more distinctive than the flat front end on the Buick. But the body on the Lebaron did not seem to be as structurally solid as the Skylark, and the interior materials were cheaper too. As far as performance, the Chrysler probably did a bit better, but this may have been due to the fuel injection system. The Skylark still had a carb engine. The big problem was the head gaskets. When I bought the Lebaron, it had about 37,000 miles on it and the first head gasket blew at 40,000 miles. It was an expensive repair - over $800 at the time. The second head gasket blew at 79,000 miles and I opted to sell the car rather than fix it as the head now needed to be replaced. Plus, it needed a top and the floors were rusting out. Unfortunately, New England winters are very tough on convertibles. Up here, many people who have them put them away for the season when the cold weather comes. This is why the 1982 Lebaron convertible I now own was able to survive for so many years.

So in judging the X cars and K cars, I'd give the edge to Chrysler for styling and performance (a turbo would have really left my old Skylark in the dust!), but for build quality and overall durability, I'd have to give the edge to GM. But I still like and appreciate both cars.

[89ARIES]

Well, I never like to badmouth my own car (i.e. the CAR OF THE WORLD, LOL, LOL), but I agree with you that GM X bodies are more rugged than K bodies. They have real metallic bumpers and survive
accidents a heck of a lot better. We still have several old X bodies running around SoCal and they are amazingly durable. But, I still like the K-car the best, but really, I like all 80s cars. I think Ks are extremely classy which is why it upsets me so to see the Canadian Caravelle lost forever and the early models almost extinct. We still have a number of 1980 X bodies running around in California, some in amazingly pristine shape. We also have an 81 Skylark Coupe ratroad that never dies. It took out an 86 Ford LTD midsize car at 35mph and only suffered a bent bumper. The car has rust spots galore, but still keeps chugging.

[89ARIES]

Oh yeah, and let it be known from the president of the CKCC, I do believe that K-car plastics are the worst and the bodies are somewhat flimsy. But, its the comfort, luxury, and just the shape and classy styling that for me outweights this negatives. And, I think the earlier Ks look better and have stronger sheetmetal than the newer ones. Mine seems rather cheap and I treat it like its delicate and get fussy when people slam doors, break my seatbelt plastic sheath, and sit on my hood and crack my fiberglass panel. My car also has a fair amount of metallic distortions and waves. Also, all the black trim is turning gray again and I wish I could replace everything down to the headlight bezels with metal. I wish we could find someone willing to remanufacture K-car parts out of metal and make the K-car parts more durable, but still original.

[Butch]

Back in the day there was an artical in the Detroit news, The engineers at GM told the company they had better NOT use the defective brake sys designed for the X cars. GM didn't listen and produced them any way. People DIED because of them. Now the K's brakes aren't that great etheir but can be easily upgrade to the J car brake sys. Which I'm glad I did.

[88 aries]

well you do know guy that the final K-cars were produced in mexico you know. the windows are different on them, note they dont have safeguard written on them. as for the facia cracking and breaking, thats your own fault from hitting stuff or cars hitting you ive never had a problem with K-car sheet metal in my life.

[Baron]

I bought my 83 E-Class new and put over 70,000 miles on it. The only repair I ever had to do was replace the motor on the driver's electric window. Cost me $102. As far as paint and sheet metal- hmm, I think I remember having them adjust the trunk lid because the gap was a little off on one side from the other and I wanted it 'evened' out. Interiorwise- I always had the impression the upholstery material was a little thin, but it wore well, The seats still looked new when I traded it in, so I guess it was tougher than it seemed.

One thing everyone needs to remember, American cars in the 80s were probably at (one of) their lowest point. No one was building exceptionally good cars, materials were generally cheap and plasticy and the K-car probably held its own, or surpassed, most of its American competitors in all areas.

[nszotovich]

The K-Car were no paragons of quality, but they were better than the dometic competition. Even the gaps and the fit and finish on the Japanese cars was far from stellar at the time, although their "Perceived quality" was better (the click and feel of the buttons and functions).The interior fabric and material (except hard plastics) was superior to anyone in their price point. That was a good part of their appeal.