Remove the Chrysler "Wings"/Not German

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Guest, Aug 20, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Apparently you have never seen Chryslers from the '30's and 40's with
    the trademark "wings", Viking helment/wings, or any other traditional
    Chrysler logos. It is definitely not related to Mercedes-Benz.
     
    Guest, Aug 20, 2007
    #1
  2. Guest

    who Guest

    The recent wings came with the Mercedes takeover.
     
    who, Aug 21, 2007
    #2
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    If you look at say, a 1934-37 Airflow, or a comparable Airstream, you
    will see the exact winged emblem on the trunk, and on the Airflow, on
    the rear fender skirts. I have a 1940 Royal coupe, and on the Owner's
    Manual, it has the wings with the middle logo, just like today's.
    Chrysler revived the motif, and for my taste, it is an historical link
    with their great cars!
     
    Guest, Aug 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    Steve Guest

    And besides, the re-introduction of the ribbon roundel/wings combination
    that is currently on the cars pre-dated the Benz fiasco by several
    years. There was a wholesale re-introduction of updated Dodge, Chrysler,
    and Plymouth logos in the mid 90s. The Dodge ram's head came back, an
    updated version of the Plymouth sailing ship came back (fore-aft rigged
    instead of square-rigged this time ;-), and the Chrysler ribbon
    medallion came back and sprouted wings. All 3 of those logos (or marks,
    more precisely) were used in the 40s and 50s, but were phased out in the
    60s in favor of the Pentastar (corporate), the Dodge 3-pointed
    "Fratzog", and the abstract Plymouth ship that looked more like a rocket.

    What I really want to see is for the Pentastar to re-appear on the
    right-front quarter panel where it belongs.
     
    Steve, Aug 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Guest

    Steve Guest

    No, they didn't (see previous post).
     
    Steve, Aug 21, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    kmath50 Guest

    I agree. They did that for a brief period the early 1990's, but then
    discontinued. It never did show up on the vans, at least from what I
    remember.

    -KM
     
    kmath50, Aug 21, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    Joe Guest

    Yeah, that's a great idea! I'm with you guys. GM is doing it now, but
    Chrysler has a real heritage there. For my part, I really like the Chrysler
    ribbon logo. I wouldn't hurry to throw that away.
     
    Joe, Aug 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Guest

    Steve Guest

    Joe wrote:

    The ribbon logo has a heritage, but it is awfully baroque looking.
    Especially when paired with the wings. Baroque isn't even quite the word
    I want. What I'm looking for is a wierd combination of modern and
    19th-century- like what you see in movies based on Jules Verne and H.G.
    Wells. The winged ribbon would look right at home on Captain Nemo's pipe
    organ.

    The Pentastar actually has a shorter history with Chrysler (60s to mid
    90s) but its certainly the brand identifier that most people recognize
    immediately as "Chrysler Corporation."

    As for Dodge, bring back the Fratzog! (and yes, that's really what it
    was called in the legal documents...)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fratzog.jpg

    And as for Plymouth... well... bring back PLYMOUTH, first dammit!
     
    Steve, Aug 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Guest

    C-BODY Guest

    The Chrysler wings and ribbon emblem have been around for decades, just
    not used again until recently. I remember the ribbon emblem on early
    1950s Chryslers, but the Forward Look pretty much stopped it then. It
    returned on the '95 LH cars, replacing the PentaStar as the grille
    emblem.

    Adding the wings to the ribbon emblem gives the emblem more total
    visibility than if it was there alone.

    I recall when the PentaStar returned to the passenger side fender on the
    LH cars. That made LOTS of us happy, even if it was molded into the
    moldings rather than being the gold emblem separate from other
    ornamentation. Of course, you can buy them repro, then add some
    double-sided molding tape and have things like you'd like them to be!

    I feel that what should be considered is that the Germans wanted
    Chrysler to do well, so the management team made some decisions to bring
    back some of the prior ornamentation AND the HEMI (although it's
    probably more of a "pent roof" than "hemi", but they did consult with
    Tom Hoover (Father of The Hemi) on that resultant cylinder head design.

    Consider, too, that Dr. Z and Wolfgang could do things at Chrysler that
    they couldn't do at MB, with respect to product and how they did things
    at Chrysler (already). After Dr. Z replaced Schrempp, the
    "Chryslerization of Mercedes" began (with respect on doing things
    quickly and efficiently and more cost effectively--from things I read
    about MB people having to spend time in MI to see how Chrysler Group did
    things that were better ways to do them than what MB had previously
    done).

    Now "the merger" (or whatever) is over and it'll be interesting to see
    how things transpire. I hope that with almost all of the prior Chrysler
    Dream Team on consultant retainers, "The Magic" could well return for
    another round of vehicles.

    It'll also be interesting to see how long the MB-derived vehicle systems
    will remain in use. Getting rid of that clunky cruise control stalk
    will be welcome! On the new LX cars, it's a pretty stout piece of
    material as it can be mistaken for the turn signal lever and get banged
    around (with "OUUU" sounds emitted when you discover you've hit the
    wrong lever to make a signalled turn). Not to forget about the MB
    automatic transmission and other chassis components.

    Unfortunately, other than the 300, many of the cars and crossover
    vehicles designed under "The German" influence have been somewhat
    lackluster in execution and orientation. Good vehicles, but not the
    class-leading vehicles that were designed in the 1990s by "The Team".
    Something also mentioned in the ChryslerLLC.com blogs.

    Enjoy!

    C-BODY
     
    C-BODY, Aug 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Guest

    Lloyd Guest

    Maybe they can explain why a 5.7 L V8 makes only 340 hp, when Toyota
    gets 381 hp from a 5.7 L. Or why Mercedes gets up to 518 hp from a
    6.2 L V8 while Chrysler gets 425 hp.
    It's so much better to have it, plus the wiper control, all on the
    turn signal, huh? Not!

    Yes, we can return to the 1970-s era 4-speed automatics. Oooh, wow,
    overdrive! And those wonderful live rear axles.
    Explains why the 300 didn't win any awards, huh?
    Yep, those K-car derivatives were soooo great! And V6 and 4-speed
    automatic -- who needs more?
     
    Lloyd, Aug 30, 2007
    #10
  11. Guest

    Steve Guest

    Still an inorant anti-Mopar asswipe, aren't you Lloyd?

    Chrysler vehicles haven't had cruise control on stalks since the 80s,
    they had it on buttons on the steering wheel which is vastly superior to
    that stinking stalk that gets in the way of the turn signal. And the day
    any Benz equals the reliability and total cost of ownership of a generic
    93 LH car, I'll eat my own shorts.
     
    Steve, Aug 31, 2007
    #11
  12. Guest

    C-BODY Guest

    Lloyd . . . the power an engine puts out is NOT specifically related to
    the combustion chamber design OR having the camshaft not in the cylinder
    block. And then there's the issue of camshaft duration, timing, and how
    well the ports of the engine "work" to facilitate air flow into and out
    of the motor, not to forget the importance of a good undercar exhaust
    system in the combination, too.

    Mr. Hoover noted that when they started filling in some of the sides of
    the combustion chamber, the power increased from what it otherwise was.
    In other words, in current combustion chamber design, it takes "active
    air" to make power--which means pretty much the same thing as a
    wedge-shaped combustion chamber had with its "squish" area between the
    piston and the cylinder head. Not all wedge motors have "active"
    chambers and not all hemi chambers are otherwise.

    The whole idea, back then, for the hemi head was increased breathing
    capabilities due to unshrouded valves with respect to where they were
    placed and oriented in the combustion chamber. Openning things up, as
    the hemi head did, increased air flow and power over the normal wedge or
    flathead designs.

    In modern times, port flow and orientations can make a wedge chamber
    have similar breathing capabilities as a hemi head. Add in more modern
    orientations of harnessing "swirl" in the mixture (kind of similar to
    the old stratified charge principles being researched in the early
    1960s, in some respects). A good 4-valve cylindrer head can compensate
    in these areas too, in some ways better than having 2 large valves.

    As for the power output of MB engines, all you have to do is look at the
    power from the original Crossfire V-6 MB engine. Same 3.5L size as the
    Chrysler 3.5L V-6. Camshafts in the same location and probably the same
    number of valves. And the Chrysler 3.5L started out with 217 (if I
    recall correctly) horsepower in a very cost effective unit. When you
    look at the MB 3.5L on a display stand, the block ribbing and such look
    neat, but it's very obvious that the Chrysler engine of the same size is
    MUCH less expensive to build (although it has many of the prior Chrysler
    HP V-8 engine orientations, such as full-floating piston pins, which the
    original 340 V-8s used). No doubt, the MB 3.5L is a good engine, but
    then those Chrysler guys have theirs too, with similar or more power
    (especially in the 2nd gen version now in use) that is both less
    expensive to build, easier to work on, and less sophisticated yet has
    equal or more power AND probably gets better fuel economy at the same
    time. I bet that had the engineers "over there" feeling a little
    outdone?

    As for the cruise control and wiper control issue . . . Chrysler has had
    buttons on the steering wheel for cruise control since the first LH
    cars, which then spread to corporate-wide use. Not to forget the
    additional "things" on the back of the 300M steering wheel which
    controlled radio items!

    In their "euro" oriented vehicles (i.e., some prior Oldsmobiles and
    Pontiacs), GM had the added lever on the inside side of the steering
    column. That might work for a vehicle driven by those used to such
    controls on imports, but when an American car driver (especially an
    elderly one), you'll see the windshield wipers go off as they desire to
    drive off from a parked position.

    Similarly, the cruise control item I referenced on the current LY cars
    is awkard to use, even if you know what you're doing with it. Similar
    with the "Toyota style" cruise control switches that GM used on the
    2004+ Grand Prixs (key word, "used").

    Doing these things might ease the transition of an import buyer (who is
    used to those things) in to the American brand vehicle, but it takes
    some getting used to for those not used. Plus, in the first year of LY
    Chargers, the ONLY indicator light was a small LED on the stalk's handle
    itself! NO indicator light on the instrument panel . . . until a year
    or so later. AND you had to turn it on EACH time you started the car
    and wanted to use it, whereas the ones on GM cars and prior Chryslers
    were always ON unless you turned them off, when you started the vehicle.
    We're talking "convenience" here, rather than where the controls might
    be . . . in this case.

    Where you might want your cruise control and wiper controls to be is you
    business, but others might not share your orientations. I can deal with
    steering wheel buttons for the cruise, as well as the controls on the
    turn signal lever. To me, and probably others, the additional stalks
    and such on the "import-oriented" vehicles is "foreign" (for want of a
    better word), which can also be a generation thing in some respects.

    In reality, the most forward gears a modern vehicle with a sizeable
    powerplant would be 5, to me. Take a normal TorqueFlite gear spread,
    add a low gear of about 3.0 to the bottom and then put a 5th gear (OD)
    on the top of about .70. That'll get the job done nicely, with a
    modulated torque converter and other sophisticated engine/powertrain
    management controls. No real need for TWO 2nd gear ratios that are
    really too close together to be significantly better, or two OD ratios
    above "direct" either.

    The most efficient transmission woudl be the CVT, but it appears that
    few other than Nissan and Audi know how to make them work. They ALSO
    take the customers knowing how to drive them, too! So, when you see
    Lexus putting out an 8-speed automatic, it's about keeping the engine
    within a very tight rpm range during cruising for fuel efficiency and
    such. As was noted in HOT ROD magazine, in an article about the GM
    Performance Parts 6-speed automatic, they noted that a torquey USA V-8
    didn't need all of those extra gears, but smaller import engines did.
    Be that as it may . . . In some cases, "more is not better".

    The 300 DID win lots of awards that first year. Everybody should
    remember that . . . and it still does. It's designer is now an upper
    management Chrysler LLC employee overseeing vehicle designs. It became
    an aspirational vehicle for many, just as the 300M was before that, and
    the LHS was before that.

    What I said in the prior post was that all of the vehicles, other than
    the 300, which were birthed during the German influence have meet with
    weak public response and road test reviews that look like some
    benchmarks were missed (unlike in other times when Chrysler set the
    benchmarks AND other makes adjusted their product lines to better
    compete with Chrysler products . . . as in the areas of the LH cars, the
    rounded RAM trucks, and the string of vehicles that followed in the
    1990s.

    Read the blogs on the Chrysler LLC website and you'll see these
    comments. Look at the Sebring convertible and it's obvious why the
    resale value of the prior gen convertibles has probably been bolstered
    somewhat. On paper, they appear to be competitive, until you drive them
    and (as the road testers have done) been disappointed in how things
    worked out.

    If you read Lutz's book, "GUTS", he talks about the meeting they had on
    the chassis tuning on the Stratus/Cirrus "cloud" cars. The senior
    engineer was doing his presentation and talking aobut how good the cars
    rode and such. Lutz, standing at the front of the room noted a group of
    "young guns" sitting in the back of the room as their boss glossed over
    how well these cars rode and handled for their intended market. Lutz,
    being in charge (and probalby getting a little bored) asked on of the
    young guns what their take on this whole deal was. The reply was that
    it could definitely be better in all respects, especially in comparison
    to the competition. Lutz gave them a time frame to get a better
    proposal together (in a vehicle as THEY wanted it to be) and they
    accepted the challenge. And THAT was what got approved for production.
    Now, it seems the "other" proposal (the one that was presented to Lutz
    first), or one similar, is how the current Sebrings are setup.
    Lackluster.

    As much as some might like to forget the K-cars, THEY had an important
    mission in the life of Chrysler. Not only did they get the
    Chrysler-buying public into smaller and nice Chrysler cars, but there
    ARE still lots of those cars still around (at least in the DFW area).
    They are giving lots of lower income families the luxury of a
    leather-trimmed Chrysler at a price that they can afford. Many of these
    owners are of an ethnicity where Chrysler is a major player in their own
    country in the automotive industry . . . even rivalling GM's presence
    there. Yep, they were some pretty decent vehicles, even today! AND
    they, as many other "forgotten" Chrysler products, seem to have higher
    degrees of longevity than similar Ford or GM products . . . which IS the
    Chrysler Heritage . . . even in the "old days".

    One time when Dodge Shadow convertibles were new, a Dodge dealer had a
    showroom display of one that they carefully laid over on its side (after
    the fluids were drained). I was surprised at what I saw!

    Sure, it was front wheel drive, with a K-car heritage, but there, for
    all to see, was a miniature version of the Chrysler k-frame architecture
    front end! Just like you might have seen on a '68 Road Runner, just
    smaller.

    It was a turbo 4 cylinder, but the lead pipe out of the turbo was about
    2.5" in OD. PLENTY generous for good breathing! At each exhaust joint,
    it got about 1/8" smaller in OD, until it was aobut 2" out the back.
    All it needed was a better cat-back exhaust system to really cook!

    Unlike Ford and GM, in those times the Chrysler performance heritage was
    still alive and well. Ford and GM built small cars that were appliance
    cars, with all due respect, but Chrysler still had performance
    capabilitied DESIGNED IN, just like in the old days. That's one reason
    the Omni GLHS was so easy to make happen! At a time when many were
    bemoaning the death of performance, here came that spunky little
    Chrysler Corp turbo car and said "Look at what I can do!"

    And THAT's what I hope the Chrylser LLC can do. "Look at what I can
    do", as Wolfgang and associates guide things along to some great
    vehicles that will show Ford and GM how vehicles CAN be rather than how
    they now are.

    As for Wolfgang's "undoing" in the ME412, in the August 2007 issue of
    the Walter P Chrysler Club News Magazine, there's a picture of a
    motorcycle with a Plymouth flathead 6 cylinder engine for power. It has
    four "skids" as outriggers to keep it upright. This was in about 1933!

    I certainly hope "The BEST is yet to come for Chrysler as an American
    corporation!" With all due respect.

    Everybody have a great Labor Day Weekend!
    Be SAFE and enjoy your Chrysler products, too!

    C-BODY
     
    C-BODY, Sep 1, 2007
    #12
  13. Guest

    Some O Guest

    That's not nice, lets keep it intelligent here, this isn't a kids place
    is it?
    IMO Lloyd made a very good comment about something I'm also wondering.
    See the 2005 Magnum, the one I unfortunately experienced.
    I agree, based on my experiences with my '95 LH which is still going
    strong. I didn't want to keep it so long, but Chrysler's product line
    gave me no choice. Now I see it's become good news for me as some very
    nice new fuel efficient cars are coming out from all manufacturers.
    Now I have to avoid becoming stuck on an oldie car with no depreciation.

    The current Chrysler employee comments certainly give one the impression
    they are extremely happy the krouts are out of their hair.
    Of course the krouts have to say they are glad to be rid of Chrysler.
    I'm sure both companies have learned something valuable to each of them
    about car design the car markets they are in. May they each use the
    best of what they have learned and not forget it too soon.
     
    Some O, Sep 1, 2007
    #13
  14. Guest

    Steve Guest

    Motor trend, Consumer Retards, and the like all imply it is, therefore
    it must be true. At least in Rhoyd's worldview.

    You haven't dealt with Hemi-Rhoyd Parker before, have you C-body?

    ;-)
     
    Steve, Sep 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Guest

    Steve Guest

    Yeah, it wasn't nice. But I've had to listen to Parker's inane
    non-engineering based blather for going on 10 years, and I'm not
    inclined to ever be nice to him again. He's been keeping his ignorant
    blather out of r.a.m.c. for quite a while, but I guess the liberation
    from Daimler brought him back for a few more rounds of nonsense about
    how "inferior" Chrysler is, because (oh my GOD!) they don't use overhead
    cams in all their engines, nor (GASP!) independent rear suspension in
    all their SUVs. Never-f*cking-mind that there are VERY sound ENGINEERING
    reasons to use cam-in-block engines, and solid-axle suspension is both
    better performing and safer under many conditions, especially in high-CG
    vehicles like SUVs. But engineering be damned, IRS is "new" and live
    axles are "old," ergo inferior in every possible way.

    Don't worry, if Parker hangs around you'll get used to the drill.
    Right, I was referring to the PRE-LX cars. interestingly enough, other
    current Chrysler vehicles like the very nice 4-liter Pacifica rental I
    had a few weeks ago still have the nice buttons on the wheel, not the
    stupid stalk. I predict that next year the stalk will be gone in the LX
    cars as well.
    I like old cars, personally, because in my work I suffer with modern
    cars and all their unwanted nanny-isms quite frequently (I can lock my
    own damn doors and turn my own headlights on and off, thank you). My
    daily driver is a '66 Dodge, my wife's car is a 93 LH (250k miles, still
    running strong). But we will probably move it down to my daughter (first
    car) soon, so I'm eyeing a replacement. Both the Charger and Pacifica
    are contenders, as is a quad-cab Ram truck. Yeah, those models have
    nothing in common, but they would all fill the need nicely, with
    different pros and cons. As you know, I'm not a fan of FWD, but the
    Pacifica was powerful and predictable enough to win me over anyway. I'd
    prefer it in AWD, but the weight/performance penalty is pretty stout.
     
    Steve, Sep 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Guest

    Some O Guest

    I looked at the Pacifica recently because the dealer nearest me was
    selling 2006 leased ones with about 15K miles for only CDN$22k.
    They are quite big and heavy and with the 3.5L engine I expect it
    wouldn't be as responsive as my 3.3L LH.
    Then when I looked for the spare it was a compact one tucked underneath
    as the Van. Surprising for an upscale vehicle.
    My use requires a matching spare mounted inside, preferable in the usual
    flat manner.
    End of that possibility.

    Another vehicle that interested me was the Saturn Vue hybrid. It would
    do the job for me, giving very good urban mileage, but unfortunately
    they have eliminated their unsuitable for me compact spare for the
    hybrid batteries.
    They provide a patch kit so you can sit at the road side and attempt
    your own repair. This is Mercedes Smart (Dumb) car level design.
    Definitely not of use to me who travels in a country where you are
    usually without highway service except 8 to 6 weekdays, to say nothing
    about getting a replacement tire when far from a major center.
    No wonder Saturn is struggling!
     
    Some O, Sep 1, 2007
    #16
  17. Guest

    Steve Guest

    I've never driven one with a 3.5, but with a 4.0 it goes like a scalded
    cat. Its SUBSTANTIALLY quicker than our first-gen LH with a 3.5, and
    very comparable to the 3.5 Charger (not 3.5 HO) Charger rentals I've
    had. Best of all, the 4.0 has TORQUE! It may be built on the 3.5L OHC
    architecture, but its got cam profiles that give it boatloads of
    off-idle torque and make it pull like a v8. Just the ticket for a heavy
    van like the Pacifica.
    Why surprising for an upscale? If anything, upscale vehicles made that
    switch sooner than others. In fact, I've rarely seen any vehicle other
    than a pickup truck with a full-size spare in the past 10 years. Many
    don't even have ROOM for that option anymore.
    That draws a big disqualification from me just based on the service
    history of the Vue in general.
    Saturn is struggling because GM blew yet another opportunity to stick it
    in Toyota's face. :-(
     
    Steve, Sep 3, 2007
    #17
  18. Like which countries?

    DAS

    For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Sep 3, 2007
    #18
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.