moe7404

can we list things chrysler should NEVER have made. my first is the 7 1/4 rear axle. BOOOOOOO. some one should have gone to jail

Mr.4spd

Bulkhead connector nightmare and countless other high resistance electrical connectors (melt, melt, fail...)

And how about left hand threaded wheel studs? Not really a poor design but makes swapping out rim/lug nut combos more trouble than it needs to be.

Great topic, Moe. I hope to see some other posts soon.

440roadrunner

Chrysler wasn't the only one that used left hand wheel studs / nuts, and they certainly are not the only company to make stupid mistakes.

The bulkhead connector "got by" in the early days with lower output alternators, and of course Ma never dreamed or intended that these cars would be "valued" much less driven some 40-50 years later, LOL

I can't even fault the 7 1/4 rear, IF they'd stuck with slants and 273 2bbl. And Ma isn't the only one guilty of THAT either. Friend of mine, who would later become the first owner of my 70 440-6 RR, had a 65 Chevelle which regularly spit out 10" rear axles.

Older Jeeps/ Scouts were known for chewin' up front / rear ends and Jeep T-90 transmissions are a joke with anything bigger than a 4 whanger

When I went into the Navy in the spring of '68, I had no less than an even dozen 1st - reverse sliders out of Chev 3 speed gearboxes.

Rambler and their GD stupid "fluted" tapered rear axles. Even Ma was smart enough to get rid of tapered axles in 65

I'll tell you one thing that galls the crap out of me, and I've never even owned one, and that is the really really awful front wheel bearing design on the full time 4x4s Dodge made, as well as whatever that incredibly annoying "axle disconnect" which is supposed to take it out of 4x4. First time I saw that mess on a hoist, I thought I must be under an import.

moe7404

true true the tapered axle was a mess, BUT the bearings was MUCH cheaper and easier than the 65 and up fanged axle. i still have a tapered axle AND the puller.

bigblock

And drum brakes on HP cars. I know all 3 did that,just dont make sense.

440roadrunner

Well you have to realize that disk brakes were pretty much in there "infancy" so far as the public. First car I ever had with front disk was my 70 440-6 car.

What I have NEVER understood, and all three did this as well, is putting LARGER heavier brakes on HP cars and lesser brakes on the same heavy body with smaller engines, a comparison:

You take a Chev Biscayne, a 283, 6 cyl, moredoor, the family truckster, with the tents, the picnic, the 4 kids all truckin' down the highway at 65--70 It takes the SAME amount of braking (or more!!) to stop that thing as it did my 63 Impala SS with a 327 or my friend's 409

Same thing, RR, GTX, or 4 der Belvedere. All same car, but the RR might have 4 wheel 11" brakes but the slant or 318 powered 4 der had little tiny narrow 10"

Ya know, there is no doubt that Nader is kinda off his nut, but the noise he made back then DOES seem to have made a difference.

I well remember the fiasco about Chevy motor mounts breaking and jamming the throttle open.