Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Transformative Cars Of The '90s



  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    Indeed, it was. I liked the '92 STS styling from the get-go. I also thought that the regular Seville was superfluous for Cadillac.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,141
    Personally, before Mulally I don't think Ford had a good leader since Caldwell and Red Poling.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    I agree completely. Nasser was a disaster for Ford. As for Bill Ford, I give him credit for recognizing his limitations, and convincing the board and family members who are important stockholders to hire Alan Mulally.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    edited February 2011
    I'd say the '93 Chrysler Concord, Eagle Vision and Dodge Intrepid were transformative, in that they moved Chrysler Corp. beyond the K-car era. These cars looked striking in their day. Too bad the quality lagged.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    I'd say the '93 Chrysler Concord, Eagle Vision and Dodge Intrepid were transformative, in that they moved Chrysler Corp. beyond the K-car era.

    I think those '93 LH cars really pushed the concept of aerodynamic style, taking it a step beyond the Taurus/Sable. One problem I had with the Taurus/Sable is that, while they certainly looked sleek and modern, I just never thought they were all that attractive. In contrast, I thought the Concorde/Vision/Intrepid, and then the New Yorker/LHS which followed for 1994, were gorgeous!

    But yeah, the quality on them was horrible. The one good component in them was the 3.3 V-6, which, IIRC, was designed by the same guy who designed the Slant Six, so it was durable and fairly easy to work on.

    There was a lady at work who had a 1994 Vision with the 3.3, and she got it to around 160,000 miles on the original engine and transmission, before giving it to her son. She always carried on about what a piece of crap it was, but I think it was because it had computer problems that made it stall out, and the dealer couldn't find the issue.

    I've heard that the 1996-97 models aren't too bad with regards to reliability, but the redesigned 1998-04 models were still much better. Although with them you have to watch out for the 2.7, which can be sludge-prone. Supposedly the internal water pump is a problem too...when it fails, you get coolant mixing in with the oil, spreading through the engine, and that's often enough to kill it.

    I still remember, one day back around 1993 or 1994, seeing an Intrepid ES on a Dodge showroom floor in Silver Spring (Sport Auto Sales Park I think it's called, off Route 29), and just about fainting when I saw the $25K price tag. Who ever would've thought that one day a Dodge would be $25K!? Of course, nowadays it's not hard to get a Hemi Charger or Challenger up over $40K!
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    Wasn't the transmission the greatest point of weakness of the '93-97 LHs?
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,120
    I remember being smitten with the looks of the 1994 Chrysler New Yorker LH car around the time I bought my 1994 Cadillac DeVille. Looking back on the problems the early LH cars had, it's a good thing I chose the Caddy.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    edited February 2011
    I can't remember the last time I saw an early Chrysler LH car on the road - all of the early cab forward cars are getting to be uncommon out there, now when they lose a tranny, end of the road. I think I even see more older Taurii than the Mopars.

    Back in the day my mother actually test drove a pretty loaded Eagle Vision, and she liked it - but her old mechanic friend warned against it (the brand was about to be orphaned at this time). Probably wasn't the worst decision.

    I remember around 1995 a good friend of mine's father got a Concorde as a company car, and in 1999 was promoted to a new 300, seemed pretty fancy.
  • Owned 2 Intrepids....a 96 with the bigger engine which I let one of the kids take to school after we had it for 4 years,followed by a 2K ES. The 96 was fun to drive , but troublesome . The 2K never gave any trouble in the five years we had it. One thing I especially liked about them was how well you could see the road in front of you. I see quite a few of these later ones still doing their thing locally....very few of the early ones. I got the ES from the long-defunct back when they were trying to "buy business". Remember reading posts by Andre on an Intrepid forum around that same time.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    edited October 2011
    This is a very delayed reply to your message #31. I think the main reason you see so few of the first generation Intrepids (and Chrysler Concords and Eagles, for that matter) is a high incidence of transmission failures. Although very advanced for their time on many ways, their quality was not high enough to invest money to save them as they aged and became miled up.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, somehow I lost track of this topic! Yeah, the transmisison was probably the weakest point, but by '96-97 it wasn't *too* bad. Also, if you got one of the more basic models with the 3.3, they didn't have as much torque as the 3.5, so the transmissions tended to hold up longer.
Sign In or Register to comment.