Here's an unusually rust-free '83-'84 Dodge 600 sedan.
The 600 was the next step up in the '80s Dodge sedan hierarchy from the Dodge Aries. It rode on what Mopar called the "E-platform", which was the K-car platform with the wheelbase stretched three inches. This longer platform was not only used for the 600, but also the higher-zoot Chrysler New Yorker.
The 600 was the next step up in the '80s Dodge sedan hierarchy from the Dodge Aries. It rode on what Mopar called the "E-platform", which was the K-car platform with the wheelbase stretched three inches. This longer platform was not only used for the 600, but also the higher-zoot Chrysler New Yorker.
The numerical model name and angular styling was meant to give the car a vibe as being "Euro" and "Sporty" but there was only so much you could do to disguise the pedestrian underpinnings. The marketing materials introduced the new-for-'83 Dodge 600 as "America's Midsize Driving Machine", although the experience of driving one was definitely more Buick than BMW.
Looking at the sample here, the bright chrome moldings everywhere tell us it's not the sportier ES (which stood for "Euro/Sport") version, which would have all the brightwork blacked out, and the lack of vents in the hood tell us it's not a turbo car. The Garnet Red paint tells us it's an '84 model as the only red available in the launch year was the much darker Crimson Red.
Looking at the sample here, the bright chrome moldings everywhere tell us it's not the sportier ES (which stood for "Euro/Sport") version, which would have all the brightwork blacked out, and the lack of vents in the hood tell us it's not a turbo car. The Garnet Red paint tells us it's an '84 model as the only red available in the launch year was the much darker Crimson Red.
Since it's not a turbo, power... such as it is ...comes from either the standard 2.2L Mopar SOHC EFI four cylinder, rated at 99bhp, or the optional Mitsubishi G54B "Silent Shaft" 2.6L four cylinder, which put out 101bhp. While the Mitsu unit was rated at almost the same power, it put out 140 ft-lb of torque at 2800 RPM, versus the 2.2's 121 ft-lb at 3200. Available transmissions were either an utterly banal 3-speed automatic, or a five-speed with a vague and rubbery cable-operated shift linkage. Torque steer was included at no charge, but fortunately the general lack of torque held it down to a dull roar in the normally aspirated cars. Early 2.2L Turbo Mopars would lunge enthusiastically for the nearest ditch if you got on the boost hard at launch.
Car & Driver tested a 1983 Dodge 600ES with the 5-speed and carbureted 2.2L and it wheezed its way to sixty in 11.4 seconds and through the quarter in 18.1 at 73mph. Their testers summed up the Dodge experience thusly:
Not liked for its driving environment, despite excellent seats, control relationships, and visibility. Very poor shifting, universally disliked instrument panel and interior decor, buzzing vibrations prejudiced all drivers against this otherwise promising upgrade of the K-car. Comfortable back seat, commodious trunk, but seems to lack tight fit and finish essential for quality "feel."The one in the photo was snapped in February of 2017 using a Leica D-LUX 3.
What's the deal with the front-to-rear rake? If the owner was planning on doing some street racing he was in for some disappointment, to say the least.
ReplyDelete40 years ago I thought Chrysler's offerings were actually pretty good, at least aesthetically. Nowadays it's tough to look at them and not hear a sad trombone.
Either the trunk is full of bricks, or the rear suspension has packed it in.
Delete