# Talk:Chrysler 180

I've fixed up the issues I came across in the article, and I would firstly like to comment on how well it is written. It seems to pass all the criteria, but it obviously needs more work to make it to featured article status. It is mainly the lack of images and bare minimum references. Since the article meets all the specified criteria, I hereby grant this article good article status. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


### Real Reason for Failure, a former  Rootes/Chrysler UK Retail Dealer's view of the 180
Related below are comments from a former manager of a Rootes/Chrysler UK dealership in the 1960's and 1970's on the 180/2litre.
"The real reason for for the 180s failure was the utterly  appalling reliability and build quality. The 180's  engine suffered from rapid wear of the the camshaft and followers which was made obvious by loud clattering noises from the valve gear and also many cars had with problems with valve stem oil seals which resulted clouds of grey smoke to be emitted for the exhaust."
"The braking system was also much more troublesome than on other Chrysler Europe models sticking rear brake caliper hand brake  mechanisms and failed brake pressure proportioning valves were common."
"The body shell also was not without its problems apart from being more rust prone than any previous Chrysler Europe vehicle fatigue induced fracture of the front chassis rails adjacent to the brake reaction rod mounting was relatively common."
"When production switched to Spain the build and component quality slipped further."
"As a result like other many small scale former Rootes retail dealerships my firm simply felt that the 180 was so bad we simply could not recommend it to customers, so we simply stopped stocking them and pointed customers to the smaller but proven Hunter/Arrow range vehicles."


### Comment on why the above fragment was removed
This is not an appropriate addition to this, after all, Good Article, as it does not refer to a published, verifiable and reliable original source, but rather publishes the findings of the author established during the purported interview. This is using Wikipedia as original source, which is not acceptable for it being an encyclopedia. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it fair to call it large or even executive? It's smaller than Turkish-built Toyota Corolla (current generation). Granted, cars inflated with time, but even by European standards of 1970s it's far from large. A far larger Volvo 200 Series is listed as mid-size. ?? NVO (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements throughout the article, including the entire Chrysler Centura section. Is someone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't care less about the article status, but the Centura section is uncited because it is a condensed version of Chrysler Centura.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: If the information is from another article, that information will need to be cited here. Would you be willing to do that? Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I've cited the one reference that I own.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: There is still a lot of uncited text in this article. Are you willing to resolve this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Like I said: I couldn't care less about the rating; it is meaningless. I want to make good articles, not Good Articles. Please just grade it as you see fit.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)


### Chrysler 180