Chrysler Magazine

How about former Chrysler owners that believe their current cars being built are so ugly that they had to buy something else.

My '94 Intrepid 3.5 story

Fuel rail problem at about 50,000 - raw gas spewing over hot engine - not good.

Water pump went bad at 70,000.

AC compressor at about 80,000. I

Inner tie rod bushings at 90,000.

Cheap original brake rotors (warped quickly).

Flaking paint - absolutely hideous. The entire roof is peeling.

Covered under a recall

Normal maintenance item.

Since a dozen other manufacturers around the world also use Nippondenso AC compressors, is that really Chrysler's fault?

Normal maintenance item.

Normal maintenance item.

Yep, that one sucks. Depends on the paint color and batch of paint used. All carmakers had that problem during the switch over to more "environmentally friendly" paint chemistry.

How about my '93 3.5 story.:

Couple of water pumps (at normal timing belt replacement intervals) Transmission at 150,000 miles Currently over 240,000 miles, still going strong. Still looks pretty darn good, a few door dings notwithstanding One of the best cars I've ever had.

>

It's not, especially with R-134A and PAG oil. NDs are almost as universal now as Frigidaire A-6s were in the '60s-'70s, and they fail the same, no matter what car they're on. Failing contacts on ND starters is also a long standing trademark that plagued the first Toyotas and Hondas up to the new Chryslers of today. However, many ND

6P and 10Ps from long ago, run on properly charged and dry R-12, are still original and trouble-free. R-134A/PAG is a noxious combination should anything go wrong temperature and pressure-wise, which oft times happens, moreso than the hydroflouric acid problems with similarly abused 12 systems.

I tend not to agree here. A front end that lasts less than 100K isn't much of a front end, to me.

This seems to be a Chrysler trademark, as well. Even my M-body's original rotors were potato chips, even after heated resurfacing. Replacements were trouble-free. We won't talk about the ABS plastic calipers at all, though.

"Modified" acrylics are having more problems with UV rejection than did previous formulations. It's industry-wide, judging from the peeling Hondas and Toyotas I see around town. Most long-lived clear coat: Cadillacs in the early '90s. Many STILL aren't peeling and have great gloss after 15 years.

I would but your e-mail address doesn't end in chrysler.com

Who are you really?

Ken

Actually, that little ditty advertising the DL&W's "Phoebe Snow" premier passenger train predated the Erie-Lackawanna merger by at least four decades.

"The Road of Anthracite" was keeping dirty mine towns, like where Noodles lives now, in business. When the FTs started shoving steam off that road, it was the beginning of the end of NE Pennsylvania's economy.

...which causes me to pen this limmerick:

"Northeast Penna's anthracite Ran Phoebe Snow all night When diesels took the Phoebe Snow Charlie Nudoes had to go!"

It is a magazine publisher. Just add www. to her email address.

No recall existed when my car had the problem. I couldn't believe the dealer would let me drive off with the car in such dangerous condition. I paid for the repair myself. Much later came the recall and I was reimbursed. I was put off by the whole experience. Such a dangerous thing.....

Uh... EeeYeeaaahhh... Chrysler made the decision to put them in their cars.... Buck stops there, IMO.

Normal? I've never experienced such a gross front-end failure in any other car I've owned.

I assume they used the same paint on the hood and rear deck. No peeling problems there. They screwed up in their roof painting procedures IMO.

Also, the clear coat on the black plastic c-pillar covers deteriorates quickly. They have to be replaced periodically ("normal maintenance"?). The b-pillar covers do not have the problem.

Which email address? Message came from a gmail address, yet she writes meredith.com in the message.

Larry Behold Beware Believe

Sounds like an email addy harvester. Send email, get spam.

enthusiastic

Very good point. This owner of several Chrysler cars from 1981 is waiting out Chrysler's games with RWD and ugly cars without space for a real spare tire. Fortunately my '95 Chrysler Concord holding up very well, but I'm close to giving up waiting. Those Toyotas are getting very tempting.

My Chrysler dealer understands my frustration with recent Chrysler products and even suggested I look at the Toyota products at his Toyota dealership, even though he's having great trouble moving the 300 and bigger vehicles.

Buy a Sebring, cause I never will. This Chrysler owner spent 20 years waiting for Chrysler to stop screwing around with front-drive, and hopes it never makes a comeback. Yes, I own one FWD (93 LH car) but when it dies, its getting replaced with a rear-drive, probably a Magnum.

That alone is cause for DC to yank his franchise.

Fine for you but not for me mainly because of our winter driving conditions. Since going to FWD in '81 winter driving is so much easier. RWD, particularly high horsepower, vehicles are not very effective driving to a ski hill, in fact I didn't see a 300 or Magnum at our ski hills all last winter. Wise drivers! I had a Magnum rental for 2 weeks. Poor visibility and typical RWD poor tracking on highway curves, requiring constant steering corrections. When I returned to my Concord my how nice it was to see outside again. Amazing observation when these two cars were 10 yrs apart in age.

I won't get in to other things I didn't like about the Magnum, other than mention the stupid trunk design which kills it's space for carrying two sets of golf clubs across the rear.

The new Sebring fails to meet my needs, the previous Sebring could have.

Actually, every magazine that has reviewed an LX in winter driving gives it high praise. Traction control and RWD is a winning combination.

I'll grant you the poor visibility, but "typical RWD poor tracking on highway curves" is an absurd claim. RWD handles FAR better than front-drive under all conditions, and especially high-speed sweeping curves. Every LX rental I've had feels like its on rails, and although my wife's LH handles better than 99% of all front-drives out there it STILL understeers like a dump truck. Always has, always will- because that's the nature of FWD.

You must have driven a flawed FWD car. Saying that RWD handles far better than FWD "under all circumstances" just isn't a fact and points out your bias. I'm talking modest speed highway curves at legal speeds. Another recent experience with this was a few yrs ago in Australia with a rental RWD Ford; yes they still build oldie Fords down there. I will agree that RWD is better to a point with hard highway driving when significant power is being applied, but that just isn't my driving style, I drive just over the legal limit not at excessive speeds.

Simply pulling out very quickly from stopped into the traffic turning sharp right is so superior with FWD. I had to do that yesterday; how nice it is with no wheel spin and the great low speed torque of the 3.3L Concord engine, up to 40 mph (in the city) in very short order.

My extensive driving on winter slippery roads allows me to evaluate the difference between FWD and RWD at reasonable speeds. All season tires do the job very well with FWD, it's not necessary to mount winter tires. Although I've had a FWD car for over 20 yrs, most of my experience is still with RWD.

I agree with you about FWD superiority over RWD in winter conditions. Minnesota born and raised....

I live out west where ice and snow are rare, except in the mountain ranges, so it's not a big consideration. However, wet traction IS a consideration, and in that regard, FWD is clearly superior to RWD anything. Big problems with early FWD cars were "torque steer" and a plowing understeer, even under power. Lots of people who learned to drive with RWD (including, as it turns out, most cops) learn how to "steer" the rear end of the car by inducing oversteer with excessive power. "Excessive power" isn't an option for most reasonable people these days, making that feature not an option. With low power, RWD cars will understeer almost as much as most FWD cars. Some older RWD cars, like AMCs and many Buicks, would plow into an understeer no matter how much power was applied, due to suspension design.

I can't make my M-body oversteer appreciably in hard cornering with the 318, but I could do it with a 360 equipped version easily. Who cares? I never drive like that.

The worst wet road handling new car I ever drove was a 1992 Camaro....slipperiest rear axle in on the road. The California Highway Patrol had a fleet of Z28s, and they were retired early because of dangerous wet road handling characteristics. Same went for the Nevada State Patrol. Reportedly, the "new" Camaros were somewhat better in that regard, due to losing the rigid rear axle.

I'll gladly admit "bias." I make no bones about preferring RWD. But there's plenty of quantitative observation behind my bias. To me, your example above is one of the WORST things FWD does. Torque steer from hell with the wheel sawing back-and-forth as alternate front wheels bite, and when *both* front wheels start spinning the car looses all steering control and just plows straight across the lane you want and right into oncoming traffic. By that point, lifting off the gas won't always restore front grip and you're screwed. A RWD car will *turn*, and the only thing you have to worry about is snapping the rear end around, but that's completely controllable with the amount of throttle applied... and most importantly you *never* lose steering control the way FWD does.

FWD is fine for low-powered 4-cylinders, but even the modest (215) horsepower of my wife's 1993 LH is really beyond the limits of a FWD car. FWD Cadillac Northstars can be a *real* handful, and can't really use the engine to its fullest extent except in a straight line. I'm with the testers who found it ironic that a peformance sport-luxury yacht's strongest area is straight-up drag racing, and solid-axle rear-drive cars costing less and with less power eat it for lunch when the road gets curvy, or in around-town situations.