Howdy, Stranger!

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





Dodge Avenger

verozahlverozahl Posts: 574
... Dodge today has what? Stratus coupes? Yawn... they look nice, but Dodge can do better.
«13456789

Comments

  • I'm looking at a 95 avenger to buy from my neighbor, although i do not know much maintenece wise about dodges. If anyone could tell me if it is easy or if they have any mechanical problems with them or otherwise, it would be a big help. thanks.
  • verozahlverozahl Posts: 574
    Avenger is marketed as a Dodge, but it's all Mitsubishi under that skin. Mechanicals come from Mitsubishi of the early 1990s... do some research on that and let us know about your warm, fuzzy feeling.
  • SPYDER98SPYDER98 Posts: 239
    the avenger shared a combination of mitsubishi and chrysler components. However the drive train on the both the 4 and 6cyl were mostly chrysler I believe.
    The 2.5L 6cyl was not used in any mitsubishi that I can think of and the 2.0L 4cyl was the same motor as in the dodge neon which was also chrysler built.

    In a nutshell, this is not a car I would personally want to take a chance on owning.
    I have heard numerous horror stories.
    This is definitely a hit or miss automobile.
    If the price is right however, it may be worth a shot. Otherwise, I personally would not pay anywhere near book value for this car.
  • verozahlverozahl Posts: 574
    In my analysis, Chryslers and Mitsubishis are mostly hit-and-miss. Good styling, questionable mechanicals. Sigh.
  • the avenger i am looking at is a 95 in overally pretty good condition, they are asking 2500 for it. is this a reasonable price? thanks
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Points:

    '95 Avenger ES was offered with the Mitsu 2.5L six and was only available with the Chrysler 41TE four-speed automatic.

    The V6 is a reliable engine, by most all accounts, though it's output, for its displacement, is not impressive. It is smooth enough, not prone to leaks, and has a fairly pleasing growl above 4,000rpms.

    The 41TE tranny was problematic for Chrysler, until about '98. Be wary of leaks, which usually begin to manifest themselves at or around 70K miles. Main suspect the forward oil pump seal. Reapir of that item will cost between $1700 and $2200. If you don't mind a red spot on the garage floor, many people have logged substantial miles with a leaking seal, with no loss of performance, though the fluid level must then be watched.

    The only way to get a 5-speed was to opt for the 2.0L four. If there are no signs of oil leaks, you should be fine, but make sure to ask if the head-gasket was ever replaced.

    Avengers were notorious for warping front rotors as well. This can be said of many makes and models, but the factory rotors, if still on, should be replaced with upgrades at the first brake job. No serious cornering can be accomplished with the OEM rotors.

    Undeniably some of the best sheetmetal any coupe ever wore, the Avenger is a hot-looking car, even now. It is a modest performer, but has the disticnt advantage of being comfortable for four, and capable of multi-tasking, due to a sedan's worth of space.

    The '95 is not a car to take chances on. If you want it, have it inspected top to bottom by a great mechanic. The '98 model year is a much better gamble, regardless of powertrain choice.

    What level are you looking at, and how many miles are on it? Can't price without that info...
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    If you don't know, don't tell.
  • 99miata99miata Posts: 14
    Unless you like having a vehicle that breaks down. While nice-looking, as others have said, it is a modest performer, to say the least. What is more important is that it, like all Chrysler products (or Mitsu) is a piece of crap. Trust me, I own a Dodge (for another nine months -- I'm counting down) and I have read extensively about the brands. They are junk. Period. Chrysler = nice styling, roomy interiors, low price, but NO QUALITY OR RELIABILITY.
  • its an automatic 4 cylinder with 130k miles. the cosmetics are in good condition, and the engine looks to be in good shape. they are asking $2500.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Pass.

    While the price is not out of line, the miles are too high, and the 4-cylinder mated to the automatic is the worst combo for the car. It takes the performance from acceptable to downright depressing. Mind you, the engine is certainly capable of more miles, but other components will start to fail by this point. Also, a '95 41TE with 130K miles is not a bet to take under any circumstances.

    Anecdotal advice is meaningless from someone who knows little about the car, as is the case with some of the above posts.

    A '98 or later Avenger, as I said, would be a much better bet. QC at Mitsu and Chryler started to improve dramatically in '97, just as design did in '95.

    Good hunting!
  • 99miata99miata Posts: 14
    I'm sure you're not referring to my advice as "anecdotal", since I own a '96 neon with the same basic four banger. And I have a friend who has a Sebring that has even more parts in common with the Avenger (basically the same car in that case). Check Consumer Reports for the reliability of these models (hint: look for the black dots). It's a known fact that Chrysler builds unreliable cars. Deny the facts if you like. A guy asked for opinions on a '95 Avenger, and I'm just warning him not to buy something that is most likely to be unreliable and of very poor quality. I speak from personal, first-hand experience. What the guy buys, of course, is up to him and at his own risk. As far as quality control improving dramatically (if at all) in '97 at Chrysler and Mitsu: keep dreaming. They still build crap. Do your reliability research, pal.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Your personal experience with '96 Neon has a much bearing on the reliability of a '95 Avenger as does my experience with a '98 Caravan. Little to none.

    Your are welcome to your opinion that all Chryslers are crap, provided you label it as opinion or provide supporting evidence. And since, IIRC, the very rag you tout recommends more than one of the Chrysler family, you obviously can't do the latter.

    This poster asked for specific information about a specific car with which I have experience, and I posted specific valid concerns which will hopefully help in the decision-making process, not some BS about all Chryslers and Mitsus are crap because you loathe your Neon.

    I will reiterate: due to the miles, the drivetrain combo, and the history of the 41TE prior to '98, I would pass on this car. Specifically.

    Don't be a dipwad.

    BTW, I'm very seriously considering the Sportcross. I'm gonna ditch the coupe in about 22 months, and the IS looks like the best candidate. Did you drive it yet? You like the 17" wheels with summer tires or the all-season 16"s?
  • 99miata99miata Posts: 14
    Since you do little or no reliability research, you obviously have no idea that reliability tends to be very consistent between all models of a specific make. That is, all Toyota and Honda models tend to be very reliable, whereas, all Chryslers and Mitsus tend to be very unreliable. So my experience with the neon (which shares a lot of parts with the Avenger) is very relevant, as is my friend's Sebring. Another note: CR recommends cars with at least average quality. I only buy cars rated above average or excellent (since the neon, which I only loathe because it is a piece of crap - it is as decent looking, peppy, and comfy as the day we bought it 6 years ago). The Chryslers that CR recommends are rated only average (other Chryslers are rated worse). SO, Chrysler's cars' reliability ranges from poor to average. I look for good to excellent. I gave you CR as my supporting evidence, along with relevant personal experience.

    Although I will give you credit for telling him to PASS on the car, you should refrain from labeling others' opinions (which are meant only to help) as BS. And you should certainly not call other people names (how old are you?). A-hole.

    Now that we got that out, yes, I did test drive an IS300 5 sp. The 17" wheels are an absolute must, in both a functional and aesthetic sense. They look a million times better than the 16 inchers. If you get the 16", it ruins the performance of the car totally (acceleration, handling, braking, etc). See Car & Driver's road test from a couple months ago for more on IS tire selection if that isn't enough.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    So you basically still don't know poop from shinola about the '95 Avenger, aside from the four-banger, which is one of remarkably few components shared with your Neon.

    I've seen CR. On numerous occasions. Perhaps you should consider revisting it yourself.

    Oh, and you're right about the name-calling. Sorry. That was at least as juvenile as lumping all Chryslers and Mitsus ever made together and calling them crap. Kind of like calling all VWs crap, or all GMs crap, or all Nissans crap. Your opinion is valid to you, and should be set forth as opinion and not fact, which it frankly is not.

    You give ME credit for voting to pass? Thanks so very much. Considering I gave specific mechanical reasons to avoid that particular car, rather than ignominious rantings aimed at an entire company of which you have owned one example, that's the least you could do.

    Now that WE got THAT out, I drove the Sportcross with the 17"s, but had no opportunity to drive with the all-seasons. You can barely find ONE Sportcross on a lot around here (SF Bay) let alone a few for comparison's sake. Yeah, I read the blurb in C&D too, but reading and doing (especially with C&D) are far too often two vastly different things. I was hoping perhaps you'd sampled both. My preference leans quite naturally toward the 17"s, just curious about other impressions.

    It's a winner in my book. The only other one I like right now is the 325. Well, that and the Audi.

    Last thought: Leather/Escaine? I prefer the Escaine myself, thought I wonder about wear...
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Another note on the 2.0L four: At 130K miles, the timing belt should have been changed TWICE by now. It is important to check on that. Also, the timing belt pulleys should have been changed at the same intervals. It's a quirk of the 2.0L.

    Also, after about 100K miles, the motor mounts may be pretty well shot (true of most cars really). This is more prevelant in manual-equipped ones, and depends somewhat on driving habits. It won't affect performance much, but it will make for a rougher idle, and shifts will be much more noticeable.

    If you were a tuner, or a tuner wannabe, this could be a fun engine. With stock rods, pistons, crank, head and cams, the SOHC version has been played up to over 300hp at the crank. Not sure about how far the DOHC can be taken, but I'm impressed!

    Again though, I wouldn't take this particular car (or ANY used car,for that matter) on without a whole lot of service and maintenance documentation and a thorough inspection. Even then, that tranny would make me skittish!
  • 99miata99miata Posts: 14
    I know enough about a Dodge Avenger in order to feel comfortable not recommending one. And, yes, whether you like it or not, Dodges and Mitsus are, in general, not reliable vehicles. You can argue all you want. We'll all appoint you the resident 1995 Dodge Avenger expert. Maybe you can run [unopposed] for President of the National 1995 Dodge Avenger Fanclub.

    I don't need to revisit CR; I remember what I read.

    Lumping all Chryslers and Mitus together into a category known as crap is not juvenile; it's fact. Again, argue all you want. You are the only one with juvenile postings here. I actually couldn't care any less about a Dodge Avenger of any model year. (And I wouldn't call all Nissans crap - but I would call all GM cars crap - you can add that to my "juvenile" lumping of auto makes that are crap. Don't get me wrong, my uncle's '98 6 spd Corvette is a great car, but, much as he loves it, he will be glad to tell you about the many problems it has had, including three serious ones.) Despite what you may think in your little mind - and you know nothing about me - I don't give out advice on cars unless I have adequate knowledge of them. Why don't you worry about your own opinions/advice and not critique others'. 12 year olds like yourself shouldn't be giving out car advice anyway.

    IS: I had no interest in driving the 16" wheels. They look horrible and I knew the performance would be significantly diminished. I like the Ecsaine best (holds your butt in place better than full leather), but we will be going with cloth - we will be hauling two kids with us by then.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    "I know enough about a Dodge Avenger in order to feel comfortable not recommending one..."

    Clearly, from your posts, you know nothing whatsoever about the Avenger, and alarmingly little about your own Neon.

    "I actually couldn't care any less about a Dodge Avenger of any model year..."

    And yet you feel not only compelled but qualified to give an earnest enquirer advice on one. Now there's a mature attitude.

    "Despite what you may think in your little mind..."

    A utter paragon of comportment.

    "I don't give out advice on cars unless I have adequate knowledge of them..."

    Well, that certainly shows from all your detailed, fact-filled pointers on the '95 Avenger in question. Truly, I am humbled by your intense knowledge of all things automotive.

    "12 year olds like yourself shouldn't be giving out car advice anyway..."

    As most 12 year-olds have a firmer grasp of the distinction between useful fact and agitated hyperbole than you appear to, I absolutely relish the compliment.

    Based on this sampling of the supreme quality of advice given, I shall get me to a Lexus lot and try out the 16"s.

    Some advice for you, since I have some other experience you have yet to garner: it's one hell of a lot easier to get formula, spit-up, vomit, juice, string cheese and Pokemon fruit snacks off full leather than it is out of cloth.

    Resale's generally better on a "lux/sport" with leather, too. Generally. But then, I'm sure you already knew all that, after all, it's in CR...
  • 99miata99miata Posts: 14
    1. You, not knowing me, don't know how much I know about an Avenger or about a neon - you only know as much [about me] as I say.

    2. I don't feel it is necessary to go into specific mechanical issues (which I never claimed to have) of a car that is LIKELY to not be of average or better reliability. Besides, you already wowed us all with your in-depth, mechanical knowledge of a car that was a total market failure.

    3. The fact that I don't care about Avengers has nothing to do with whether I would proffer advice on whether or not to buy one.

    4. Not impressed with your efforts to impress/sound intelligent by using "big college words".

    5. You are the one who does not know what a useful fact is: on giving advice to someone who does not own an Avenger but is thinking about buying one, pointing out the mechancial stuff as you did isn't much benefit. Experiences from owners and friends of owners of the same and similar cars is more beneficial at this point - that is, the consideration stage of buying. Your advice would be better served at the shopping stage, after one has decided to look for a certain model.

    6. If, when you are old enough to get your license, you test drive a Lexus with the 16" wheels, you will come to find that their performance is less than that of the 17" tires. If you know anything about tires, you could tell this just by looking at the tire designation.

    7. You don't know anything about me; you don't know what I do or don't know. I DO know that leather is easier to clean than cloth. That is not the reason for choosing cloth. My wife and I want cloth because leather gets hot and we don't want to burn our kids' butts when they are old enough to be out of child seats. And we plan on keeping the car for a very long time, which is also why I am not concerned about the higher resale value of leather (another fact that I DID know) that we will be passing on.

    8. You, sir, are a jackass.
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    9. I'm hungry and am going to grab some late lunch.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    "You, not knowing me, don't know how much I know about an Avenger or about a neon - you only know as much [about me] as I say..."

    You, having a remarkable opportunity, since the is a thread about (get this) AVENGERS, consistently show, with escalating vitriol, that you know nothing whatsoever about them, aside from the fact that they're virtually identical to Sebrings of the same years. Since you admittedly have no interest in the cars, why would you bother posting in the first place?

    "I don't feel it is necessary to go into specific mechanical issues (which I never claimed to have) of a car that is LIKELY to not be of average or better reliability..."

    Let's just see what the poster asked for: "If anyone could tell me if it is easy or if they have any mechanical problems with them or otherwise, it would be a big help..."

    So you really don't care what the poster wanted, you just want to rant for fun. Your choice.

    "The fact that I don't care about Avengers has nothing to do with whether I would proffer advice on whether or not to buy one."

    And nobody said you had to! If you at least know what you're talking about, you can reamin as detatched as you please, and no man objecting!

    "Not impressed with your efforts to impress/sound intelligent by using 'big college words'..."

    Oh, I haven't even touched the college bag. Why would I? You seem to find sophomore high school vocabulary daunting enough.

    "You are the one who does not know what a useful fact is: on giving advice to someone who does not own an Avenger but is thinking about buying one, pointing out the mechancial stuff as you did isn't much benefit. Experiences from owners and friends of owners of the same and similar cars is more beneficial at this point - that is, the consideration stage of buying. Your advice would be better served at the shopping stage, after one has decided to look for a certain model..."

    I can't say what's more amusing: the fact that you actually wrote that, or the thought that you might actually believe any of it! The poster HAS decided to look at a certain model, and asked for issues related to it. How exactly is pointing out specific mechanical issues that should be foremost in mind when assessing the viability of a candidate not of benefit. I'm to assume that a blanket (and erronious) opinion of "all Chryslers are crap" is somehow more helpful?
Sign In or Register to comment.