DeserTBoB wrote:

>
>>But it also had a 2.45 rear gear and couldn't get out of its own way
>>off the line (though the top end was darn near unlimited). My wife's 93
>>v6 LH would simultaneously out-accelerate the M-body, AND get better
>>mileage, AND has cleaner exhaust. <snip>
>
>
> I have the 2:45 Dana 44 rear end as well

No Dana 44 in an M-body. Either Chrysler 7.25 (behind /6 engines through
1983) or Chrysler 8.25

> The point is exactly as you
> state...even though Chrysler was reeling from almost collapsing in the
> late '70s, they alway still did their best in terms of putting out a
> good product, and their economy and emissions were far better than
> what GM and Ford could offer in an RWD sedan at that time.

They did *well* but not always their best. The M-body would have been
far better with a simple throttle-body fuel injection system, such as GM
was already using at the time on its high-end cars, and Chrysler was
already using on THEIR OWN 4-cylinder turbo cars. If you could take an
equivalent the nice engine management system that GM put on the Cad
HT4100 off that piece of sh*t engine and put it on the bulletproof 318
engine from an M-body, you'd have the mythical "good" 80s drivetrain
that never actually existed in any form. Of course anything beat Ford
screwing around with the "variable venturi" carb for so long, but I digress.