View Single Post
Old 07-03-2014, 07:39 PM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 259

Originally Posted by FixedOpsGuy View Post
The benefits of the old "cab forward" design.

LHS, 300M, Intrepid, Concorde, Eagle Vision, New Yorker, Ahhhhh the "LH" bodies. Lots of GOOD "Hours per RO" there. Transmissions apart in assembly line fashion. 2.7L overheating concerns. Hub Assemblies. Drive Axles. I could go on and on. I miss the good ole' days.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I have to wonder if you were being sarcastic about missing the good ole days LH cars. Your list of LH "attributes" doesn't sound that great.

We all know the 4 speed ultradrive transmission was a piece of junk and pretty much proved that Chrysler engineers couldn't build a good automatic transmission. The 2.7 V-6 wasn't that great of an engine, but I thought the primary problem with the 2.7 V-6 was in the Sebring/Stratus cars. In any case, chalk up another award for the great engineering at Chrysler. I've learned enough to stay away from the 2.7 V-6. I don't know enough about the Hub Assemblies or Drive Axles of the LH cars to make comments on them.

Looking at the data presented here and on other forums over the years, is it any wonder why Chrysler Corporation failed? You can't build great looking cars with the quality of a Yugo. The LH cars (and the Neon, cloud cars, etc...) were supposed to herald in a new era for Chrysler, but instead it was business as usual. Chrysler continued to shoot itself in the foot with quality and the consumers grew tired of the pretty cars with ugly quality and went back to their Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc... They gave Chrysler another try and a lot of them got burned. I still cannot fathom how these "brilliant" executives, engineers, and quality control managers could not see that the American consumer wanted quality, not qualitee.

Last edited by AR2; 07-03-2014 at 08:11 PM.
AR2 is offline   Reply With Quote