Mopars that are so ugly they hurt you eyes!

-
rustyfish said:
The "K" cars were definitively the worst in both styling and performance.
I'm sure what's worse, this car or the fact that someone tried to improve it.
View attachment 1715349760
Click to expand...
They may be ugly but you can parts bin engineer one with bolt on stuff from a shelby. Id take one with a turbo ll, 5 speed, swaybars, and 4 wheel discs out of a shelby z.
 
Last edited:
BA54BA2C-B5ED-44E2-BA62-9C7BF0E097B4.jpeg
cosgig said:
This can be bought near me if anyone’s interested!

View attachment 1715350040
Click to expand...
 
Even Motor Week took a stab at the lexus-

"once you get past the grill....IF you can get past the grill....."
 
That's a really cool car. I see it all over the midwest.
 
The K-car's were Chrysler just giving up on design. It was the worst era of American car design thru out? '83 was so bad Corvette skipped that model year. I call it the "Dark times." Where one car. The Buick Grand National may have pulled us out of the darkness. The only icon I can think of from the 80s? Late 80s started the improvements. JMO.
 
Heres the actual reason there was not a 1983 corvette. The Corvette factory in bowling green kentucky shut it down after 1982 to retool for using robots in manufacturing the 1984 C4 model. Previous to that the corvette factory did not have robotics on the assembly line. Next time get facts not hearsey before you post lol.

The K car pulled them out of the dump. Chrysler took guaranteed loans from the gubmint. Part of the agreement with the feds was they had to have so many vehicles that got good mileage instead of making more guzzlers. That car and variations of it actually saved the company from being gone completely. They were making about what everybody else was back then. The turbo 2.2s got 30 plus mpg and would embarass 5.0 mustangs of that era and gave F body camaros a run for their money.
 
Last edited:
moparmat2000 said:
Heres the actual reason there was not a 1983 corvette. The Corvetter factory in bowling green kentucky shut it down after 1982 to retool for using robots in manufacturing the 1984 C4 model. Previous to that the corvette factory did not have robotics on the assembly line. Next time get facts not hearsey before you post lol.
Click to expand...
The 82 Vette sucked! And it was a factor in their decision. One plant wouldn't have stopped a hot model. I just saw a whole car episode on that subject. (It was those late morning Motor Trend shows.) It was not good times in American auto industry.

And who seized the opportunity? JAPAN
 
No it wasnt a good time. Neither was the mid to late 70s either. Yes the 82 vette sucked 150hp out of a wheezer 350. So does motor trend. However the amount of time it takes to retrofit a manual assembly line to automation, then get it to work right would have ate up about 6 months of assembly line time. By then the 1983 model year would be almost over. Might as well make sure you get it 100% right for the incoming all new model.

Had a coworker that had a 1982 vette. I used to ask him how his slow corvette was doing every time i saw him. Yes the 82 corvette was a factor in their decision. But not for reasons motor trend stated. It had beed produced since 1968. So 14 years is a very long time for a vehicle to be produced with minor upgrades every year. By 1982 it did suck, but mostly because it was a 14 year old design by that time.
 
Last edited:
cojohnso said:
The 82 Vette sucked! And it was a factor in their decision. One plant wouldn't have stopped a hot model. I just saw a whole car episode on that subject. (It was those late morning Motor Trend shows.) It was not good times in American auto industry.

And who seized the opportunity? JAPAN
Click to expand...

They seized that opportunity long before 1982. The 1974 corrolla worked well, had great fit and finish, got great gas mileage during the first gas crisis. They also imported hilux pickups, and the celica (2/3 scale dodge challenger copy) by 1982 they were no longer concidered, curiosities, or even with grudging respect, but were concidered objects of desire.
 
Hyper_pak said:
"Toad" refers to a 1960 to 1962 Valiant or 1961 to 1962 Lancers. An unfortunate name for a pretty good car. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And everyone has an opinion. I don't use the term myself!
View attachment 1715349685
Click to expand...
I admit I refer to our 62 Lancer as "the toad" !!! But with all due love and respect. I love the fact it is unique, and my wife claimed it as her own!!! Would like a second one for the stable, but every time I do, she asked "aren't 5 old cars ENOUGH!???" ( Just don't answer, ... BUT... The obvious answer is NOoooo!! ")
 
By 1982 the corvette C3 design was 14 years old. Of course it sucked by then. Complying with fed emission standards with a carburetor didnt help either. Cojohnso , something to think about before blindly accepting what Motor Trend decides that they want to put out and whatever documentary they had
 
Last edited:
moparmat2000 said:
They seized that opportunity long before 1982. The 1974 corrolla worked well, had great fit and finish, got great gas mileage during the first gas crisis. They also imported hilux pickups, and the celica (2/3 scale dodge challenger copy) by 1982 they were no longer concidered, curiosities, or even with grudging respect, but were concidered objects of desire.
Click to expand...
I agree. Japan was lurking long before. And I certainly don't blame them. We did this to ourselves. Where quantity was far more important than quality. The Ford Pinto is the poster child to the de-evolution days. But plenty of blame to go around. Including Chrysler. They didn't do anything to help. Thus the K-car. My vote for "Ugliest" model series ever produced by Chrysler. It was ugly right down to the bone of their performance.
 
Yeah but I bet you wouldn't say that about a turbo 3 G body and that is also a variant of a k-car
 
Again you may say they were ugly, but they, along with variants of them like the minivans, and the G and J body, these designs saved chrysler from bankruptcy. The horizon and omni were waaay uglier IMHO, and were there before Iacocca got to chrysler. The horizon was originally a European design made by Talbot, callet the Talbot Horizon. The pinto sucked along w the vega, but the wagon versions of these made great drag cars with V8s in them. The pinto 2300 engine went on to become the SVO turbo 4 along with going into the thunderbird turbo coupe backed with a T5. And became the backbone engine for the ford ranger.
 
The K car was an answer to the japanese. Decent quality, it used modern automated manufacturing to build. FWD with 30 plus mpg. This is what the public wanted at the time, not all the public, but most of em did. It was inexpensive to build,.had decent quality for its time, got good mileage, and was inexpensive to buy. Chrysler sold so many of these that by 1984 they payed back what they owed the federal government along with interest owed in full. Its stated somewhere that nobody ever payed the gubmint back quite like that before, that they didnt know how to deposit the check.
 
I suppose Chrysler making 18-20 foot long 4 ton beasts that got 10mpg in the 70s with abysmal quality was much better than the K car. The quality, cheap cost, and good mileage is what got people into a lot of K cars. They were inexpensive base model get you around cars. They were the dodge darts , the A bodies of their era. The dart was an economy car as well. I am venturing a bet that better than 90% of all A body production was mundane more doors and slant sixes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top