For what it was and what it needed to be, for the time and coming from the big 3, it was a pretty good car. It still looks good to me. Sadly, by the late 80s, when I was in high school, they were already cars for the kids to drive with mismatched tires, indifferent maintenance, smoking engines and off the road by the early 90's. Great review.
When I saw this one the Motorweek channel I thought of the Magnum too. They were developed close enough together that the same people, who happened to like that look, may have worked on both. Edit: From a straight side on view it looks like someone tried to update a Ford Fairmont.
As far as K cars go, I think this mid-size e-class was one of the best iterations, the four headlights and formal grille the front really make it look like a more full size car, there are hints of Lincoln angularity, they didn't look nearly as basic as many other K cars. Add in fender grills, a huge trunk, 6 window green house and roofline that looked far sleeker and sportier than GM's upright models, and overall styling touches really added to a more upscale appearance, more than most middle-class cars of the time in my opinion! Can even pass for a luxury car with those incredible, signature marshmallow soft plush buttery smooth Chrysler leather seats, (other than the power of course) these cars were very nice sized and given the right RWD, 318 v8 drivetrain, I think could have easily competed with mid-sized European luxury cars but unfortunately, like so many 80s American cars a lot of it was flash with no substance, but it doesn't stop the fact that they really did look very decent and more expensive than they were, which made them competitive in the market. And I don't care how many people make fun of it, that digital dash still looks cool today and was ahead of its time and purely an American touch with the talking warnings that as I said with V8 and we will drive this would have been very competitive in the middle luxury market.
I had this exact car in high school in 1996 but mine was white. I loved this car so much I bought the Chrysler New Yorker model in 1999. Mind you I was only 19. It was a decent sized gas saver and zi wish I could find one today. Can you see the looks I got in 1999 driving an old Chrysler New Yorker 😂😂. I didn’t think it was ugly either
If you look at the 1983 Ford LTD 2 and Mercury Marquis you will see exactly what they were going here for, it's almost an exact clone, but those Fords but had a huge advantage, the Fords were rear wheel drive and had an option for a reliable durable 302 V8 with power! And of course the next year the Ford Taurus and Mercury sable completely upended this price and size segment and the changed the whole US car market , but the Dodge Chrysler Plymouth versions are essentially competing exactly with those 1983 cars from Ford that weren't quite so identically angular and stodgy as the GM look-alike sedans, they straddled that line of being "too square", softened with a slight nod to a bit of slope and swept back noses, flusher glass, 6 window greenhouses with angled back glass that looked more modern than GM's boxes which were still copying the Seville's boring box style from 10 years earlier, so these cars looked pretty modern, until the areo styling truly took over and changed everything in the next couple of years.
I had almost forgotten that manual transmissions in family sedans were relatively common back in the early 80's. Granted, the 5 speed manual was needed to make up to the anemic engine power and performance - even from a turbocharged engine. Almost everything today has an automatic transmission, especially family sedans so it is nice to remember a time when manual transmissions were far more common. I will say we've made a LOT of progress in the almost 40 years (yes this car is 39 years old now) since this review was made - the top end 600ES only had 142hp; most small cars today have at least that much power - the base model Honda Civic has 158hp, and it is rare to find a V6 that makes less than 250hp. The modern Dodge successor to the 600ES would be a Hemi powered Charger R/T which makes 370hp (and the Hellcat makes in excess of 700hp) - for comparison, a 1984 Lamborghini Countach only made 375hp. With the 600 we can see the early development of the K-Car into the myriad of other automotive platforms that Chrysler eventually used it as the basis of - and as such we can appreciate how far we've come in terms of automotive technology and performance gains. It is cars like this that make me realize that not all cars from back in the 80's and 90's were all rosy. As for a K-Car review: ua-cam.com/video/2Cu-jHhNqp0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/QYU0PQ4o3I8/v-deo.html
I get what you mean on the interior, it isn't to say nice looking, but compared to other reviews of the same time period, it certainly looks modern and thought-through for a car at the time
I wouldn't disagree with that except that gage cluster. Here we are in 2023 with much improved technology, and I still prefer the analog gages but especially early Chrysler ones. Even ford made a slightly better digital cluster for the Taurus than this. But that's really my only objection. Thanks for the topic starter.
LOL it's not even that big of a car those are all just styling tricks, you ought to drive a mid-90s truly huge Impala SS with a stick shift and a Corvette V8!
I didn't know that was a thing. Would love to have driven it. I do know there were some manual Camry's around until the early 2010's. Officially they were available until 2021 but good luck finding one.
Great review Jon ! These cars were basically a deluxe version of the K cars with a bit more luxury . I had friends and relatives who used to own these cars .
I prefer the 1984 Dodge Aries too. Some of the 1984 Dodge Aries are AHB. Light duty squad car. Both the Chrysler 4 cylinder and the Mitsubishi 4 cylinder are good. Whatever you like, especially on patrol.
My parents bought the 1983 600. They glossed over the voice notification! Good lord all my friends loved the KITT car Talking!!!! It was a novelty and sounded like the computer voice of War Games. But it worked. Dad hatred finding the metric tires for it. The motors didn’t last past about 90k but it was fun in the 80s. After the second motor had internal grindage…. Mom moved to blazers
I didn't know these had metric tires too. Are they like the metric rims that Ford tried in the early 80's? TRX I think they were called. They probably made sense from an engineering standpoint, but a lot of owners hated them.
The best the 600 ever looked was the 1986 600 ES Turbo convertible with dealer option racing stripes at the bottom. That specific model looked the most European-Sporty. Had the Daytona Pizza wheels, that cool third brake light mounted on the rear deck and just the right amount of chrome (inside and out).
The very first time I saw this ride was in a 1983 R&T magazine issue ,and the most significant featured I`d love was the manual 5 speed transmission. The better for me, to perform with a turbo 2.2 L4 engine. I`m not a US resident actually, but was realy interesting to get notices from Detroit`s industry, to see what about was happening back then in the 80's, focusing my self more in the Mopar`s projects, rising up from bad times, and I could see that Chairman Lee was in good way to revive that car Company.
My parents had a white one plain Jane version It was not a bad car with the 4 cylinder engine with the automatic. The gas pedal felt like you were pushing a heavy brick My mother drove it back and forth to work for years. I dont recall too many issues with that car other than normal oil changes and tires. This car lasted until my dad got the Chrysler turbo LeBaron car. Basically a step up from the K car platform with more power and a better suspension. Those cars with the turbos were little fast sleeper cars back in the days.
bought a 1987 600se at end of 2023 for $1400. have put 5k miles on it no issues. full mechanical dash, mint condition red cloth interior. it feels like im sitting in a layzboy recliner whilst getting 25mpg. if you can find one, buy one!
Love the review!!! So I was born in the mid 70s and grew up in the 80s!!!! I never knew anyone who had one of these!!!! In my Northern California neighborhood in 1984 most cars were Volvos, Audi 5000s and Honda Accords !!! But don’t seem like a bad vehicle!!!! But I can’t Remember ever seeing one in current days!!!!
@@8corymix8 I was also born in 1975.. I grew up in a small town in the redwoods on the pacific ocean north of San Francisco….. I remember the Kcar but not this model!!!! And yes growing up in the 80s was a wonderful time, and even high school in the 90s
Excellent review. Very enjoyable & brings me back. Not a terrible car but I'd certainly have bought a 6000 STE,. Oldsmobile, celebrity or Thunderbird over this. Plus Chrysler always blew white/blue smoke out the tailpipe. They weren't great cars. " Ohh one more thing,. If you can finta better car, BUY IT! ". - Lee Iacocca
Really appreciate your videos Jon. We are about the same age and apparently similar tastes and I enjoy your work tremendously. You deserve more views and scribes but I can see you do this out of enjoyment and makes it that much more entertaining. Keep up the great work and thanks again for bringing these to us.
I agree the proportions aren’t the greatest. I think the ‘86 refresh with the rounded off nose looks a little better. My aunt had an ‘86 non-turbo model and it proved to be a good car for her. FYI - there are a couple Motorweek reviews of the Reliant out there, I recently watched one for the ‘82 wagon.
I had a 1983 new Yorker e class Eas a nice car for the time had the Mitsubishi 4 cylinder had a/c issues and the wheel bearing went bad all in all a decent car for the time
I have been in a lot of cars over the decades and to this day the most comfortable seats I ever sat in were in that mid-80s Chrysler New Yorker front-wheel drive! They were leather , buttery soft and so plush and overstuffed I couldn't believe it, even as a young man that a car seat could be that comfortable, and all of the full sized Cadillacs Lincolns Buicks and Chevrolet Caprices that have come and gone out of my life nothing has ever come close to those thrones!
Styling is subjective. Everything taken into consideration during its time, the ES 600 was a good car. Some may not like the styling while many others do.
For questionable trunk design check the Aero era GM cars of the 80's. They looked like a hatchback, but the rear window didn't lift, just a short trunk lid. Plenty of space once you got things in, but I don't think people liked to push luggage or bags forward, then drag them back to unload.
I had a 2 door Cutlass aero back. Yes the trunk lid was small. More aggravating was dust coming into the trunk from the driver's side wheel well (I lived on a gravel road at the time). Sloppy GM workmanship that I fixed to some degree with a spray can of undercoating.
Good review. It was obviously engineered on a shoestring - stretch K car 2 inches in the wheelbase and give it a new front clip. Chrysler didn't have the money for anything else -or they were saving it for the minivan!
I remember this era when Detroit was trying to come up with sports sedans, sure not a 5 seriers, but maybe they thought they could snag some Audi, Saab, Volvo or heck even Maxima/Cressida sales. Rooted for them. Some (much) better executed than others - the STE and the LTD LX come to mind ('almost a Mustang' - and a 9 second 0-60 in 83 was pretty darn fast). Then, in the bargain basement, you had the Clebrity Eurosport ... and this. Here at least you could get the 5 speed (initially base engine only) which the Americans said they liked but did not buy. We also had a Chrysler E Class which I drove (same car but much less interesting, set up for float - thing plowed in turns, undulated over gentle rises on the highway like it wanted to leave the road completely, was not designed to be even reasonably safe >70-75 and could not get out of its own way), so in comparison, yes, the 600 ES was a much better car. Doesn't say much. But they tried. Maybe had I experienced a 5 speed turbo, thoughts would change. Then again at the time my weekend car if I was good (or at least made a reasonable show of it) was Dad's 533i, and I knew there was no way the big three were ever going to manage that level of competence - no DNA. But - it was distnctive, IMOP not bad looking (though I agree there were some proportion problems), and if you only had $X to spend (and could not spring for the expensive turbo)... the STE was 40-45% more base price - though you did get almost everything standard - so a decent compromise for the
@AllCarswithJon Absolutely! I couldn't agree more by the way. The Dodge Aries was in my opinion a step up from the 600 despite being a higher trim level. I always thought it was kind of ugly and just unfitting if cobbled. The Aries I think looked much more cohesive and basically together and throwing a turbocharger on that 4 cylinder really didn't do much to extend the life of that vehicle anyway. Probably why we sometimes still see the occasional Aries verses something like that. Anyway great video as always. Thank you for doing them.
Everyone has their opinions on styling. I personally liked it for what it was, a mid level sporty family sedan. The Pontiac 6000 was the primary competitor. Advertising pitted it against Euro sport sedans but it was 1/2 the cost of a 318i and far less than a comparable sized 528i. Plus you have to have been there, just coming out of the malaise era of the late 70s, early 80s. It was a generation better than the Dodge Diplomat at the time! PS I owned an 85 Dodge Daytona Turbo at the time and loved it!
Yeah I think they looked very upscale and much more expensive than other K cars, and most Fords and GM cars in the same price range. Compared to a Ford LTD II/ Granada or a Chevy Celebrity? I think it looks much more impressive in the front.
I get it, I get it... you don't like the styling of it! You definitely bet that horse! Me personally, I liked it! My parents owned a 79 dodge magnum xe and they also owned an 86 dodge 600 es. It reminded me of the magnum but the 600 talked. Back in the days of knight rider... I thought it was cool! I also owned an 84 dodge aries and the 600 was definitely bigger. Just my opinion but thanks for the video.
I had an ‘85 Chrysler Laser with basically this same engine & transmission (4 HP improvement from ‘84 to ‘85). It would be an ideal powertrain for the 600 if properly cared for. The EPA fuel economy numbers shown in the MW video (the old EPA metric) (22/35) are hugely different from the new numbers for it (18/25) on the EPA site. Usually the difference between the old/new numbers is around 2 MPG... someone must have been dreaming when they came up with those old numbers for the 600 turbo. Although back then my 23-year-old self wanted something sporty-but-FWD, I think the 600’s styling is fine for a family car. Toyota started pretty heavily doing the “louvers” thing on their grilles around 15 or 20 years ago, so Dodge (and Cord) beat them to it. To me, the sedan format is only acceptable if the rear seat can be folded down to carry long items, and the MW video didn’t show that. My Laser had awful initial quality (e.g. 7 places where rainwater leaked in, and insufficient A/C for upstate NY), but reasonable long-term quality. The engine & turbo lasted me 140K niles, still good when I traded it in.
I had an 85 Daytona Turbo with a similar power train. I remember getting 35+ mpg on highway trips and never less than low to mid 20s around town. So the original EPA numbers were achievable! Even driving the car sportingly!
Another great Retro Review reaction Jon. Another reaction you should do is the 1983 Honda Accord Retro Review that was uploaded a few years ago. I would love to hear your opinion on the Accord's progression over the years.
Lots of people pile on the K-car now but for the time it was just fine. I lived through that era and the turbo versions of the K was just as fast if not faster than the bloated, emissions-choked '70s cars while getting twice the gas mileage. It was better than the GM X-car (Citation, etc.) and arguably better than the Ford Escort and Tempo. It was a solid performer like you said. And the styling? That's subjective, but Chrysler did the '80s boxy look fairly well. It was clean and understated. Detroit was finally starting to climb out of the Malaise era, finally replacing carburetors wit EFI so that they ran well while passing emissions standards and even making more power.
We had a small town near us that bought K-cars and actually used them as COP cars (HAH!), and one day this cop was chasing a bad guy, skidded in the rain, and hit a tree broadside, and this K-car LITERALLY broke in half, clean, in the middle! It looked like a Hollywood stunt but it was real! Like breaking a Hershey bar in half. Fortunately, the cop was not hurt. I never knew K-bodies were joined in the middle like that. Just went to show that these cars had no frame.
I agree that the styling is not right on these due to the proportions and the front grille section clearly was intended to have a Chrysler waterfall shield grille and whatever that thing is supposed to be evokes no clear direction ( it certainly isn't luxury but it isn't sporty either). I think this car suffered from the fact that Chrysler built it using a shoe string budget based on the fact that they didn't have a nickel to spare. I have never driven one and only rode in one once when I was probably 5-6, so I don't have much insight other than I find the replacement K based models Dynasty and Spirit to be a massive improvement over the 600 and Aries.
No, you WOULDN'T rather have wanted to have an Aries! While the Aries were tough little cars, and quite durable...they were truly depressing to drive, as they were slow, and exuded cheapness. Conversely, I picked up a 600 in the mid 90's to resell...and while I typically abhor Chrysler products (as they are always horribly styled, and usually mechanically inferior) I have to say I was impressed by that 600. The way it drove; it's sturdiness, and it's competent mechanics really surprised me. I wouldn't have ever bought one new...but if I had to drive one as necessary transportation, I wouldn't have been horrified. As for the looks, yeah...that "beak". It could've been greatly improved if the front wheels had been further forward so that it didn't have that huge front overhang. But let's face it, most cars from the 80's were just as poorly styled, if not worse. (Rare exceptions being GM's Regal/Grand Prix/Cutlass/Malibu IMO).
Actually, for what it was, it wasn't bad looking, and 11 seconds to 60 was more than respectable in 1984 in its class. Also, Motor Week had a jazzy theme song back in the 80s. Maybe for kicks and giggles, Joe Raiti could go "On Throttle" in the turbo version, with Jon riding shotgun? 😊
I had a 1979 Plymouth Voyager short-wheelbase work van with a Slant-6 at the time, and its 0-to-60 time was also 11 seconds, but maaaaaaaaaaaan, was it working!!
I don’t mind the front, so much. I think it’s the way the bumper sticks out, that gives it the odd look. Perhaps if the bottom of the grill was angled more ❓
Actually, I think the front end is the best part of that car! In black, that would look pretty mean. The rear 600ES lettering should have drawn a German lawsuit.
Personally I think GM A bodies were in a different class - 4 inches longer in the wheel base, solid V6 engines like the 3800 Buick that would last forever. Chrysler were making do with what they had
These cars were somewhat underpowered but as for looks I thought back at the time they were new on the market that the car was quite good looking. And having worked at a Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth and truck store from 1975-84 I drove a few of these. Not a bad car at all. You can keep your GM junk from that period.
Seeing Dodge today rebadging Alpha Romeo, this car with that iconic Pentastar logo looks good. Dodge has seen better days. I dunno. I thought it was unique looking.
I disagree with you on the styling. I find it much better looking then the GM A body, the K car, and especially the 600s replacement, the Dodge Dynasty. My grandma had the Chrysler version of this car, called the E Class. They didn't steal the name from Mercedes, as they're mid size car was known as the 300 class at this time.
Not to be too picky but the dodge 600 and cousin chrysler e class rode on a 103.1 in wheelbase which is stretched from the K car. Chrysler referred to these as the E body. After 84, the chrysler variant was discontinued and was reintroduced as the Plymouth Caravelle.
Overall, it makes me think Ford Fairmont. An attractive car during the 80's were few and far between. Those were dark days. I was never a fan of the slat grills on the early 80's Dodges. I got to agree with you that Aries and Reliant looked better, but then again I owned 3 of them.
I always wanted a Fairmont! That was a true workingman's car! No frills, just good basic transportation, easy to fix and maintain. Basically an updated Ford Falcon. Detroit always forgot that a lot of people WANTED a Falcon. It met their needs.
This car’s overall looks would have benefited exponentially with better wheels. Those silver painted plastic hubcaps aren’t fooling anyone. They look like $5.00 eyesores. The Chrysler version got the wire wheel treatment. The Dodge should have gotten mags.
Naw, not for this kind of traditional luxury car, most people didn't even notice wheels at that time, in fact, I'm surprised they aren't fake plastic spokes that were even found on big expensive Mercury Marquis. Fancy Wheels were more of a thing for sports cars like Camaros or for urban people that put wheels that cost more than the price of a car on a hoopty. So many sports cars even had plastic discs like the kitt car trans am, and groundbreaking aero cars like the Taurus when it came out in 84 had plastic discs, wheels just were not important to most buyers at that time, that was just the aftermarket tuner kids junk. Form follows function was the word of the day, and the fuel economy advances of having flush wheel covers just made more sense and didn't detract from the rest of the car like so many over styled Wheels do.
I just have to laugh at the near perfect copy of the Mercedes emblem saying "600 ES" in the rear.... Take a look at any 60´s to 80´s Mercedes if You don´t belive me....😀
Let's be honest, it's just another nondescript, malaise era US-made car. Yeah, the beak looks weirdly wrong. Never seen one irl & likely never will. Don't mind the interior/dash btw, it's good-weird. Thanks from Surfers Jon.
From the side, I can see lines similar to the Ford Fairmont, as well as the Chevrolet Celebrity. Nearly 40 years on, that entire aesthetic screams MALAISE to me. They were old people cars to my early 20s self. I still don't like the look, even as I unwillingly creep up on old people status myself. That look can get off mah lawn.
13:50 You want to say: The proportions are all wrong, which they are. The overhangs are to long on both ends and the car is narrow already. The fact they made they put the nose on to extend the front overhang further giving it the ungangly appearance which goes back to my original statement. Proportions. Its important to get that right. 90% of the time that's what makes an ugly car.
People bought it because it met their needs at a price they could AFFORD!!!!!!! It was a time of rampant inflation (just like now), and people were kinda desperate. That's why Tokyo BURIED Detroit! They may not have really LIKED the K-cars, but they would do for the time being.
No, they are completely different cars on completely different drive trains, the Saint Regis was a huge rear wheel drive V8 car with frameless windows and didn't even really share any styling cues... The St Regis actually was a near clone of the full size Fury and base Newport of the same year.
Engineering is different. Styling is like the Dodge St Regis. I prefer the big St Regis, but the 600 was better built. 600 was only midsize anyway. The Chrysler Y Body comes closer to the Chrysler R Body, but it was over dressed. Y Body is 1990. Different Engineering, obviously. 600 is closer to Coronet of 1971. Dodge Coronet 1971. Interior size. However, Engineering is so different just to save gasoline.
You're looking at the car through today's len. I own one of these cars and I owned also an aries, now here's the deal. The Dodge 600ES, it's a New Yorker turbo, And Plymouth Caravale models handled more elegantly than a Dodge Aries. They we're lighter of foot and quicker than the Aries. The car was not aimed at GM's lineup or Ford's. It was Aimed directly at BMW,Audi,and the Japanese. It's target demographic was mid-size class luxury model. It performed well in that segment. I found the front styling as a nod to Dodges and Desotos of 20's, 30's,and 40's. The rear end styling was aimed more towards the European models. Those extra little windows helped improve visibility on the sides versus the Aries. Now the New Yorker model had the Landau Roof which deleted the little windows and had far worse visibility in my opinion. To truly experience one of these is to drive 1 and then drive an Aries. This also was not Chrysler's large car, That privilege belongs to the Plymouth Grand Fury, Dodge Diplomat and Chrysler 5th Avenue.
My Great Uncle owned the similar Plymouth Caravelle.. that car ran well for over a decade.
For what it was and what it needed to be, for the time and coming from the big 3, it was a pretty good car. It still looks good to me. Sadly, by the late 80s, when I was in high school, they were already cars for the kids to drive with mismatched tires, indifferent maintenance, smoking engines and off the road by the early 90's. Great review.
Had better numbers then Audi and BMW at the time.All around numbers mind you
I think Chrysler was trying to make an 80's version of the late 70's era Dodge Magnum, with mixed results.
When I saw this one the Motorweek channel I thought of the Magnum too. They were developed close enough together that the same people, who happened to like that look, may have worked on both.
Edit: From a straight side on view it looks like someone tried to update a Ford Fairmont.
The strong horizontal grill slats were the Dodge theme at the time across a lot of their sporty models.
My folks had an 87 Plymouth Caravelle Turbo-( which was the Plymouth equivalent of this).. I remember it was quite roomy and zippy with the Turbo..
As far as K cars go, I think this mid-size e-class was one of the best iterations, the four headlights and formal grille the front really make it look like a more full size car, there are hints of Lincoln angularity, they didn't look nearly as basic as many other K cars.
Add in fender grills, a huge trunk, 6 window green house and roofline that looked far sleeker and sportier than GM's upright models, and overall styling touches really added to a more upscale appearance, more than most middle-class cars of the time in my opinion!
Can even pass for a luxury car with those incredible, signature marshmallow soft plush buttery smooth Chrysler leather seats, (other than the power of course) these cars were very nice sized and given the right RWD, 318 v8 drivetrain, I think could have easily competed with mid-sized European luxury cars but unfortunately, like so many 80s American cars a lot of it was flash with no substance, but it doesn't stop the fact that they really did look very decent and more expensive than they were, which made them competitive in the market.
And I don't care how many people make fun of it, that digital dash still looks cool today and was ahead of its time and purely an American touch with the talking warnings that as I said with V8 and we will drive this would have been very competitive in the middle luxury market.
Chrysler did eventually improve the styling of this car. I wouldn't mind having the Dodge 600ES with the turbo four and automatic transmission.
I had this exact car in high school in 1996 but mine was white. I loved this car so much I bought the Chrysler New Yorker model in 1999. Mind you I was only 19. It was a decent sized gas saver and zi wish I could find one today. Can you see the looks I got in 1999 driving an old Chrysler New Yorker 😂😂. I didn’t think it was ugly either
@@jaka286That E-body New Yorker was a car worth having. Especially the New Yorker Turbo.
If you look at the 1983 Ford LTD 2 and Mercury Marquis you will see exactly what they were going here for, it's almost an exact clone, but those Fords but had a huge advantage, the Fords were rear wheel drive and had an option for a reliable durable 302 V8 with power!
And of course the next year the Ford Taurus and Mercury sable completely upended this price and size segment and the changed the whole US car market , but the Dodge Chrysler Plymouth versions are essentially competing exactly with those 1983 cars from Ford that weren't quite so identically angular and stodgy as the GM look-alike sedans, they straddled that line of being "too square", softened with a slight nod to a bit of slope and swept back noses, flusher glass, 6 window greenhouses with angled back glass that looked more modern than GM's boxes which were still copying the Seville's boring box style from 10 years earlier, so these cars looked pretty modern, until the areo styling truly took over and changed everything in the next couple of years.
I had almost forgotten that manual transmissions in family sedans were relatively common back in the early 80's. Granted, the 5 speed manual was needed to make up to the anemic engine power and performance - even from a turbocharged engine. Almost everything today has an automatic transmission, especially family sedans so it is nice to remember a time when manual transmissions were far more common. I will say we've made a LOT of progress in the almost 40 years (yes this car is 39 years old now) since this review was made - the top end 600ES only had 142hp; most small cars today have at least that much power - the base model Honda Civic has 158hp, and it is rare to find a V6 that makes less than 250hp. The modern Dodge successor to the 600ES would be a Hemi powered Charger R/T which makes 370hp (and the Hellcat makes in excess of 700hp) - for comparison, a 1984 Lamborghini Countach only made 375hp. With the 600 we can see the early development of the K-Car into the myriad of other automotive platforms that Chrysler eventually used it as the basis of - and as such we can appreciate how far we've come in terms of automotive technology and performance gains. It is cars like this that make me realize that not all cars from back in the 80's and 90's were all rosy.
As for a K-Car review:
ua-cam.com/video/2Cu-jHhNqp0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/QYU0PQ4o3I8/v-deo.html
My first car! Perfect size. Super nice interior. Very roomy and comfortable. My college buddies in the late 80s loved it!
I get what you mean on the interior, it isn't to say nice looking, but compared to other reviews of the same time period, it certainly looks modern and thought-through for a car at the time
I wouldn't disagree with that except that gage cluster. Here we are in 2023 with much improved technology, and I still prefer the analog gages but especially early Chrysler ones. Even ford made a slightly better digital cluster for the Taurus than this. But that's really my only objection. Thanks for the topic starter.
@@PearComputingDevices oh...yeah, I can get into that, analog is still best, heck...they affirm it by making digital look like analog these days xD
It's so wild to see manual transmission in a sedan that large.
LOL it's not even that big of a car those are all just styling tricks, you ought to drive a mid-90s truly huge Impala SS with a stick shift and a Corvette V8!
I didn't know that was a thing. Would love to have driven it. I do know there were some manual Camry's around until the early 2010's. Officially they were available until 2021 but good luck finding one.
Great review Jon ! These cars were basically a deluxe version of the K cars with a bit more luxury . I had friends and relatives who used to own these cars .
Right on!
Detroit was really obsessed with squares and boxes in the 80's both with exteriors and interiors.
I prefer the 1984 Dodge Aries too. Some of the 1984 Dodge Aries are AHB. Light duty squad car. Both the Chrysler 4 cylinder and the Mitsubishi 4 cylinder are good. Whatever you like, especially on patrol.
My parents bought the 1983 600. They glossed over the voice notification! Good lord all my friends loved the KITT car
Talking!!!! It was a novelty and sounded like the computer voice of War Games. But it worked. Dad hatred finding the metric tires for it. The motors didn’t last past about 90k but it was fun in the 80s. After the second motor had internal grindage…. Mom moved to blazers
I didn't know these had metric tires too.
Are they like the metric rims that Ford tried in the early 80's? TRX I think they were called. They probably made sense from an engineering standpoint, but a lot of owners hated them.
I don’t remember, I just remember dad complaining about them in his list of gripes when changing the motor.
The best the 600 ever looked was the 1986 600 ES Turbo convertible with dealer option racing stripes at the bottom. That specific model looked the most European-Sporty. Had the Daytona Pizza wheels, that cool third brake light mounted on the rear deck and just the right amount of chrome (inside and out).
The very first time I saw this ride was in a 1983 R&T magazine issue ,and the most significant featured I`d love was the manual 5 speed transmission. The better for me, to perform with a turbo 2.2 L4 engine. I`m not a US resident actually, but was realy interesting to get notices from Detroit`s industry, to see what about was happening back then in the 80's, focusing my self more in the Mopar`s projects, rising up from bad times, and I could see that Chairman Lee was in good way to revive that car Company.
My parents had a white one plain Jane version
It was not a bad car with the 4 cylinder engine with the automatic.
The gas pedal felt like you were pushing a heavy brick
My mother drove it back and forth to work for years.
I dont recall too many issues with that car other than normal oil changes and tires.
This car lasted until my dad got the Chrysler turbo LeBaron car.
Basically a step up from the K car platform with more power and a better suspension.
Those cars with the turbos were little fast sleeper cars back in the days.
bought a 1987 600se at end of 2023 for $1400. have put 5k miles on it no issues. full mechanical dash, mint condition red cloth interior. it feels like im sitting in a layzboy recliner whilst getting 25mpg. if you can find one, buy one!
Love the review!!! So I was born in the mid 70s and grew up in the 80s!!!! I never knew anyone who had one of these!!!! In my Northern California neighborhood in 1984 most cars were Volvos, Audi 5000s and Honda Accords !!! But don’t seem like a bad vehicle!!!! But I can’t Remember ever seeing one in current days!!!!
Hello from the Motor City! Born in 1975 & so happy I grew up in the 80s & 90s👍
@@8corymix8 I was also born in 1975.. I grew up in a small town in the redwoods on the pacific ocean north of San Francisco….. I remember the Kcar but not this model!!!! And yes growing up in the 80s was a wonderful time, and even high school in the 90s
They did what they could and this was a reliable automobile. Thanks for your video reviews Jon !
My pleasure!
I always liked Ford and Chrysler body styling better. I think it's the rear roofline that I like, it's less squared off than GM's offerings.
I had a 600 back in 95 I liked it and got it for 400 bucks had no rust with a 2.6 mitsu 4 cyl. Body was clean
Excellent review. Very enjoyable & brings me back. Not a terrible car but I'd certainly have bought a 6000 STE,. Oldsmobile, celebrity or Thunderbird over this. Plus Chrysler always blew white/blue smoke out the tailpipe. They weren't great cars. " Ohh one more thing,. If you can finta better car, BUY IT! ". - Lee Iacocca
Really appreciate your videos Jon. We are about the same age and apparently similar tastes and I enjoy your work tremendously. You deserve more views and scribes but I can see you do this out of enjoyment and makes it that much more entertaining. Keep up the great work and thanks again for bringing these to us.
I appreciate that! I always work to get better and better and hope the views/subs follow!
but mostly this is a passion project!
I agree the proportions aren’t the greatest. I think the ‘86 refresh with the rounded off nose looks a little better. My aunt had an ‘86 non-turbo model and it proved to be a good car for her.
FYI - there are a couple Motorweek reviews of the Reliant out there, I recently watched one for the ‘82 wagon.
I had a 1983 new Yorker e class Eas a nice car for the time had the Mitsubishi 4 cylinder had a/c issues and the wheel bearing went bad all in all a decent car for the time
I have been in a lot of cars over the decades and to this day the most comfortable seats I ever sat in were in that mid-80s Chrysler New Yorker front-wheel drive! They were leather , buttery soft and so plush and overstuffed I couldn't believe it, even as a young man that a car seat could be that comfortable, and all of the full sized Cadillacs Lincolns Buicks and Chevrolet Caprices that have come and gone out of my life nothing has ever come close to those thrones!
Styling is subjective. Everything taken into consideration during its time, the ES 600 was a good car. Some may not like the styling while many others do.
For questionable trunk design check the Aero era GM cars of the 80's. They looked like a hatchback, but the rear window didn't lift, just a short trunk lid. Plenty of space once you got things in, but I don't think people liked to push luggage or bags forward, then drag them back to unload.
I had a 2 door Cutlass aero back. Yes the trunk lid was small. More aggravating was dust coming into the trunk from the driver's side wheel well (I lived on a gravel road at the time). Sloppy GM workmanship that I fixed to some degree with a spray can of undercoating.
Good review. It was obviously engineered on a shoestring - stretch K car 2 inches in the wheelbase and give it a new front clip. Chrysler didn't have the money for anything else -or they were saving it for the minivan!
5:56 😂 The hazards on. "Cause thats how you'll spend your time on the side of the road, and those lights work great!" 🤣
My bad Uncle had a 1984 Dodge 600 ES too. Nice car. However, he turned bad in the 2000 decade.
I remember this era when Detroit was trying to come up with sports sedans, sure not a 5 seriers, but maybe they thought they could snag some Audi, Saab, Volvo or heck even Maxima/Cressida sales. Rooted for them. Some (much) better executed than others - the STE and the LTD LX come to mind ('almost a Mustang' - and a 9 second 0-60 in 83 was pretty darn fast). Then, in the bargain basement, you had the Clebrity Eurosport ... and this. Here at least you could get the 5 speed (initially base engine only) which the Americans said they liked but did not buy. We also had a Chrysler E Class which I drove (same car but much less interesting, set up for float - thing plowed in turns, undulated over gentle rises on the highway like it wanted to leave the road completely, was not designed to be even reasonably safe >70-75 and could not get out of its own way), so in comparison, yes, the 600 ES was a much better car. Doesn't say much. But they tried. Maybe had I experienced a 5 speed turbo, thoughts would change. Then again at the time my weekend car if I was good (or at least made a reasonable show of it) was Dad's 533i, and I knew there was no way the big three were ever going to manage that level of competence - no DNA. But - it was distnctive, IMOP not bad looking (though I agree there were some proportion problems), and if you only had $X to spend (and could not spring for the expensive turbo)... the STE was 40-45% more base price - though you did get almost everything standard - so a decent compromise for the
What you don't like: long car with short wheelbase. That's what makes it look like a rolling metaphor for "fake".
Fantastic video Jon!
Many thanks!
@AllCarswithJon Absolutely! I couldn't agree more by the way. The Dodge Aries was in my opinion a step up from the 600 despite being a higher trim level. I always thought it was kind of ugly and just unfitting if cobbled. The Aries I think looked much more cohesive and basically together and throwing a turbocharger on that 4 cylinder really didn't do much to extend the life of that vehicle anyway. Probably why we sometimes still see the occasional Aries verses something like that. Anyway great video as always. Thank you for doing them.
Everyone has their opinions on styling. I personally liked it for what it was, a mid level sporty family sedan. The Pontiac 6000 was the primary competitor. Advertising pitted it against Euro sport sedans but it was 1/2 the cost of a 318i and far less than a comparable sized 528i. Plus you have to have been there, just coming out of the malaise era of the late 70s, early 80s. It was a generation better than the Dodge Diplomat at the time! PS I owned an 85 Dodge Daytona Turbo at the time and loved it!
I always liked those front ends better.
Yeah I think they looked very upscale and much more expensive than other K cars, and most Fords and GM cars in the same price range.
Compared to a Ford LTD II/ Granada or a Chevy Celebrity? I think it looks much more impressive in the front.
Auto designers should consult you before hand !
Great review Jon, I remember when this car came out and it looked " dated" for cars of the time.
that front end on a 2 door - front engine rear drive Grand National Competitor coupe.... I would snap up two of em.
I get it, I get it... you don't like the styling of it! You definitely bet that horse! Me personally, I liked it! My parents owned a 79 dodge magnum xe and they also owned an 86 dodge 600 es. It reminded me of the magnum but the 600 talked. Back in the days of knight rider... I thought it was cool! I also owned an 84 dodge aries and the 600 was definitely bigger. Just my opinion but thanks for the video.
I had an ‘85 Chrysler Laser with basically this same engine & transmission (4 HP improvement from ‘84 to ‘85). It would be an ideal powertrain for the 600 if properly cared for. The EPA fuel economy numbers shown in the MW video (the old EPA metric) (22/35) are hugely different from the new numbers for it (18/25) on the EPA site. Usually the difference between the old/new numbers is around 2 MPG... someone must have been dreaming when they came up with those old numbers for the 600 turbo. Although back then my 23-year-old self wanted something sporty-but-FWD, I think the 600’s styling is fine for a family car. Toyota started pretty heavily doing the “louvers” thing on their grilles around 15 or 20 years ago, so Dodge (and Cord) beat them to it. To me, the sedan format is only acceptable if the rear seat can be folded down to carry long items, and the MW video didn’t show that. My Laser had awful initial quality (e.g. 7 places where rainwater leaked in, and insufficient A/C for upstate NY), but reasonable long-term quality. The engine & turbo lasted me 140K niles, still good when I traded it in.
I had an 85 Daytona Turbo with a similar power train. I remember getting 35+ mpg on highway trips and never less than low to mid 20s around town. So the original EPA numbers were achievable! Even driving the car sportingly!
This is an acquired taste, and I might add that it has a lot more appeal than the GM equivalents from the 1980s.
Jon, please to a video on the Ford EXP and Mercury LN7. It's hard to find any retrospective videos on them......Maybe for good reason..:)
This sedan looks a little bigger then the Dodge Aries sedan and a little more stylish as the K cars were boxy
Another great Retro Review reaction Jon. Another reaction you should do is the 1983 Honda Accord Retro Review that was uploaded a few years ago. I would love to hear your opinion on the Accord's progression over the years.
Lots of people pile on the K-car now but for the time it was just fine. I lived through that era and the turbo versions of the K was just as fast if not faster than the bloated, emissions-choked '70s cars while getting twice the gas mileage. It was better than the GM X-car (Citation, etc.) and arguably better than the Ford Escort and Tempo. It was a solid performer like you said.
And the styling? That's subjective, but Chrysler did the '80s boxy look fairly well. It was clean and understated.
Detroit was finally starting to climb out of the Malaise era, finally replacing carburetors wit EFI so that they ran well while passing emissions standards and even making more power.
We had a small town near us that bought K-cars and actually used them as COP cars (HAH!), and one day this cop was chasing a bad guy, skidded in the rain, and hit a tree broadside, and this K-car LITERALLY broke in half, clean, in the middle! It looked like a Hollywood stunt but it was real! Like breaking a Hershey bar in half. Fortunately, the cop was not hurt. I never knew K-bodies were joined in the middle like that. Just went to show that these cars had no frame.
I agree that the styling is not right on these due to the proportions and the front grille section clearly was intended to have a Chrysler waterfall shield grille and whatever that thing is supposed to be evokes no clear direction ( it certainly isn't luxury but it isn't sporty either). I think this car suffered from the fact that Chrysler built it using a shoe string budget based on the fact that they didn't have a nickel to spare. I have never driven one and only rode in one once when I was probably 5-6, so I don't have much insight other than I find the replacement K based models Dynasty and Spirit to be a massive improvement over the 600 and Aries.
No, you WOULDN'T rather have wanted to have an Aries! While the Aries were tough little cars, and quite durable...they were truly depressing to drive, as they were slow, and exuded cheapness. Conversely, I picked up a 600 in the mid 90's to resell...and while I typically abhor Chrysler products (as they are always horribly styled, and usually mechanically inferior) I have to say I was impressed by that 600. The way it drove; it's sturdiness, and it's competent mechanics really surprised me. I wouldn't have ever bought one new...but if I had to drive one as necessary transportation, I wouldn't have been horrified. As for the looks, yeah...that "beak". It could've been greatly improved if the front wheels had been further forward so that it didn't have that huge front overhang. But let's face it, most cars from the 80's were just as poorly styled, if not worse. (Rare exceptions being GM's Regal/Grand Prix/Cutlass/Malibu IMO).
Actually, for what it was, it wasn't bad looking, and 11 seconds to 60 was more than respectable in 1984 in its class. Also, Motor Week had a jazzy theme song back in the 80s. Maybe for kicks and giggles, Joe Raiti could go "On Throttle" in the turbo version, with Jon riding shotgun? 😊
LOL. That sounds fun!
I had a 1979 Plymouth Voyager short-wheelbase work van with a Slant-6 at the time, and its 0-to-60 time was also 11 seconds, but maaaaaaaaaaaan, was it working!!
I don’t mind the front, so much. I think it’s the way the bumper sticks out, that gives it the odd look. Perhaps if the bottom of the grill was angled more ❓
"Beak" was the perfect description.
Actually, I think the front end is the best part of that car! In black, that would look pretty mean. The rear 600ES lettering should have drawn a German lawsuit.
Personally I think GM A bodies were in a different class - 4 inches longer in the wheel base, solid V6 engines like the 3800 Buick that would last forever. Chrysler were making do with what they had
These cars were somewhat underpowered but as for looks I thought back at the time they were new on the market that the car was quite good looking. And having worked at a Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth and truck store from 1975-84 I drove a few of these. Not a bad car at all. You can keep your GM junk from that period.
I prefer the 1978 Chevrolet and the 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass. The 1984 Dodge 600 and the 1984 Dodge Caravan are good too.
Legit sports sedan.Can't believe I just typed that
Seeing Dodge today rebadging Alpha Romeo, this car with that iconic Pentastar logo looks good. Dodge has seen better days. I dunno. I thought it was unique looking.
A kid I went to high school with had a Caravelle. It was......old. Perfect shape though, and plenty of room. It was just kind of old man generic.
Pontiacs from 72-75 had the best dash layout. A true cockpit.
I disagree with you on the styling. I find it much better looking then the GM A body, the K car, and especially the 600s replacement, the Dodge Dynasty. My grandma had the Chrysler version of this car, called the E Class. They didn't steal the name from Mercedes, as they're mid size car was known as the 300 class at this time.
Not to be too picky but the dodge 600 and cousin chrysler e class rode on a 103.1 in wheelbase which is stretched from the K car. Chrysler referred to these as the E body. After 84, the chrysler variant was discontinued and was reintroduced as the Plymouth Caravelle.
I wanted a Caravelle. I liked its interior - especially the instrument panel - MUCH better!
This was 1984… This was nice in 1984
Overall, it makes me think Ford Fairmont. An attractive car during the 80's were few and far between. Those were dark days. I was never a fan of the slat grills on the early 80's Dodges. I got to agree with you that Aries and Reliant looked better, but then again I owned 3 of them.
I always wanted a Fairmont! That was a true workingman's car! No frills, just good basic transportation, easy to fix and maintain. Basically an updated Ford Falcon. Detroit always forgot that a lot of people WANTED a Falcon. It met their needs.
3:10 No kidding the E28 M5 did the quarter in 16 seconds flat.
manual 600 es! this is awesome 😎
Hard to find a sports car with a stick today! 🙁
Actually, I thought the design wasn't too bad. It may not look better than a Pontiac 6000 but definitely looks better than a Celeberty .
This car’s overall looks would have benefited exponentially with better wheels. Those silver painted plastic hubcaps aren’t fooling anyone. They look like $5.00 eyesores. The Chrysler version got the wire wheel treatment. The Dodge should have gotten mags.
Naw, not for this kind of traditional luxury car, most people didn't even notice wheels at that time, in fact, I'm surprised they aren't fake plastic spokes that were even found on big expensive Mercury Marquis.
Fancy Wheels were more of a thing for sports cars like Camaros or for urban people that put wheels that cost more than the price of a car on a hoopty.
So many sports cars even had plastic discs like the kitt car trans am, and groundbreaking aero cars like the Taurus when it came out in 84 had plastic discs, wheels just were not important to most buyers at that time, that was just the aftermarket tuner kids junk.
Form follows function was the word of the day, and the fuel economy advances of having flush wheel covers just made more sense and didn't detract from the rest of the car like so many over styled Wheels do.
Say what you want about style - but unlike today's cars, new cars in the '80's were super affordable.
I just have to laugh at the near perfect copy of the Mercedes emblem saying "600 ES" in the rear....
Take a look at any 60´s to 80´s Mercedes if You don´t belive me....😀
Let's be honest, it's just another nondescript, malaise era US-made car. Yeah, the beak looks weirdly wrong.
Never seen one irl & likely never will. Don't mind the interior/dash btw, it's good-weird. Thanks from Surfers Jon.
Appreciate you being here!
It's weird to think this gets competitive gas mileage compared to kmow
Mercedes badge on the truck 😂
Iacocca borrowed 1.5b from congress to spawn that beautiful beast.
3:45: Should the gear shifter rub up against the passenger seat like that? D:
To put it into perspective, $13,118 in 1984 is equal to $38,434.
From the side, I can see lines similar to the Ford Fairmont, as well as the Chevrolet Celebrity. Nearly 40 years on, that entire aesthetic screams MALAISE to me. They were old people cars to my early 20s self. I still don't like the look, even as I unwillingly creep up on old people status myself. That look can get off mah lawn.
13:50 You want to say: The proportions are all wrong, which they are. The overhangs are to long on both ends and the car is narrow already. The fact they made they put the nose on to extend the front overhang further giving it the ungangly appearance which goes back to my original statement. Proportions. Its important to get that right. 90% of the time that's what makes an ugly car.
I owned a 1982 Chrysler E class. It had a 2.6 liter Mitsubishi 4 cylinder. Your problem is you are judging this car on 2023 standards.
people don't like them, but they saved Chrysler.
George Costanza had a K based T & C convertible. Used to belong to Jon Voight.
I remember thinking that car was butt ugly.
❤
Most Chrysler product from that era particularly Dodge and Plymouth looked cheap and flimsy
How the junky K Car saved Chrysler is something i will never understand....
People bought it because it met their needs at a price they could AFFORD!!!!!!! It was a time of rampant inflation (just like now), and people were kinda desperate. That's why Tokyo BURIED Detroit! They may not have really LIKED the K-cars, but they would do for the time being.
The Dodge 600 is a copy of the Dodge St Regis.
No, they are completely different cars on completely different drive trains, the Saint Regis was a huge rear wheel drive V8 car with frameless windows and didn't even really share any styling cues...
The St Regis actually was a near clone of the full size Fury and base Newport of the same year.
Engineering is different. Styling is like the Dodge St Regis. I prefer the big St Regis, but the 600 was better built. 600 was only midsize anyway. The Chrysler Y Body comes closer to the Chrysler R Body, but it was over dressed. Y Body is 1990. Different Engineering, obviously. 600 is closer to Coronet of 1971. Dodge Coronet 1971. Interior size. However, Engineering is so different just to save gasoline.
The R Body is 1979 to 1981. Chrysler and Dodge. Plymouth wad 1980 and 1981 only. My uncle had a 1984 Dodge 600 ES. Great car. Just a midsize rig.
Frameless windows were cool.
You're looking at the car through today's len. I own one of these cars and I owned also an aries, now here's the deal. The Dodge 600ES, it's a New Yorker turbo, And Plymouth Caravale models handled more elegantly than a Dodge Aries. They we're lighter of foot and quicker than the Aries. The car was not aimed at GM's lineup or Ford's. It was Aimed directly at BMW,Audi,and the Japanese. It's target demographic was mid-size class luxury model. It performed well in that segment. I found the front styling as a nod to Dodges and Desotos of 20's, 30's,and 40's. The rear end styling was aimed more towards the European models. Those extra little windows helped improve visibility on the sides versus the Aries. Now the New Yorker model had the Landau Roof which deleted the little windows and had far worse visibility in my opinion. To truly experience one of these is to drive 1 and then drive an Aries. This also was not Chrysler's large car, That privilege belongs to the Plymouth Grand Fury, Dodge Diplomat and Chrysler 5th Avenue.
These look and seem completely cheap stem to stern.
I do not like ANY front wheel drive vehicles. Rear wheel drive with a manual transmission for this guy. I'm not partial to MOPAR either.
So what do you drive?
@@AllCarswithJon 1979 Chevy Malibu.
Clearing your throat
“I don’t like it”
Says it all you didn’t experience the 1980s what Lee Iacocca did for the American car industry
Good luck
These young whipper-snappers just don't remember the Reagan years. They weren't there. Iacocca was a great guy!