: A car 99% of you would stick your noses up at



Sandy
04-21-04, 12:54 PM
Okay, I know that I can expect many thumbs down and pig-like grunts over this, but I had to pass this on.

Long time friend (Yes, a "Car-Guy") calls that he is stopping over with his new car. Shows up in a 2004 Chrysler Concorde Limited. This is the evolution of the New Yorker name. New Yorker went to LHS which went to Concorde Limited.
We went out, he drove, and I looked around and investagated. Then I drove it. Let me say, this is alot of car for the money! He paid $31,700 for it. About the same as a Mitsu Diamante or a Grand Marquis. Car has alot of luxury and luxury features. Feels very very secure & tight on the road, handles very well, and has UNreal acceleration with 250 HP V-6.
Checked for paint flaws & such. Found none, perfect glossy finish (White). Had killer stereo with in Dash 6-Disc CD changer & Moonroof & "Luxury Package". Pretty much everywhere I looked, I was pleasantly surprised or impressed. Okay, it's not in the league of a deVille or a Town Car, but neither is its price!
The interior was nowhere near as "plasticky" as a Grand Prix (allthough I am sure that it's all plastic, it had a rich feel & look to it).

All in all I was pretty impressed with the car. Not as sporting as - say the new 300C, nor as fast as the HemiC, but just a very nice sedate luxury sedan.

Any of you guys see this car? He told me that 2004 is the last one, as Chrysler is exiting the full sized car segment. Basiclly it's an Interpid loaded to the nines and dipped in ultra luxury. It was a 3-year model, '02 - '03 & '04.

LacSeville
04-21-04, 03:41 PM
same engine the intrepid uses, right? our local cop an intrepid. i got ride in it... You're right, those V6s aren't foolin around. any idea how much that car weighs after being dipped in luxury?

Ralph
04-21-04, 07:10 PM
Test drove an Intrepid last year with the 234 hp version of the 3.5 and they are fast revving and quick! I think they around 3800 pounds? Rear visability is a problem in them though. Also, I've heard people complain of bad gas mileage, but it's not entirely correct because I heard they have smallish gas tanks which contributes to this perception. I also heard this is the last year for the Concord.

El Dobro
04-21-04, 10:36 PM
If I were looking Chrysler, it would be a Crossfire. I saw my first one on the road Sunday and it has a great retro look to the rear. Almost like an art deco toaster from the 30's.

Playdrv4me
04-22-04, 12:28 AM
The Crossfire is a great little car. In fact its based on the Mercedes Benz SLK and I like the Crossfire Convertible MORE.

My only problem with the big Chrysler sedans is that they were V6's for the longest time until the 300C came around. In an era where every other luxury competitor had a V8 luxury car they just couldnt compete. Im glad they are revitalizing their lineup. Also, I dont like the rediculous looking tail section on the Concorde, its HUGE. I MUCH prefer the 300M or the old LHS. But I just dont do Chrysler anything, at least not unless its classic 60's and 70's Muscle Chrysler... period. MAYBE the SRT10 but thats it.

Ive owned two Jeeps, a mid nineties model, and late nineties model of which the latter was based on the same interior components as the rest of the Chrysler lineup, and that thing was always rattling and breaking, dash pad fitment was poor and the speakers in what WAS a good system blew out left and right. Theyre nice at first, then they get old and rattly quick. GM and Ford have gone ALONG way in correcting these problems in their cars.

Elvis
04-22-04, 12:28 AM
Wait until he gets about 18,000 miles on it.

Ralph
04-22-04, 01:55 AM
I hope it will still be a quality vehicle after 18,000 miles! Supposedly Chrysler got their act together a couple of years ago when Daimler pumped money to get them up to snuff. Two years ago Dodge had the number one truck according to Motor Trend, etc.

I am only concerned that if we cannot go along with the findings that they are "good" vehicles NOW, how will anyone else get past the negative Cadillac image and reputation of the 1980's? Personally, I think quality between manufacturer's can change every couple or few years, for better or worse.

Dubya
04-22-04, 02:09 AM
18,000 = new tranny?

or did they finally figure out how to make a descent fwd transmission?

Ralph
04-22-04, 02:32 AM
18,000 = new tranny?

or did they finally figure out how to make a descent fwd transmission?

Sure in a 20 year old K-car!

I wouldn't worry too much about if they can make a good fwd tranny since the focus seems to be back on rwd, as evidenced by the new 300C.

It's also strange how people love to knock Chrysler today (supposedly better quality) yet, they and everyone else still wants one of their 1960's or 1970's Musclecars, supposedly when the quality was worse than ever! :hmm: My '69 Charger never had a plugged fuel injector. :devil:

In all probabllity, I will be buying a Durango next year. I will also be watching various reviews for long-term quality updates and testdrives FIRST, however.

Dubya
04-22-04, 02:47 AM
k car isn't going to cost you more than 500, so who cares if the tranny goes out :P

seriously though, the fwd chrysler/dodge sedans have had huge problems, from the 300m's, lhs's, concordes, intrepids for sure, no idea on the other cars like the sebrings/stratus's. for some reason chrysler decided to put the engine in the long way, like it was rwd, so they needed some extra gears and whatnot to make it fwd, probably part of the reason they break so often, and there's so much drivetrain loss. heard of the 300m special? a incredible car, awesome interior/exterior. but it was supposed to be 300hp, they couldn't beef up the trans enough and put a warranty on it, the trans cant even hold the 257hp it gets, so all it got was 5 more hp and a little better gearing.

now that i think of it, even my parents caravan went through 3 transmissions in 5 years (the 3rd was breaking as we dumped it on a dealer for a 2000 sierra - no problems at all in 65k)

Ralph
04-22-04, 03:19 AM
k car isn't going to cost you more than 500, so who cares if the tranny goes out :P

seriously though, the fwd chrysler/dodge sedans have had huge problems, from the 300m's, lhs's, concordes, intrepids for sure, no idea on the other cars like the sebrings/stratus's. for some reason chrysler decided to put the engine in the long way, like it was rwd, so they needed some extra gears and whatnot to make it fwd, probably part of the reason they break so often, and there's so much drivetrain loss. heard of the 300m special? a incredible car, awesome interior/exterior. but it was supposed to be 300hp, they couldn't beef up the trans enough and put a warranty on it, the trans cant even hold the 257hp it gets, so all it got was 5 more hp and a little better gearing.

now that i think of it, even my parents caravan went through 3 transmissions in 5 years (the 3rd was breaking as we dumped it on a dealer for a 2000 sierra - no problems at all in 65k)

I hear ya! I know they have had trouble, (of course I can admit that) ;) and negative reputations seem to last a lifetime with car manufacturers. I don't think I would buy another fwd anything, not sure yet. But because of the trouble Chrysler or any other manufacturers have had, I think that's why they are going back to rwd or awd. The other reason for rwd is that there is a limit for the power a fwd transaxle can handle, usually around 300hp. A friend of a friend has a 2001 Intrepid, and it's been great, even with over 90,000 kms!

I wish I could remember which GM car it was about 14 years ago (Trans Am?) where they couldn't have an auto tranny with the engine because it couldn't handle the torque. Can't remember, nevermind. I don't think they offer an auto trans with the CTS-V for that very reason?

I know that the Big Three have gone to fwd in the past to save fuel due to the gas crisis (1979) and the trend is reversing today. However, due to the trouble in the middle east, I hope they don't revert BACK to fwd, although I'm happy with it on my Caddy. I guess we have to take what we are offered.

According to Consumer Guide, and I hate to admit it, but there have been recalls for the Cadillac 440-T4 automatic transmission (1990-92) the problem is a stuck throttle valve, and the trans may shift late or not at all! So it's easy to point the finger at Chrysler, but I think that with the German engineers they have now, and in the last few years, they've come a long way, and probably have their act together for the most part. We'll have to wait and see what problems arise with the new 300C, etc.

Playdrv4me
04-22-04, 03:51 AM
I don't think they offer an auto trans with the CTS-V for that very reason?...

Correct.

I dont think that the Chrysler tranny problems were necessarily limited to their front drivers either. I know on alot of Forums I visited at one point or another there was always a "Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge" debate on trucks and the RAMs were always criticized for needing early transmission replacements with the Chevy and Ford stuff about equal. I know Jeeps very well as I spent countless hours on the Jeep forums and owned two of them, and I can tell you, driveline issues are UNAVOIDABLE on those things. Here a clunk, there a slip my saying goes. My 97 318 based Grand always had a shudder between 2 and 3 shift, and the 99 4.7 based (all new) Grand had a terrible driveline clunk all the time, and sometimes would violently slam through or into the gears for no apparent reason. My Brothers GF's 2002 Liberty suffers from this same problem and I imagine the drivelines are not too far different because the 3.7 V6 is basically a chopped version of the 4.7 V8.

That said... my driving patterns seem to put undue stress on auto-trannies. My old STS and now my 330i have a similar problem (though it was more pronounced in the Cadillac) in that my transmission seems to "search" for gears more depending on how I drive and I cant figure out what imdoing to cause that. Its probably because I very precisely and constantly feather the gas pedal.

Ralph
04-22-04, 04:01 AM
Correct.

I dont think that the Chrysler tranny problems were necessarily limited to their front drivers either. I know on alot of Forums I visited at one point or another there was always a "Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge" debate on trucks and the RAMs were always criticized for needing early transmission replacements with the Chevy and Ford stuff about equal. I know Jeeps very well as I spent countless hours on the Jeep forums and owned two of them, and I can tell you, driveline issues are UNAVOIDABLE on those things. Here a clunk, there a slip my saying goes. My 97 318 based Grand always had a shudder between 2 and 3 shift, and the 99 4.7 based (all new) Grand had a terrible driveline clunk all the time, and sometimes would violently slam through or into the gears for no apparent reason. My Brothers GF's 2002 Liberty suffers from this same problem and I imagine the drivelines are not too far different because the 3.7 V6 is basically a chopped version of the 4.7 V8.

That said... my driving patterns seem to put undue stress on auto-trannies. My old STS and now my 330i have a similar problem (though it was more pronounced in the Cadillac) in that my transmission seems to "search" for gears more depending on how I drive and I cant figure out what imdoing to cause that. Its probably because I very precisely and constantly feather the gas pedal.

Am I just kidding myself for believing that they have got substantially better then since 2002? I mean, I remember the reviews and quality ratings from '02,(favorable) but were they not considering long-term reliability? Damn man, I would love a hemi Durango! :crying: Shame for giving me second thoughts! :devil: :p

p.s. my '69 Charger and '70 Plymouth clunked, but could never be killed. ;)

Playdrv4me
04-22-04, 04:08 AM
I think they are better now Ralph, Im just saying I cant be convinced yet. Alot of the complaints I make about some cars are usually theoretical based on histories ive seen with cars of that type or the history of the manufacturer like you said. Not my Chryslers though... I FULLY experienced problems with them MYSELF and while the tranny problems never put the thing in the shop, the 99 was definitely falling apart when I got rid of it, even though it looked pristine on the outside. One correction I have to make, the Liberty does NOT have the slam shift problem, just the driveline clunk.

I dont think youll be disappointed with a Durango, I will give Chrysler the benefit of the doubt and say that as the Daimler side has increased their involvement (in contrast even though they took over in 98, their influence hasnt been experienced really til now) the quality has probably gone up as well. Just do a thorough investigation of other Durango owners when you get yours is all.

Besides... I really really really really want an SRT-10, maybe more than a CTS-V now. Im just waiting to see what Ford is gonna do with the next Lightning... consider the CURRENT lightning is only JUST shy of the numbers the SRT-10 produces and that should mean the next Lightning will be a frieken MONSTER.

BTW... the classics can not be faulted :p

Ralph
04-22-04, 04:17 AM
I think they are better now Ralph, Im just saying I cant be convinced yet. Alot of the complaints I make about some cars are usually theoretical based on histories ive seen with cars of that type or the history of the manufacturer like you said. Not my Chryslers though... I FULLY experienced problems with them MYSELF and while the tranny problems never put the thing in the shop, the 99 was definitely falling apart when I got rid of it, even though it looked pristine on the outside. One correction I have to make, the Liberty does NOT have the slam shift problem, just the driveline clunk.

I dont think youll be disappointed with a Durango, I will give Chrysler the benefit of the doubt and say that as the Daimler side has increased their involvement (in contrast even though they took over in 98, their influence hasnt been experienced really til now) the quality has probably gone up as well. Just do a thorough investigation of other Durango owners when you get yours is all.

Besides... I really really really really want an SRT-10, maybe more than a CTS-V now. Im just waiting to see what Ford is gonna do with the next Lightning... consider the CURRENT lightning is only JUST shy of the numbers the SRT-10 produces and that should mean the next Lightning will be a frieken MONSTER.

BTW... the classics can not be faulted :p

Thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to check the reviews on MSN, they seem good.

Those SRT-10's are incredible! Could you imagine being beside one at a red light! Make you feel like a little wimpy boy with a bib on! :p At this point, I would love that yellow Hemi "Rumble Bee" that is still sitting at our dealership! Good enough for me, but it's too tall for our parkade.

Another reason we would like the Durango is because of the high sitting position for safety. I've had a couple of friends get high-speed "T-boned" and one of them is in a wheel-chair for life. I still don't think the NHTSA safety rating is out yet on Durango, but I'll check soon. Just makes ya think, ya know.

airbalancer
04-22-04, 07:40 AM
Playdrv4me don't get a truck to play with.
Since it drives up the price for people will me who need one for work :banghead: . lol
A GMC SLE 4x4 Ext Cab list at over $41,000 up here.
The part that piss me off is that I want a SLT with Quadstreer , a Denlia would be nicer.
Quadsteer is great.

airbalancer
04-22-04, 07:48 AM
Sorry Sandy for get off topic.
In 98 we look at an intrepid, Alway like the exterior of most Chrysler . But
find the interiors lacking in something. No WOW factor.We got a 98 Grand Prix instead. Trade that in for the STS we have now.

Msilva954
04-22-04, 08:12 AM
About 2 years ago before my mother got the BMW I tried to talk her into one of those, LHS at the time. They are great cars and I think they have a better style then the 300M did. But we decieded against it after seeing them with like 20-30k miles on them, the interiors seem to turn to pure crap....the vinyl stuff looks bad and the interior shines more then our 94' firebird did (and GM's shine pretty bad).

They were classy cars though, and my father is going to get a Dodge Magnum or 300C next, I just hope that Chrysler fixed their crappy interior by now.

Sandy
04-22-04, 10:14 AM
Might find this interesting. Picture is identical to my friend's example:-

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/siegel/x2203sgl.htm

Playdrv4me
04-22-04, 10:41 AM
About 2 years ago before my mother got the BMW I tried to talk her into one of those, LHS at the time. They are great cars and I think they have a better style then the 300M did. But we decieded against it after seeing them with like 20-30k miles on them, the interiors seem to turn to pure crap....the vinyl stuff looks bad and the interior shines more then our 94' firebird did (and GM's shine pretty bad).

They were classy cars though, and my father is going to get a Dodge Magnum or 300C next, I just hope that Chrysler fixed their crappy interior by now.

I think they have. When I looked at the interior of the 300C I was actually somewhat impressed. The biggest difference is the quality of the leather. My Jeep and alot of the LH cars had leather seats with ribs in the top and bottom, and in no time at all those ribs would get flat and shiny and just cheap looking real quick.

Elvis
04-22-04, 12:14 PM
18,000 = new tranny?

or did they finally figure out how to make a descent fwd transmission?

You nailed that one. :)

Dubya
04-22-04, 12:56 PM
i still want a 300m special, black on black. those are nice cars, but a 2000 sts goes for about the same price! more power, more relieable, all around better car (as it should be, cost 20k more new, but resale is absolute crap). ive also heard of alot of problems with the ram's transfer cases. friends mom has a 5.9 durango RT, nice truck, but a hog on gas, its got power, but not enough to justify the gas mileage.

brougham
04-22-04, 01:21 PM
The original style Intrepids seemed to have a lot of problems but I've never heard about any major problems for the newer ones. There are some other cars around I like better but I'd drive one.

A friend of ours has the newer style of LHS that Chrysler got rid of and threw in with the Concorde. I forget what the milage is on it, but it's probably somewhere around 130,000km now. They've never had any major problems with it and it doesn't look any more worn out inside then any other car with that mileage.

I don't know where the bad gas milage thing is coming from that Ralph talked about because usually the big FWD Chryslers have gas mileage in the high 20s or low 30s.

Ralph
04-23-04, 02:49 AM
I don't know where the bad gas milage thing is coming from that Ralph talked about because usually the big FWD Chryslers have gas mileage in the high 20s or low 30s.

That's my point. The cars aren't getting bad gas mileage, but because of the smallish gas tanks, and the increased fill rates because of this, owners think they are getting "bad gas mileage." I got that info from several comments from owners of Intrepids and SX 2.0's on MSN's homepage, under "Autos, owners reviews." Many owners complained of this problem and thought they were getting terrible mileage until one owner pointed out the size of the tank. Example, the SX 2.0 has a 10.4 Imp. gallon gas tank! I think the Intrepid was something around 13 gallons.