/o/,
I'm going to be traveling and I found a Dodge Dynasty in my price range. Heard they're reliable and relatively safe and spacious. I love it's front bench seat as well.
Would traveling be fine? Has anyone on here travelled with one?
Thanks
>>15236757
avoid the 3.0L V6 anf they're gold. The 2.5L I4 is bulletproof, and the 3.3L V6 is proven reliable.
>>15236792
Appreciate it, I've heard much love for their engines as well. Can't wait to buy
I would personally go for the Lincoln Town car. It's got a simple v8, rwd, bigger, more parts availability, still has bench seats. 1991 and newer models have rear air suspension.
>>15236823
name something actually wrong with the Dynasty not related to the 3.0L V6. It's not perfect but it's decent and the 4 cylinder has massive aftermarket. Throw enough money at the 2.5L 4 banger and you can have a relatively cheap 12 second car
>>15236823
>rear air suspension
I've never worked on these, but I always see these cars with sagging rear ends, just how hard is it to actually fix that shit?
this is one of my guilty pleasure cars, right after the nissan stanza
>>15237024
>just how hard is it to actually fix that shit?
just swap to shocks from a Crown Victoria and eliminate the airbag system completely. The airbag system is fucking expensive to repair.
>>15236984
OP here, thanks for the reassurance. Definitely getting soon
>>15238490
The Dynasty didn't come with the turbocharged version of the 2.5L but the 2.2L or 2.5L Turbos drop right in.
If you wanna make it fast, turbododge.com is the place to go for expertise in it.
The reason for the hate on the 3.0L V6 was because it was made by Mitsubishi, not Chrysler. The 2.5 I4 and the 3.3L V6 were both Chrysler engines. The 2.2 and 2.5 I4's proved their worth powering hundreds of thousands of Chrysler K-cars through the 80 to the mid-90s, and the 3.3L V6 (which has no aftermarket support) proved itself reliable in the Chrysler minivans
>>15238522
One question, is this considered a Luxury vehicle? I heard it's similar to the New Yorker which is one
>>15238522
The 3.0l v6 was probably good then Mitsubishi was really good in the 90s I heard
>>15236757
Get a Buick Roadmaster
I've owned and repaired my 91 dynasty for over a year now. 3.3l v6. Ask me anything. Rust is probably your biggest issue.
>>15238555
This, it's just the 5G72 SOHC
>>15238562
>Get a Buick Roadmaster
>Increasingly rare, the Park Av is a better get
>>15238535
Yes it was.
>>15238562
>>15238608
*6G72
And it was absolute trash. The 6G72 wasn't a decent engine unless it was the DOHC 24V variant (see 3000GT/Stealth), or the SOHC 24V (3G Eclipse/Stratus).
The SOHC 12 valve versions Chrysler was given were absolute trash. The fuel economy was worse than the 4 cylinder turbos, and the V6 made the same power as the non-intercooled turbo cars. And all this while being less reliable.
