300 reliability

better

exactly

Good engineering is one thing, build quality is another. Chrysler does not have the best reputation for that.

closing in

Can you get a Hemi in one of them?

Yeah - my '96 T&C LXi is so unreliable it is now past 180,000 miles and my '93 GC Laredo (Chrysler product) is so unreliable it is now pushing toward 199,000 miles.

See my reply to Art!

Yes, I'm so upset with my 96 GV at 155,000 that I bought an 03 GC last summer. It has only 41,000 so far, but I'm sure I'll also be very unhappy with it by 150,000 miles. Everybody claims to have had transmission problems, many claiming multiple transmission replacements before they even have 100,000 miles. I feel really left out as both transmissions in my vans are originals. I just don't get to have any fun like every other minivan owner...

Matt

Even if the 300 uses suspension technology from a superceded Benz, it is still far and away better than any other rear drive American sedan ever made except for the more-expensive-for-what-you-get Lincoln LS. The Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car use pickup truck suspension as did the now extinct Capris/Roadmaster.

As for quality and reliability, the Acura would be better, but all cars have gotten so much better over that last few years that I wouldn't be afraid of the 300. Heck, I bought a VW Jetta diesel which Consumer Reports says is among the worse cars for reliability, and I now have 6 months and 7,000 miles of totally troublefree driving (and 44 ave mpg for the 7K miles).

I will say the my 94 lhs had sloppy fit of door panels and body parts. But look at later models. All new ballgame. And that sloppy fit in the 94 did not affect reliability one bit. At the time it was a break thru design providing unprecedented passenger room and handling in a front wheel drive sedan so I considered the sloppy fit a reasonable compromise. Later models are put together as nicely as the best Japanese products.

No, they don't use "pickup truck" suspension at all- no parts at all interchange with any pickup truck suspension system. They use simple, low-tech rear-drive CAR suspension. And that's necessarily a bad thing? Personally, I like the simplicity and ruggedness of a solid rear axle and stamped-steel front suspension members that have been in use for 40 years. I've driven once such car to in excess of 430,000 miles and am still going with it. And I have some concerns about the long-term durability of the lightweight forged aluminmum suspension pieces on the Magnum/300. Yeah, they handle GREAT, but the margin in handling may not be worth the (potentially) greater risk of damaging a component in a pothole. If they make the Magnum into a police-package car as rumored, what do you want to bet that heavier steel suspension components are part of the package?

OK. I should have said pickup truck "style" suspension, and I exagerated a little in the case of rear suspension, as most current pickups use leaf spring rear suspension rather than the solid axle/coil spring arrangement used on Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car. There was a generation or two of GM pickups, though, that used coil rear suspension similar to what is now on Crown Vic/Grand Marquis. Most 4WD pickups now use longitudinal torsion bars on the front not unlike what Chrysler used on cars for a number of years starting in 1957.

...and no, solid axles, stamped suspension parts, etc. are not a bad thing in all ways. They tend to be durable and are cheap to fix. For handling, though, they are not very good.

I have a good friend who works for DC. He told me that a lot of the minivans that had to have the transmissions replaced more than once had remaned units with qulity problems. In other words there was an issue with the first trans from the factory on a small number of vehicles, but the lowsy quality image came from dealers using reman transmissions which had quality problems.

Its still a spurious association. Does the fact that MCI busses (Greyhounds) use air suspension mean that cars with pneumatic suspension use "bus style" suspension?

Yeah, that ended in about 1971.

Similar, yes. The same? No, neither in form factor nor (more importantly) in tuning.

Nor are they very BAD. My solid-axle leaf-spring/torsion bar car handles considrably better than my FWD 4-wheel independent MacPherson Strut car. And its cheaper to work on the suspension as well.

My solid-axle, coil spring car handles considerably WORSE than my FWD Macpherson strut/twist-beam station wagon.

Then you'd better fix it, cuz something's broken! :-)

I find it hard to believe that in ANY test using intrumentation, that a solid rear axle car could handle as well as an independant rear suspension, FWD car.

Now if you are comparing a FWD car that has a solid rear axle (old K-cars, for example) with a rear wheel drive car also with solid rear axle, you may well be right.

The bottom line is that a car with an independant rear suspension will always handle better than another car of equal size/weight with a solid rear axle.

A simple test: Turn the steering wheel full lock in one direction, then accelerate. As you spin the car faster and faster in a circle, the rear end of the solid rear axle car will ALWAYS break loose at a lower speed than an equivalent (size/weight/same tires) car with independant rear suspension.

Why? Because the outer wheel of the solid rear axle car will start to lift from the pavement. As it lifts, it will attain a greater and greater angle, reducing its contact with the road.

An independant rear suspension maintains the proper rear camber angle during turns.

Now one can get into a discussion of the problems caused by the fact that a FWD car uses its front wheels for two purposes: traction and steering.

But that's another subject not related to the rear suspension.....

To slightly return to the original topic: I suspect that most cars built today with independant rear suspensions have a suspension reliability nearly equal to those with solid rear axles.

Has anyone tried to find a mechanic these days who is truly competent in terms of rebuilding rear differentials such as Dana 44's? It's damn hard to find them.

Doug

Your ignorance is noted.

That is not correct -- there are a great many factors that go into the equation in addition to size, weight, and type of rear suspension.

Your searching incompetence is noted.

Not true. For one thing, solid-axle suspension normally has a lower roll-center than independent suspension which is an advantage. Ever notice that independent suspensions require thicker anti-sway bars?

False.

Why do you think the outer wheel lifts? It doesn't.

The advantage independent suspension has comes into view mainly on rough roads- one wheel's bounces and vibrations going over potholes do not get transmitted to the other wheel and disturb its traction.

Pretty much, but independent suspension still relies on sealed bearings and CV joints, whereas a solid axle has internally lubricated bearings and no CV joints to fail.

Rebuilding a Dana 44 is no different than rebuilding the (body-mounted) differential in an independent suspension setup. In fact, Ford (for example) uses the exact same differential internals in both solid-axle and independent rear suspension applications. The hard part of a rear-end rebuild is setting up the ring and pinion gear mesh and pinion bearing preloads, and that has to be done regardless of whether or not the axle is solid.

The center of gravity of the vehicle shifts towards the center of the circle being traveled. The mass of the vehicle, in effect, shifts towards the inside wheel, putting downward force on the inside wheel and lifting the outside wheel. Ever see those rollover tests Consumer Reports does on their track?

From the comments below, I think we are talking about different suspensions. I think you are referring to four wheel drive vehicles. I wasn't. Thus my comments about the reliability of independant suspensions. Another advantage of independent rear suspensions is that they generally offer much less unsprung weight compared with solid axles. That improves both ride and handling.

Huh? As mentioned, not all independant suspensions have driven wheels. Not all have CV joints. My Honda multi-link rear suspension certainly doesn't. I was talking about independant suspension in general, not those in 4wd vehicles.

Yep, and from my experience, most guys in my area do not set the preload properly. Most of them order replacements from a centralized rebuilding factory rather than tackle it themselves. But again, I wasn't referring to independant suspensions with differentials.

Doug

If I read you correctly, you're saying that if you take a corner too fast in a vehicle with solid rear axle, that it will tend to flip over towards the center of radius of the turn? I don't think so. The center of gravity does not move, but the combined force vector of gravity and inertia points outward rather than straight downward as when standing still or traveling in a straight line.

When you turn at speed, the downward force of the vehicle pushes down harder on the outer wheel and less on the inner wheel. Also, there is a moment created by the sideways force on the outer wheel that tends to lift the inner wheel. If power is applied, the inner wheel will spin because it is not pressing as hard on the pavement as the outer wheel. When the moment force that tends to lift the inner wheel becomes greater than the lessened downward force of the vehicle on the inner wheel, the inner wheel will lift. Meanwhile, the outer wheel is pushed downward with maximum force. Depending on height of CG, the vehicle may flip (to the outside as the inner wheel comes off the pavement).

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Funny, our 1993 Caravan at work currently has 270,000 miles, and it is running on the *original* A-607 transmission. The only thing done to it is a tranny fluid flush and regular oil changes. And if the caravans/voyagers/town & countries are so bad then why do I see at least