Bring Back the K Car
Not everyone will know what the K Car was but it brought Chrysler back from almost going out of business. This car definitely was not sexy but it got 25 MPG in the city and 41MPG on the highway. This car came out in 1981 and we can’t build some thing better today? In the zeventies we all drove muscle cars or land yachts(large cars). Then in the late seventies came the oil embargo and we went to Toyotas and K Cars. Then oil got cheap and we went to SUVs and Hummers. Mabye this time we will wake up?
Mike G
|
|
Print
E-mail
Comments
My thoughts exactly.Chrysler and the whole American auto industry is in the dumper now,its time something comes along like the K-philosophy to bring common sense back to cars.Chrysler is going to be bringing in Chinese cars and even partnering with them monetarily....ugg....The new K could change all that.I have many ideas about how this could go down,but I wont go into all the details.....however,I would start with a solid,stiff platform thats readily adaptable to narrower track widths,longer or shorter wheelbases,would accept independent or rear beam axle (like the original Ks),highly tunable front suspension (still struts though) and a range of engines sizes from 1.5 to 2.5 liters in 4 cylinder form.This could be the basis for small Omni sized models thru to Dynasty sized full sizers.A solid,inexpensive,35+mpg 6 passenger car (when did you last see a 6 passenger car?) that used function first and form second,could be a runaway best seller.I would copy the 1981 ad campaign and bring back Iacocca to promote "his" new saviour car.
And guess what....I am from NH too!
I remember the K car, all of my neighbors drove them. They are from an era when even wealthy Americans drove domestic cars.
I like hypermiling , art and inexpensive renewable energy.
This is a question I have been asking for some time. While I have a hard time believing that the K car got that kind of mileage (maybe with a manual transmission, but I doubt many had that option), I have always found it a little disconcerting that society has progressed to this point, and efficiency hasn’t improved all that much. Sure, cars are heavier now (added safety features) but to me, that doesn’t account for the lack of increased fuel economy.
Um, where did you get those figures from? That 41 mpg seems like a bit of a stretch.
Think about all the progress we have made in the past 27 years (computing power is the most obvious example), yet our MPGs haven't changed much. How is this even possible? Even if gas was cheap(er), it wasn't free. At least now oil is becoming a resource that we won't use carelessly.
[quote=hlund05]Think about all the progress we have made in the past 27 years (computing power is the most obvious example), yet our MPGs haven't changed much. How is this even possible? Even if gas was cheap(er), it wasn't free. At least now oil is becoming a resource that we won't use carelessly. [/quote]
I Agree!! In the late 70's Cadilac had an 8-6-4-2 engine that would run on 8 cylinders then 6 then 4 then 2. The problem with it was cumputers at the time did not have the speed needed so it was a failure. With the computing power we have today this is possible. I read an article that most cars only need 10-20 horsepower to keep it moving at 65MPH. Chrysler currently has a Hemi that shuts of 4 cylinders when cruising on the high way. Why not a 4 cylinder that runs on 2 cylinders when highway cruising?