(first posted 3/4/2014) Chrysler had its first brush with bankruptcy in 1978-1979. And like it would again later, it reached out to Uncle Sam, but then in the form of government loan guarantees. And just how did Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca convince Congress that it was backing a viable player? He showed them pictures and details of the upcoming K Cars, not unlike how GM trotted out its Volt prototypes in Washington in 2009. Congress bought Lee’s K-Car dog and pony show, and the company was saved. And the K-Car would become the cornerstone of the “New Krysler” for seemingly decades to come.
Lee didn’t really have all that much to do with the actual K-Car, as it was already under development when he arrived in 1978. His job was to restructure the company drastically, in the process shedding a huge segment of its workforce and overhead, and sell the K Car to Congress and then the American public.
The second part turned out to be trickier than he thought. The early K-Car production mix heavily leaned to highly-optioned cars, in hopes of padding the profit margins; Lee was probably still getting over his success at Ford peddling Marks and such. But in the recession of 1981, folks were looking for basic transportation, and it took a drastic switch in the product mix to lower priced cars to salvage first year sales, which managed to still top 300,000 for Aries and Reliant combined.
The basic boxy outline of the story is well etched into the memories of us that lived through the K-era. In the years leading up to it, the Valiant and Dart kept growing, and were eventually replaced by the now mid-sized Volare/Aspen twins. Arriving in 1976, those were already one or two sizes too big, given the spiraling rise of oil prices and the downsizing already underway at GM. In fact the Volare and Aspen eventually morphed into Chrysler’s “big” M-Body cars, the last RWD sedans until the modern 300.
image: allpar.com
That doesn’t mean that traditional “big” cars were actually all that roomy inside. In a graphic testament to just how space-inefficient traditional American cars of the time were, the drastically smaller K-Cars (176″ length) equaled most of the key interior dimensions of the 1972 mid-size Satellite and the Volare-based 1986 Grand Fury (both about 204″ long). Seating for six and bench seats were a major criterion for the clean-sheet K-car design, and who can blame them, if you’re a polygamist and you want to take your two wives and your buddy and his two wives out for dinner like this happy set of trios above? Who else would find themselves in this scenario above?
Yes, the K-car was one of those rare times when American designers and engineers were given the chance to start from scratch, although Chrysler’s experience with the (mostly) European designed Horizon/Omni came in mighty handy. The suspension design was quite similar, and quickly becoming ubiquitous: front struts and rear twist-beam axle. Chrysler already had FWD transaxles, including the automatic TorqueFlite from the Omnirizon. That still left the body, a new four cylinder engine, and to make it all work together harmoniously.
The result must be considered a qualified success. Let’s leave the qualifications for later and focus on the good: given the times and Detroit’s state-of-the art, the K-Car structure was not only space efficient, but fairly stiff, sturdy and sound, especially given its light weight (2300-2400 lbs). This contributed to a decent ride quality, and adequate, if totally uninspiring handling.
The new 2.2 liter OHC four, which does look quite a bit like a slightly scaled up VW 827 engine (as used in the Chrysler Omni/Horizon), turned out to be a rugged basis for future development, even if the early units had a an appetite for head gaskets and a few other maladies. And, of course, it suffered from the horrible state of smog-controls of the time: electronic-feedback carburetors that were balky, expensive to replace, messed with the ignition timing, and gave mediocre power: all of 84 hp was the result, in the first two years of production. The optional Mitsubishi 2.6 four had a hint more torque, and was a bit smoother with its pioneering balance shafts, but had its own set of issues. This Aries sports the 2.2 and a column shifted three-speed automatic.
I had the distinct displeasure of being an Aries (or was it a Reliant?) driver for a couple of months in 1985. It was my temporary company car (extended-term rental) right after a stint with the all-new Nissan Sentra, and just before I finagled a brand new 1986 Mercedes 300E W124 company car. Sandwiched between the remarkably brisk and tossable Sentra and the superb 300E, the Aries was bound to disappoint. It did.
My (reverse) commute then was a dream, for LA standards. Straight through Beverly Hills on Rodeo Drive, and up, over and down scenic and winding Coldwater Canyon into the Valley. Or Laurel Canyon, for a change of scenery and even tighter twisties. Running against the usual traffic flow, the canyons were a wonderful way to start the morning, but not in a Reliant. The Sentra was eager, willing and brisk, if a bit primitive. The Aries, with its bigger motor, had the typical tip-in and torque to “feel” powerful from a start, but was strangled as the revs (didn’t) build. Early versions of the K car tested at 13-16 seconds for the amble to sixty. The Sentra (with a stick) could do it in ten. And driving a K-car down Rodeo Drive every day didn’t exactly do much for my self esteem. Bring on the Mercedes!
The steering was too light, and the car just wasn’t set up to deliver any fun. Yes, it did beat the totally feeling-less power steering of the bigger Chryslers of the time, but don’t even ask what it felt like compared to an Accord. And therein was the crux of the problem: The K-Car was a big step forward for Chrysler and Detroit, and a reasonably capable car. But by the time it arrived, Honda was readying the second generation of the killer Accord. Comparing the two is an exercise in futility. The Honda simply felt (and was) profoundly better in every possible metric. It took a long time for Detroit to finally narrow that gap.
Although Iacocca arrived at Chrysler when the K-car program was already well on its way, he successfully made it his own. Although the K-car was not originally developed with any thought to the endless permutations it spawned, but it was quickly stretched, spindled and mutilated, a testament to the simplicity and adaptability of such a straight-forward design, as well as the talents of the Chrysler engineers. The various offshoots lasted at least until 1995, even though the Aries and Reliant were gone by 1989, replaced by the Spirit/Acclaim, or Sundance/Shadow, depending on your point of view.
The upscale LeBaron and Dodge 400 expanded the total first-gen K-car sales to over 350k per year, and maintained close to that through 1988, when their replacements appeared. The K-cars did exactly what Lido sold Congress on: they were profitable from the start, and generated enough profits with which Chrysler repaid all its government-backed loans by 1983. And that was just the start: the cash really started rolling in with the mini-vans and other off-shoots, allowing Chrysler to buy Jeep, and invest in a whole new line of cars in the 1990′s. The K-car truly created the New Chrysler.
And given the missteps that GM made with their hyper-recalled X-Bodies of the same vintage, the K-car’s launch was relatively trouble free; hardly a given in those times. In Chrysler’s case, that was literally essential; if the K-Cars had arrived with serious problems, Chrysler’s resurrection might have turned out quite different. Yes, the early versions had their issues; good luck finding a 1981 or 1982. But build quality, performance and refinement steadily improved, especially with the ’85 refresh. A Toyota or Honda it wasn’t, but after the botched launch of the Aspen/Volare twins, and GM’s X-Body woes, the K-car escaped the wrath. As did Chrysler.
Related: Chrysler K-Car Executive Limousine 1986 Chrysler LeBaron 1985 Chrysler New Yorker
So glad to see such a pristine K shown as this model gets the full CC treatment. I am shocked as I think back that I never managed to score a ride in an Aries or a Reliant despite their ubiquity in the 80s.
It gets what it deserves.
While the Omnirizon was seen as a hail-mary pass, the K-Car was seen as the real deal.
Chrysler was dying and had a lot of old BOF rear drive cars no one wanted. Chrysler was known for its big cars, so while the Omnirizon was celebrated, it was recognized for what it was – a small car competing against similar FWD cars.
Iacocca appeared and gave Chrysler a new image. The K-Car made good on what Lee was promising. While no one was expecting perfection – what the K-Car did was demonstrate that Chrysler was still capable of having a pulse.
During this era, auto perfection was still not expected. So, it was fine that the K had a couple bugs that needed to be worked out. What the K showed was Chrysler able to think outside the BOF rear drive box.
The K really was the new Chrysler and when the Caravan and Voyager appeared, it was a continuation of a story the American market wanted to believe in. The minivans not only made Chrysler profitable, it also sold more K cars as well.
When the K appeared – good enough was good enough. As a matter of fact, every auto manufacturer benefitted from being good enough. We were used to buying lemons. We were used to heavy maintenance. We were used to asking dealers to ensure that a car was built during the week and not on Mondays or Fridays because of crappy workmanship and post weekend hangovers. It was an entirely different era from today.
These were the spiritual successors to the Valiant and Dart. They restored Chrysler’s reputation made possible by these earlier compact cars. The K cars even looked like they were the children of the Valiant and Dart. The K cars were good enough.
And that was enough to survive during this era of Malaise.
“Chrysler was dying and had a lot of old BOF rear drive cars no one wanted. …”
Umm, Mopar’s RWD cars were unibody since 1960. A, B, C, F, J, M, and R bodies. [Not counting Imperials].
This is a common misconception, thinking all domestic RWD cars built before 1996 are BOF. Some internet car fans assumed the LX cars were BOF, since “they have RWD”.
The two polygamists don’t seem to have that much luggage do they? I wonder where they’re headed! 🙂
The K-Cars have pretty much disappeared from the roads here: just another group of cars that were seemingly ubiquitous and indestructible, gone all of a sudden, without your even noticing.
Looking at this example brings memories of the K-Car wagon that my parents owned. It was a ’88 Reliant K wagon, burgundy with a whorehouse red interior (albeit a darker shade). I learned to drive in it and all. It wasn’t our ’84 Voyager but it was passable.
My parents had a red on red wagon as well but my sister totaled it before I started to drive it was replaced with a loaded up 88 voyager
How do you know what the inside of a whorehouse looks like???? Hmmmm????
I’ve never been to Prussia, but I’ve seen Prussian blue.
I recall that changing a water pump on one of these (with a 2.2) was my first big mechanical project as a kid.
Great Article Paul. I preferred the looks of the early K-Cars, to the rounded ones that arrived in 1985. The square lines seemed to match the rest of the car better.
Forever it seems, Chrysler has competed on price in the subcompact and compact market. Their small cars would never have the refinement of a Honda, given they cost thousands less. Value was the biggest K-Car feature.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who prefers the earlier looks of the K-cars, I thought they looked better although the later models seem to be better built, they also seem to be rarer as well
K-cars always remind me of onions and Kielbasa.
A neighborhood kid’s mom had one, (another burgundy / whorehouse red) and once we went somewhere with his grandmother for some reason in their K-car. They were of Baltic origin, and during the trip mom started passing chunks of sausage and raw onion over the back seat for a snack. I was rather horrified, and stuck the onion in my pocket.
That particular K-car was notable for having one of the rear doors fall off when the kid slammed it. It got fixed but was traded in shortly afterward. I haven’t seen an original K in ages, nice find.
I came to the US in 1986. I remember these cars. I remember the commercials with Lido himself even better. I also recall that it was Lee who championed a renovation of the statue of Liberty.
Yank the Pentastar, replace it with a statue of Liberty.
I like that boxy style, aerodynamics be damned. This was an honest conveyance.
Its very true – had the K body not been well along in its development, there would have been no loan guarantees and no Chrysler. The brief era of Chrysler co-chairmen John Riccardo and Gene Cafeiro (mid1975-78) is not notable for many (good) things, but spearheading development on the L and K body cars turned out to be quite visionary.
One other likely reason for poor first year sales was the combination of lingering fears about the viability of the company and Chrysler’s then-recent history of being a real house of horrors in the quality department. There were a lot of people back then who would not have bought anything made by Chrysler, no matter how appealing it might have been.
In those days, wasn’t it common and sensible advice to avoid the first model year of any really new car, at that?
Very even-handed treatment of the Aries/Reliant, Paul, although I and perhaps some others would accentuate the positive aspects of these cars a bit more. They were certainly boring to drive and did not impress people, but they fulfilled their design goals (and then some, given the many developments of it during the ensuing years) and were good basic transportation. Their competence and reliability made them a genuine successor to the Dart/Valiant, in my opinion.
I have a small amount of personal experience with these cars, having driven a rental example from Boston to Washington, DC during a several day long tour of northeastern colleges with my father back in 1988. It was surprisingly comfortable, quiet, and smooth-riding, although it certainly was bland and lacking in power. Today one would make a good winter beater, with FWD, decent interior comfort, and cheap repairs.
A surprisingly large number of K-Car survivors are found in the Washington, DC area where I live. It is an area where leased BMWs and Mercedes abound and very few 1980s cars have been kept alive, but it is rare that I go a week without seeing a K-Car still in regular use. It says something about the fundamental soundness of these cars.
You remind me of another point – the 3 speed automatic transmission was developed and perfected in an era of torquey 6s and powerful V8s. However, it was never, ever suited to a four cylinder sedan. My Honda Fit with its 5 speed auto was the first 4 cylinder/auto I ever drove that did not make me want to scream out loud after every traffic light or stop sign. I know that a stick was available with these K cars (probably 4 speed? but not sure) and it surely would have made for a more pleasant drive. Other than the rubbery linkage I used to read about in these.
The standard was a 4-speed, JP, as Dad had one in his ’82 K-Baron. In retrospect, that might have been a pretty rare option, but it was 1982, and gas cost a DOLLAR a GALLON!
We had the 4-speed manual (2-door) mated with the 2.2 L in a 1981 model. It actually had some decent acceleration for the era with that combination. Of course, the car had no A/C, no power steering, no power brakes (it was light enough they were not missed), and had the light package with the AM/FM radio (one speaker). We actually did see over 40 mpg with it.
The engine wasn’t bad, and was fairly reliable. Had a problem with the distributor cap 2 years in – that was replaced after the one time we needed a tow. And the solenoid did not care to have water splashed onto it from deep puddles. We kept the car from new for 14 years (1981-1995) and traded it in on a new 1996 Grand Caravan (which was kept about as long).
I don’t think the Torqueflite was really to blame for the K-car’s sluggishness. It was simply a matter of it being a 3-speed and of cars being slow in general during that time. You wouldn’t have been much happier in an Accord, even with its new-for-’83 4-speed.
The FWD TorqueFlites all had an insanely tall final drive ratio to keep revs down on the highway (2.20:1 or something like that) and that’s what really sucked the life out of them. An overdrive gear would have made a world of difference, as it did in the Accord (the earlier Hondamatics blew!)
Despite being slow, the power delivery was smooth and linear with the automatic from what I remember. Plus, they were fairly bulletproof pieces, so they weren’t all bad. You could do much, MUCH worse as far as 4cyl/automatic went in the early 80s. Chrysler’s manual gearbox had one of the crummiest shift linkages ever devised, so you were compromising either way.
2.2 carb 4spd stick Aries K wagon. Baby blue. No one remembers the year. I remember riding with my aunt, cousins, and siblingson the way to a softball game in it.
It was my mom’s sister’s husbands car, but it was sold to my dad’s sister. From uncle to aunt…
My aunt seemed to think it was a rally race…maybe because we were always running late. There were ramped railroad tracks near the rural high school where the games were played, and the country mile back roads, and windows down etc… it all made those fun rides.
It always came off as a group-enjoyed british sports car back then more so than a family hauler. After all, it was a stick wagon, spritely, but overloaded!
My parents had both an 1984 Aries K wagon and a 1984 Reliant in the same color as the car pictured. They were great. Both gave upwards of 200,000 miles for them and cemented a lifelong love the Mother Mopar since. There are probably a load of little old lady Aries hidden away in garages all over. When I spot one, I’m gonna get it!
You will have to race me for it. 🙂 If I find a clean wagon with a “for sale” sign on it, it’s mine.
I only want the LeBaron T&C wagon slathered in plastic wood.
Mrs. Jason’s parents had one with the 2.6 liter Mitsubishi engine. That car was like a Timex; it took a licking and kept on ticking.
My neighbor a ford man had dinoc T and C convertible in the garage and driven about twice a year from the time it was new till the late 90’s when he got divorced.
Pass the bucket; I think I’m gonna be sick.
Seriously. That is one ugly, badly proportioned car. Colour is referred to as ‘hearing aid beige’ in sunny england. Surely europe has never put anything that stupid looking on the road?
Apart from the Triumph Mayflower 🙁
Read some comments in the Merkur XR4Ti (Ford Sierra) CC… 🙂
Ooops. Got me there!
Talbots, Morris Ital, 84 Rover 200, Renault 18
The Morris Ital tooling was sold to Chinese interests way back in time, I wonder if they ever used it? anyone Know?
Proportions are fine, Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but this car is very handsome and has simple design cues and just the correct amount of space, the greenhouse is where the space was more worked on !
I grew up in a wagon of about the same color as the sedan pictured in this write up. I don’t remember it very well, I was still very young, maybe 4-8 years old, but I do remember that it was replaced with an ’87 Taurus in red, and that was a stunner of a car that never, ever ran right. I don’t remember the Aires ever screwing us the way the Taurus did, but I do remember that those beige vinyl seats burned like hell in the hot, summer sun.
I never used to have much regard for these, but now I think they were probably the right move at the right time. My big criticism at this point is not that they weren’t more like Honda, but that Chrysler didn’t advance further more quickly or that the later A-bodies weren’t as much of a step forward as they could have been. The Spirit and Acclaim would have been great cars for 1986, but four years later, they really had to lean very heavily on low price.
Well, you’re certainly not alone in feeling that way. These weren’t loved when new and indeed, it’s taken about many years for people to recognize why they were so necessary.
The opinion that they didn’t evolve quickly enough was present by the mid ’80s, and has not changed over time (although I can’t fault the Turbo engines). Of course, the hasty development of post-K cars is a boondoggle of a different sort.
The turbo engines were fine for cars like the Laser and Daytona, but a noisy, peaky turbo is a really odd fit for a family sedan or a quasi-luxury car, especially when you had the choice of a three-speed automatic or Chrysler’s clumsy five-speed (much improved in 1990, but pretty miserable before that). Putting it in the minivans was also bizarre, but that’s a kind of weirdness I can almost get behind…
Well, until the Mitsubishi V6 came around, the only options were turbo or non-turbo, and I’ve always felt that the addition of the turbocharger took at least some of the noise and harshness out of these engines.
For years and years I always assumed the “turbo” script on the minivans was just some cheesy piece of dress-up from a local dealer that had nothing to do with what was under the hood. Imagine my surprise when I found out it was real! I can definitely get behind that weirdness, though – as well as the turbo Town & Country wagon.
The turbo might have made the 2.5 quieter (I’ve never compared them back to back or looked at decibel figures), but it didn’t do much for the sound quality. For American driving, I almost wonder if Chrysler might have been better off with an on-demand supercharger like the Toyota 1G-GZEU and 4A-GZEU engines, which disengaged the supercharger drive when cruising. Of course, that would have been a lot more expensive, I’m sure.
Of course, today, relying on relatively small turbocharged engines for bigger cars is becoming pretty standard, so there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea — the technology just wasn’t entirely there yet.
We bought our 1981 Reliant on March 1st, 1981.
The first year models has some serious body issues with rust. Ours did, along the drip rails and an actual 1.5″ hole above the upper left corner of the rear window! Not to mention missing bolts under the hood.
Our Chrysler dealer – Goddard Motors in Florissant, MO bent over backwards fixing the car and served us very well. We owned that car for 7 years.
The Reliant we had was a stripper model, stick shift, inside-controlled driver’s side mirror and that was it!
The car was a blast to drive and at the time ran rings around most everyone else in the snow, for most cars were RWD back then. Wifey and I both loved the car, but wish it had A/C.
My F-i-L loved our Reliant so much, he went out and bought one – with A/C, radio, auto tranny!
I can’t confirm it, but there was a story that the K-Cars were actually designed at Ford, and those designers came to work for Chrysler. After all, look at the box panthers, and the K-Car was 5/8 scale!
As to quality – well, less said the better, for nobody would put up with the glitches we had nowadays, but it was a different time back then.
As far as Honda and Toyota went, the first Camrys didn’t impress me, nor did the Accord, but I kept an eye on them. When the later Accords came out, I was impressed. Same for the late-80s Camry.
I believe 1983 was the first or second year the 4-doors had windows that rolled down, but the divider bar was too far forward which made for a small opening. That was fixed on the later models for a better proportion.
I found this on my company’s parking lot 3 weeks ago!
The feature car brought back a lot of memories. My grandfather, a true Okie from (near) Muskogee, purchased an Aries in the same color and trim around 1984. It was the first small car he had ever owned; it was preceded by a series of used Chryslers dating back to the 50s. The Aries replaced a massive Cordoba that required destruction of a workbench to fit in the garage.
Grandpa was a true believer in Lee Iacocca. He bought Lee’s book, avidly watched Chrysler commercials during breaks in Wapner, and truly felt that he was doing his part for America by purchasing a K-car. The car was mostly used for runs to Safeway and Wal-Mart (Sam Walton was another of Grandpa’s heroes), but it also took us on a lot of fishing trips to the Skunk River and Little Wall Lake—grandpa in his good fishin’ hat, grandma with a scarf and picnic basket—a return to simpler times.
My grandmother, shrunken and hunched by osteoporosis, could still drive the Aries with the help of a cushion. I remember riding on the bench seat in the full forward position while she peered over the dash, every movement very deliberate. She’d learned to drive in a Model T on the farm, but her vision deteriorated and response times eventually got too slow; not long after, my grandfather died doing what he enjoyed most: working in the garden, cultivating peanuts, okra, and tomatoes.
The Aries sat in the garage for close to a decade, a sort of tableau frozen in time. Grandpa’s last pack of smokes sat on the shelf next to the car amongst the garden implements and junkyard Chrysler parts. Over the years, the rear end began to sag and the tires slowly lost air. It was sold for a pittance once it became clear that Grandma was not long for this earth.
The K-car wasn’t trouble-free, but it suited a couple in their 70s downsizing after years of land yachts. I think it was a blessing for both grandparents—their fixed income couldn’t really support a huge, gas-guzzling vehicle anymore, and the Aries was infinitely easier to drive and park.
Had he not died in 1994, the current state of Wal-Mart and Chrysler would certainly have killed my grandfather. That generation of folks is very nearly gone, and the loss is palpable.
Thanks for the article, Paul. I enjoyed it.
And thanks for your moving comment. I think I would have enjoyed meeting your grandfather.
He was an original. I should have made it clear that all of the above took place in Ames, IA—he was a transplant from dirt-poor dustbowl Oklahoma after WWII. He was born a twin—Millard (my grandpa) and Willard, who died as a boy. You don’t meet too many Millards or Willards anymore!
Ames, Ia. that was clear to me as soon as Skunk River and Little Wall Lake appeared together in one sentence.
It is also clear how much you loved your grand parents. Thanks for sharing.
“The Honda simply felt (and was) profoundly better in every possible metric.”
Well, except room and ride comfort, two very important considerations for the US market and a big reason why full size trucks and CUVs are so popular today. You have a tendancy to compare everything to what Europeans want. I feel this was better suited to American wants than the Accord, but the poor quality and lack of power let it down.
I agree.
I think it is time for us to give the Market credit for what the Market wanted. The Honda Accord was better than the K cars in many ways, but it was not what a lot of Americans wanted for a number of reasons – and every one of those reasons for choosing a K car over a Honda Accord should be respected.
If everyone wanted an Accord or a Camry, what a truly boring place this site would be.
In the early and mid-1980s, Honda dealer coverage was still weak in many rural areas and in the heartland. Honda volume was also limited by a lack of production capacity during this time, and the Japanese auto makers were operating under government-negotiated agreements that limited the number of vehicles they could import into this country.
At that time, if you wanted a Honda, you were lucky if the dealer agreed to sell you one at the sticker price, and didn’t add charges for a $500 wax job or $400 trunk rack. You also faced a wait if you wanted a particular color.
Meanwhile, your Dodge or Chrysler-Plymouth dealer was happy to sell you an Aries or Reliant right off the lot, and often with hefty rebates or discounts.
I think it is time for us to give the Market credit for what the Market wanted.
I though I just did that, by calling it the car that saved Chrysler. Obviously not everyone wanted an Accord. And in terms of driving dynamics, there’s a big difference between an enthusiast 30 year old driver with a commute over a mountain range (me) and granny and gramps in Iowa wanting a reinKarnated Falcon.
Yes, I would have been much happier in an Accord. Granny? It would probably have been lost on her.
So yes, the K-car found a successful niche. And its dynamics were probably adequate for the folks that bought them.
I’ll chip in here and say that it was a pale metallic green Reliant 4-door with a 4-speed transmission that got us started on our series of Honda Accords. We test-drove the Reliant, and right after that a burgundy 1980 Accord with 5-speed. No comparison…we immediately bought the Accord.
In the mid 80’s, I rode w/ friends back to their home in Philadelphia. When the visit was over, how to get back home to Georgia? Solution: A one way rental from Avis! The car: a dark blue, four door Reliant K. While not exciting to drive, it was adequate for the interstates, and above all, seemingly, IT WAS INVISIBLE to state troopers! Back in those dim days of “STRICTLY ENFORCED” 55 mph speed limits, more than once, with the assistance of cruise control, I maintained a steady 5 -10 mph overage! I also made it home a LOT faster than my friends thought I would!! (c:
My great grandmother in Orlando had one of these in that same artificial limb beige. I do not know if it was a Reliant or a Aries. To her a car was simply a device to get you from one place to another. Make, model, trim, color, engine did not matter just so it did a job. She never understood why I would even care to prefer a specific make much less spend money and time modifying a car. I always thought that the K cars best suited that type of person.
Not sure which I like better—“hearing aid beige” or “artificial limb beige.” Both are pretty accurate. My memories of that color (it’s just “beige” on the Chrysler color chart) include just a little bit of metallic, which looked decent in the sunlight.
Perhaps because of the loan guarantee there was quite an advertising blitz when these were released. I recall thinking, “wow, a K car” when I saw one in the parking lot of my summer job in 1981. I was (amd am) amused by the actual use of “K” on the badging e.g. “Reliant K” and “Aries K”. Can you imagine if GM did that? “Impala B” anyone?
The “K” moniker was used so much in the loan guarantee process and in the press, that Chrysler or Lido or both said “Why not?” and used it in the name of their models. It worked brilliantly.
There was a heavy ad campaign with K-Mart, too – a K-Car was prominently displayed at the front doors, and the tie-in was a match made in heaven for a time!
I believe that the term “K car” got used so heavily in 1980 during the loan guarantee blitz, that the car was quite well known by the time it was released. Unfortunately, everybody knew all about how the “K cars” were coming, but nobody knew that they would be called Aries and Reliant. Iacocca was sharp enough to know that he had some good name recognition with the “K” designation, so it got slapped on the car, just to make it clear. (Oops, Zackman beat me to it.)
The FWD GM X bodies were widely known as “X Cars” when they first came out, and that was a year or two before Lido’s K Cars. I don’t recall anyone calling a Nova an “X Car” but the Citation carried that epithet in the news coverage and casual conversations of the day, at least in my recollection.
Perhaps because both GM and Chrysler had invested a lot in clean-sheet designs of a new type of small-on-the-outside-big-on-the-inside, FWD car, the new platforms got just as much attention as the new models that were based upon them.
+1 I recall the same press coverage. The use of the term ‘X-Cars’ in the lead up marketing by GM for their new front wheel drive cars, was easily adopted by the press. As it also allowed them to encompass the whole Citation/Phoenix/Omega/Syylark lineup, with the one catchy name. It likely played a role in Chrysler using ‘K-Car’ in their marketing leading up to the 1981 release of the Reliant and Aries. The press was happy to use the ‘K-Car’ term equally as much as the ‘X-Car’ term. As you saw the use of ‘K-Car’ frequently used in many newspaper articles before their release.
Hmm…comparison, anyone? K-car versus X-car? Battle of the letters?
Was first exposed to these in Iacocca’s bio. Every second word in that book was ‘K-car’.
I bought an ’84 Chrysler E-Class brand spanking new. It was truly awful right from the start. Yes it had a lot of interior room, mostly because the seats were so small. That 2.6 engine w/ miserable carb didn’t help either! It ended up sitting at home in the driveway being neglected and unloved when I started using public transport to get to work three years later. It was a little better on snow and ice than my 75 Valiant.
Later I bought a PT Cruiser, silly me! It’s gone now, too. No more Chrysler products for me!
While he may not have had anything to do with it, Iacocca sure got a lot of mileage out of the K platform, using it for everything from the minivan to the Lebaron limousine. It must have driven guys like the former heads of Chrysler he succeeded (John Riccardo and Gene Cafiero) nuts since they were the ones responsible for the development of the K. Of course, they never could have ran with it the way Iacocca did, either.
Say what you will about the guy, but he’s directly responsible for not one, but two of the vehicles that always end up on the ‘best vehicles ever made’ lists.
I wonder what would have happened if John Delorean had gone to work for Chrysler instead of striking out on his own? I liked his ‘On a clear day’ book, which STILL strikes me as prescient about GM considering the recent kerfuffle over the ignition switch fiasco.
Delorean running Chrysler would have been a really interesting experience. The timing was right, as Lynn Townsend retired (ran away?) in 1975, about the time that John Z left GM. Townsend’s hand-picked duo of Riccardo and Cafeiro turned out to be a disaster from an operational standpoint. I wonder, though, if DeLorean would have been “the guy” for the CAFE/$1 gas era that smacked everyone in 1979-80. Iacocca was able to bring over some good operations and finance guys from Ford. Who would John Z have drawn those folks from, though I suppose there were likewise a lot of talented people in mid-level positions at GM back then, too. DeLoraan could have become sort a mixture of Iacocca and Lutz, so if he could have gotten through 1982, Chrysler might have been ready with some really appealing stuff in 1985-86. Who knows, but a very interesting concept to ponder.
A DeLorean-led Chrysler is an interesting scenario to ponder. I don’t believe, however, that he would have succeeded in getting many GM people to follow him to Chrysler. He didn’t have the loyalty at GM that Iacocca did at Ford.
Iacocca made it a point to cultivate a loyal clique at Ford, which served him well, ironically enough, at Chrysler. DeLorean went out of his way to proclaim himself a maverick within the solid grey GM bureaucracy.
By 1980, there also wasn’t much incentive to leave GM. It was the only healthy domestic automaker left. Ford was reeling, Chrysler would have gone bankrupt without the government loans, and AMC only survived thanks to Renault. There wasn’t much incentive for a GM “lifer” to leave the perceived safety of GM for the risk of Chrysler. When Bunkie Knudsen left GM for Ford in the late 1960s, he didn’t have much luck in convincing many GM executives to follow him (which was one reason it was easy for Iacocca to ultimately best him in their struggle for power).
What I’ve found fascinating is that, throughout the 1970s, Iacocca chafed under the ultra-conservative approach to new product investment and development that Ed Lundy and Henry Ford II had imposed on Ford.
Yet, when he was running Chrysler, and had far more power and influence than he ever did at Ford, he essentially followed the same playbook. He milked the K-platform for all it was worth, and let it run on for way too long. He kept the Aries and Reliant in production for too long in their original form. (As Ateupwithmotor has noted, the Dodge Spirit and Plymouth Acclaim should have been out by 1986).
For someone who supposedly possessed great marketing savvy, he didn’t do much to distinguish the Chrysler marque from Dodge and Plymouth, or even the latter two from each other. The Chrysler marque lost what little prestige it had left during the 1980s.
Chrysler was hardly a leader in quality, styling or innovation during this time, aside from the minivan. He used his personality and celebrity to sell Congress and the public on the bailout, and then sell vehicles that were already in the hopper when he arrived. And that was pretty much it. Ford had taken the lead among the domestics by 1986 in the amount of “buzz” it generated.
Agreed. I’ve always thought Lee was a bit over-rated, and that really showed at Chrysler. Petersen at Ford in 80s was in a different league.
Here’s one to ponder: what would Ford in the 80s have looked like if Hank had given the CEO job to Lee?
That is an interesting question to ponder. Ford probably would have survived, thanks to ruthless cost-cutting. But Iacocca was openly contemptuous of the move to aero-styling exemplified by the 1983 Thunderbird, followed by the Tempo/Topaz and the Taurus/Sable. He also paid lip-service to the need for improved quality.
The photos of the Thunderbird he had originally planned for 1983 aren’t too encouraging. I also can’t see him ever approving something like the original Taurus and Sable.
Ford would have probably offered more mini-Lincoln Continentals and Mark Vs. If nothing else, they would have made GM’s drastically downsized 1985 and 1986 cars look better.
I seriously doubt that an Iacocca-led Ford would been out-earning GM by 1987. Ford Division also wouldn’t have ousted Chevrolet from first place in sales by 1988.
DeLorean was an engineer who new something about sales. Iacocca was a salesman who knew something about engineering. I think Chrysler, at that stage, was better served with a salesman in the top job.
Iacocca’s genius was taking a humble car and adding just the right gingerbread to make it desirable: Falcon becomes Mustang; Aries becomes New Yorker (and LeBaron and Daytona and …). For a while, you can make a lot of money that way. The trouble is that as these models age, buyers start to see that the emperor has no clothes.
But, to quote Keynes, in the long run, we’re all dead. The right man for Chrysler in the short run was Iacocca. And without his genius for selling, there wouldn’t have been a Chrysler to talk about in the long run.
One small tangent. I worked in a newsroom in 1987 when there was an active group seeking to draft Iacocca to run for president. Many of us had trouble remembering how to spell is his name until someone found this mnemonic device: I Am Chairman Of Chrysler Corporation America.
As a weird side note, Chrysler’s ex-president Gene Cafiero did go to work for DeLorean in 1979, becoming president and CEO of DMC.
Cool mnemonic. I picked up one of Iacocca’s post-bio books titled something like ‘what’s wrong with America’. Definitely setting himself up for the presidential chance, but not a good read. Agree with the above comments about Lido being better for Chrysler. I don’t think JZDL would have been as well accepted by political crusties.
I want to find a nice Reliant and personalize the plate with ‘NCC-1864’.
It can take you to Ceti Alpha Five and back using only one tank of regular grade dilithium.
Maybe the Captain’s chair could be made of “Rich Corinthian Leather”………
Task a picture of it next to a Hyundai Genesis. But Mark sir William Shatner doesn’t blow out the left rear tire first.
The K-Car was the ’49 Ford of its time, both representing attempts by their respective companies to get back on track or face elimination that succecded
I too liked the early models looks better , especially the drop tops .
-Nate
Compared to the competition at the time (GM’s infamous “X” cars and/or Ford’s POS front wheel drive slackers and ageing Fairmont derivatives), the K cars were much more modern and pleasant drivers.
My first generation K car (2.2 engine, 5 speed manual, A/C) was a pleasant (if somewhat bland), reliable driver that fit my American “plus sized” body quite well. It’s boxy body gave more interior room than it’s overall size indicated.
Living in New Orleans I didn’t experience the rust issues some Northern owners did, The A/C could tame a Hot & Humid New Orleans summer easily; something Hondas of the same time period has “issues” with. If you didn’t try to be “Speed Racer” the 5 speed manual was much more enjoyable & precise shifting than one in an Escort or a front wheel drive Toyota Tercel.
At the time I had an on site service job that required me to call on older Americans. Most of them admired my choice of an American car over a foreign one.
Sad to say, I have noticed a distinct anti-Mopar bias in many of Paul’s comments on this forum.
“Sad to say, I have noticed a distinct anti-Mopar bias in many of Paul’s comments on this forum.”
You’ll find anti-Mopar bias in all forums because of Chrysler’s history of sub-par quality.
Well, in the last 25 years, how many were stuck with failed Ultradrives and their re-named successors? How many were stuck with failed 2.7L engines? All with little or no help from Chrysler? Of course, the engine sludge problem and various “glass” tranny issues happened to Toyota and Honda owners as well, not to mention the other fiascos at other OEMs, but I believe Chrysler’s l-o-n-g history of things like this has stayed in the minds of many, and until the up-and-down financial woes of the company are either solved or they go out-of-business, those memories will remain.
Whether it was/is their constant financial straits or not, they have had great designs resulting in beautiful cars that were well-engineered, but not properly vetted as to quality and durability. The customers too often were virtual “beta-testers”, and most, after being burned, or afraid they would get burned, never came back.
I believe that may be starting to ease a bit, but time will tell.
“Sub-par quality”??
Zack, was GM or Ford that much better in the same time period? I think NOT!
Depended on the models. The GM X-cars were a disaster when they came out, to become improved in a year or two. Ford had its issues too. I could cite many other instances, but the bottom line seems to be that Chrysler’s history, beginning with the late 50s models was the onset of their problems, and that’s what people remember. Ford and GM seemed to be given a pass, somewhat.
Dad’s 1950 Plymouth was a fantastic vehicle – solid and dependable, if not fancy. The K-Cars were as well, and once our Reliant’s issues were fixed, we enjoyed that car the remaining 6+1/2 years, until I sold it when the “Batmobile” arrived, courtesy of Wifey’s great uncle – a 1980 LeBaron coupe! Our kids named it the “Batmobile” when the Jack Nicholson “Batman” movie came out, and I obtained a Batman sticker and put it on the rear left side of the trunk lid.
The LeBaron had A/C, so I sold the Reliant.
I drove Chrysler products for over 20 years, so, no – I don’t hate Chrysler, but I have a similar feeling towards their vehicles, but that has softened in the last 3 years.
In 1981, the Fairmont wasn’t exactly aged, and given the choice that year, I would have picked one of the K Car.
I base that on experience with the Aries I drove for a while and my Dad’s Zephyr. The Zephyr, with the four, four speed stick, and manual steering was quite a decent handler, and could be tossed in the back roads, without the terminal understeer that the Aries had.
FWIW, I’ve heaped tons of praise on Mopars here. And didn’t I call this “The car that saved Mopar” ? There’s no company bias; some of their cars were better than others.
The K Car was ok for folks who wanted a 1960 Falcon in 1981, but it certainly wasn’t fun to drive.
Also, to this day a lot of “Mopar people” won’t look twice at the FWD stuff that came out under Lido. As big of a fanboi as I was in 1980-81, even I had trouble accepting the K. “What? No torsion bars? No ammeter? No fender-mounted turn signals? Who made this thing?” In fairness, Chrysler under Iacocca fixed a lot of the problems that had crept into the cars over the prior 10 or 15 years, but introduced others. The FWD stuff was mostly better built and in several ways more appealing to the broad majority, but they lost some of the old-school durability and quirkiness that had marked the cars for a long time previously.
JPC, Im one of those Mopar people. The Daytonas and the 87 LeBaron coupe were great looking cars, but what a disappointment when you opened the hood. The 80s were not an exciting decade to be Mopar fan. This is company that just a decade earlier gave us 440s, 340s, Hemis, Six Packs, Chargers, Road Runners, Cudas and Plum Crazy Purple and now we are supposed to love a head gasket-eating turbocharged 135 cubic inch 4 cylinder front wheel drive something? Blech. Sure Iacocca was a great leader and the company did what they had to do to sell cars but there wasnt much there for the enthusiast. Other than maybe nice 4X4 Ramcharger or a Mirada with T-Tops, there isn’t anything from the 80s with a Pentastar on it I would want to own.
I think you meant to say that there wasn’t much there for the enthusiast who refused to accept that the 60s were long dead and gone. The turbo four was way more exciting than the emissions choked V8s Chrysler had spent the past decade producing.
no I said what I meant. Americans loved, and still do love, musclecars. Mustang and Camaro/Firebird sales stayed strong throughout the 80s and interest and sales of the new Challenger, Mustang and Camaro with buyers much younger than baby boomers prove it. See any retro Omnis out there? Better yet, how many of todays teens light up at the sight of a 1985 Daytona? But any kid that knows cars knows what a Charger or a Cuda is. K-cars are more than 30 years old now, well past the age for status as a classic, and they have no place as collector cars.
Emissions choked V8s? GM and Ford managed to breathe new life into their old V8s in the form of Tuned Port Injected Camaros and 5.0 HO Mustangs. Chrysler eventually caught up in electronically fuel injected small block V8 development with the 1992 Magnum small blocks but the only platform they had for it was trucks.
Where are the retro versions of the Fox-body Mustang or 3rd gen F-body, then? Being exciting to teenagers is not a criteria I usually take into consideration when evaluating things, and Americans with a nostalgia boner does not equate with enthusiast. Step outside of Hot Rod, Barrett-Jackson, drag strips and cruise nights and I think you’ll find most of the enthusiast world (US included) moved on a long time ago. The three retro muscle cars currently available are great, but they’re a niche product. Their popularity pales in comparison to the success of cars in the mold of Chrysler’s turbo front drivers over the last 30 years.
lol, enjoy your turbo New Yorker then. See you on the street.
Yes, Paul, you have given various Mopars their just due of praise. You have been unstinting with criticism also, much more than on deserving GM & FoMoCo vehicles. I agree that some of the Mopars were better (or worse) than others. It is my opinion that Mopar buyers were slightly less “mainstream” than the competition’s buyers.
“The K car was for folks who wanted a 1960 Falcon”? SRSLY?? And what of the competition at that time? I spent 2 summers between college working in the “new car get ready” section of a local Ford dealer. A rear wheel drive, 200 six cylinder, automatic tranny (as most were equipped those two summers) Ford Fairmont struck me as the (slightly) modernized version of the original Falcon!
Anyone recall the crumbling valve guide seals issue on low mileage 6 cylinder Fords & Mercurys of this era?
As Always, so many things in life come down to a case of choices, of weighing the pros and cons and making a compromise.
Mainstream cars have come a L O N G way since the early 1980’s! I suspect we both can agree on this.
Those 4 cylinder Zephyrs must be what inspired Ford Aussie to try a Pinto 4 in a Falcon body as an econmy model, it used more gas than the 6 so the idea was dropped but the thought must have originated somewhere.
When was that Bryce?
As I drove my 1988 Reliant 4 door around town these last 5 weeks, it’s hard to believe that it was the car to save Chrysler. Six people seating? HA. The car does have lots of power for a commuter (2.5L), but it is no sports car. Solid, yes; stylish, no; comfortable for one or two people, yes. More than that, no.
I’ve always wondered how this story would have been different if GM hadn’t completely botched the X car launch.
I recall very well that when the X cars launched, they received the highest test ratings ever seen. They really were very nice cars, but once the quality issues started to enter the national consciousness sales went off a cliff. And people turned to the K cars, which really were not as nice but as Paul noted were built to acceptable (if imperfect, but acceptable for the time) quality levels. I sometimes think if the GM X cars were built as well as the Chrysler K cars, people would have kept buying Xs and ignored the K cars, and Chrysler failing because of it.
I seem to recall that the K car kept Chrysler alive long enough to bring out the minivan, and the minivan brought them all the way back to full strength.
Regarding the test ratings for the X cars – if I recall correctly, the enthusiast magazines received heavily massaged cars that weren’t necessarily representative of what most buyers were getting off the showroom floor. Patrick Bedard of Car and Driver even admitted this in a column published around 2007 or so.
True, but still, the X-Cars were decidedly more ambitious. I had a 1981 Skylark with the 2.8 V6, HD suspension and bigger tires, and that car was night and day from a K car four with an automatic. No comparison. Of course, it cost more too. 🙂
Plus, GM was the beneficiary of the same kind of “presumption of excellence” that Toyota benefits from today.
My grandfather bought one of these new – must have been around 1985 or 1986 after his 69 Caddy became too rusty to patch. I remember he drove it to my parent’s house to show it off – and told me it had a 2.5 liter engine it – I was pretty sure they didn’t but then he had me look at the badge on the fender – it said “SE”. It was then that I realized Grandpa shouldn’t really be driving anymore – but who could tell him that? He had always loved his cars and even when he lived in NYC he owned a car.
Several weeks later we got a call that he had been in an accident – he pulled out in front of a garbage truck which promptly t-boned the car – pinning him inside. Luckily he only broke a few ribs – but that was the end of his driving career.
They didnt export them Chrysler over this way became Mitsubishi and the Aussie Magna with 2.6 Astron was inflicted on the public they had as you put it Paul issues, however they had good points too great ride and fuel economy Mitsu even had an advertisement showing their FWD cars prowess in snow for a country that doesnt have snow in measureable quantities.
I gather one of the conditions of the loan guarantees was that they had to sell off all off-shore assets, or perhaps it was to sell off loss-making assets – it amounted to the same thing really!
Shame though, I liked Valiants.
I want to take this opportunity to also say that I do indeed enjoy & look forward to reading Paul Niedermeyer’s articles on this site and often/usually agree with his opinions and comments.
Just not so much today.
🙂
I don’t know if this generation was still derived from the K-car, but I spotted this surprisingly clean New Yorker on the highway just yesterday. It was being driven (slowly) by an old lady.
Yep, those were still K-derivatives.
I still see them around, too. Saw a K-derivative Y-body Imperial a few days ago.
I owned several new cars in the late seventies and early eighties. I liked some better than the k car (78 concorde/81 datsun truck) but mostly I think the K car was a big step up. Rented one when we were scouting Houston for a Chicago company with intentions of opening a branch. I couldn’t believe the mileage I got and the car was very roomy.
If I was stuck with having one car today (shudder) I could get along with a K car wagon from that era. Might not be pretty but could do everything I need.
After Panthers, I think the K-car and its derivatives have most populated the purchases of my extended family. Not sure if that’s a good thing or not.
My parents bought a lightly used ’83 Reliant. Other than a wheel bearing, it was nearly flawless for the 120,000 miles they put on it.
My maternal grandparents bought an ’85 Aries brand new. The trunk took on water. The dealer was unsympathetic until my grandmother threatened to call Chrysler to tell Lee that he had a throng of jackasses representing him. They bought this after being turned off by a ’77 Impala.
My paternal grandmother bought an ’89 Aries in early 1990. The transmission retired at 20,000 miles.
In all cases an upgraded ’60 Falcon would have fit the bill. For someone wanting an American car during this period, this wasn’t a bad choice. Were they perfect? Obviously not.
This brings back memories of our neighbors when my parents and I lived in a small apartment soon after moving back to Connecticut from Florida. Those neighbors lived in the house next door, a pleasant elderly couple.
Mrs. drove the updated ’85+ Plymouth Reliant that was a ringer for Zackman’s red one pictured in the comments above. Mr. drove a tan Reliant in the color of the subject car. This was around the time I was beginning to care about such things (age 6-7) and I asked them and they told me the tan one was an ’82 and the red one was an ’86.
One used to see these everywhere: young families, older teachers and librarians, old couples like our neighbors.
It does seem like one day, they all suddenly disappeared, sometime in the late 1990s.
These strike me as not “good” cars as such, but “good enough” cars- hardly brilliant, but just keep on going in the background of people’s lives. If they had debuted in a Chrysler that was doing ok at the time, they would be hardly remembered, like a late 60s American Valiant.
An excellent write up as usual Paul though I feel like most contemporary auto writers you go a little hard on Iacocca.
The rectilinear design of these K-cars typecasts them to the brief “Fairmont” era of car design where there was no link to the more swoopy past or wedge and aero future. It really dates the look and I believe the K-car was one of the last sedans to place the deck height same as the hood and belt line. Still there’s a certain charm about it and will forever be the “clip art” car.
These pre-face lift K-Cars are quite rare according to the K-Car Club. I wonder what the history of this Aries is especially since that license plate is practically brand new.
Growing up in the 80s, I have no love for the K-car. Now that Im older, I realize they, along with the minivan, which are themselves K-derived, saved Chrysler which inevitably led to bigger and better things like Vipers and GenIII Hemis. But when youre a testosterone-infused teenaged boy with a love for cars, my GM and Ford buddies got excited year after year with new 5.0 Mustangs, Tuned Port Injected Corvettes, and mean-looking Grand Nationals. What did I have as a Mopar fan? I was stuck with Grandma’s K-car-derived front wheel drive turbo turds or try and boast about the rusty 60s musclecar leftovers that (at the time) only rednecks in the trailer park were driving.
The Ks once again showed the world that Chrysler is the Little Company That Could. May they rust in piece.
Paul, for what it’s worth, I had to log in on my home computer just a short while ago. I saw the “Log in” on the right under the masthead.
Thank you, thank you, thank you so much!
I know this has nothing to do with this topic, but I had to give a shout-out and due props!
Paul, the first photo would make a lovely painting.
Gee, Paul. That is a very clean and pretty nice, old 30 year old K-car you shot. Back in the day that seemed bland and boring to a much younger me, but now I see them as practical and decent, efficient transportation. In late 1982, a year before they came out, I was greatly taken with the sporty looks of the Laser and Daytona which were featured in pre-production reviews in the car mags. Admittedly those still hold more appeal to me. Still have one of the two I owned sitting in my mom’s garage. The sedans I really liked then and now are the not often seen LeBaron GTS and the Lancer. Seems like those were designed to be, or at least appeared to be, sports sedans.
Chrysler really got their money’s worth out of the tooling for these cars. My impression of them in the 80’s was comparing to the “plain wrap” fad of white and blue labeling of bread, beer, soap, detergent, etc. And I remember the media was all over these cars, and Lee Iacocca as the savior of Chrysler and the controversy of a government loan to a corporation. History does repeat itself. As others have said, it seems have been a adequate car for the times, and Ford Falcon of the 80’s seems to be a valid car to compare it with. They were around way past their due date. I never road in or drove one of these cars, but I don’t think I missed out on an exciting experience. They were good enough, and a lot were sold. All in all, Chrysler did a decent job for an affordable economical car.
My parents had an early Aires wagon in the early 90’s back when I was around 4 or 5 years old. My memories of it are positive, and I thought it was a very handsome car at the time. I still do actually! It replaced the first family car that I can remember: a V6 powered 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme coupe in burgundy, complete with whorehouse red velour interior and fake wire wheel hubcaps. haha. My earliest memories of that car involve spending a lot of time waiting at the mechanic’s.
The Aires was pale yellow with very light tan or buckskin colored interior. It had a stand-up hood ornament, and in winter we would often build a little snowman around it as a base and see how long it could survive while we were driving. It also had the distinction of being the only car my family owned with a bench seat, and I remember it created a feeling of isolation from my parents that I did not like. It seemed to drive brilliantly in the snow, and we spent many weekends exploring the back roads of Utah with it. After a few years it was replaced by a sharp looking white-over-red mid-80’s S-10 Blazer.
K cars were just about the most ubiquitous thing on the road in the 90’s that I can remember. When I moved back to the States in 2010-2012 they were all but gone. I miss cars like these. Am I alone in thinking that early K cars, Ford Fairmonts, other cars of that ilk look pretty good? I feel like now we live in an era of overly ostentatious design, with gun slit visibility, pointless styling details, and body sculpting. I appreciate the almost utilitarian-like design language of the 70’s-80’s, and the much better visibility.
I can see what you mean, especially with the wagon body- they look pleasantly airy for the rear seat passengers.
Plenty of them around circa 1991, just like Remora attending a whale!
Gotta love that Fleetwood!
+1
The folks in the gray and white house have gone to great lengths to block their view of the Aries.
Ronnie Schreiber over at TTAC had a good description of the K Car in his review of the modern 300: “The K-car saved Chrysler the company. The K-car almost destroyed Chrysler the brand.”
After the K-Car, Chrysler lost their reputation for engineering excellence, and the Chrysler brand lost the last of its prestige after the K-car based New Yorkers and Imperials.
This car looks like a real time capsule – other than the wheel covers, the speakers in the front kick panels, and (possibly) the radio it looks to be completely stock. And it looks just right in front of the houses in the first picture. I haven’t seen an early K-car this clean in quite some time, and I hope this one is preserved.
I picked one of these up as a used car for my sister circa 1990. It was a nice plush LE model owned by a doctor and kept in a garage with low mileage (about 80,000 km, IIRC). It looked kind of like a 5/8 scale model brougham, which probably made it appeal to people that wouldn’t otherwise be ready for a small car.
It was dirt cheap because it was only running on three cylinders as one of the lobes of the camshaft had almost sheared off. Since the camshaft was cheap and easy to replace, I picked up the car cheap as it was otherwise immaculate.
I was a bit of an import fan at the time, and I remember thinking a camshaft failing at that mileage on a well maintained car was a sign of Krap K-Kar Kwality, but once the camshaft was replaced it gave good service – and was certainly cheaper to keep on the road than the FC RX-7 I was driving at that time.
In retrospect, it was pretty decent at it’s intended purpose – but I do think the cheap feel of these cars hurt Chrysler’s reputation in the long run.
“After the K-Car, Chrysler lost their reputation for engineering excellence,”
The new ’74 full-size cars that had a hard time wheezing off the line started it, and the ’76 Volare / Aspen sealed the deal – especially the Slant 6 carb bowl issue and stalling left turns – or was it right? Never mind the fenders. If that wasn’t enough, the ’79 R body fiasco made the ’74s look like an ’80s Benz, and the 1981 Imperial Fuel Injection was an amazing legal exercise in pissing off high end customers that actually lawyered up over their cars.
The K passed for a turn-around.
Those are fair comments on Chrysler’s reputation for engineering excellence declining during the early malaise era.
I still think the K-Car, while profitable and necessary at the time, did a lot to cheapen Chrysler’s brands in the long run.
Even today, Chrysler’s small and midsized FWD offerings seem to sell largely on price to people unable or unwilling to pay more.
These days Chrysler’s large, powerful vehicles such as the RAM, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Wrangler, and Charger / Challenger / 300 command a good price and seem to hold their value reasonably well – but their smaller FWD cars almost seem to be from a different company.
I’m with you on all these comments. None of the fleets of FWD 4 bangers seem to resonate with anybody after their initial use as daily drivers – and they fade off to history like a well loved white 1988 Whirlpool refrigerator. That even goes for the CamCord.
I’ll hand Chrysler this – the LeBaron / 600 convertible from the ’80s may be the most desirable such car (FWD 4 banger) ever built. If I could find a decent one, I wouldn’t mind having one in my garage.
Humble car yet quite a piece of American history. It will be interesting to see who remembers it 20 or 30 years from now.
I was mixed about these as high schooler that was quite happy in my ’76 Cutlass. The gas never bothered me, and I was far from rich – I paid for it all myself.
These were the future in some ways, and it is just now that I realized how much these look like the ’80 LeBaron on 8/10ths scale and sans any padded vinyl top.
Chrysler was on a budget, but I still think they missed some differentiation opportunities between the brands. These were classic bodies that lent themselves to classic Detroit tack-ons that created models and brands. They eventually ended up with a lot of trims and themes, but they were available on all the brands.
As a supermarket bag boy, I carried out a lot of groceries to these, and I never understood the trunk design. It was a classic ’65-’78 Ford full-size deep well trunk with the high shelves on each side. Just 6/10th scale with insanely high side shelves. The center was so deep that if you dropped a heavy item like a color TV into it, you’d never get it out again. A seven bag grocery trip put about four/five bags in the well and a couple on the shelves, and stuff was dumping all over. A few people dropped a full service spare in the well, covered it with a board and carpet, and had a flat floor. But, the net effect was a fairly shallow trunk – not quite Ford Fairmont bad, but close enough. There had to be a better approach.
The only loyal Mopar family I knew passed on the K wagon after a couple of Satellites and went with a Malibu wagon thinking the K was too small.
I drove just one K – a derivative – the stretched E-Class or 600 Sedan. Can’t recall which. It was nearly new and surprised me how much it reminded me of my mom’s ’78 Caprice, which is meant as a compliment. In the front seat the space was decent, the ergonomics were very GM “B,” and the four banger motivation was smoother than some modern fours I’ve driven in a first gen Altima and a Honda Element.
The E-Class / 600 sedan was probably the best looking early K / K derivative that heavily used most of the basic original styling.
Agreed on the E Class/Dodge 600. That was the car that fixed the stubby proportions on these. The original K was fine for an economy Plymouth or Dodge, but it made a bad LeBaron.
K-cars brought my family (ex-Chrysler-Plymouth dealers) back to Chrysler after a brief GM interlude – a long-lasting ’78 Estate Wagon that got me through college later on, and a woefully underpowered ’79 Malibu Custom, my dad’s company car that replaced his last new Mopar product, a ’76 Fury Salon.
My dad got an ’83 Reliant SE (Blue over blue, no vinyl) as his last company car; followed that up with an ’85 Town and Country wagon that replaced the B-Body Buick, then he turned in his company car and bought an ’86 Reliant SE wagon. All were 2.6L automatics.
Then he finally accepted a long-avoided transfer from domestic-loyal Pittsburgh to Connecticut, discovered imported cars seemed to spend less time in the shop and bought an ’88 Accord – nice ride, but not nearly as much fun as my ’88 Civic LX – the full-sized, enclosed go kart.
But in the end, Mopar got him back with the Cirrus and later the 300M, which he still drives, but not that much.
All of which is a long way of saying I lived with K cars as daily drivers; heck, I passed my driver’s test in one. Nothing exciting or dynamic, but they held up well and truly saved the company. And the fit and finish on the ’85 T&C was surprisingly good.
I remember when these first came out and after looking at them, concluded that they were much cheaper feeling and less robustly put together than either other US of foreign manufacturers. As they evolved into other models, they seemed to get better.
But what really soured me was the blatant nationalistic advertising – “America is not going to be pushed around anymore” – what garbage. As if we can be manipulated to believe that we were somehow forced to buy better built, more reliable and more economical European or Japanese cars. Iaccoca draping himself in the American flag, disparaging the Japanese, while at the same time selling Mitsubishi badged products out of the same showrooms…what a huckster………
That was just the beginning. Remember a few years later the Omni and Horizon went through a very mild refresh and returned as the Omni America and Horizon America. It was a very nationalistic time, with the ’84 LA Olympics and all, but his Yankee Doodle pitch ran out of gas when he failed to launch better and more compelling products.
One major flaw with these cars was the std non adjustable bench seat with no center armrest that was so tilted back that one needed elastic arms to reach the steering wheel. The only cure was the optional bucket seats with recliners which very few seemed to have. Why there wasn’t a split bench with center armrest is anybody’s guess. The early cars also got the non rolling down rear windows and that garbage 2.6 engine option which left many an owner on the roadside. Head gaskets, sensor failures, power loss and drive ability quirks were constant companions.
I’ve had eight of these and their derivatives (nine if you count the Rampage, which I don’t), including two turbos-and I loved them all. They weren’t too fancy-excepting maybe the N/A Laser and the turbo Lancer-in fact, the two Aries & the Caravelle were downright boring, but they got the job done and well.
Would love to get another turbo K-even if the Lancer decided to self-immolate.
3, 5, 6 & 8 are look-alikes.
I don’t remember, what did the Aries and Reliant compete with? No one in my family had one, we were GM people. My much older brother’s in-laws had a blue K wagon that i rode in a few times. In my 10 year old boys appraisal it was better than a Cavalier, but not a real competitor to the A body Celebrity. A Caprice was a real car.
Speaking of the in-laws K wagon, they were a realtor and University of TN professor. Despite being well educated and heeled, they didn’t come off as elitist or pretentious like many middle class professionals do now with their douchebag “entry level luxury” cars and McMansions. The point is back then, folks like them would still buy Detroit’s vehicles and give them the benefit of a doubt. Shortly after this time period Detroit lost these types of folks forever.
When did the manufacturer of one’s automobile become such a polorizing class / social status indicator? Sure, back in the day driving a Ford or a Chevy meant you probably didn’t make as much a your Buick driving neighbor, but it didn’t mean you were a backwards hick or being ghetto. My wife grew up in a Ford family and has driven mostly Ford’s including her current 2012 Edge, but each time it gets harder to buy one for her. Her colleagues poke fun at her about it when they talk about their X5’s, RX350’s, and MDX’s. We just don’t see any reason to spend twice as much for an X5. It’s just a damn car.
Jason’s fabulous story on President Truman shows that even the President used to be able to drive a Dodge. What happened?
Happy driving,
Patrick
My parents had gotten burned by a truly horrid 78 Dodge Omni so they would have NEVER bought another Chrysler product, including a K-car. I have never driven one, and can only recall riding in a Plymouth Caravelle??? that was a stretched K derivative…nice upholstery, nice carpet, cheap chintzy construction. I seem to recall that it was the same size as the Dodge 600/Chrysler E-Class pictured above.
There is something endearing about stripped down, boxy little cars. I find that more “honest” than dressed-up versions with vinyl tops and fancy trim. I could see myself driving the beige one in the initial post.
Just as the Fiat based Dodge Dart replaced the Dodge Omni, Dodge Shadow, Dodge Neon and Dodge Caliber, the original larger RWD Dodge Dart, RWD Dodge Aspen along with the Dodge Aries, Dodge Spirit, Dodge Stratus and Dodge Avenger were also replaced by the Alfa Romeo Giulietta based Dodge Dart as well. The similar sized Mitsubishi Sedans were added in this photo montage compilation as well for comparative purposes.
In 1993 I bought a 1988 Dodge Aries station wagon (without the fake wood trim) with a 2.5 and 3 speed auto. It had 90,000km on it. About 3 years later it blew the head gasket which became a repeating event about every 2 1/2 years. Who the heck thought an aluminum head with an iron block was a good idea!!!
When I moved to LA in 2001 I took it with me. As it was built in Delaware there was no problem bringing it into California even though it only had federal emissions. I wonder why they had separate California emissions controls as this federal model passed California smog check just fine.
I likely had the only car in LA without A/C as the Canadian model was rarely bought without A/C. I had the engine rebuilt in 2003 (after another head gasket failure) and the transmission in 2006. In 2008, with 313,000 km on the clock I gave the car away to a friend who is still using it as a daily driver in LA.
Other than the head gasket failures, these were tough cars and I loved the bench seat. I have not owned another car as long as the 15 years my K-Car was my daily driver.
I think the American car industry seems to have had the same problems the British car industry had when the K cars were introduced, a major car producer facing bankruptcy( click), some truly awful cars( click), serious union problems( not as bad as Britain, but the UAW were quite keen to strike). Also imports were on the rise and home produced cars weren’t seen as good enough, in Britain by 1980 a staggering 55 per cent of new cars were imported.
This article does show that not only Britain had serious problems with its car industry, but America was in a terrible state 35 years ago. Just as we had such horrors as the Morris Ital and the Rover 2300( a real lemon), it seems America had equally bad cars like the Dodge Aspen and the Chevy Citation and buyers were hot footing it to the nearest Japanese car dealership, as in Britain.
I really think these first, pre-facelift K-cars are the best lookers of the bunch. Further reading (another CC ’83 Aries) here.
http://cars.chryslerkcar.com
Look at all the K Love goin’ on here people!
It’s beyond belief to think that the horrible looking, lowly K car, is what “saved” Chrysler. Boy oh boy were things messed up with the American automobile world (and America itself) in those days.
I remember when my boss at the time purchased a 1981Plymouth Reliant in metallic poop brown when they first came out. He asked me if I wanted a ride in it. I got in scrunched up to the dashboard (I’m 6 foot 4) and I tried to straddle the uncomfortable bench seat with all my might.
My boss starts the Reliant. Its engine was rough, noisy and underpowered. The interior was cheap looking and poorly finished with plenty of creaks, squeaks and rattles. The Reliant also had a tremendous amount of wind and road noise to accompany the ill sounding motor.
After my little jaunt in that Reliant I was a confirmed cynic of Chrysler’s miserable little K cars. Yet, this is what America wanted in a car at the time. LOL!
I drove a 1978 Honda Accord back then and my Accord was like a Rolex watch compared to that horrible Reliant.
Where were the pictures in this article taken at?