The Aspen, new and old

Discussion in 'Other Models' started by steve, Oct 2, 2006.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    My first car was a '76 Aspen. I noticed that the new Chysler Aspen will
    be assembled in Newark, DE, the same plant as many of the original
    ones. I know I used to live nearby.

    Personally, I think that DCX made a mistake by reviving that name. The
    origianl Aspen is to myself and many others a prime example of what was
    wrong with the US auto makers back in the 70s and 80s. Yea I know it is
    a completely different car and probably even the lug nuts are
    different. But why reuse a name that brings back so many bad memories.

    Should Ford bring back the Pinto and GM the Vega ? IMHO, they are all
    in the same league.
     
    steve, Oct 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. According to marketing research "Aspen did not leave an indelible
    negative mark on Chrysler imagery, it's just not there." Of course
    marketing people haven't always been know for making smart descisions.
     
    Charlie Deludo, Oct 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. steve

    kmatheson Guest

    Names are re-used often. In the 1970's, AMC re-used the "Hornet" name
    that was used by Hudson in the 1950's. They also re-used the "Pacer"
    name that was one of the doomed Edsel names.

    The "Lancer" name has been used at least three times that I am aware
    of. Most recently, by Mitsubishi.

    I would like to see the "Fury" name used again, but it would sound
    strange without "Plymouth" in front of it.

    -KM
     
    kmatheson, Oct 2, 2006
    #3
  4. steve

    OldeChrysler Guest

    I'd believe this. The Volaré/Aspen twins, while lousy cars, weren't
    any worse than any other US-made cars at the time. Remember, the '70s
    was the nadir of the US auto industry...they'd become fat, dumb and
    happy and were abusing customers badly. You might recall GM's "less
    car for more money" campaign, started with its 1971 full sized models
    and later extended to its intermedates and compacts in '73. Ford was
    scarcely much better, but had better build quality. Also, as if in
    retribution for the passing of the Clean Air Act, US automakers built
    and sold cars that wouldn't run acceptably right off the lot, blaming
    "government intrusion." The dictum for the removal of tetraethyl lead
    in '75 actually helped the automakers build better running cars. The
    public wasn't completely oblivious to all this; the Japanese were
    building cars that ran far better and got far better economy, even
    though the material quality was shaky in the early days.

    Against this backdrop, Chrysler certainly wasn't making any big fans
    after about '72, but didn't sink into the abyss that GM did. Both
    Ford and GM had really stuck it to themselves royally...GM with the
    fraudulently engineered Vega, and Ford with the "exploding" Pinto, the
    latter of which was yet another example of the Big 3's "non-thinking"
    mentality. The Pinto, for what it was, wasn't all that bad a car at
    all...certainly not very good, but it was the Ford design trademark of
    using the top side of the gas tank as the trunk floor, a design
    feature in nearly ALL Fords since 1961, that got them into trouble.
    Their arrogant attitude about having customer pay for a $5 (plus shop
    rate) "skid" on the rear end pumpkin, a policy that probably came
    directly from King Henry II himself, is what did them in more than the
    NTSB reports. The J-bodies, while really shaky cars early on, didn't
    have the widespread reputation for crappy quality and engineering as
    did Ford and GM cars, and they escaped the wrath of an
    intergenerational bad reputation.

    Funny this comes up, as I saw a Volaré wagon still in service,
    although truly well worn, just the other day. When's the last time
    you saw a Pinto or a Vega? For that matter, when's the last time you
    saw ANY running Ford or GM car from the mid-'70s? For old timers of
    that era, I see more Chryslers still in service than either of the
    other two. While the J-bodies had lots of bugs, the basic design
    proved to be long lived and hardy when it was stretched into the
    M-body, probably one of the hardiest chassis designs of its time, and
    certainly longer lived than competitors from GM and Ford. When's the
    last time you saw an '80s Caprice or LTD on the road? Never. I see
    M-bodies still running all the time.
     
    OldeChrysler, Oct 3, 2006
    #4
  5. OldeChrysler wrote:
    When's the
    there is a 67 Ford galaxie, and a 68 Mustang running around my town, used
    every day
     
    Green Acres is the place to be, Oct 3, 2006
    #5
  6. steve

    DeserTBoB Guest

    ....and there's a '66 Ford Galaxie 500 4 door for sale a mile away from
    me, also a "daily driver" since new. Ford was making pretty darned
    good vehciles at the time, probably up until '71 to '73, when things
    started going down the dumpster pretty fast. The '67 and '68 Ford
    lines were probably some of their best ever.
     
    DeserTBoB, Oct 3, 2006
    #6
  7. steve

    Doug Guest


    Bad comparison to use the 1980's LTD.
    I've had both an '85 LTD wagon and the Mercury Colony Park equivalent.
    Their 5 liter V8's were bulletproof with only one chronic defect: the
    intake manifold gaskets would go bad around 70K to 90K miles causing
    oil or water leaks. Their AOD transmissions, except for early
    production units, were excellent.

    I still see many in use in New England. Those that are not in use are
    often laid up due to their poor fuel mileage.

    The 70's to early 90's LTD's to me only have one major problem:
    They are GAS hogs. Typically they get around 12MPG in the city and
    around 18 on the highway.

    My girlfriend back then had a 1977 Volare 2dr "coupe".
    It's biggest problem? Rampant body rot within 5 years of production.
    The entire bottom of both doors literally fell apart. I don't think
    the interior panels of the doors were properly coated. The slant six
    engine was fine.

    As a matter of fact, I think that the Volare/Aspen used the same basic
    mechanicals as the older highly regarding Dart/Valiant.

    The only difference was the body design and lack of body quality.

    Doug
     
    Doug, Oct 3, 2006
    #7
  8. steve

    Hachiroku Guest


    Isn't Aspen some Indian Dialect for "Runs slow, rusts fast"?
     
    Hachiroku, Oct 3, 2006
    #8
  9. A close friend of mine built up a ' 76 Aspen, back in 1988. He pulled
    the 318, and replaced it with an early hi-po 340, ported the stock 340
    iron heads, added a tunnel ram and 2-4 Holleys, and a 4-speed. Geared
    it with 4.11's

    that engine would rev to the moon- and it launched like a missile. He
    use to hold the gas to the boards and sidestep the clutch. The
    G-forces it created were like flying in a jet.

    it wasn't the most graceful styling body-wise, but a unique buildup of
    old and new...
     
    duty-honor-country, Oct 3, 2006
    #9
  10. steve

    DeserTBoB Guest

    Meanwhile, a "P" code 318 equipped M-body could get 16-17 around town
    and mid-to-high 20s on the road. So much for the vaunted 302!
    Actually, the small block Ford was a good engine, but Ford's emissions
    and fuel package was the worst out there at the time.
    Driveline, yes.
    The J platform replaced the really durable and long lived A body. The
    idea was to offer more car with the same or less weight, but the
    execution wasn't good at all. Bad corrosion resistance was a problem
    back in the "Rust Belt," for sure, as well as in coastal and southern
    areas. Out here in the desert, where cars never rust, you'd never see
    it.
     
    DeserTBoB, Oct 3, 2006
    #10

  11. 2 more posts of yours, with no reply

    give it up already- you've been KILLFILED
     
    duty-honor-country, Oct 4, 2006
    #11
  12. steve

    Joe Guest

    Can you say "tune-up"?
    Everybody had smog controls; they all sucked. On the whole, a 302 can
    easily get upwards of 18 to 20 mpg if driven lightly. My '93 Mustang
    gets 17-18 on the average.
     
    Joe, Oct 4, 2006
    #12
  13. notice how DeserTBob can only judge a car by it's mileage...there were
    lot of great cars that are now highly valuable $100,000+ priced, that
    got 12 mpg

    mileage does not a good car make- my lawnmower gets good mileage too-
    you wouldn't want to drive it to work everyday though...

    good cars will have a solid, safe ride- be comfortable enough to drive
    in for 6 hours with no problems- be dependable for years with minimal
    maintenance work- have engines and drivetrain with high nickel content
    steel/iron parts that dont' wear quickly- have styling that lasts- and
    have plenty of power- and finally, be easy to fix and work on, and easy
    to get parts for

    GM fits all those categories the best overall
     
    duty-honor-country, Oct 4, 2006
    #13
  14. steve

    Joe Guest

    An opinion at best, and certainly one I disagree with.
     
    Joe, Oct 5, 2006
    #14
  15. steve

    DeserTBoB Guest

    It's not an "opinion." It's Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA, trolling
    again.

    Noodles...go troll elsewhere.
     
    DeserTBoB, Oct 5, 2006
    #15
  16. steve

    Doug Guest

    Can you say NO - it's not related to a tune up.
    Yep, and your Mustang is only about 2/3 of the weight of the LTD's
    that we were talking about. You are comparing apples to oranges.
    The opinions were expressed about the CAR, not simply the 302
    engine...

    Doug
     
    Doug, Oct 5, 2006
    #16
  17. steve

    Joe Guest

    Here's the really bad news. The 76 Aspen got much more mpg than the new one
    will. I had a slant 6 4-speed version - 25 mpg on the highway. I was
    suprised they revived the name too. I suppose they are mostly remembered
    for being unappealing. You can't say they weren't reliable, though.

    I notice their advertising is now "more bling per buck" so that tells you
    the target audience. They want to get Escalade buyers to take a Durango
    instead. I guess that makes perfect sense.
     
    Joe, Oct 6, 2006
    #17
  18. steve

    Joe Guest

    Sure the LTD was heavier than the Mustang hatch, but almost the same as
    the convertible. The LTD in good tune should get around 15/19.
     
    Joe, Oct 6, 2006
    #18
  19. steve

    Joe Guest

    Since the new Aspen is a gussied up Durango and the old Aspen was a car,
    of course the old one will get much better mileage.
    Chrysler=upscale, Dodge=standard. Just like Cadillac & Chevy.
     
    Joe, Oct 6, 2006
    #19
  20. steve

    Jalapeno Guest

    I think Plymouth was standard. I'd say it more like "Chrysler=upscale,
    Dodge=performance. Just like Cadillac and Pontiac."

    But that's just IMHO.
     
    Jalapeno, Oct 6, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

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.