Well, you may be right, and of course we are each entitled to our opinions. If
"the basics" would be a good place to start, it would be better to start with a
basic car. That word does not describe these particular automobiles.
Trouble shooting that car is going to cost a ton of money, and a firm
commitment of love on the part of the owner. If the love isn't there, I still
say sell the car. The owner already knows if "love" is in the equation. The
rest is easy.
Paul
In a message dated 6/5/2004 2:07:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
nt014b6628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> Whoa,
>
> I think that maybe we are getting ahead of ourselves here, two of the
> recommendations include selling the car or ripping the EFI system off and
> putting a carb set-up on, i personally think this is a bit extreme when the
> basics have not been checked first.
>
> Joel says that the car came from William who i recall had some problems with
> his car, i do not know who did the repairs for William but lets not assume
> that
> what was done is 100%, and that the only answer is to get a sledgehammer to
> crush
> this poor starting nut.
>
> I think it would be fair for Joel's 83 (and his sanity) if we cover the
> basics first, there
> are many an IML member who enjoy their EFI powered cars, (myself and Dick
> Benjamin included) the rip it off and start again approach can have more
> pitfalls than there is keeping an EFI powered car running.
>
> Neil 82 Imperial London, England.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michael popp" <popp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: IML: 1983 Chrysler Imperial: starting problems
>
>
> > Joel---Don't panic---Your 83 is a beauty to behold ---Find a 80 Cry
> cordoba
> > without lean-burn --preferably a 4 barrel and put that set-up on your 83
> > Imperial ---it will run better than ever -start every time and make you
> > smile----I did that to my 86 Ply first and am in process of doing my 82
> > Imperial F S Ed---Feel free to contact me off-list at
> > mailto:popp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Mike
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
> > To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: IML: 1983 Chrysler Imperial: starting problems
> >
> >
> > > This was a frequent problem with early '80s, first generation
> computerized
> > cars. In most, the ignition and the fuel system are both computer
> > controlled. There are a guzillion reasons why these cars either stop
> running
> > or won't start. In many cases, the trouble is intermittent and difficult
> to
> > find. Many Auto Electric shops in the good old USA became very wealthy
> > during the time that these cars were on the road. The sad part is, most of
> > them never really ever figured out what was wrong with the cars.
> Eventually
> > their owners became annoyed and sold them.
> > > I hate to be so general here, but I know from experience that this was
> > universally true among the big three and most likely others too. My newest
> > Chrysler Product has always been my '68 Imperial. I have '80s offerings
> from
> > each of the other major manufacturers, and have had occasional problems
> with
> > both, although the G.M built cars have been much more reliable than the
> ones
> > from Ford. I still run both of them on a daily basis.
> > > When those Imperials were new, many people had exactly that kind of
> > trouble with them. The cars will run perfectly, and for no apparent
> reason,
> > quit on the road or refuse to start. Over the years I have found that the
> > folks that were the most successful keeping those cars on the road were
> the
> > ones who "loved them no matter what".
> > > I have also found that reading the wiring diagrams and understanding
> where
> > relays and sensors (both vacuum and electronic) are, and understanding
> what
> > they do helps a lot. Relays with dirty contacts can cause an intermittent
> > problem for years before they actually quit working all together. This is
> > also true of sensors.
> > > In summary, I would say that there probably is not one thing that anyone
> > here can tell you that will solve your problem. If you love the car, you
> > will become very accustomed to knowing under what condition your car does
> > certain things. Eventually you will be able to make sense out of that
> > information, along with the things that you read and study to make a good
> > stab at finding the faulty part or parts. The other option would be to pay
> > someone else to do that, but I offer this: back during the time that those
> > cars were on the road there were few, if any mechanics that could trouble
> > shoot them. Most people just got taken to the cleaners, and still couldn't
> > depend on their cars to run when they were suppose to.
> > > If you don't want to go through this process, I would suggest selling
> the
> > car, or becoming a member of AAA Plus. If you can, buy extra towing.
> > > Paul
> > > In a message dated 6/4/2004 1:40:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > joelrsmith@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > > > Hi Guys,> > I have a 1983 Chrysler Imperial that I purchased about a
> > month ago. It's in pretty decent condition, but does have some rust in the
> > rear left & right quarter panel & the bottom of the deck lid. It has
> 130,000
> > Miles on it (but there is an asterix beside where it says that, don't know
> > what that means) and gets from 15 - 20 US MPG on a tank.> > Right from the
> > beginning, whenever I would start it, it would crank over a bit more than
> > what I would expect a "normal" car to do, although I did hear from a
> certain
> > mechanic that due to it's older computer, that could be normal. It always
> > drives & idles nice though. Anyways, here's what happened: I drove my car
> to
> > work friday morning (7:30 am), and it did it's usual "longer than normal"
> > start, all was good. It sat all day at work in about say 20 C (68 F)
> > temperature. I finished work around 5:00 pm and went to start my car. The
> > first try I held the key in the "start" position for about 6 - 8 seconds,
> it
> > just cranked, didn't fire once. This was kind of surprising, as it had
> never
> > done this before. So I tried it again, nothing. After that, i tried
> pumping
> > the gas pedal (I usually NEVER touch the gas pedal at all before or during
> > starting) while I was cranking it, it actually fired one or two times but
> > didn't start. Next, I pulled off the air cleaner cover, & I could smell
> > as( but it didn't appear flooded), so I left the cover off for a minute or
> > two, then put it back on and tried again. Nothing. > > So after that I
> went
> > back inside to where I work & called AMA to send over a tow truck. Next
> > about 30 mins had passed since I had last tried starting the car) I went
> > outside again to see if I could start the car. I put the key in and
> cranked
> > it...it didn't fire for a sec or two, but then caught a few times &
> started.
> > For the first few seconds it ran rough, like it had too much / too little
> > fuel, but after that it smoothed out and idled like it has always had
> before
> > (it idles nice btw). So now i'm a little scared about something like this
> > happening again (i've been driving it for about 4 days since then and it's
> > always started). Now would any of you guys have any idea what the problem
> > could be and what I can do to fix it? I'm also interested in why it seems
> to
> > need a few excessive cranks to start. > > Oh, and you can check out
> pictures
> > of my car here: > http://www3.telus.net/agentsmith> > Thanks in advance.>
> >
> > Joel Smith> Edmonton, Alberta.> > > > > Join Excite! -
> > http://www.excite.com> The most personalized portal on the Web!
> > �������������m����
> >
> �Sj^�&�r[>��&�������������8b�g��� ��,z{m�*.o+ax?�z�s"Ƣ-)�.+-��^jǫzTr�?sSX�
> > f�b���s-�?�\-��r?s�ܨ��s'��"-V�y�"��z����Ϯ+ڵ�z��
> >
> z�ڝ֭��!T������^٢z+-��h��!��]m� z�h���j�^������jW%��ܢd�P��P,D?D�-�m��
> > �Sj^�&�r[>��&��칻 �&��f
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network