But then came the seventies’ crisis and Iacocca. Lido has said in his first book that one of the most difficult decisions he had to make to keep Chrysler going was whether to continue building cars or military vehicles. Ultimately, it was the military division that went. It was the right decision for the time but, in the long run, not having the military division for the company to fall back on through the rough periods (as it had so many times in the past) would ultimately spell its doom.

Hey! I find they have their own offbeat, 70s kitsch charm. The droopy, melted 73 was worse.

But as the article mentions…the 62 Dodges and Plymouths were horrid. Especially the Dodge, one of the most bizarre vehicles ever built (the 63 was marginally better).

“I am not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination, but I find it appalling that a foreign corporation can buy a North American one, completely fuck it up, walk away and leave countless people deprived of their livelihoods.”

Isn’t that a reflection of our open auto market? Where EVERY other country with a homegrown domestic industry protects their market, we are the only ones who do not. Why protect one of the biggest industrial firms from a foreign takeover when you don’t even protect the market it exists in?

I will freely admit that it took a unique sort of person who could withstand the rollercoaster of thrilling highs and crashing lows. This is why Chrysler never got over 16-18% of the market in that era. But for those slightly off balance people who were Mopar guys, nothing else would do.

The highs? Torsion bar suspensions that would outhandle everything else in the car’s size class. Torqueflite transmissions. Every single engine design sold in that period. The pushbuttons, followed by the smoothest shift lever in the business. Instrumentation that was more than a speedometer and a gas guage. The tight no-twist and no-rattle structure provided by the unit construction. Variable speed wipers. The full time power steering that enabled parallel parking by pinkie. The fender-mounted turn signals. The “Dryer-deer-deer-deer” of the starter. The keys that went in teeth-up. The doors you couldn’t lock yourself out of. See the kind of love these cars kindled? You guys know who you are.

The lows? The cheap bodies. The cheap vinyl seats where every single seam split within 5 years. The ignition systems that could not seem to resist moisture. The electical systems that looked good only in comparison to Lucas. The carburetor icing on any 30-50 degree damp day. The window risers that would get so stiff you would break the know off the handle. Floor rust. The 9 inch drum brakes on the A bodies. The often horrid styling (just look at a 72 Plymouth Fury) and, the one that finally broke me, Lean Burn.

My love affair continued to smolder a bit. The last vestige of the old Chrysler that continued to tempt me was the Ram Van and Wagon, and it was finally killed off after the 2003 model. I had a couple of chances to get one, but I let those chances pass. Too many design compromises on the ancient design, and all the used ones had rust holes at 7 years old, like they always did.

Saying goodbye to Chrysler is sad. But we are saying goodbye to the New Chrysler Corporation. I mourn the old Chrysler that died 30 years ago.

Robert Eaton: declining interviews, can’t blame him
Lee Iacocca: in retrospect Lutz should have succeeded me
Jurgen Schrempp: dunno, but he nailed his hot young secretary during the merger talks, got married to her afterwards

More reading: Taken for a Ride: How Daimler-Benz Drove Off With Chrysler

A small point that the development of the ‘93 Grand Cherokee, ‘94 Ram, and ‘95 Caravan did more to keep Chrysler going during that time than any of their LH cars or Neons ever did.

Also due to its indestructible slant 6.

When I got my Mazda6, I looked at “What is ford, and what is mazda?” Mazda inflicted on Ford? Brilliant, its why Ford has the best I4 of the big 3.

Ford inflicted on Mazda? Talk to owners of 626 automatic transmissions…

On the V6 for the Mazda6 (gen1), the 3.0L V6 is a Ford block, but Mazda VVT heads and Mazda transmission.

That engine then got transfered back to Ford…

The Mazda/Ford relationship is about the only exception, where a hookup has proven valuable to both parties.

It gave Mazda much needed financial stability in the 90s, and access to Ford’s supply chain. And its given Ford a top-class Japanese engineering team for things like engines, transmissions, and platforms.

They’re not dead, yet. Try explain the deal to your high schooler or middle schooler, and that’s when you realize how stupid it is, from a business case, unless you’re Fiat.

From a political perspective, it’s a good short-term effort to retain votes in Michigan.

Also, Fiat made out pretty well with their last US-association, when GM paid them $2 billion to go away…$2 billion which financed the development of the new Panda & Cinquecento and launched their successful return. If your point, however, is that foreign partnerships with US companies don’t result in the foreigners gaining engineering expertise specifically from the US, then you are correct.

The Mazda 6 that I had for a short while had a Ford 3.0l V6. Not sure about the new model, but in mine it was a variant of the duratech that is in hundreds of thousands of previous gen Ford Tauruses.

As for Chrysler, their mid 1990’s peak was 100% off the pure luck of the AMC takeover. The Grand Cherokee was already in development and why Iacocca wanted Jeep in the first place. The LH cars were started at Eagle before the takeover. Both were very successful, but neither would I say were the result of genius Chrysler engineering and innovation. My father was in sales for over 40 years, driving a new vehicle about every 2. He saw a lot of vehicles from all Big 3 and said undoubtedly from the 60’s through early 2000’s that Chryslers were always the poorest quality vehicles he ever drove. Hemi engines and flashy new models can only carry a company so far. This death has been a long time coming…and probably should’ve happend in 1979.

Epilouge, after my Dad finally retired…he bought a Honda.

The Iacocca era changed this. Where the vehicles had never had broad appeal, the New Chrysler put in place a culture that could spot market trends and put out a popular choice. Assembly quality went up dramatically and continued to improve. Even current Chrysler vehicles seem well assembled. The problem is that long-term quality suffered and has never recovered.

I never felt this way with Subaru and they never gave me any reason to believe it either.

@jurisb… correction: Mazda has been using Ford derived (sourced?) V6 engines for several years with the introduction of the 2003 Mazda6. Mazda has also sold rebranded Ford trucks and SUVs since 1990.

I don’t see any automaker, including Toyota or Honda, as being able to call the United States their biggest market right now.

But which companies are best suited to compete for the emerging markets in Central and South America? FIAT already has a strong presence in Brazil. Why should that market be left to Chinese companies?

Seen in this light, Chrysler may be able to emerge from Bankruptcy stronger and better suited for the future. As for building something for the U.S. market; why should that be the primary concern?

And so here we are. The in isn’t even dry on the paperwork and everybody’s parading Chrysler down the street like a funeral procession on a New Orleans street.