80s cool. Turbo Plymouth Reliant wagon anyone?

And it has a GRM sticker on the window! http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/05/sleeper-1987-plymouth-reliant-wagon-boldride/

For some reason, I really want this car.

I was hoping it was SRT-4 swapped, with woodgrain to boot.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?76780-1987-Chrysler-Town-amp-Country-Woody-Wagon-Stage-2-w-Toys-SRT-4-Swap

Watched one of these with a full drag setup and matching wood tone hood scoop run 11's 15 years back. He destroyed the entire crowd of the Import Days edge water event.

Nice stickers.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/162153898095?rmvSB=true

My Plymouth Reliant had the fewest redeeming qualities of all the cars I've ever owned. Please feel free to exercise your nostalgia though ;)

I wouldn't mind hauling my dog in that.

80s cool makes me think of this:

With a dash of this:

In college my brother had a friend who drove a Reliant wagon--had a factory stick shift, too. If I remember correctly, it was an ex-fleet vehicle of some sort.

nderwater wrote: My Plymouth Reliant had the fewest redeeming qualities of all the cars I've ever owned. Please feel free to exercise your nostalgia though ;)

Yet they used the same underpinnings under the minivans, Daytonas, etc. and those are celebrated. Seriously, they were pretty boring, but pepper them with the performance bits from their siblings and they wake up quite nicely.

You missed the boat due to a lack of imagination and research.

You guys have bad memories. K-cars were junk then and they're junk now. I was a mechanic back in those days, and those things were worthless.

bravenrace wrote: You guys have bad memories. K-cars were junk then and they're junk now. I was a mechanic back in those days, and those things were worthless.

You're welcome to your opinion and welcome to keep on walking since there's nothing for you here. One simply must be smart enough to actually pay attention and fix the issues, instead of sling parts at them.

I enjoyed all the ones I've owned and worked on. Much, much better than the overgrown VW's with the fancy crest that replaced them (Porsche 924 and 944 Turbo). If Chrysler had deviated from the FWD only platform with a competitor to the 924, RX7 or Z-car they might have had something.

In reply to Stefan (Not Bruce):

Wow. You must be a psychic. Somehow you know that I, someone you've never met, was a bad mechanic 36 years ago. Classy. Really adds to your credibility.

My buddy near Bremerton has an Omni with SRT4 type propulsion run on a MegaSquirt

I have noticed that people who talk poo about the K platform have no clue what these car can/have be done to and with them. The chassis is just a BIG Lego block, build them into whatever you want. I will not say they are great cars but with some work and information you could build an Auto-X car, Rally car, or a Road race car and spank much "better" cars coasting many times more than what you spent on a "K" car.

Paul

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Stefan (Not Bruce): Wow. You must be a psychic. Somehow you know that I, someone you've never met, was a bad mechanic 36 years ago. Classy. Really adds to your credibility.

I know you are a bad sushi chef. Does that count?

Nitroracer wrote: I was hoping it was SRT-4 swapped, with woodgrain to boot. http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?76780-1987-Chrysler-Town-amp-Country-Woody-Wagon-Stage-2-w-Toys-SRT-4-Swap

I think i finally have the bait i need to lure my friend Jerry onto GRM forums now, since that is his car.

I don't think there's much luring needed for the Ebay wagon since 2 of its previous owners are already here.

bravenrace wrote: You guys have bad memories. K-cars were junk then and they're junk now. I was a mechanic back in those days, and those things were worthless.

Worthless compared to what? The competition in the 80s wasn't exactly stellar. The Camry was better for sure. But the K sold millions because it was better than most of what was out there when it launched. The competition caught up quickly but that's what tends to happen.

A Reliant LE was my first car. It was a hand me down that my family bought new. Three of us learned to drive in it and it was basically totaled by all three of us. By the time it was my turn to wreck it (amazingly enough it was not my fault) it had given us about 125k trouble free miles. Not exactly a million mile Volvo but not an 80s Fiat or VW either.

The K car was crap quality for sure, but yeah, it's fond memories for me. My father had an '84 Chrysler E Class as a company car. Digital dash and it talked. For a 12 year old, it was as cool as Knight Rider.

Oh, and I actually have that Michael Jackson jacket.

Nitroracer wrote: I was hoping it was SRT-4 swapped, with woodgrain to boot. http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?76780-1987-Chrysler-Town-amp-Country-Woody-Wagon-Stage-2-w-Toys-SRT-4-Swap

That's actually mine, it's not in nearly as good of shape anymore, but I think the patina adds character to it. I've had to fix a bunch of things the previous owner messed up but so far it's going pretty good.

I found that other Reliant wagon on ebay the other night and sent it to Vigo, and he pointed me here. I guess I do need to lurk/post here more.

As far as crap cans go, the K-car and all of it's relatives are hard to beat. Sure the interiors are cheap and the plastics break often, but the motors are very stout and hard to break when stock or tuned well. A bunch of cheap junk mods from other variants will make just about any K-car handle well. 2gn neon struts fit up front and will lower the k-cars a lot, along with daytona or chopped up other stock rear springs to lower it. I've had 3 k-cars, and 4 of the 1gn and 2gn minivans, they're great as basic transportation or modded to have fun with.

Klayfish wrote: The K car was crap quality for sure, but yeah, it's fond memories for me. My father had an '84 Chrysler E Class as a company car. Digital dash and it talked. For a 12 year old, it was as cool as Knight Rider. Oh, and I actually have that Michael Jackson jacket.

My dad had an 86 (I think) Lancer Turbo ES that l learned to drive a stick in. I have very fond memories of that car and would not hesitate to buy one today if I could. I don't care if it was crap or not, I loved that car.

I never had the MJ jacket. I was only able to attain Members Only status back then

bravenrace wrote: You guys have bad memories. K-cars were junk then and they're junk now. I was a mechanic back in those days, and those things were worthless.

Any car from the 80s that's still here deserves some credit. Yeah sure, it won't drive like a new Honda, but you're borderline trolling, good sir.

The hate that K cars bring from some-wow. I had relatives who bought K car variants through the years and they each served a definite purpose. My mom had a new Dodge 600 convert that was my first experience ever driving a turbo car with its whopping 150 horses haha. But for the mid '80's that was pretty good for something stock off the showroom floor. I remember my relatives saying the Chrysler 7 year 70 thousand mile factory warranty was a big selling point, in addition to front wheel drive (we live in snow country) and decent fuel mileage. And my old turbo Voyager (which btw is now for sale by its current owner) was a fun vehicle that served as my daily driver reliably for a few years despite being 20 years old at that time.

As for modded versions of these vehicles, the entertainment value of watching a turbo or nitrous K car or minivan embarrass traditional "muscle cars" is definitely not "worthless" imo.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Stefan (Not Bruce): Wow. You must be a psychic. Somehow you know that I, someone you've never met, was a bad mechanic 36 years ago. Classy. Really adds to your credibility.

Most mechanics at the dealers back then and to this day aren't great, especially as Chrysler transitioned from the old RWD junk to the FWD, so yeah your assertion that they were junk after only dealing with the broken ones (especially as many were abused and poorly maintained by their ignorant owners) compared to my own experience of working on and racing them for nearly 2 decades, tells me your opinion is invalid.

This said, only the 2.2 and 2.5 drivetrains were worth anything. The 2.6 and 3.0 Mitsubishi engines were junk, but that wasn't Chrysler's fault, that was Mitsu and their piss poor engines. The 3.0 was the basis of the DOHC twin turbo engine in the Stealth and 3000Gt, plus the later Mivec V6 in the 3rd gen Eclipse.

Since you're the supposed expert, what domestic FWD platform and drivetrain were better across the board during the same time period?

Only Ford's Mazda powered Escort, perhaps.

I don't really care to join in the k-car pissing match (but i will be bringing a particularly E36 M3ty turbo one to the challenge if anyone wants to put up..), but i'll add that not even all k-car fans agree with each other. I think the Mitsu 2.6 and 3.0 are perfectly decent engines, with the 3.0 being decidedly better out of the box.

K-car people don't tend to like the 2.6 because it never came turbo or manual in 'their' platform, but i think there's a certain level of enthusiast that would say "hmm, similar displacement to the dodge 4cyl but 50% more headflow?" and be less interested in the 'i cant even keep it running' issues that hold back the majority of 'casual' car enthusiasts that really just want a car whose needs line up with their particular level of knowledge and commitment.

bravenrace wrote: You guys have bad memories. K-cars were junk then and they're junk now. I was a mechanic back in those days, and those things were worthless.

They had some bad qualities, especially if you got one infected with the Mitsubishi engine. But other than that they were a far sight better than GM or Ford's offerings.

And the durn thing continued on as the Neon until 200-something after they backhalfed the chassis.