Are they goners? Pictures of car brands on life support

You must have had the 2.2L turbo ... possibly a rare Omni GLH? I had a 1987
Lebaron GTS with the 2.2L turbo as well. A slight hesitation off a dead
start, but once the turbo kicked in it took off ... and had great steering
and brakes too.

"Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
...
> Side note, The Omni with 2.2L engine was one of my favorite small cars. I
> also had a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88 coupe with a 350 just after the Omni.
> Bit of a difference in fuel economy but about the same acceleration.
> "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, I think the K-car was a turning point and it definitely revived the
>> company but if they hadn't decided to expand the Omni/Horizon into a van
>> I think they would have lost a lot of momentum by the end of the 80's.
>> "Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
>> .com...
>>> This is all related since the original Chrysler Minivan (1984 model year
>>> I think) was based on the K-car's frame and power train (2.5L transverse
>>> mounted 4 cylinder and 3 speed transaxle).
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>I vote minivan sales.
>>>>
>>>> I think they came out with the first and probably best in initial
>>>> quality. Afterall that's what keeps a car company alive, the people
>>>> that come in and buy a new car every two years not people like me that
>>>> find a car they like and drive it until it dies or no longer meets
>>>> their needs.
>>>> Anyone that holds onto a Caravan past 100,000km (think transmission
>>>> here people) probably won't be real impressed unless they baby it and
>>>> keep up on the maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> "SnoMan" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 22:03:26 GMT, "Bob Shuman"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The loan from the US government allowed them to keep things going.
>>>>>>Then the
>>>>>>K-car and the first 7 year/70K mile warranty are what allowed Chrysler
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>generate the cash to design the Minivan and then purchase Jeep.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THis is true but without the Jeep purchase and the CTD, they would
>>>>> have faded back away in 90's and likely would be worse of today if
>>>>> they had not been bought out too.
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> The SnoMan
>>>>> www.thesnoman.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

No turbo, I figured 2.2 was fairly common since my friend had one too (mine
was auto, his manual) He (well his parents) also had an 84 Caravan with the
same 2.2L and let me tell you it wasn't much of a performer in the van.
A few years later I bought an Omni (84 I think) with the 1.6L Peugeot
engine, just not the same :-(

"Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
. com...
> You must have had the 2.2L turbo ... possibly a rare Omni GLH? I had a
> 1987 Lebaron GTS with the 2.2L turbo as well. A slight hesitation off a
> dead start, but once the turbo kicked in it took off ... and had great
> steering and brakes too.
>
> "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> ...
>> Side note, The Omni with 2.2L engine was one of my favorite small cars. I
>> also had a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88 coupe with a 350 just after the Omni.
>> Bit of a difference in fuel economy but about the same acceleration.
>> "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Yes, I think the K-car was a turning point and it definitely revived the
>>> company but if they hadn't decided to expand the Omni/Horizon into a van
>>> I think they would have lost a lot of momentum by the end of the 80's.
>>> "Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
>>> .com...
>>>> This is all related since the original Chrysler Minivan (1984 model
>>>> year I think) was based on the K-car's frame and power train (2.5L
>>>> transverse mounted 4 cylinder and 3 speed transaxle).
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>I vote minivan sales.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they came out with the first and probably best in initial
>>>>> quality. Afterall that's what keeps a car company alive, the people
>>>>> that come in and buy a new car every two years not people like me that
>>>>> find a car they like and drive it until it dies or no longer meets
>>>>> their needs.
>>>>> Anyone that holds onto a Caravan past 100,000km (think transmission
>>>>> here people) probably won't be real impressed unless they baby it and
>>>>> keep up on the maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> "SnoMan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 22:03:26 GMT, "Bob Shuman"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The loan from the US government allowed them to keep things going.
>>>>>>>Then the
>>>>>>>K-car and the first 7 year/70K mile warranty are what allowed
>>>>>>>Chrysler to
>>>>>>>generate the cash to design the Minivan and then purchase Jeep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THis is true but without the Jeep purchase and the CTD, they would
>>>>>> have faded back away in 90's and likely would be worse of today if
>>>>>> they had not been bought out too.
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>> The SnoMan
>>>>>> www.thesnoman.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
et...
> The loan from the US government allowed them to keep things going. Then
> the K-car and the first 7 year/70K mile warranty are what allowed Chrysler
> to generate the cash to design the Minivan and then purchase Jeep.
>
> Bob

There wasn't a loan from the US government to Chrysler. There were loan
guarantees, IOW the US Gov. cosigned for loans.

Ken

Ken,

Yes, you are correct in that the government was the guaranteeor and not the
originator of the loan. Although more accurate, it is not relevant to the
points I made regarding the success of the K-car and the Minivan providing
the basis for Chrysler's purchase of Jeep.

Bob

"NapalmHeart" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
> et...
>> The loan from the US government allowed them to keep things going. Then
>> the K-car and the first 7 year/70K mile warranty are what allowed
>> Chrysler to generate the cash to design the Minivan and then purchase
>> Jeep.
>>
>> Bob
>
> There wasn't a loan from the US government to Chrysler. There were loan
> guarantees, IOW the US Gov. cosigned for loans.
>
> Ken
>

Bob,

I agree with what you said here. The relevance is that saying that Chrysler
received a loan from the US Gov furthers an inaccurate belief that many have
held for the last 20-odd years.

Best Wishes,

Ken

>
> Yes, you are correct in that the government was the guaranteeor and not
> the originator of the loan. Although more accurate, it is not relevant to
> the points I made regarding the success of the K-car and the Minivan
> providing the basis for Chrysler's purchase of Jeep.
>
> Bob
>
> "NapalmHeart" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
>> et...
>>> The loan from the US government allowed them to keep things going. Then
>>> the K-car and the first 7 year/70K mile warranty are what allowed
>>> Chrysler to generate the cash to design the Minivan and then purchase
>>> Jeep.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> There wasn't a loan from the US government to Chrysler. There were loan
>> guarantees, IOW the US Gov. cosigned for loans.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
>

"Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
om...
> Ken,
>
> Yes, you are correct in that the government was the guaranteeor and not
> the originator of the loan. Although more accurate, it is not relevant to
> the points I made regarding the success of the K-car and the Minivan
> providing the basis for Chrysler's purchase of Jeep.
>
> Bob
>
> "NapalmHeart" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
>> et...
>>> The loan from the US government allowed them to keep things going. Then
>>> the K-car and the first 7 year/70K mile warranty are what allowed
>>> Chrysler to generate the cash to design the Minivan and then purchase
>>> Jeep.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> There wasn't a loan from the US government to Chrysler. There were loan
>> guarantees, IOW the US Gov. cosigned for loans.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
>