14th Mar 2006, 20:06
The individual who listed the second previous comment has either never owned one of these cars or was drunk when writing this comment, these cars are the best!
Also have driven this car over 300,000 miles!
15th Mar 2006, 10:41
I live in California where there is essentially no rust. Therefore, the true sign of a "reliable" car is how many are on the road today. I see tons of Hondas, Toyotas, Mercedes, BMWs and so on from that era. If I see a K car it is as rare as seeing a UFO.
The K car was revolutionary for the time (early 1980's) but by the mid 1980's it was sorely outdated and severely outclassed by the foreign competition. They were truly disposable cars and only the fanatics kept them going, and obviously there weren't many fans here in California, the largest car-buying state in the country.
15th Mar 2006, 16:20
You see more of your precious Hondas and Toyotas in California because the populace is more prone to market brainwashing and following the fad of buying foreign, and as you said, bought more Toyotas and Hondas. Thus, there were far fewer K-cars to begin with. Rust is part of the equation as well. A Honda sitting on blocks for 20 years, with no rust, is not a sign of reliability.
15th Mar 2006, 18:25
Oh please, now the populace is "brainwashed" into buying foreign? You must be joking. My family bought Japanese because they were sick and tired of the horrible quality of American cars. Their 1980 Buick Skylark had virtually all its major parts replaced before they sold it three years later. Funny, the Tercel they bought the SAME time had ONE problem in seven years of ownership.
And I was talking about WORKING Hondas and Toyotas, on the ROAD, actually DRIVING.
K cars were big sellers. They just all rusted or simply fell apart due to their shoddy workmanship. And there are LOTS of Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge dealers in California.
15th Mar 2006, 20:40
Unfortunately, in Montreal, where salt is used extensively in winter, these cars rusted out in a couple of years.
15th Mar 2006, 21:49
And yet somehow your comments on the Plymouth Reliant, which you haven't said you ever actually owned, are in real contrast to the people who have driven them well over 100,000 miles. Just go ahead and indulge your Toyota pipe-dream. Nobody cares.
16th Mar 2006, 09:19
What are you talking about?
My claims were based on what I SEE every day on the road, and they are NOT Reliants.
I don't doubt there are people with Reliants with 100K plus mileage, but so are those with Yugos, Edsels, and other unloved cars.
But to make the claim that there are more Reliants on the road today than Hondas or Toyotas of the same era is ludicrous.
16th Mar 2006, 17:45
People on this review are simply talking about good luck they have had with their Reliants. I fail to understand: 1) why you are knocking Reliants just because your mommy and daddy's 1980 Buick Skylark was junk, or 2) how the fact that your mommy and daddy's Skylark was junk means that all American cars are junk, and thus that Hondas and Toyotas are better than every American car. In short, why are you here, wasting our time? We have had good luck with our Reliants. We like them. We therefore really don't care about your parents' Skylark, or your love affair with Toyotas. We wonder why you continue to make a fool of yourself.
17th Mar 2006, 10:02
Just the fact you have turned to an insulting tone proves you have no case.
I have no problem with the fact there are a FEW people who have been able to keep their Reliants on the road. More power to them.
But when you go and make outrageous claims that Reliants outnumber contemporary Hondas and Toyotas and that they offer superior reliability you are in la la land.
And the "well thought out and backed by evidence" comment that Californians were brainwashed into buying foreign just speaks volumes of how defensive you people really are.
If anyone is brainwashed it's buyers of American cars. Just look at the Chevy Cavalier. By ANY measurement the car offered NO advantages over the competition, so was truly a mediocre car. HOw do I know? I was acquainted with Chevy's ad agency at the time and even they couldn't find a unique selling point. Yet the Cavalier was a consistent best seller.
If you want proof of how "reliable" American cars are just look at the reviews on this site. You will always find the same ole story - a FEW people have reliable cars, but MOST have junk because the cars are built to such low standards.
17th Mar 2006, 12:36
The questions still stand: why have you appointed yourself the person to tell us how much our cars suck, when you have never owned a Reliant? You are spouting about something you know nothing about. You are trying to invent an argument about how Japanese cars are better than American cars, but you have no basis from which to speak. That is why you deserve to be insulted. Perhaps you should be haunting the Buick Skylark reviews, ranting about how they are junk. When you grow up and can afford your own car, then by all means buy a Toyota and good luck to you.
26th May 2006, 16:06
Of course you'll see more 80's Hondas and Toyotas in rust-free California -- because they're leprous orange-spotted heaps anywhere there's salt.
Like Reliants.
Unlike Reliants, the doors of Toyota and Honda coupes are barely bigger than their 4-door counterparts -- seeming to forget that one purpose of a coupe is to cruise with your arm draped on the window-sill without having door-lock buttons jabbing your funny-bone, or seat-belt mechanisms in the way, etc..
7th Aug 2006, 14:16
I had a 1989 Plymouth Reliant that I drove 113,000 miles in Northeast Penna. where there is extensive salt use -- ALL CARS AND EVEN DODGE RAM TRUCKS ROT OUT HERE -- that car made me so much money that I was able to buy a house without a mortgage.
Since I was negligent and didn't take care of it, it fell apart -- and the motor still ran.
Right now I am taking parts off it to use on the other k-cars we bought -- a 1985 Reliant that the wife uses as a beater with 135,000 miles, a 1986 LeBaron bought on eBay for 510 bucks, a 1987 Reliant with 54,000 miles bought in south Philly for 1400 bucks, and my "NEW" 1989 Reliant loaded with every option that I did the body work on and it gets many compliments.
I have driven Reliant up through New England right to the tip of north Nova Scotia. They have started in -30 weather -- and I had no problems keeping up with the nuts on I 95. Now I also have a 1995 Chrysler LHS for comparison.
Anyone who thinks Reliant are junk have got to get a life. Hey, this car saved Chrysler and run like bears, and start in cold and are EXCELLENT in adverse weather.
Not everyone needs a 46,000 dollar SUV. Like I said, my car made me money, it didn't rob me with heavy depreciation, and not only Chrysler, but every other company should get a life and build more cars like the Mighty K.
21st Aug 2006, 13:51
My parents had 2 Reliants in my life time... and I miss them dearly... parents got rid of them in 95 for our 2 Neons that we have now... even though I love my Neons to death (and 200,000 and still going) I miss our old Reliants that I grew up with. they were and still are great cars and will outlast just about any japaneese cars out there. We had a Toyota... that thing was was a PIECE OF CRAP... the engine decided to blow up at 130,000 (it was adult owned and never abused and it was well taken care of) but yet our old Reliants lasted well over 200,000 when we traded them in. gosh I miss them.
13th Jun 2005, 22:44
If the Reliant is a "disposable car", then how come many people have driven them past 100,000 miles? Next time don't make such silly comments.