Whats your favorite car?

[FurryCurry]

I'm rather partial to the Audi RS6.
Oh Gawd, I'd love to have one of those.

[jonmartensen]

Bitchin'

[Toecutter]

Not sure what you are talking about dude but I got a dynasty with the 3.3 liter 6 in it and it has some nice pep to it. but the transmission sucks. It always has. It thumps when it switches gears drives me nuts.

That would be the A-604 overdrive transmission (3 speed +overdrive gear). This transmission has so many TSB's and recalls on it, it's a far better investment to buy a Dynasty with no transmission, than get one with the A-604.

The A-604 requires one uses the Mopar Dextron II tranny fluid ONLY (any other brand of Dextron II causes serious problems). Also, the turbines and linkage were poorly designed.

A 2.5 in a dynasty would be a very underpowered car if you ask me.

Actually, I did all of my driving practice on an '89 Dodge Dynasty with the 2.5L naturally aspirated I-4. Granted, it only puts out 137 lb-ft of torque, but for a chassis weighing only 2,800 lbs, it does enough. However, for performance applications, the Dodge Dynasties/Sprits built in Mexico had the option of a MPFI 2.5L, instead of the weak TBI version we find primarily in America. Also, as I stated before, a Turbo I, II, or III series equipped 2.5L put out some serious power for an I-4 engine. They equal, if not outperform your precious 3.3L.

Also, the 2.5L I-4 is incredibly reliable, and can take far more abuse than an OHC V6 due to the rather thick cylinder walls, and all the extra space in the engine compartment in a Dynasty allowing plenty of room for airflow, not to mention ease of servicing.

Ahh and lets not get this all confused a Dynasty is midsized at best and in the old days it was a compact. If you put a Dynasty right next to a dart they are about the same size. Of course the Dart is a better vehicle with its slant six and rear drive and superior styling.

Granted, according to the old school size comparisons, the Dynasty is a compact car. However, in today's world, in which the new Impala is considered "full size", the Dynasty is still larger. It is true a rear-wheel drivetrain is more effective for off-the-line acceleration, and proper weight-transfer. However, the FWD Dynasty has an advantage in snow, ice, and rainy conditions, where traction is a must.

When my dad and I were headed back from the Portland Auto Show some years back, there was a horrible snow storm, which had every single highway in gridlock. There were tons of semis, 4x4's, and SUV's which couldn't keep from sliding all over the road, let alone manage a 3% grade. However, our FWD, 2.5L Dynasty, with snow chains on only the front tires handled the snow with ease. I've driven my IROC-Z, GTO, and that Dynasty in the snow all without chains, and I'd choose the Dynasty any day when whether got bad. My '68 GTO handled pretty well with standard BF Goodrich mud and snow tires (just standard rubber, and no studs), but the posi, along with the hundreds of ft-lbs of raw torque on tap with a rather stiff pedal would put any average driver in the hospital. My IROC-Z looses traction on the rather light rear-end very easily in rainy conditions (I dare not go over railroad tracks under power in the rain, or the back end slides all over the place, including on straight-aways).

But the Dynasty, in all it's lame-ass FWD glory, litterally has to be gunned to 3,000 rpm, and forced into a sharp turn before it even comes close to losing control in foul weather. Part of that advantage is due to the fact the drive wheels are also controlling the direction of the vehicle, but the rear end with it's thick panhard bar help keep the back end under control, and the chassis nice and solid.

[Mroni]

Not sure what you are talking about dude but I got a dynasty with the 3.3 liter 6 in it and it has some nice pep to it. but the transmission sucks. It always has. It thumps when it switches gears drives me nuts.

That would be the A-604 overdrive transmission (3 speed +overdrive gear). This transmission has so many TSB's and recalls on it, it's a far better investment to buy a Dynasty with no transmission, than get one with the A-604.

The A-604 requires one uses the Mopar Dextron II tranny fluid ONLY (any other brand of Dextron II causes serious problems). Also, the turbines and linkage were poorly designed.

Hmm makes sense yeah its real pos but no leaks yet.

A 2.5 in a dynasty would be a very underpowered car if you ask me.

Actually, I did all of my driving practice on an '89 Dodge Dynasty with the 2.5L naturally aspirated I-4. Granted, it only puts out 137 lb-ft of torque, but for a chassis weighing only 2,800 lbs, it does enough. However, for performance applications, the Dodge Dynasties/Sprits built in Mexico had the option of a MPFI 2.5L, instead of the weak TBI version we find primarily in America. Also, as I stated before, a Turbo I, II, or III series equipped 2.5L put out some serious power for an I-4 engine. They equal, if not outperform your precious 3.3L.

I doubt it and any chryser turbo is a pos for reliability especially the 2.2s a turbo needs replaced every 50 k like clockwork.

Also, the 2.5L I-4 is incredibly reliable, and can take far more abuse than an OHC V6 due to the rather thick cylinder walls, and all the extra space in the engine compartment in a Dynasty allowing plenty of room for airflow, not to mention ease of servicing.

I don't beleive the 3.3 is ohc i think its ohv. have to check on that. plenty of room under the hood for the engine though and once again its been very reliable. I cant speak for the 2.5 but I know the 2.2 in horizons was very reliable.

Ahh and lets not get this all confused a Dynasty is midsized at best and in the old days it was a compact. If you put a Dynasty right next to a dart they are about the same size. Of course the Dart is a better vehicle with its slant six and rear drive and superior styling.

Granted, according to the old school size comparisons, the Dynasty is a compact car. However, in today's world, in which the new Impala is considered "full size", the Dynasty is still larger. It is true a rear-wheel drivetrain is more effective for off-the-line acceleration, and proper weight-transfer. However, the FWD Dynasty has an advantage in snow, ice, and rainy conditions, where traction is a must. Wtf are you talking chryser fds handle like shit in the snow granted i drove it back to baltimore on the worst day of this years snow storm. but I went off the road 3 times!!! My cavalier was much better in the snow and it was much lighter.

When my dad and I were headed back from the Portland Auto Show some years back, there was a horrible snow storm, which had every single highway in gridlock. There were tons of semis, 4x4's, and SUV's which couldn't keep from sliding all over the road, let alone manage a 3% grade. However, our FWD, 2.5L Dynasty, with snow chains on only the front tires handled the snow with ease. I've driven my IROC-Z, GTO, and that Dynasty in the snow all without chains, and I'd choose the Dynasty any day when whether got bad. My '68 GTO handled pretty well with standard BF Goodrich mud and snow tires (just standard rubber, and no studs), but the posi, along with the hundreds of ft-lbs of raw torque on tap with a rather stiff pedal would put any average driver in the hospital. My IROC-Z looses traction on the rather light rear-end very easily in rainy conditions (I dare not go over railroad tracks under power in the rain, or the back end slides all over the place, including on straight-aways).

But the Dynasty, in all it's lame-ass FWD glory, litterally has to be gunned to 3,000 rpm, and forced into a sharp turn before it even comes close to losing control in foul weather. Part of that advantage is due to the fact the drive wheels are also controlling the direction of the vehicle, but the rear end with it's thick panhard bar help keep the back end under control, and the chassis nice and solid.

Well I can only speak from experience with 4 chrysler products. All front wheel drive and all pos in the snow. My grandma had an 87 new yorker that slipped and slided all over the place ive had a caravelle, a lebaron and now the dynasty and all have sucked in wet weather but I can see them handling better than the muscle cars you mentioned they have no weight at all in the rear. The best car I had in the snow was an 83 Malibu station wagon and that was rear drive.



Oh and hey at least we can agree on one thing we like our dynastys.


Mr Oni

[Mroni]

Agreed on the Impala. I also like the Caprice, especially the 80s versions, but those are dying out .

Nothing says "ROAD AUTHORITY" like a massive 80s Chevy Caprice.

The Cavalier me and klinky have is a pretty nice little vehicle. And it's ours, all ours!

The vehicle I would most like to own: a GENUINE Hummer, not that shitty H2 bastardization. I hate the H2, hate it with a vengeance. Or a German diesel BMW or Benz.

Dude a massive 80s caprice is a midsize version of a 1970s caprice ! Its virtually tiny in comparison!


Mr Oni

The 80s ones look more authoritarian, though, which I like, while the 70s ones look like 70s pimp caravans. I want "menacing machine" not "flamboyantly dated".

Well heh ok how about a 77 caprice same b body as the 80s one but better looks. http://www.angelfire.com/retro/impalafa ... ustCpe.jpg


Mr Oni

[Roke]

Bitchin'

Sorry, Jon. People in this topic just have no sense of humor regarding the coolest ideas for cars they've ever seen.

[HungryCrackPot]

[jonmartensen]

Holy Fuck! Yeah!

[Farmboybob]

It's a van by a river!

[LightningCountX]

Lotus Esprit

Any year.

Beutiful...