1985 Chrysler New Yorker 2.2 turbo from North America
Would buy another if they would build one
Required new head due to dropped valve.
Blown head gasket at 75,000.
Leak in transmission axle seal at 50,000.
Oxygen sensor failure after 15 years.
Will have to replace Catalytic converter to pass smog in 2003.
Had to replace radiator at 65,000.
Landau/headliner replacement at 90,000.
Stalled in April 1999 and again in November 2002 - probably ignition intermittent, but no one can find it.
You can drive this car as long as you can stay awake - comfort incredible.
Turbo takes some getting used to - delay to engage/disengage has to be compensated for, but you still get 60 in 10.4 seconds.
Will run away downhill due to small engine - requires braking to stay under 70mph.
Tires last forever, but will cup to the point you cannot stand the noise.
Turbo is more impressive from 60 - 80 than from 0 - 60; great for passing double semis.
Style is timeless - People still want to know what it is after 17 years.
Never burned/leaked a drop of oil - you can eat your lunch on the valve cover.
Runs good on 87, better on 89, best on 91.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 7th December, 2002
6th Apr 2004, 17:33
Author of previous comment has obviously never driven a turbocharged automobile.
10th Aug 2006, 23:58
I thought octane had a lot to do with elevation. Maybe you're all correct. Knocking is usually a sign of running lean on fuel mixture or retarded timing.
11th Aug 2006, 18:54
Yes, the first responder "knows" too much for his own good. I have also noticed that I get severe run-on with 87 and 89 octane gas, but no run-on with 93 octane. The knocking comment is also correct, though: going up hills under a load, the engine will show pre-ignition pinging on lower octane gas, but it goes away with higher octane gas.
10th Nov 2011, 13:52
The turbo engines sense pre-ignition, and the computer will compensate and retard the timing accordingly (like all newer engines as well). They were set to utilize good gas, so the original comment is probably correct.