To be fair though, sometimes when working for a dealer as a repair tech, you will always see the worst of the bunch come rolling in and might get a distorted view of the entire lineup as a result. I spent some time in a Chrysler quality control center where we had a lot of cars come in that needed repairs at low miles, and that gave me somewhat of a distorted view perhaps of the formal cars from Chrysler, as they seemed to have a lot more problems by 40K miles that fuselage and slab side cars did not as Chrysler slid towards bankruptcy and cut costs wherever they could to keep the lights on (but Chrysler's engines and transmissions seemed to be more rugged than the others too - it was all the other things that failed early on and turned customers off) . And Chrysler's lean burn systems were a big problem too and caused them to lose customers hand over fist. Personally I had to do driveability comparisons in those years between Chrysler products and Ford and GM comparative cars. And it was clear that Chrysler products were the worst of the lot. Ford was not far behind and GM seemed better than the other two. I think it is a fair statement that the cars that sold the best in the market place seemed to be the better ones overall. But the best cars back in the 70s were all crap compared to the quality and performance/driveability of todays rolling electronic wonders (as long as something doesn't go wrong at least - and that happens much later in the owner experience than it did in the 70s).
