Learn me K-cars

curtis73 wrote: I'm not hating, I'm just stating facts. Its a flimsy car. I remember in high school, my buddy lost control of his K on an ice patch doing 45. He hit a telephone pole sideways at 45 squarely on the passenger side. The car folded in half. There was exactly 11 inches between the passenger door and the driver's door, and the engine ended up (literally) in the trunk. It had ripped the motor mounts off the sheet metal and ended up laying in the trunk. That's not an exaggerated story, that's just truth. My friend was an EMT on the scene taking photos. That accident happened in February. The first time he walked after that crash was at graduation in June, and it was with the help of braces and two canes

Sorry to hear about your friend, hope he recovered.

I had a daytona in high school, one of the convincing arguments I made to my parents allowing me to buy it was the 5 star side impact safety rating. Before that I had a '94 corsica, 2 star side impact rating (on passenger side) and put that into a pole. That was a mess.

I'm presently trying to get out of my last 2 "k" cars, the '91 daytona (still have it!!) and a 93 spirit. They have more than served their purpose as basic transportation.

I had an '87 Shelby Z Daytona. Sunroof, but no T-tops. It was not flimsy. Felt as solid as any other of the dozens of 80's cars I've driven. No flex over railroad tracks. Not by any means refined, but fast, fun, and it handled well enough for a sport daily driver. I never actually did any sanctioned motorsports with it. I paid $1000, and it was worth about that much.

Also had a '91 Spirit R/T-probably the best all-around member of the extended K-family. Definitely the fastest. Again, not terribly refined, but it was plenty solid.

I don't know where your experiences with the flexy K-cars are coming from. I've owned some really flexy stuff ('84 Scirocco) and generally judge how flexy something is by how the doors open and close if you have one end jacked up. The Daytona and the Spirit both passed that test just fine.

As for the cutting the roof off of one, well, yeah, if you remove the top from a unibody car what the berkeley do you think will happen? Of course it's going to collapse.

With one exception It took into the second page for any K-love? I expected more from this group.

I cut the roof off an '88 Daytona parts car last summer. The car did not flex at all. The A and B pillars were pretty stout and put up a good fight. Only cut the roof out so a buddy could use it on his RWD drag car conversion. His car was a factory sunroof car.

I currently have a '87 Pacifica with '89 Shelby suspension, electronics, and Turbo II. It needs some attention but it's a nice fun solid car. I had an '88 Pacifica back in college in '90-91. That car was a great car too. Insurance ate me alive on that one.

I've had a couple Spirits (1 turbo 5-speed, 1 3.0 V6) and driven plenty of other K based rides. It's a good design that served well for its time. Yea Chrysler should have not milked the chassis as long as they did, but it made for some good cars. I'd mess around with a Reliant and a turbo 2.2 if the right car came my way.

Oh, for the later automatic 3.0L cars the 4-speed 604 was the nightmare trans. The 3-speed 413 was the good one.

-Rob

I stumbled across an abandoned Duster V6/manual the other day. I might be able to get it for free, but is it worth anything? Window got busted out and it's been sitting for over a year. Flat tires on steelies, trashed interior, red, 2-door. Supposedly had an electrical problem, but it had a typical teenager stereo install. Could it be a fun autocross/$200x car?

Datsun1500's video was the BOMB!

If THAT isn't enough to get you to go out and pay a premium to get a K-car - I don't know what will!!!

Really - buying a K-car for anything but a basic driver is not advisable.

Look in Craig's List - I found tons of stuff for under $1000. There are some Civics that need very little for under a grand - at least in the mid-atlantic states.

Yes my pic is of a GLH turbo - I know of which I speak - They didn't hold up for me and yes, the unibody is quite flexy - at least at the cowl.

seeker589 wrote: Yes my pic is of a GLH turbo - I know of which I speak - They didn't hold up for me and yes, the unibody is quite flexy - at least at the cowl.

OK, but you do know that Omnis are not K-cars, right?

P71 wrote: I stumbled across an abandoned Duster V6/manual the other day.

I drove a V6/manual Shadow ES (Dodge version of the Duster) back when they were relatively new...and I was amazed at how fast that little car was.

I say pick the car up and tear up the autocross with it!

Yeah, Omni's (Horizon's) are European in design. They are based on a Sunbeam design.

Of course in Europe they got Lotus tuned versions ;)

Tom -

About the Omni not being a K-car - I know that! The Caravan is also not a K-car, but one look at the chassis layout and structure will show you that the apples didn't fall too far from the K-car tree.

I was speaking about the similar design phylosophies between most Mopar products of the time. Mopar built flexy- fliers in the 80s that's all. And the chassis tech is mid 70s (when they were developed) with very few updates or refinement throughout the k-car product run.

I think what happened was that the k-member in the mopars of that era were quite ridgid - but the cowl area wasn't and the flex at that attachment juncture was the weak point of the car. Aft of the cowl - they were acceptably stiff - passed the door openings. I was also under the impression the strut towers flexed under cornering.

All and all - Its a bunch of spot-welded bent and layered sheet metal made as cheaply as possible.

i started college with a white plymouth reliant k. it was a rolling embarrassment - my friends nicknamed it the 'white trash'. what was wrong with the car? the three speed auto tranny was good for maybe 85 mph and 20 mpg. the motor mounts were not designed for any kind of hard driving (i literally had the engine fall out of my car exiting my parents driveway). the suspension was terrible, with huge body roll and absurd understeer. the car would also pull hard to the side under hard braking. it was transportation, but nearly anything else would have been better. it was eventually replaced by a peugeot 505 which, believe it or not, was a monumentally better automobile.

seeker589 wrote: Tom - About the Omni not being a K-car - I know that! The Caravan is also not a K-car, but one look at the chassis layout and structure will show you that the apples didn't fall too far from the K-car tree.

Fair enough, just making sure. Still, there is a difference. A Caravan might not be a K-car (only an Aries or Reliant is a "true" K-car), but it's based on the same chassis. An Omni is not, it's an L-body and predates the K chassis by several years.

In any case, I think we've beaten this to death now!

My wife got 350,000 miles out of a K-car. It was a piece of crap, but it sure kept going.

Datsun1500 wrote: This Video should sum it up

This one's worse - check out the shape of the dashboard in the last slide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxvE3ib6Us