Things DPCD got right / got wrong

Talking about Chrysler corporation ..

Things they did, brought out you liked and our did not

To start with, I would say the word HEMI would top the list for right !

I have always been disappointed in most of the factory wheels

Lean Burn - ICK
Max Wedge - one of the most beautiful engines ever created.

Chrysler engineering did a lot of smart stuff such as even and odd part numbers for right and left side of the car but they made a few dumb moves such as the LH lug nuts and asymmetrical pulley bolt pattern and stuff like that. I also think they screwed up the B engine by using a smaller main bearing size. Had they used the same main bearings in both the B and RB engines it would've created a lot more engine combinations. A factory cross bolted, low deck 426 with MW heads and a good dual plane intake manifold would've put the hurt on a lot of Chevy engines back in the day. They knew how to build an engine like that but they were just a little too clumsy to make it happen.

I think the 5 on 4 bolt pattern was a mistake, they should've just used the same brakes and wheels on the A body cars as the B and E body cars. They eventually figured it out but it was kind of late. Same with the smaller disc brakes, just put the 11.75 rotors on everything with a 15 inch wheel. It fits and is a better solution and parts costs go down since everything uses the same part. They messed up a bunch of that commonality stuff early on, they just didn't really understand how to cut costs. They also screwed up by getting rid of the big block tooling in the 70's. Had they kept that tooling they could've been producing blocks all along to sell into the aftermarket. Chevy kept a pipeline going to the racers which really helped them add market share.

I think that using the 'on the shelf' Poly 318 crankshafts in the 273 was a big mistake. The fix for the lighter 273 piston was to add a massive wristpin to weight the piston to the Poly 318's weight. Using a stock 10.25:1 273 piston with a light weight pin you can take about 4 pounds out of the crank.

The spin off of the 1981 Dodge Charger and the Plymouth Turismo from the 1979 Omni/Horizon was one of the better ideas of the late 1970's. The 2.2 should have been dual over head cam from the get go. If they had put the 318 in the Shelby Charger like Carrol wanted it would have been a 5.0L Mustang killer.

Bellhousing bolt patterns.... Why? Make just 1 for the 904, 727 and all stickshifts. From the /6 to the V10. Same with torqueconverters, make them all neutral balanced and do the balance with the flexplates.

Mine are very broad:

Bringing the F body Aspen/Volare to market too early.

On the 3.6 Pentastar, not quickly correcting the weak point in the cylinder head/lifter tap (mostly left bank) let alone allowing to occur in the first place. An otherwise great engine developed a bad reputation for years by allowing this to continue for at LEAST four production years, and probably five. Same goes for the LX platform tension struts. Tried a slight change in geometry in '11 but early failures continued. Police cars FINALLY got solid bushing instead of hydrobushing in late '14. I don't know about civi cars. Again, an otherwise great platform develops bad reputation and many departments drop the line. Dumb, dumb dumb.

Dropping the Pentastar. DUMB marketing move. DUMB DUMB DUMB. Makes absolutely no sense. It's a beautiful symbol, immediately recognizable, and not something lame like a bow tie. Again, made no sense.

Hard to come up with things prior to these; a stand alone company with a reputation for excellence in engineering. Incredibly broad range of product. Virgil Exner's automotive designs. Powertrains that wouldn't quit.

Edit: I forgot the good!

Agreed, number one, the Hemi!

Number two, probably the slanty. Have to say the old workhorse slant six probably deserves number two at least!

Number three, torqueflite transmissions. The 727 mainly.

From the muscle car era the styling, colors, stripes, are better than the other guys in most cases.

Mopar cars seem to be more thrown together than the other guys. Sloppy fit and finish, doors are noisy when the close. etc.

Over assisted power steering with poor road feel. Nice in a tight parking lot if you have flabby arms though.

Dropping rwd cars for so many years was a bad idea.

They seem to have better brakes than their competitors offered.

Adjustable torsion bar suspension is great for getting the right stance all by yourself.

Not doing more to keep Plymouth around was a bad move.

The 5x4.5 bolt pattern on 4wd trucks and using the weird 44fbj front wheel bearing setup instead of normal 44. I still don't get the big hard on for the full time 4wd back then, it wasn't much use in 4 hi anyway.
One of life's great mysteries for me has been why the difference between small block and big block bellhousings? Converter or flywheel size? Yet GM could do it...
Dana 60's every, I liked that... I also like how serviceable they made the big block, external oil pump, dry intake manifold and a 4 bolt water pump.
The dual block heaters was a nice option in Canada, but then in the 70's trucks, they made the fuse and wiring too small for the draw of the heater motor, ending in a melted fuse block.
A 4 door car and fwd car called the charger... never liked it.

In the eyes of the general consumer, I'd nominate:
The early rust-out & QC of the '57 cars, which were otherwise pretty amazing at the time. That hurt them for many years.
Generally cheaper interior appearance than the competition.
Sometimes too-cheap materials, like interior vinyls.

Chrysler Corp was justly regarded as an engineering-heavy manufacturer, but I'd bet there was competition among the engineers for cleverness.
Some of the items already mentioned are valid, but try a '60s Ford product for weird ideas & non-interchangeable items: just nuts !

Later on, the crap MP stuff, and their lack of support for their iconic older cars (vs, say, Chevrolet) has marginalized them.

Nevertheless, there's so much great stuff they did, I'd use a few paragraphs to list it all.

Some dont realize that 99% of the calls came from the top.. I worked in a few labs at Chrysler
for 35 year.. one lab we came up with electronic ignition and the transverse torsion bars and
a few others but each time they would try to cut money out of each project or dropped some
good ones and some should have been the transverse bar should have but they wanted to stay
with what Chrysler was known for.. a coil over would have been far better which they did go
to later.. to them it was always about the stock holder

I'll agree that the small bolt pattern in A body cars is a bad idea but Ford used 4 lug hubs.

We did do for the small cars till we found they were cracking wheels.. the small the pattern started out for
the slant 6 but then they got the idea for a V-8 in it

Two things I hated what they did was the left handed lugs on the left side and all the bell housings
but the lug thing was logical but we never had a problem

Right=they built a good product
Wrong= alot of the types the brand attracts

Yeah having a bunch of different bolt patterns for bellhousing wasn't a good idea. Chevy was much smarter about that kind of stuff.

+ Deep skirt big blocks for strength and ease of oil pan removal in cars

- Having to remove the heater hose to remove/install the water pump housing, especially when its an old vintage housing

I have wondered strictly from a common sense standpoint, why so many differences?
Bolt patterns for wheels.
Bell housing patterns.

Why did they built post hardtops and pillarless coupes of the same car? (Dart/Valiant, Belvedere/Coronet) What sense did it make to build 2 sets of doors, roof structures, different windshields, back glass, etc ? I know that other manufacturers did this but I've yet to meet someone that could explain it well as to why it was done.

While I won't argue the bellhousing thing is annoying (especially now wanting to put OD behind a big block) but Mopars always had a vast interchangeability across the board
A lot of the mechanical bits don't care if its on an A-body or a D100, its all the same. Aside from stuff blowing up, that was one of the big things that turned me off of Fords, they have so many different designations for one engine size (for example) and NONE of it interchanges even though its the same CI. Chrysler was always on the verge of bankruptcy, so they had to save money somewhere, and the mechanical bits were it.

That being said though, I also think that's what held them back too. If you bought a Pontiac Grand Prix in the '70's, it had a different dash from the same year Monte. With Chrysler, the dash was pretty much the same all the way across the different models. Why would you pony up extra money for 'class' (Cordoba) when grandmas Fury has the same dash?

I know what I'm trying to say but I'm tired so I hope this made some sense.

While you guys are covering the bellwethers (esp. HEMI). I think the 727 and it's variants are up there, of course the XJ Cherokee and Minivans, for naught the co would be dead. I think very up there is the mating of the Cummins to Dodge was brilliant.
The only thing I've felt cheesy, yet understand on the design level was the unibody/torsion bar concept. Primer dips should have included the entire body to the top of roof.
The wrongest was the omni or tc, I'm not fond of either.

Another thing I liked, is the one key for the door and the ignition, Gm's drove me nuts for that, always 2 keys.

I always hated fusible links...

Dodge tailgates sucked until 1994..

Early 80's Chrysler imperial with 318 fuel injection, nice car with an engine that never ran right, and that no dealer could ever fix.

I remember a old time repair shop owner who saying in the mid 1970s if you had Fischer design the body and Ford make that body and put it on a chassis designed and made by Chrysler you would only need one car in your lifetime

True.

But, I'll hit the significant high points:

Right:

1. Exterior styling, the best-looking vehicles on the road, bar none. From the early days to the present.
2. Jeep. Period.
3. The Viper, no further explanation necessary.
4. The 2nd Gen Ram: A revolution, perfect in every sense, gas or diesel, Quad Cab or Regular. Still modern and relevant by todays' standards.
5. The Minivan
6. The 545 RFE transmission to replace the power-robbing, unreliable Turds that came before it.
7. The Neon and K Cars.
8. Trans Am E Bodies
9. Daytona and Superbird
10. Six Pack induction
11. The 340. Period.
12. E, B, and C Bodies
13. Hemi anything
14. Plymouth Prowler
15. SRT
16. Cummins. Partnering with a REAL diesel engine manufacture has benefited both companies.
17. Dakota convertible. A middle-finger to the mini truck craze that was all about Ford Rangers, s-10s and toyota whatevers.
18. Ralph Gilles, Sergio Marchionne, Tom Gale and Lee Iaccoca
19. Magnum 318's that beat 350's in every department.
20. Driver door that locks only with the key.


Wrong:

1. All early automatic overdrive transmissions
2. Shelby Dakota
3. Dropping the Viper
4. Not producing the ME 412
5. Putting the heater motor inside the cab
6. 9 1/4 rear ends and 46x transmissions on the 2nd Gen Rams
7. A 4700 pound "Challenger"
8. Current success streak: I liked it better when I was the only one who drove a Dodge, now everyone drives one.

Well the things they did get wrong were what Andy touched on were items that would have saved them Millions in development and production costs. The left hand lug nuts were a good idea as Rolls Royce also used them.
One common distributor for all V8's would be a smart move like GM did. Ford was even worse than Chrysler for some of these items and it seems that Chevy was the only ones that were smart about production costs
The wheel wells on the rear not being bigger was my biggest problem like on my old 66 Belvedere

Gus

What Chrysler did right...hiring Lee Iaccoca to come in and turn the company around.
What Chrysler did wrong....put Robert Eaton in charge after Lee retired.......

Dodge Plymouth Chrysler Dodge?

A ton of people didnt want Eaton.. he was nothing but a bean counter.. and he got a golden chute also

DESOTO...

Some things they always got right:

Styling. How many truly ugly Mopars have ya ever seen? How many designs stand up over time?

Engineering. Probably the only brand ever to be called over engineered. Ya could make a long list of stuff they did first and stuff that went virtually unchanged for decades because it worked.

Independence / Innovation. Connects with engineering but Chrysler was never a "follow the herd" brand.

Racing. Too many times over the years they didn't have the money or the will to have a strong program. Any time they did, they turned whatever series they ran in to a race for 2nd.


Some things they always got wrong:

Bean counting. Every business had good years and bad years but Chrysler has danced with bankruptcy way too much.

Moving product. they were usually the 3 in the "big three".

When the Avenger/Sebring came out.... imagine rwd, 4.7 equipped. Could have been our “mustang”.

One interchange issue that could've saved millions over the years- why the different (and just the) driver side motor mount on the small blocks, going from 273/318 to 340/360?
Was this for easy ID on the assembly line? Never could figure that one out.
Right: I always loved the size and usefulness of the '90-'96 Dakotas. Wish they'd stayed that way and put 3g hemis in them, though. A Hemi 'Kota has a nice ring to it, still! Would make much more sense as a performance platform than a 5-6k # barn door Ram truck (rumblebee).

6x4.5 BP on the 97-03 Durango/Dakotas. Stupid stupid stupid.
The sweptline era hoods can lay against the hood. Great idea. Makes engine access a breeze.
Electroluminous dash lighting. Looked great till it stopped working, and expensive to fix if you found someone that knew how.
The '78 diesel engine option should never have happened.
Overuse of the Charger nameplate
I'm gonna catch hell for this but here goes:
The V-10 engine program was goofy. Sounds odd from the side. Total unicorn.

I agree with everything here. That odd 6 lug bolt pattern was
'78 Diesel? Really?

I forgot about that odd BP! Def a wrong! Always wanted to install the 88-90 front rotors (std 4.5/5 lug) and do an earlier 8.25 (or gasp, 8.8 ford explorer, for the disc brakes) on mine.

Right - Slant 6 engine used widely across model line ups as a base engine, helping to give Chrysler a reputation for reliability and longevity.

Wrong - Phenolic cups in calipers on the disc brakes set ups that tend to seize up at the most inopportune times. This is entirely the wrong place to try to save a few pennies.

Kowalski I swapped my 99 and couldn't be happier. I used 03 spindles since the discs are larger. I had to have new hubs anyway, so I had a pair plugged and redrilled. I kept the 9 1/4" rear, but had 8 3/4 ends swapped on. Dutchman made me a set of axles that fit perfectly, then I put in a tru-trac. Bonus: it eliminated the c-clips. The truck drives awesome and I couldn't be happier. Now I get a huge choice of rims because of the Mustang interchange.

Power Buldge hoods .. win

Factory Air cleaners always had a nice look

Stupid lifter angle on LA small blocks leftover from the poly motor years.

On small blocks the distributor does not pass thru the intake manifold.

Having the distributor up front on the B and RB engines makes life easier. Wish all engines had them up front.

Agree on the Dakota 6 lug wheels when at the same time the 1/2 ton trucks had 5 lugs. Makes no sense at all.

My engineer Dad preached Chrysler engines' rocker arms mounted on shafts.. rather than individual rocker perches like the other Big Two.

Neat truck, and thanks for the ideas, if I ever get another truck!

I thought the sb distributor not going through the intake was a good thing, wish they had made it dry like the BBs at the same time.

Sorry, didn't clarify that, but I do think the distributor not going thru the intake is a positive.

I'm not a SB guy but yeah that lifter angle thing was stupid. That was a classic dumb mistake where they thought they were saving money by not retooling the line but ended up costing themselves tons of money down the line. The SB engine was close to be a good design but the lifter angle and the exhaust port design and some stuff like that kind of crippled it.