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 > > > > > > > > > > > >