live4theking
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 12,739
- Reaction score
- 8,938
I guess this just hold no appeal for me.
For Sale At least it's a 4-speed.........
- Thread starter Fury Pursuit
- Start date
- Status
As my handle states I have an obsession for late 70 early 80 Cordoba's. My first car was a 78 Sport coupe with no vinyl top 360 4BBL only option was the leather wrapped wheel. Have had 75,77,79,79 300, 81,82 plus 78 Magnum since. I could work on those cars in my sleep. Still have the first 78 rusting away in storage for last 15 years. It's a mess now and needs a complete restoration but I haven't the heart to part with it. We have talked about restoring the un-restorable in this forum and that car will definitely qualify as "Lunatic Fringe" but someday.......
fury fan
Senior Member
I've often considered that, but for the amount of work required, it would be more practical (time and $$) to get a nice Mk 7 and upgrade it. I've had 2 LSCs over the years and liked them both, never had an 81-83 Imp so that is perhaps the biggest gamble - would I like it? Would it be too mushy for me? Would I have to scour for copcar bits or Firmfeel to get it to handle better?
OTOH, I liked my 81 LeB coupe, nice soft velour seats, handled pretty nicely, so I'd be willing to attempt such a major upgrade with one of those.
i might be sending an "anti 80's" vibe. not my intent.
perhaps it was mfgrs. product execution given the upheaval they faced on fuel economy/cost pressure fronts -- simultaneously -- that bugs me about the 80's cars in general
i happen to like most the all the F/M/J's...they were just under-powered vs. comparable class Mopars a decade earlier.
and hard to tell what year was which as cars (all the Big 3 anyway) barely changed yr-to-yr styling wise it seemed in the 80'. except when radically downsized (e,g mid 80's Caddies come to mind .. GM was already planning to make them bigger given how poorly they were received in pre-launch focus groups).
my first car outta college was a used '80 Mirada (E44) that i still own to this day. at one tine i owned 11 of the 76 E58 1980 Miradas ever made...never found a single one of the 17 factory E58 Cordoba J's though.
i dont care at all the venerable M's all look virtually alike 80-89..they were (are) "boxes" I happened to like
perhaps it was mfgrs. product execution given the upheaval they faced on fuel economy/cost pressure fronts -- simultaneously -- that bugs me about the 80's cars in general
i happen to like most the all the F/M/J's...they were just under-powered vs. comparable class Mopars a decade earlier.
and hard to tell what year was which as cars (all the Big 3 anyway) barely changed yr-to-yr styling wise it seemed in the 80'. except when radically downsized (e,g mid 80's Caddies come to mind .. GM was already planning to make them bigger given how poorly they were received in pre-launch focus groups).
my first car outta college was a used '80 Mirada (E44) that i still own to this day. at one tine i owned 11 of the 76 E58 1980 Miradas ever made...never found a single one of the 17 factory E58 Cordoba J's though.
i dont care at all the venerable M's all look virtually alike 80-89..they were (are) "boxes" I happened to like
Last edited:
patrick66
Old Man with a Hat
I worked for a C-P dealer as a lot porter in 1979. The manual OD trans in an M-body was not terribly rare, and was available with the 225 or 318 (NO w/360). I drove more than a few LeBaron OD cars around the lot back then. Obviously, there were a LOT more Aspen/Volare' OD cars built, but the M-body w/OD is not as rare as you might think.
fc7_plumcrazy
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 5,315
- Reaction score
- 6,549
shooter65
Senior Member
It's funny that you're calling a 78 LeBaron a compact...I've been to Germany enough to know what a compact is.
The only compact's we have in this country come from Germany and Japan. LOL. fc7_plumcrazy
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 5,315
- Reaction score
- 6,549
It's funny that you're calling a 78 LeBaron a compact...I've been to Germany enough to know what a compact is.
View attachment 80041
as you recognised me being from germany I can identify compact cars when I see one. All M-bodys are compacts.
Carsten
I am not trying to start a fight .. not over something like this especially .. with anybody here on the forum. not my style. I start with the data and see where that goes, then were are all free to decide what the data says to us.
I also respect Carsten's view (and ANYONE else's for that fact). As with many other members who have distinguished themselves, I have learned he is respected and knowledgeable, and has demonstrated through years of participation here, a passion for the "details" of our hobby.
In 1978 the LeBaron was deemed a "mid-size" car by the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for the purposes of compliance with applicable fuel economy standards. See page 16 of this document.
Document Display | NSCEP | US EPA
Basically, any car with a wheelbase between 110 inches and 118 inches was a "mid-size" car in 1978.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, the 1978 F cars (Aspen/Volare), from which the M's were derived, were called "compact" cars by the EPA (see page 14 of the link). BOTH the F's and the M's had 112 inch wheel bases, though the M's were a bit longer overall, so why is one a "compact" and one a "midsize"?
I have no idea why. BUT ...
IF i had to guess, maybe it was part of the "looseness" in the classifications back then. And/or maybe Chrysler lobbied the EPA to get LeBaron ('77-'79 at least) as "mid-sizes" along with the obviously bigger/longer "B" bodies (115 inch wheel bases, and an aged platform by then) to improve fuel economy for the class?
To me, the data suggests there is no doubt what the '77-'79 M's were "classified" as: midsize cars. this was still true when they went out of production in 1989.
Gas Mileage of 1989 Midsize Cars
NOW, what they really were physically (in this particular era -- the "transition" between old sizes and the new that was in process in late 70's) all you gotta do is look at them with your own eyes. A case, though a less strong case in my mind, that M's were "compacts" '77-'79 can be asserted (and probably was .. I'm sure the class size "inconsistencies" were reported on back then).
But, after 1980, its harder to call the M's "compacts" after all the downsizing (and the F's were gone). They were solidly "midsized" cars in my view until they were discontinued.
I also respect Carsten's view (and ANYONE else's for that fact). As with many other members who have distinguished themselves, I have learned he is respected and knowledgeable, and has demonstrated through years of participation here, a passion for the "details" of our hobby.
In 1978 the LeBaron was deemed a "mid-size" car by the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for the purposes of compliance with applicable fuel economy standards. See page 16 of this document.
Document Display | NSCEP | US EPA
Basically, any car with a wheelbase between 110 inches and 118 inches was a "mid-size" car in 1978.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, the 1978 F cars (Aspen/Volare), from which the M's were derived, were called "compact" cars by the EPA (see page 14 of the link). BOTH the F's and the M's had 112 inch wheel bases, though the M's were a bit longer overall, so why is one a "compact" and one a "midsize"?
I have no idea why. BUT ...
IF i had to guess, maybe it was part of the "looseness" in the classifications back then. And/or maybe Chrysler lobbied the EPA to get LeBaron ('77-'79 at least) as "mid-sizes" along with the obviously bigger/longer "B" bodies (115 inch wheel bases, and an aged platform by then) to improve fuel economy for the class?
To me, the data suggests there is no doubt what the '77-'79 M's were "classified" as: midsize cars. this was still true when they went out of production in 1989.
Gas Mileage of 1989 Midsize Cars
NOW, what they really were physically (in this particular era -- the "transition" between old sizes and the new that was in process in late 70's) all you gotta do is look at them with your own eyes. A case, though a less strong case in my mind, that M's were "compacts" '77-'79 can be asserted (and probably was .. I'm sure the class size "inconsistencies" were reported on back then).
But, after 1980, its harder to call the M's "compacts" after all the downsizing (and the F's were gone). They were solidly "midsized" cars in my view until they were discontinued.
Last edited:
I think Carsten is being figurative rather than literal and just having a little fun. It's smaller than the big C's he's fond of
perhaps that's the case. no debate, its WAY smaller than our beloved C's .many times you mod's do a much better job at "reading" what posts are intended to mean than some of us do.
me? i am just trying to learn stuff from people who know more/different things than i do.
fc7_plumcrazy
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 5,315
- Reaction score
- 6,549
the truth is inbetween
As mentioned they were small compared to our cars from the late 60s/early 70s.
The F-bodys were called compacts and the M-bodys are connected to them.
For the time being they were not that small but are simply compared to the older cars including the old mid-size models.
So to me they are small compacts.
But don't take that to serious.
Every car buillt after the last C-bodys in 1978 are compacts for me.
Carsten
As mentioned they were small compared to our cars from the late 60s/early 70s.
The F-bodys were called compacts and the M-bodys are connected to them.
For the time being they were not that small but are simply compared to the older cars including the old mid-size models.
So to me they are small compacts.
But don't take that to serious.
Every car buillt after the last C-bodys in 1978 are compacts for me.
Carsten
300rag
It's Not Going to Shift Itself
Have you recently rented a "full-size" car? Not even close.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
BINGO! Same here.
hey shooter65 ... i am the one who didn't "get the joke" carsten was making. i woulda moved off the issue HAD it looked like a "argument" was about to ensue
.i just know many of the members here are VERY knowledgeable, and when one of them (like Carsten) is "emphatic" (in my view) on a particular point that's contrary to what I understood, my first reaction is "hmm...maybe they have a point."
so, i'm happy to use data to learn something i DIDNT know .. or try to confirm something i DID know.
in this case, even in jest, Carsten had a point: there are some physical ambiguities around classification with the F/M's in late 70's that you only need to use your eyes and good sense to surmise.
If you check out an old commercial from 1977 when LeBaron M body came out, Chrysler advertised it as a "new size" car...signaling they would be taking the place of the old "B's (which they were still building then) as their "midsize" cars, with the R's (basically the updated "B" platform, which was certainly in some final design phase in 1977) as their new "full-size" platform in place of our beloved C's in 1979.
I owned an '84 Fifth Avenue for a number of years. Loved it, and wish I had another. Not a large car, but not a compact either. Park one next to a C Body - it's small. Park one next to an Omni - it's huge!
Everything is relative.
Everything is relative.
- Status
Similar threads
