NeonLX

Wish I did. They are all packed away in paper and foam peanuts right now. I'd like to find somewhere to display them.

The answer is weirder than what you might imagine. Chrysler actually had TWO separate 383s during 1959 and 1960. The one used in DeSoto and Dodge cars was the 383 we've all come to know & love over the decades, featuring a bore & stroke of 4.25" X 3.38". This version of the 383 was continued up through the 1971 model year and became relatively famous in cars like the Road Runner & Satellite squad cars ("One Adam 12, One Adam 12"...) The other 383, used only in Chrysler models during 1959 & '60, had a bore & stroke of 4.03" X 3.75". It was essentially a de-bored version of the 413 V8, which was also new for 1959. The 413 and "long stroke" 383, as well as the 426 and 440 "wedge" engines that followed, had a higher deck height (i.e. taller block) to clear the longer stroke than did the shorter stroke models such as the 350, 361, 383 (Dodge & DeSoto) and later 400 "B" series engines. These higher deck engines with the longer stroke were known as the "RB" series (for "Raised Block"?). Both the "B" and "RB" engines looked similar (and indeed shared heads depending on application), though a sharp eye could see the taller deck height of the RBs. It's kinda like what Ford did with the 352 FE engine when it evolved into the 390 (and later, the 410, 427 & 428)...they added about 1/2" to the block so the longer strokes would still fit inside the block. . How do I remember this stuff, but then forget where I put my watch two minutes ago? Allpar's page on the "B" and "RB" engines: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/383.html

Here's my list of dealer promos: 1950 Plymouth sedan (no, really!) 1963 Olds Starfire hardtop 1966 AMC Marlin 1966 Rambler Classic wagon 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix 1970 Pontiac Bonneville convertible 1971 Pontiac GTO 1972 Camaro 1972 Dodge Charger 1973 Olds Cutlass Colonnade coupe (X2) 1973 Chevy Caprice 2-door 1975 AMC Pacer 1992 Dodge Stealth 1993 Dodge Viper I also have 1:24 models of the 1996 Voyager and 1996 Caravan that were often used as promotionals, but they were cast metal & had moveable doors.

Chrysler introduced the soon-to-be-popular 383 CID version of its wedge-head "B" series engine for the 1959 model year. Interestingly, a 383 "B" engine was also available in the DeSoto and Dodge lines for that year. Anyone know what the one big difference was between the Chrysler 383 engine and the 383 used in DeSoto and Dodges (aside from the obvious things like engine paint or stickers on the air cleaner)?

Did they use a Tatra in that Jim Carrey movie "A Serious of Unfortunate Events" (or some similar title)? I know there's a '60 Imperial limo in that movie but there's another car that I can't quite put my finger on in there. I've only seen the movie once in theaters so I only got a couple of glances at the other car.

The earlier OHV engines were actually gorgeous to look at--lots of attention to detail. The later flathead models were pretty darned boring, in spite of all the spark plugs sticking up out of the heads. Here's one of the OHV ones:

I just hope the new minis aren't complete tubs. Our current "short" Caravan SXT weighs 4100 lbs. There isn't anything "mini" about that. First gen models weighed 3100-3400 lbs.

I finally drove one and went from being skeptical to actually liking it. The one I drove was an SXT model powered by the 2.0L engine and CVT. It's zippy enough for me (3 people on board plus the AC was operating) and I found it quite comfortable once I figured out the "barber chair" action of the driver's seat (last Caliber I drove had the same seat jacking setup too). Interior noise was minimal, even at 70 MPH--much quieter than my '04 Neon. Rear seat room is sort of tight but better than my Neon's--especially leg room, which is actually quite good because the bottom cushion of the rear seat is fairly high off the floor. It's a reasonably practical vehicle with good space, reasonable performance and a fairly low sticker price. I hope it does well.

Wish I could get a retail version like that. It would look great in gunmetal gray. As a Mopar fan, I'm basically underwhelmed by the Charger (along with the Magnum & 300). Its performance is mighty good and the interior is comfortable, but I just can't get past the styling. I'm sorry but the Daytona model is almost painful to look at. But if I could get a plain Jane model with the steel wheels and little bitty hubcaps--AND the Hemi plus a good suspension, I could learn to live with the styling I'm dreaming of a "Plymouth Fury I" version of the Charger or 300 I guess.

Maybe it's just the perspective of the photo, but it sure looks as though there wouldn't be enough room for a powertrain under the hood of that thing. Or maybe they used a pancake four out of a Subaru or old VW bug?

Yuck. Looks like some kinda high school shop class project. Hope they got an "F" on it.

Now that's what I'm talking about. The steelies & dog dishes make the scene.

Indeed. And yes, it came with a stainless steel exhaust header, rather than headers as I originally wrote. I came mighty close to buying that '75 Cosworth Vega but wound up sticking with my '74 Gremlin X instead--the Vega was sharp looking and great fun, but it was rather costly.

It'd look better shod with black steelies & dog dishes.

Back in 1975, I test drove a brand new car that was powered from the factory by a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine that featured electronic fuel injection, stainless steel headers, 16 valves in hemispherical combustion chambers & dual overhead belt driven camshafts. The car had a hatchback and factory cast aluminum wheels (4-lug). Perhaps of most interest was the fact that this car was manufactured by a domestic manufacturer--one of the "Big 3-1/2". Anyone know what car I test drove on that warm & sunny day back in 1975?

Now THAT'S a cool application of hybrid powetrains!

Ummm...let me count here...lessee... Zero. Only gasket I've ever had go on a Mopar was the cam cover gasket on my '94 Spirit's V6 engine. Interestingly enough, that engine was sourced from the superior Japanese engineering over at Misterbitchy. I mean Mitsubishi. On edit: I've had the following vehicles equipped with the A604/41TE 4-speed tranny: '89 Grand Caravan '94 Grand Voyager '99 Voyager '02 Caravan and both of my current vehicles (see below). Total tranny failures in approximately 300,000 cumulative miles of driving these vehicles? None. My '94 Spirit and '00 Neon had the 3-speed auto trannies. They never missed a beat either.

I was just being a goof. I did replace the thermostat on my '00 Neon and it did cost $9. But I never actually jabbed my finger with the screwdriver. I was just being sarcastic. Personally, I really like Neons. Before I got my 2000 I didn't pay much attention to them because I didn't think I was interested in 4-cyl. cars. But my wife talked me into selling the '94 Spirit and on a whim, I tried out a year-old '00 Neon while looking for a replacement car. I was hooked immediately--the car was almost as quick as my V6-powered Spirit and the fuel economy was better as well. It wasn't quite as comfortable inside but it handled better. So I wound up with a Neon. I traded the '00 Neon in for a year-old '04 model back in February of '05 because they were offering a great deal on some "program cars" with extended Chrysler warranties. I've been really happy with the '04 as well.

Cool, thanks for the tip! The Americans from 1966 onward were easy to make into real "pocket rockets". The 290 V8 was a factory option starting in '66 and in '67, AMC offered the 343 V8 as an option as well (for that year only, unfortunately). Then, in '69, AMC marketed the SC/Rambler, a limited edition model with wild paint and a standard 390 V8. Even though the 390 wasn't much of a revver, the car was still a screamer because of its light weight and good mid-range ouput of the big V8. In stock form, this car had no problems turning quarter miles in the 14 second range @ 100 MPH. It was an amazing buy, though I always hated the paint scheme and the really ugly hood scoop. I've always wished they had made a plain-looking American with the 390 under the hood too, for us "introverts". A friend of mine took a '68 American wagon and 390-ized it, complete with a slap-shift auto tranny & 3.54:1 tail gears. He kept it completely stock-looking, including steel wheels with dog dish hubcaps and a "232" rear fender logo. Yee-haw, that car was a blast.

Yeah, what a horrible past I've had with my Neon...why, once the thermostat stuck and it cost me $9 and about 20 minutes to replace it. And can you believe it, I jabbed my finger with the screwdriver while I was doing it. Gosh darnit, after that lousy experience, I'm gonna trade it for one of those far superior Japanese compacts.

Oh yeah. Most Gremlin 5-liters were also equipped with the "X" package--but in theory, you could get the 5-liter option on even a stripped down base Gremlin. I've actually seen a non-"X" Gremlin with the factory 304 under the hood. The 5-liter option was available starting in 1972 and lasted into 1976. After 1976, the biggest Gremlin engine option was the 4.2L (258 CID) inline six. Starting in '77, it came with a slightly "hotter" cam and a 2V carb. I had this 2V engine in my '76 Pacer and it definitely had a bit more oomph than the single-barrel carb version (which my '74 Gremlin X had). On edit: Oops, I noticed that I referred to it as the "5-liter" above. In the AMC sales literature, as well as the logo on the cars themselves and also your question it read, "5-Litre", just as my 258 was called the "4.2 Litre".

Heh. Good summary of the oddball AMXs from the late 1970s, Hudson! Anyone remember the 1978-only Gremlin GT? This was one rare bird with less than 2000 ever produced. I almost bought one new but decided to hold onto my 1974 Gremlin X for a few more years instead. Here's an ad for the GT:

Back in 1989, I could have purchased a very nice original '66 Marlin with the 232 six and auto tranny for dirt cheap. It was aqua and white two-tone (white on top). The owner was convinced that it was "just an old Rambler" and that he wouldn't get much money for it. And like a MORON, I passed it up. Kick...kick...kick I like the independents myself--with special emphasis on AMC and its Nash & Hudson forbearers. I also like many Studebakers such as the Avanti (who doesn't?), the Hawks, and the '53 lineup in general. Then there are the Willys (I learned to drive in a '48 CJ2A), Kaisers, Frazers, etc.

I think the LH cars (Intrepid, Concord, LHS, etc.) were great designs...stylish, pleasing to the eye and also amazingly roomy inside. For whatever reason, the LX cars look too stubby to me--especially the 300. However, the LX interiors are still roomy and one thing I especially like is the way you "sit up" inside of them. But I think the LH interiors were classier-looking overall. Spirits/Acclaims may not have been the epitome of styling but they were great cars--roomy, durable and inexpensive. Like the current 300, they were "boxy" but the proportions were right, at least for my old guy sensibilities. The 300 just never manages to look quite right to me. And I still kick myself for selling my old '94 Spirit. Like you say, to each his own...

Don't blame you for the desire to retain some anonymity. I met Mr. Foster at an AMC show in Kenosha some years back. Amazing guy with an encyclopedic knowledge of AMC. I also met John Conde, who was AMC's PR person for a number of years. I'm an AMC fan from way back. I've owned a '65 Ambassador 990, a '74 Gremlin X, a '76 Pacer D/L (the car my wife and I went on our honeymoon in!), a '77 Gremlin and a '78 Gremlin. I've got a HUGE collection of AMC sales literature and memorabilia.