1982 AMC Concord DX wagon 258 6 cylinder from North America
Summary:
Wish they still made them
Faults:
Oil leak when I bought it.
Bad rust inside of drivers side front wheel well -- was told that due to unibody construction to junk it -- it was unsafe -- but the car didn't have a scratch or ANY body rust (visible), so I hunted a good welder, and had some steel plates welded over the rust hole -- still going strong!!
Oil leak -- after 3 valve cover gaskets -- ordered a new valve cover from Chrysler -- cost 250 bucks had installed. IT STILL LEAKS -- but not bad. The parts guy said the old style valve cover was a factory defect, and the new one was better designed (IE: not plastic)
General Comments:
This has been one of the BEST cars I've ever owned. I paid 500 bucks for it, and have driven it 150,000 miles. One alternator, tires, brakes, and the oil problem. That's IT!!!
It is a 5 speed, which I think is unusual. It changes gears, and feels like a truck. I think it probably is the trans that was later put in the Jeep Cherokees. Anyhow, the 5 spd is VERY easy on fuel; I never use 5th unless I'm on the interstate; its almost a overdrive (that's how I use it), but its geared so there is no need until you are going about 70.
I commute 67 miles each way to work, and thought I'd have this car a year or maybe 2, and I'm STILL ROLLING and getting about 25 MPG (at 70 mph).
It has had a lifter tick (loud) since I bought it, which doesn't seem to affect the performance at all. My only complaint, is I wish it had a little more leg room, and head room inside. For the size of the car, it's kinda cramped inside.
This is the car that became the EAGLE 4 wheel drive, and in the Eagle I can understand that the trans takes up space, but in this car it seems there is lots of wasted space. Doesn't stop me from loving it!!!
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 25th December, 2006
4th Feb 2015, 13:00
I did a heater core once in a 69 Camaro by quickly taking off the fender. Didn't need to, but it was even easier. I especially hate working on modern front wheel drive vehicles that I have had. It takes more time getting everything else out of the way than to effect a repair today.
6th Jun 2017, 04:01
That was exactly the Concord's appeal: a new 70s car, for people of the 80s.
'Yes, your Celebrity is well and good... but does it offer rear-wheel drive and a vinyl roof?'
3rd Feb 2015, 17:08
The "wasted space" to which you refer, is one of the most desirable attributes of old cars. You could access and work on any part of the drive train without having to remove half of the under-hood components. Most external engine parts (fuel pump, water pump, alternator, power steering pump, A/C compressor, carburetor, distributor, etc.) could be removed/replaced without removing ANY unrelated parts. Try that on one of today's high-tech wonders. Opening the hood these days is like staring into the contents of a trash compactor.
Amazingly, in the 1970s, we were complaining about how hard the "new" cars were to work on because of all of the emissions plumbing, compared to the cars of the 1960s. We didn't know how good we still had it! The only reason I have ever been given for the user-unfriendly design of today's cars is the need to save weight for fuel economy. WTF??? They've eliminated EMPTY SPACE - AIR! Sure the frame rails, fenders, and hood had to be a little bit longer to provide that space, but the added weight of those parts was negligible.