101 cars you must drive

[capev86]

hello all...

i have watching episodes of 101 Cars You Must Drive on demand with Alonzo Bodden (i don't get the speed channel....arghhh). anyway....episode 4, one of the cars featured is the k car and its spawn. he admitted that a lot of people would be repulsed, but did make the strong point how revolutionary the car was for its time and how it saved chrysler. he makes connections between the cars featured in each episode. the next up was the mitsubishi evo and the connection was that dodge was running mitsu engines (partly true) and that mitsu later pulled away and went on to do great things. i like mitsu and they helped out chrysler by giving people optional engines, but how he said it sounded like ALL k cars ran mitsu power when in fact only a minority did....most were powered by mopar engines. i wish he had made this known in his show. but otherwise there are many wonderful cars featured that all deserve an honorable mention.

you can check out the website at:

http://www.speedtv.com/programs/101-car ... ust-drive/

[1of10K]

In 1981, many people didn't like the 2.6 engine, since it was a unfamiliar Mitsi and the valves had to be adjusted as part of regular maintenance. I drove a 2.6, but bought the 2.2. Both didn't seem to act much different when new. However, in 1988, I bought a new Plymouth Horizon with the 2.2 and manual trans, that car really seemed quick (for it's time of course!).
One car I always wanted to drive was a Prowler, never did..

[Baron]

I bought a 1980 Plymouth Arrow Pickup (sister truck to the Dodge D50) brand new with the 2.6 engine and used it in my business. That motor (and whole pickup, for that matter) was indestructible, and the pickup was a regular little hotrod. A few years later, as the business grew, I had somewhere around 3 or four Dodge D50 pickups with that engine working at any one time. They just never quit. I vaguely remember something, I think, about the valve adjustments being made when they were serviced, but it couldn't have been too expensive as it wasn't something that ever made me question the bill. One of the selling points for when I bought my 83 E-class was that it had the 2.6 engine. I knew the car would probably have plenty of power, get decent gas mileage, and be dependable. And it didn't let me down on any one of those points. I considered it the new equivalent of the old Chrysler slant 6 or, because I think it had a better power to weight ratio than when the old slant 6 was dropped into those big old Chryslers, it may have even been more equivalent to the basic 318 V8 engine.

I have to admit, too, I was always a little leery of buying a Turbo engine of any kind. I was always afraid the bottom end of a turbo engine wouldn't be strong enough to hold up to the loads the turbos would put on them. And I have no idea how the 2.2 Chrysler turbos did in that regard. Perhaps some of you that have had experience with the 2.2 turbos could shed some light on their endurance/reliability record?

[capev86]

chrysler turbo engines are built rugged....especially a 87-88 T2 (intercooled application) 2.2 or any 89+ 2.2 or 2.5. the common blocks are soo rugged that a cast crankshaft will survive in nearly any event. its all in how you build, drive and maintain an engine that determines its life especially in turbo setups. chrysler built more turbo engines than anyone and there is plenty of aftermarket support for rebuilding when you want to make really big power numbers.

as for the mitsu pickups.....my grandfather's last 2 trucks were 87 Ram 50's both were standard cab with 2wd and a stick. the first was a red long bed with power steering and the second (which i'm driving now) is dark blue with a short bed and manual steering. burns oil like crazy but keeps running and i'm using it as a daily driver. it has a carb'd 2.0 so there is no torque except that the gearing is good. someday i will restore it and put a fuel injected 2.4 mitsu in it from a later year rig. i don't care for the 2.6 because it has the longer stroke and bigger pistons. good power but those bigger pistons suck a lot of gas, whereas a 2.4 is just a stroker 2.0 and makes more power with about the same amount of gas (reason why the 2.5 is soooo much nicer than a 2.2). i like the mitsu motors, but prefer a mopar in my chrysler product!

[Baron]

It does appear the 2.2 stood up well- from what I've read/heard in this group. It was an unknown- at least to me- back in the 80s. Sounds like the 2.4 is a good solution. Whatever you do, I would think the truck would be well worth restoring. I remember almost every time I had one of those trucks raised up on a rack, whoever the mechanic was would take a look, shake his head, and say something about hot tough those trucks were built.

btw, if I am remembering correctly, back then didn't Chrysler own part of Mitsubishi? Sort of made their engines mopar- kinda, maybe?

Although- I had an 88 Dynasty with a V6 Mitsu engine that was a pretty bad design. The valve covers were designed to fit up, over and around the camshaft, and there was no way it could all be put together and not have an oil leak. From day one it leaked oil and only got worse. Unfortunately, mechanically, that Dynasty was a lemon through and through. And to think I traded my E-class in on it.

[capev86]

a quick way to upgrade the power in your spirit, dynasty, shadow or daytona with the mitsu 3.0 v6 is to grab the valvetrain from a stealth or 3000gt. 160hp instead of 140hp and still factory reliable. heard that years ago over at turbododge.com