Is There Really Such a Thing as a "Lemon"?

cneff · August 2008

Unfortunately since my issues were not repetitive, 1 non fixable problem at least 3 times in a row, it was not considered a Lemon in NJ. It was like a domino effect, one thing went wrong then something later, then something later, yet all really connected electronically, under lemon law it is very hard to prove and duplicate electrical gremlins.

Though I did pursue Audi and won, actually just before entering arbitration Audi came to me offering a settlement, I held out since it was now my turn to drive....so to speak...it ended well for me poorly for them.

coldcranker · August 2008

Lemons do exist. Statistics say they must exist. A few owners will be unlucky enough to randomly experience multiple unrelated failures. This may be induced by the quality manager at the factory out smoking a cigarette when a particular car emerges from the factory (quality checklists forged by the worker, etc.) or some other root cause, but even without a direct link to human error, some parts will fail, and some cars will have multiple random failures. The vast majority will have little or nothing happen, but some win the lottery.......

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

I have heard the argument which is an interesting one, that goes like this:

1. Every mechanical component has a + or - manufacturing tolerance

2. Theoretically one car could be built with the minus of one part coupled to the minus of another part, giving a double minus clearance issue. (or a double plus for that matter).

3. This would lead to premature failures of various components assembled in this fashion.

As for the "careless builder" theory, that could also be true of course, but I'd guess for only one component.

then of course there is willful sabotage (which has been documented), undetected defects from suppliers to the automaker (hence no quality control at the plant) and I guess occasional metallurgical failures or chemical failures (defective glass for instance).

nippononly · August 2008

I'm disappointed that you have set the bar so low for what you consider acceptable reliability from a new car. In more than a half a million miles of driving since then, I have never had any mechanical failures that left me stranded in a car I bought new. Certainly, if that happened to me today, my response would be the same as in early '97: sell the sucker and avoid that brand from then on.

But I am talking about breakdowns that are not the result of owner negligence, either of shop maintenance or of routine checks. For instance, while I would expect the battery in a new car to last at least three years, one could anticipate it going dead once it got low, and replace it before any stranding occurred.

"Weird noises" and CELs do not a stranding make. And a flat tire is no fault of the car, although one would hope it wasn't a cause of stranding either: pop the spare on and be on your way.

Geez, you would expect a brake failure in 5-7% of all cars on the road prior to their fifth birthday? That's awful. I certainly wouldn't put up with that. Are you sure of your stats there?

I don't really have a hard and fast rule here, but anything that strands me due to mechanical failure (that is not due to neglected maintenance) before 50K miles is on my personal "lemon" list. A whole slew of various Japanese makes since then have passed my personal "lemon threshold" with flying colors.

andre1969 · August 2008

Yeah, I'd consider two breakdowns that leave you stranded and in need of a tow truck within, say, 5 years or 50K miles, to be a sign of a pretty crappy car. Especially these days. Heck, the only time my Intrepid actually left me stranded was just this past May, when the crankshaft/camshaft position sensors were going bad. And in the car's defence, it had about 140,000 miles on it, and it had been acting up for almost two months. So it was partly my fault for waiting until it got worse. Also, the car did start up, reluctantly, the next day, and made it to the repair shop under its own power.

Now the car has had other things break on it that needed attention, but nothing that ever stranded it on the spot.

Considering the age and mileage of many of the cars I've driven, I'm actually no stranger to the tow truck. But there's a big difference between a $250 1979 Newport with 230K miles on it leaving you stranded, and a brand-new car doing the same!

My grandparents on my Dad's side of the family always bought new cars starting in 1957, and would tend to trade them in every 2-4 years. Their first car was a used 1949 Ford. Granddad was horrible about maintaining cars, which I always thought was ironic because he worked his whole life as a railroad mechanic, so you'd think he'd understand the concept of maintaining machinery! Although he did work on that runaway train that crashed into DC's Union Station back in the early 50's.

Anyway, the only time he can remember actually having a car leave him stranded was their 1977 Granada, which dumped its transmission while under warranty. They also had a 1967 Tempest and a 1971 Tempest, and a 1975 Dart, all of which tended to have stalling problems. The Dart was the worst of all, and that sent them back to Ford. But it would be the type of thing where it would just stall out and then you fired it back up. It wouldn't leave you stranded.

On my Mom's side, Grandmom & granddad occasionally bought used cars, and would often keep them longer, so there was a greater chance of them breaking down. But unlike my other Granddad, this one knew a lot about cars, and could usually fix whatever was wrong with them himself. Now Grandmom does remember their used 1955 Pontiac breaking down in Washington DC. I dunno if they had to have it towed back, or if Granddad came down and got it running again, but it was something minor.

Anyway though, I figure if those old 50's, 60's, and even 70's cars could last a few years without leaving you stranded on a regular basis, any new car that does it must really be a POS!

Oh, as for a car having brake problems within its first 5 years, I guess it might just depend on what you consider a "problem". Now total brake FAILURE, that's pretty scary. But I wonder how many people just don't bother to check their brakes, wear them down too far too fast, and then end up with costly repairs as a result. Plus, these days, you just look at a brake rotor the wrong way and it'll warp on you! Won't leave you stranded, but it'll need to be taken care of. I'd also imagine most people will need at least front brake pads within the first 5 years. That's just routine maintenance IMO, but some people might classify it as a "failure". The same type of people that consider a Hummer's bad fuel economy as a "problem", according to JD Powers surveys. :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

I don't think I'm setting the standard. I just think that's the way it is.

If your CEL is blinking, you are required to stop the car, therefore you are "stranded"--so I think that situation "counts" as a stranding, IMO.

10% of all cars isn't that bad. This would give us 9 out of 10 people coming to Edmunds saying they never had a breakdown (or need to stop the car) in the first 5 years.

I'm disappointed you guys are setting a standard so high. You are bound to be disappointed I think if you buy a new car....well, not "bound" since you have maybe 10 to 1 odds in your favor.

I'm sure automakers would abandon warranties if their cars were 99% flawless for 5 years. They'd go back to 90 day warranties.

I would personally lay very heavy money on a brand new $80,000 Benz or Audi or Range Rover or Jaguar (just to name a few) breaking down twice in the next 5 years, including blinking CELs or other danger lights, and excluding flat tires.

I'd be more hesitant on a Lexus, but I'd still bet---just less money :P

bumpy · August 2008

If your CEL is blinking, you are required to stop the car

Says who? As long as the car is still running good enough to get home, I'm not pulling over for some sissy-pants emissions gripe.

We may be operating from different definitions of 'stranding'. IMO, if the car stops running or is making a horrible noise indicating some imminent disaster that would make the car stop running, that's a stranding. The CEL coming on or a turn signal bulb going out doesn't qualify. That's like having the plood fall off the dashboard.

lemmer · August 2008

I'm definitely stopping for oil pressure or coolant temperature. A CEL needs to be accompanied by something else before I am pulling over on the side of the interstate. It might just be a loose gas cap, or more commonly it's just time for a new O2 sensor.

andre1969 · August 2008

10% of all cars isn't that bad. This would give us 9 out of 10 people coming to Edmunds saying they never had a breakdown (or need to stop the car) in the first 5 years.

Well by Consumer Reports standards, if 10% of any given car has a breakdown in one specific area, it gets "worse than average" for that category. It may have changed over the past few years, but I remember their breakdown used to be something like this...

Much better than average: 15%

As for stranded, IMO, that means that the car is immobile, leaving you stuck, stranded. You might be able to get it started later, or you might have to get a tow truck, but either way, for the time being you're stranded.

A Check Engine light won't necessarily strand you. Forget to put the gas cap on, or put it on too tight, and that can trigger the light. Now if your temperature light comes on, you'd better consider stopping the car, which would count as a stranding. Although that's not quite the same as having a tranny or engine totally fail, because you might be able to just add some coolant, or just let the car cool down again, and you can limp it home. And if the oil pressure light comes on right away, you'd better stop the car immediately. But if it came on because you let it run low, and you can add a couple quarts, then I'd say that's just your fault for letting it run low.

Also, if the car does something that forces me to stop it, but it's something I could fix on the fly, like adding oil or coolant, or jiggling a loose wire, or whatever, I'm not going to consider that to be nearly as severe as having the car totally die and need to be towed.

Also, 9 out of 10 people aren't going to come to Edmund's and say they never had a failure, simply because people get much more vocal when they're angry or irritated about something. Have a good car, you probably won't voice your opinion so much, but end up with a piece of junk, you're more likely to complain. Internet sites tend to get a disproportionate amount of complainers. Plus, when you have message forums like "Toyota Camry sludge" or "Dodge Intrepid Transmission woes", by their very nature, you're going to see a ton of problem cases in those postings.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

Well no, you don't have to stop in the middle of a bridge or tunnel, but the BLINKING light is telling you that the car's computer "thinks" that whatever is going on may cause damage to your car. That's why it's blinking and not solid.

So yeah, it might not "strand" you as in making you stop then and there, but if you were on your way somewhere, you wouldn't want to drive 200 miles with a blinking CEL. I would think that foolish, personally.

To me, "stranding" means that you can't go where you wanted to go. The car is ill and wants to go home now. :P

Whether it breaks down then and there, staggers home, or drives itself to the dealer within the same day, the point is that your plans with the car are thwarted.

It has let you down.

stever · August 2008

The "CEL" on my van says Service Engine Soon. I know 'cause it's on at the moment. But it blinks and then goes solid, meaning it's drivable. The codes indicate a misfire and knock sensor. I have an appointment tomorrow - meanwhile I'm avoiding driving it since it's burning rich and dumping fumes on those behind me, but it hasn't stranded me.

I figure stranding is dead in the water and a tow is required. That rarely happens these days. But yeah, I'm not going to drive it 200 miles before getting it fixed so I see your point.

The last tow I had was in the 70's was with a Volvo and I've held a grudge ever since.

bumpy · August 2008

but the BLINKING light is telling you that the car's computer "thinks" that whatever is going on may cause damage to your car

Blink? I've never seen one blink. In my experience, they were always on or off (mostly off). Maybe that's something newer cars do?

On the Hyundai, the light only came on for two things: the first was when it would come on for a day or two then go back out (O2 sensor); the second was where it would consistently come on about ten minutes after I reset it (the error code implicated the MAF, so hosing it down with electrical contact cleaner fixed that).

andre1969 · August 2008

a CEL (or SES or whatever you want to call it) light actually flash. I've seen them come on and stay on, and sometimes go away eventually. My Intrepid's light came on late last year, and stayed on for about a month. I kept meaning to plug my roommate's code reader up to it to see what it said, but never got around to it, and then the light went away.

fezo · August 2008

I know I'll disappoint you here but I've never had a blinking CEL in a car going back as far as they have had such things.

So it was partly my fault for waiting until it got worse. Also, the car did start up, reluctantly, the next day, and made it to the repair shop under its own power.

Oh, boy, do I know THAT one. My real blind spot is batteries. I think if it dies once but then works with a jump that I can somehow lay hands on it and get a spontaneous healing! I got spoiled by one unkillable battery early on...

I know what you mean about 1967 Tempests and stalling. That's what I learned on. Amazing I'm still here.

fezo · August 2008

I kept meaning to plug my roommate's code reader up to it to see what it said, but never got around to it, and then the light went away.

The bulb probably burned out... :P

stever · August 2008

Mine will change from blinking to solid, depending on the fault code. Typically it'll blink when starting to get your attention - if it's something that won't cause further damage, it'll go solid. On my misfire, if it thinks the cat will be damaged, the MIL will start blinking. It's a ''99 Quest btw.

nippononly · August 2008

has an '02 Maxima. Just recently the stupid CEL was blinking for a week. When the car was finally diagnosed, it turned out to be 75% low on oil. Not good, but definitely not stranded. It is true that a blinking CEL is more serious than a solid one. Most cars have had that system since at least 2000, IIRC.

Stranded means the car is dead or is giving signs of imminent expensive damage (overheat, low oil pressure) requiring you to stop right now. It means you will need a tow, and you won't make your next appointment.

I don't consider being able to drive home and schedule servicing later in the week stranded. That's just me.

andre: yeah, I consider replacement brake pads normal maintenance. To me, brake failure is pedal to the floor, and uh-oh! No stoppy! Or at least brake damage making the car unsafe to drive, like one half of the hydraulic system failing.
And I wouldn't expect a 140K-mile car like your Intrepid to meet this standard any more. An occasional stranding from a car of that age is understandable. I am really looking at the first 50K miles or first five years, whichever comes first.

andre1969 · August 2008

The bulb probably burned out...

LOL, wouldn't that be a hoot! I had thought of that initially, but the light does come on for a few seconds when you first start the car, just like it's supposed to.

One thing that was really annoying, is that when my Intrepid started acting up and stalling at random, and ultimately needed the camshaft and crankshaft position sensors replaced, that wasn't enough to trigger the light.

On '67 Pontiacs and stalling...oddly, my '67 Catalina has always been really good in that regard. It's hard to get started if it's been sitting awhile, because the choke needs work. If I drive it every day it's not too bad, but let it sit more than 3-4 days, and it'll get irritable. But once it's been running for about a minute, it's just fine and won't stall.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

I realize you didn't tow, but HAD YOU KNOWN, I bet you'd have had the good sense to either add oil or tow the car in, right?

CELs don't "strand" us because we don't want them to. :P

tankbeans · August 2008

...it turned out to be 75% low on oil...

Scary. I know I'm bad at checking that stuff, I'll have to start I guess.

One stupid thing that I did with a car that I used to have was to put oil in it. Now this isn't stupid in and of itself, but it still didn't help the car live longer.

When I bought it I had been told that it was leaking oil and there was a leak coming from under the car. So I put more oil in when I thought it needed it. I would check the dipstick and tell myself that it needed oil and add it.

Problem was the piece that was actually leaking was the transmission. I've never been good at checking these things.

So one day I lent the car to my brother and the very next day I get a call and he said the car lost both first gear and reverse. I suppose I could have kept it for a while and sold it for parts, but it was too much of a hassle.

I only paid $400 for it so it was far from being worth fixing.

fezo · August 2008

Less than 10% of the cost of my daughter's "oh, the oil light must be malfunctioning. I can't be out of oil" adventure.

She's lucky she didn't kill herself. After that she was lucky that I didn't...

andre1969 · August 2008

My '68 Dart used to have its own way of letting me know it was low on oil. When it got down to about two quarts, if you went around a corner too fast or stopped suddenly, the oil pressure light would come on for a second or two. I guess what was happening was that oil was sloshing around in the pan, and the pickup tube was just sucking air.

tankbeans · August 2008

...She's luck she didn't kill herself. After that she was lucky that I didn't...

I'm sure the I told you so speech was very much exciting. I must admit that in past cars I've had I've ignored the CEL because they've all been over 10 years old with 170k+ on them and I've always figured, well the dummy lights are stuck and I'll just be careful. In fact that was just the case in a 91 LeSabre I bought. The previous owner's had said the light had been on for years and they had taken it to the shop 4 times to see what the problem was and nobody had ever been able to find anything.

I know I had an ABS light that wouldn't go away after a while, but I didn't do anything about it because, even though the car was still worth about $5500 at the time, to fix the ABS would have run about half of the cars total worth. I wasn't about to do that.

stever · August 2008

CELs don't "strand" us because we don't want them to.

I think it's pretty courteous of newer cars to go into limp mode and lock you in second gear so you can get to the shop when the transmission goes. I'd guess I'd think it was less courteous if it actually had happened to me, but I've missed that pleasure so far.

Back in the day, didn't "stock" car racers dismantle the running gear, check every part for spec, and replace or hone those parts that weren't on spec? I used to think that the occasional wonder car that went 100,000 miles without hiccuping was one that just happened to wind up with 99% of its parts right on spec. Now most cars seem to run fine to that distance with little maintenance being required.

nippononly · August 2008

Well, it wasn't my car, it was a coworker's, but when I mentioned to him that he ought to check the oil regularly, he said he had and found it on the dipstick. So who knows....I wouldn't have thought it was that hard to read a dipstick...

But see, even if this car was under 50K miles (which it wasn't), I wouldn't have called it a lemon based on this incident, because the low oil was due to owner negligence.

Indeed, the vast majority of things that seem to go wrong with the cars of people I know are either because of neglected maintenance or neglected routine checks like oil and tires.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

Isn't it sort of a "given" among engineers that the more complex something is, the more likely the chance of a breakdown?

e.g. lawnmower vs. Saturn V rocket

Of course I guess a corollary of that (is that the right word) is that a defect in a very simple object is likely to be more disastrous than a defect in a machine that has 250,000 parts in it.

e.g. flat tire on bicycle going 25 mph vs. flat tire on 18-wheeler going 25 mph.

hudsonthedog · August 2008

Actually, for Honda and Toyota badged vehicles, its more than people want to admit. Why do people have a problem admitting to bad Japanese quality?

From my experience, it seems to be quite the opposite. Owners of domestic vehicles (primarily 1970s and 1980s) rarely complained about "minor" problems which inflated their "good" numbers giving them a better quality rating than they should have had. If/when they bought a Japanese (or European) car, they suddenly realized that some of those problems they overlooked don't have to be there at all.

My family has owned a number of Japanese, American, and European vehicles in the past 40 years. The Japanese cars probably had the best reliability of any with an early (1974) Subaru running for eight years before being sold to a friend and a 1991 Suzuki that's been in the family since new without a major problem. Also there's the 1995 Acura, 2002 Toyota Sienna, 2007 Toyota Camry, 1982 Toyota Corolla...nary a problem among them. On the flip side, there was the Olds Calais that lost its engine before 70,000 miles, the Chevrolet Celebrity that barely made it to the dealer to be traded in, and I won't go into the Ford Granada, Ford Pinto, rattly Dodge Neon, etc.

My point is if you can provide a story of a family of "bad" Toyotas, I can give you more families of "excellent" experiences. The good stories are the norm, the bad ones are the anomalies. They're not infalible, but they are better than average.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

Well the problem is that you only have anecdotal evidence, which is true as far as it goes, but in fact it doesn't go any further than your personal experiences.

When statistical evidence, rather than anecdotal, is applied, brands like Toyota and Honda really are much better than domestic cars overall.

Further proof if you will is their outstanding success in the marketplace. One would have to assume that American car buyers are stupid if they buy inferior products, and especially stupid if they pay higher prices for those inferior products. And REALLY stupid in that they KEEP buying these inferior products.

There's just no case to suggest that Toyota isn't one of the best made cars in the world.

This is not to say that domestic products haven't gotten BETTER--they most certainly have.

But you know what they say: "When you are first out of the gate by a long shot, it's very hard for anyone to catch you".

andres3 · August 2008

I don't understand. I guess I am the one in every crowd. The one that can honestly admit Japanese quality is a sham.

I will gladly write you a check for the amount I spent to keep my 2003 Accord running for 65,000 miles if you will write me a check for the amount of money I spent keeping a 1995 Dodge Neon running for 65K miles!!!! :lemon:

Trust me, I'll come out a much richer man for it, as the Accord's costs were in-line with typical Honda tradition and stayed in the single digits for 65,000 miles. That digit would be 0 (zero). Now the Neon... whoa baby! Not quite 5 digits, but you'd be surprised how much a cheap car can end up costing more than an expensive one would have in the long run. Heck, I'd of probably come out ahead financially buying a Benz!

jipster · August 2008

Talk about your extremes of ownership, the most reliable (Accord) versus one of the least reliable pieces of junk ever made (Neon). :sick: :lemon:

andres3 · August 2008

Talk about your extremes of ownership, the most reliable (Accord) versus one of the least reliable pieces of junk ever made (Neon).

Yes, after having lived through the domestic ownership experience provided to me by Chrysler through their Neon, I had to go to the other extreme of reliability and get an Accord.

THANK GOD the 2003 models came out with a wonderful redesign that didn't bore me to death like the older generation model would have. So I got to have my cake (reliability) and eat it too, with icing on top (great redesign, looks, power, efficiency).

lemmer · August 2008

I saw an old friend at lunch today. He used to have an Audi 100 up until very recently. He swore it was perfectly reliable. He is driving an Accord LX right now. I bet you that Audi bled him dry, but he will never admit it.

nippononly · August 2008

Whoa, the Audi 100. There was a model with a 100% lemon rate. :lemon: indeed.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

Oh you might be thinking of the old 100LS. I think he means the 100 from the 1990s.

That car wasn't so bad. The 100LS was a disaster, that's true.

nippononly · August 2008

Are we allowed to designate whole model runs as lemons?! :-P

andre1969 · August 2008

I think I actually prefer the style of the '98-02 to the '03+. But for my tastes at least, the '03-07 is a much better car all around. I know the EPA will say otherwise, but for me, 2003 was when the Accord finally became a midsized car.

It took awhile for the style of the '03 to grow on me, but I always found them comfortable, nice riding, and just big enough inside. And to be fair, often it does take a couple years for a new style to grow on me. I hated the look of the '98 Concorde and Intrepid when they first came out, but I ended up with an '00 Intrepid a couple years later. So it couldn't have been THAT ugly. :shades:

andre1969 · August 2008

Are we allowed to designate whole model runs as lemons?!

Well, I guess if the whole model run sucked, sure! :lemon: Hopefully though, the manufacturer would get the bugs worked out after a year or so. Or, if they didn't, I'd like to think the public would be smart enough to quit buying that model, so as not to encourage the maker to keep building it!

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

The 100LS is a case in point to suggest that even THAT car can be made to run reliably. I had one of those and once I figured out the defects, it proved to be a pretty comfortable and reliable car. I had to figure out how to defeat the overheating issues; otherwise it was a nice car (for the time it was built).

I'm sure most people did not have a good experience with that car, but it wasn't ALL bad. In fact, only 10% of it was bad...but that 10% was REALLY bad. :surprise:

tankbeans · August 2008

And to be fair, often it does take a couple years for a new style to grow on me.

I couldn't agree more. For instance, I absolutely hated to Focus when it was first introduced. I thought it looked stupid, but then as they were putting around close to everywhere I started to really like them. BUT, Ford had to go and mess that up by turning the Focus into the monstrosity that it is now.

Jeez, that thing is gross and if Ford has remained the same it'll keep that same style for about 7 years. Lord knows the last model remained relatively unchanged for 9 years save a few minor changes in the lighting structures. The stupid part is if you were to look at a profile view of a car from the current generation along with one from any of the previous model years you'd swear they were of the same generation. The doors and most of the side panels are almost identical.

explorerx4 · August 2008

a lot of camcords are originally bought by people who take very good care of them.
a lot of domestics are bought by people who are lucky to be able to get a new car from anyone. what goes along with that is that the maintenance is skipped.
i am not saying the domestics did not earn that type of buyer.
anyways, i hear plenty of stories at work and from some family members who passed their well maintained camry/accord to one of the kids and in another year or two it needs a new tranny/engine.

andres3 · August 2008

Or, if they didn't, I'd like to think the public would be smart enough to quit buying that model, so as not to encourage the maker to keep building it!

I think that's what always happens, but some fall for the trick of buying the same thing that goes by another name; example: Neon --> Caliber.

Neon = junk :lemon:
Calibre = junk :lemon:

Conclusion = Caliber is a Neon by another name.

Civic and Accords have been around forever. So has the Corrolla and Camry! Go figure!

tankbeans · August 2008

The fun part about the Neon is that I have a person at work who owns a Neon along with a Cavalier. She insists that they are both vehicles from the gods and claims that they can do no wrong.

She claims that the Neon has 200 hp at the wheel stock and that the Cavalier has 175 hp at the wheel stock. Here's the kicker the Neon apparently dumps its engine every 10-15k and I guess the fuel pressure regulator on the Cavalier drops out every three months.

I know that not all of these maladies aren't entirely the cars' faults. She drives the s*** out of both of them thinking that they are somehow racing material. She's full of herself though so I don't put much weight behind half of what she says.

How's that for idiotic. Also apparently she had the engine on the Neon rebuilt using a 97 top with a 95 bottom. Is this even possible?

Signed amused and confused.

andre1969 · August 2008

She claims that the Neon has 200 hp at the wheel stock and that the Cavalier has 175 hp at the wheel stock. Here's the kicker the Neon apparently dumps its engine every 10-15k and I guess the fuel pressure regulator on the Cavalier drops out every three months.

There's no way either of those two are putting out that much hp, at the wheels. At the FLYwheels, maybe. And using the old gross hp rating, perhaps?

There were some pretty hot versions of the Neon, but I think they topped out at about 200 hp, using the 2.0 4-cyl. The body design was not strong enough to handle the torque of a 2.4, which is why they just kept hopping up the 2.0. FWIW, the standard 2.0 in the Neon put out 132 hp. By the time that got to the wheels, it was probably around 90-100?

Chevy used to have a 307 V-8 that put out 200 hp gross. When they went to the net rating system for 1972, it dropped down to 130. So, I guess it's possible that a 132 hp Neon might put out around 200 hp, gross.

The Neon engine really wasn't changed much over the years, I don't think. Especially in the early years. So you probably could swap a lot of parts between the 1995 block and the 1997. The early ones tended to blow head gaskets, but the later models weren't too bad.

andres3 · August 2008

The Neon engine really wasn't changed much over the years, I don't think. Especially in the early years. So you probably could swap a lot of parts between the 1995 block and the 1997. The early ones tended to blow head gaskets, but the later models weren't too bad.

Actually, if you take the time to read something like user reviews and reports on 98 -2000 Neons even, (for example, MSN user reviews) there are still a TON of complaints about head gaskets blowing/leaking/failing. More common than not, and it was never solved according to the user reports and reviews.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2008

I have NEVER been more disappointed in an American car debut than with the Neon.

Here I thought, when it first came out in 1995 (??)

"GREAT! Finally we have a low-cost, fun to drive little sports coupe ala the old Alfa Romeo Sprint"

At a time when "fun" was in low supply in American cars if you didn't have a lot of money, this car was of great interest to me. I even test drove one and considered buying it.

But alas, between some early defects, marginal (at best) dealer service) and Chrysler's winning ways with customers, the car became, at best, something you sell to rental fleets catering to budget vacations in Miami and Vegas. Not a great image and hardly a good track record.

I'm not sure why it takes a manufacturer so many years to figure out how to keep a head gasket on an engine, but Chrysler isn't the first to fail in this regard. Renault and Saab struggled with this, as did GM's Northstar V-8.

tankbeans · August 2008

And using the old gross hp rating, perhaps?

Just curious, when you said gross hp rating I assume you meant before any adjustments are made for energy lost to friction, heat, etc., etc. Correct.

If so I'm wondering my car has a published rating of 160 hp at 5500 for an 03 Accord I4. Would that be the gross rating or the net?

I know we're supposed to be talking about junk cars, but that statement caught my eye. Some of these things are still lost on me.

Thanks for humoring an idiot.

andre1969 · August 2008

I have NEVER been more disappointed in an American car debut than with the Neon.

Heck, I have to admit that I was even impressed with the Neon when it first came out, and little cars normally don't register on my radar screen. On paper it had a lot going for it...gutsy 132 hp 2.0 engine in an era where many competitors hadn't even hit 100 yet. Roomy interior that could hold four good-sized adults in comfort, on a relatively lanky 104" wheelbase. That's probably where the interior room came from, as 104" was pushing midsized back in those days. 1995 was the first model year, but they came out early, like February of 1994.

I have to admit that once, I came close to buying a Neon. It was late 1996 and my 300,000+ mile '68 Dart died on me, while delivering pizzas. Right at a traffic light, in the rain. I almost got rear-ended by some buffoon who wasn't paying attention. Car was TOTALLY dead. Wouldn't start, no power, no lights, no nothing. I was able to push it off the road and coast for about 1/4 mile. I'd pretty much had it with that car

Called my grandmother and asked her if she'd co-sign on a loan for me for a newer car, and I was strongly considering a '95 or so Neon, because I wanted something economical that I could still fit comfortably in. Well luckily, the Dart decided to fire up a couple hours later, and got me home. It turned out that the points had worn down so far on it that they were sticking together, and that was killing the car. I didn't realize that could kill the car totally, electrical power and all (maybe it can't, and there was something else going on), but one of my uncle's friends put new points and a condensor in for me, and the sucker ran fine after that.

so, for like 5 bucks, I got that Dart running again, versus God-only-knows how much headache and wallet-ache a used Neon would have run me! I probably dodged a bullet with that one. :lemon:

I know the K-car 2.2 from that era, especially with the turbo, tended to blow head gaskets, because it had an iron block and an aluminum head, and the different expansion/contraction rates of the metals as they heated and cooled would stress the gasket over time. I think the 2.0 was based on the 2.2/2.5 block...I wonder if it was an iron block, as well?

Still, whatever the Neon's problem was, it tended to blow much quicker than the K-car 2.2/2.5. I think with the K-cars, you could usually get at least 100,000 miles out of them. My ex-wife's LeBaron Turbo blew its gasket around 115,000 miles.

andre1969 · August 2008

Gross hp is a term that I think most people have forgotten about nowadays. I think when they measured gross hp on an engine, it had literally nothing attached. No exhaust manifold, no air cleaner assembly, no transmission, no belts and pulleys, and IIRC, not even a water pump or alternator! This is how cars were rated up through 1971.

Starting in 1971 though, they started publishing more accurate net ratings. For this, they put on the water pump, exhaust manifolds (not sure about the whole exhaust system, though), air cleaner/filter assembly, etc. I don't think they would have tested with air conditioning or power steering though. And it still wouldn't take into account the transmission, differential (or transaxle on an FWD car) etc.

I think for a general rough guideline, net hp tends to be about 75% of gross. So if an engine had 200 hp gross, it would probably put out around 150 net. It'll vary from engine to engine though. I think smaller engines tended to lose less hp, although another factor was that sometimes the bigger engines tended to be over-inflated. They often took great liberties with those old gross hp numbers, and they were more often the result of the imagination of the guy writing the ad copy, than actual engineering test results.

Also, around the 1971-72 timeframe, a lot of engines had their compression ratios cut, so there was a legitimate loss in hp, along with the "paper" loss of going from gross to net. And again, I think it was mainly the bigger engines that saw the larger compression cuts, so that might have explained why they tended to lose a larger percentage.

Now, there's another term thrown out that's called "Brake Horsepower", or "BHP". I always thought that meant they measured it at the brakes of the car, which means the transmission, differential, etc would be factored into the equation. But I think most people use BHP and Net HP interchangeably.

I think the only way to get true hp at the wheel, is to put the car on a dyno. But then, I've also heard there's ways to fake out the dyno test so you can get it to say almost whatever hp rating you want it to.

As for your '03 Accord with 160 hp, that would be net hp. In gross hp, I'd imagine that would be around 210-230 hp? There's really no magic formula to pin it down exactly, but it would probably be somewhere thereabouts. Heck, a lot of cars in 1971 that were rated at 250 hp gross, were down to around 160-170 net for 1972.

Anyway, hope this makes sense!

tankbeans · August 2008

I follow you just fine. I just know that people have told me, namely girl who thinks her neon is from god, that their is no way that my car could have 160 hp and that the V6 Accord could have 270, for the current year.

She even told me that I needed a better car because mine wasn't as fast as hers. Phht.

Anyway thanks for clearing things up, or at least trying to explain things to me.

lemko · August 2008

What? I never heard of a head gasket failure on a Northstar and I've had two cars with that particular engine. I've heard of a problem with an oil leak on the earlier Northstars with the lower crankcase seal - a $44 part.

Is There Really Such a Thing as a "Lemon"?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles