Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The site http://www.autosafety.org had an interesting article written to the CEO of DC.
Considering the cost of a replacement 2.7, I wonder if it would just be cheaper to put in a larger 3.2 or 3.5? Is the bolt pattern on the tranny the same?
You probably couldn't do that with a Stratus/Sebring, as the 3.2/3.5 might be too big to fit, but it might be feasible in an Intrepid.
You seem to be one of the fortunate ones in that your Trep has made to almost 100K miles. I hope the switch to Mobil One will solve the problem for me.
By the way, there must have been a hot rod car show in Macunzie (forgive the spelling) a few days ago, because I met two antique car owners at a gas station on Route 57 in NJ and they said they were returning from the show.
As the '03 and newer 2.7's age, though, they might start getting to the point that they develop problems, as well. They did mention that the average mileage at which one of these engines goes bad is about 63,000 miles, with some of the earlier ones failing around 30,000.
The 7/70K warranty would cover the engine parts, but if they try to pull the "neglect/abuse" routine, they're going to try their damndest to deny coverage.
Oh yeah, in reading that letter a bit further, it looks like there already is a company on the web geared towards retrofitting 2.7's with 3.2's. The website is http://www.2-7-fix.com. It still doesn't look cheap, not by a long shot, but evidently it still comes off cheaper than some of these 2.7 replacements.
I'm finally at that point with my 'Trep, that at 96000 miles and only 3 payments left on the books, if something did happen to the engine, I'd just sell it for parts or donate it, and be done with it. Hopefully it still has a few good years left in it, though!
Mike, there was a car show in Macungie back in August, the weekend of the 7th. It was a nice show, with a really good turnout. I was up there with a few other Edmund's townhallers: grbeck, lemko, and driftracer. I guess they have other car shows, but the only one I've ever been to is the "Das Awkscht Fescht". Here's a link... http://www.awkscht.com/
just get yourself one of those upcoming hemi chargers!! keep the trep for dirty work...!
as i understand it chrysler has had some problems with the o-ring on the water pump which allowed moisture into the oil. apparently that problem was fixed but i'm not sure when...
also, apparently the engine does run rather hot...using full sythetic oil and doing proper oil changes should negate this issue.
Couple thoughts on your post Mike. First--the article does has several factual errors. The 2.7 does not underpin much of the Chrysler line and is limited to two vehicle lines in the dates posted--the Intrepid/Concorde and the Stratus/Sebring. As others have noted a 2.7 NEVER found it's way into a minivan.
Second--the data is quite clear that in the majority of cases--so called "sludge" is an artifact of either poor maintenance and care or atypical engine use.
Third--I have no history with the Center for Auto Satety. Anyone else heard of them? One should never trust the word of an organization without understanding who and what they are--and who supports them. Anyone familiar with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth....wink...?
Lastly.. The service managers include a family member who has never lied to me in the past--or to other customers that I'm aware of. Since I know him well, I suspect he's likely to be honest, as are the majority of my family. Toyota deciding to extend warranties could have as much to do with public relations as culpability. 16 reports? We've seen more posts here in a year by our residents neurotic flamers than that.....
I haven't seen that many Magnums yet, but so far, every one I have seen on the road has been an SXT model, which has the 3.5. So even here, I don't think that many are getting the 2.7.
In contrast, the majority of Intrepids sold were just base models, whereas the ES, SXT, and especially the R/T were relatively scarce. So, simply put, there were a lot more 2.7 Intrepids to go around!
Over at Chrysler, the Concorde was a relatively rare sight, and around 2002, once they made the LHS into the Concorde Limited, but made all the Concordes look like LHS's, it muddled things further. But even here, I'd imagine that a good deal of the Concordes were just the 2.7 LX model.
As for why there are fewer complaints about the 3.2/3.5 models, versus the 2.7, well, I can think of a few...
1) As I just explained, there are simply many more 2.7's out there in the first place than 3.2/3.5's
2) The 2.7 is more complex, being DOHC, than the 3.2/3.5, so I'd expect it to be less reliable. I don't expect it to be a lemon, but in general, the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to break
3) The 2.7 has to work a lot harder in an Intrepid/Concorde than a 3.2/3.5. While it gets its peak HP/Torque at around the same RPM as the other engines, that's only going to come into play in all-out floored acceleration. And in normal driving, you'll have to floor a 3.2/3.5 less than you would a 2.7. Simply put, it might be too much car for the engine. Now back in the day, there were plenty of cars with engines that were too small for them, such as putting a slant six in a full-sized Mopar, or putting an inline-6 in a full sized Chevy. However, those engines come from an era when they were overbuilt, and they weren't that powerful to begin with. So instead of working their little butts off to move those big cars, they just rev kind of lazily and just don't move out that fast. But one thing this doesn't explain though, is why they would still be failing in the smaller, lighter Sebring and Stratus. The engine seems like it would be a perfect match for those cars.
4) Since the 2.7 has to work harder, I'd imagine that's part of what makes it run hotter, meaning maintenance is more crucial.
5) Since the engine runs hotter, works harder, and revs higher than the bigger engines, it's more crucial that you maintain it. Just like you can abuse and neglect the hell out of an old slant six or Chevy 250, I'd imagine that a 3.2/3.5 could take a bit more abuse than a 2.7.
I still have a feeling that the majority of these sludge cases are from owner neglect. I'll concede that, no matter how well an engine is designed, there are always going to be some that fail, but let's face it...who's actually going to ADMIT that they let their oil changes to too long, or that they let it run low on oil, let it overheat, etc? It's kind of like a car accident. What's the first thing a person says? "I didn't see you!" Not "I wasn't paying attention and didn't look and wasn't under control of my vehicle!"
My Celica GTS has a DOHC engine in it, and its not the most powerful car in the world), and so far at 117,000 miles there is no sign of sludge build-up. Usually, sludge appears in the cylinder heads and you can look in the oil fill hole to get a pretty good idea if you have sludge in the heads.
I've been happy with the Yokohama's so far. They seem to hold the road pretty well, and even in wet/snowy/icy weather, they've been fine.
I had trouble with the trans, but just sensors again (input and output speed sensors).
It's possible that I had little trouble with this car because I used it for highway driving (about 3 hours per day), 80 to 100 miles per day.
I don't think I was lucky, and I certaintly didn't baby the motor. I pushed my car to the limit almost daily.
I finally traded in the car on a new SXT trep today. I'll let you know how that turns out...
Personally, I think that the car was extremely well engineered.
Here's a few things I can think of, though...
1) brake rotors: they're really easy to warp, on any car nowadays, because they cut 'em so paper thin.
2) thermostat housing: the one on my '00 2.7 started leaking, just a little bit. Ended up costing about $210 for the local mechanic to replace it. They might've fixed that problem with the newer models, but my mechanic told me back then that it was fairly common.
3) power windows: I haven't had any problems with mine, but a few other posters on here had mentioned power window problems in the past. I think one guy had to have all 4 replaced! Under warranty though, IIRC. Again, that might be something that's improved with the newer models.
4) transmission: Chrysler still has a reputation for problematic transmissions, but I think for the most part it's more talk and bad memories than it is reality, nowadays. Still, make sure it shifts okay, and check the dipstick to make sure the fluid doesn't look nasty or smell burnt.
5) sludge: the 2.7 does seem more prone than the 3.2/3.5 to developing sludge, and the 2.7 is also a pretty expensive engine to rebuild, or buy used. I think for the most part if you change the oil regularly and/or use a synthetic, you should be fine. But since this car already has over 60K miles on it, I'd make sure that I could get ahold of some service records for it. That would be true of any car at that age though, not just the Intrepid.
My godmother used to have an '00 Intrepid with a bench seat. She liked it for the extra width it gave, not that she's big-boned, or big-bunned, or anything like that! But for 3-across seating, I'd think it would be useless. The Intrepid might have the shoulder room for it, but there's no room for your knees or legs there, the way the dash juts out.
I think I got rid of it just before it became a large flowerpot. However, in its defense, I was well served by this vehicle. I did encounter some interesting problems. I broke the drivers side seat before the recall notice. When that happened, I got hosed by the dealer who insisted that it would take 4 hours' labor to "rebuild the seat". About two years later, the same thing happened again. I fixed it myself this time, with a 5/16" shoulder bolt. The repair took me about 30 minutes. Says a lot about those mechanics...
About a month later, DC came up with a recall on the seat. This time they fixed it in 30 minutes.
I don't buy cars for their resale value. I plan to drive 'em into the ground, and I believe that I got my money's worth with this one.
By the way, they sold me the new SXT 'trep with options for about $500 more than I paid for the original base sedan 6 years earlier. Now, that's a deal...
It started at around 130,000 and stopped at about 136,000.
But I think it's too late now anyway, as the last time I was down at the dealer, the only Intrepids on the lot had plates on them and no window sticker (maybe they were demonstrators?), and the only thing roughly comparable they had was three Magnums.
did you drive a 3.5l or 5.7l magnum...?
Power wise, the 3.5 felt more than adequate. Even with the added weight of the Magnum, I know it would smoke my 2.7 Intrepid. I think if I were going with a car like this though, it just makes sense to go all the way and get the Hemi!
the 42LE tranny has always had fuzzy logic. but you are right...it could be that the tranny was so new and hadn't learned yet how to behave properly. lol!
are you seriously thinking about getting a magnum??
She hates driving the Intrepid for the same reason - she is not comfortable with the rear visibility.
As for acceleration, I've heard the Magnum and 300 with the 2.7 are good for 0-60 in about 10.5-11 seconds. Which is about the equivalent of a Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable with the base Vulcan V-6. In contrast, in the Concorde/Intrepid, I've seen 0-60 listed anywhere from 9.0-10.2 seconds. And IMO, that's not a good thing, when the newer cars are slower than the ones they're replacing. Especially since nearly everyone else has improved in the same timeframe.
From what I've read though, the 3.5 performs about the same as it did in the LH cars. And the Hemi is absolutely wonderful!
Jsylvester, it took me awhile to get used to the Intrepid's visibility, too. My main issue was not being able to see the trunk lid. I was used to older cars that had about twice the Intrepid's deck length, so in backing up, I'd tend to err on the cautious side, stopping well short when backing into a parking spot. And while the sleek, sporty style hides it from the outside, the C-pillar on the 'Trep, coupled with the blanked out spot in the rear of the doors, makes for a blind spot that would out-do most 70's cars!
To me, the Magnum is just an oversized station wagon. If I wanted a SW, I would have bought one! I still havent got used to the Treps blind spot in the right rear, I have to be very careful when changing lanes, but I knew that the blind spot would be a problem when I bought the car. Its probably just as bad as the 1973 Mustang Mach One, which was nearly impossible to drive. When I mentioned the blind spot to Reedmans sales manager, he said 'you will get use to it', but I knew that was BS and the problem with rear visibility would always be there. Then again, the Trep would not look as good as it does if the rear end was designed differently. At least with the Monte Carlo rent a car I could see out of the rear, but I know you cant stand its looks.
When they brought the nameplate back for '95, I think the first thing that anybody who liked Monte Carlos said was "that's NOT a Monte...it's a 2-door Lumina!" And now with the 2000+ style, it just looks overdone. Like they tried to put 70's overtones on a modern car, and it just doesn't work!
I haven't liked GM's interiors, for the most part, for a long time now. They're usually just too cheap and plasticky, and have parts that don't fit well, and just don't have a nice, clean, flowing look to them like Mopar dashes. But now I DID like the Grand Prix coupe, which was Pontiac's sister to the Monte Carlo. I thought that was a good looking car!
As for arguments, I think one reason that some people are so quick to jump up in defense of the Intrepid is that, a few years ago, there used to be some major trolling going on in this forum! It still pops up from time to time, but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. One of them kept popping up from time to time under different user ID's, too, and would sometimes even carry on conversations among the various ID's!
here is another LX sedan...could be the charger but not sure...
http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html
I've been in my brother's 300C, and I don't think visibility is that great in that car either.
Still, I'm holding onto my Intrepid as long as I can. She may just drive the Grand Marquis once she becomes a stay-at-home Mom, and I'll drive her Corolla to work. At that point, a decision will have to be made.
But since then (I think it was 2002 that they did it), they replaced the cloth on the door panels with vinyl (probably to save costs, since that's what they do on leather-seat models anyway), took the carpet off the door panels (maybe the ES still has it?), took away the sway bar, the tint across the top of the windshield, made cruise control optional, and I'm sure a few other little odds and ends.
My Dad has an '03 Regal GS, and I think my Intrepid's interior, and even the newer ones, are still a cut above. His Regal has this seating fabric that almost looks like a cross between burlap and corduroy, although it is more comfortable than it looks. It has these vinyl inserts in the door panels that are rippled a bit, I guess to give it a plush, supple look, but it just doesn't work in this car! The plastics have a nasty, irritating, Playskool-esque grain to them, and the dashboard doesn't even line up with the door panels! Where the lines carry over from the dash to the door, it looks like the dash is dropped about a half inch on the driver's side, and is also off on the passenger side as well.
One thing I'll say in its advantage,though, is that I find the front seats to be pretty comfortable, better than my Intrepid. I think that's because they're power assisted though, and I can put the seat back and up further than the manual adjust in my Intrepid. The Intrepid wins, hands-down, in the back seat, though.
The Intrepid also looks like it's put together better. On the outside, things like the door panels, hood, and especially the trunk line up much better than the Regal. However, when you close a door, the Regal does sound just a bit more solid. But then that gets negated a bit, because Dad's Regal, with around 23000 miles on it, has more squeaks and rattles than my '00 Trep with 97000!
My Intrepid also handles much better, although my Dad's Regal is stuck with old fashioned 215/70/R15 tires. His 3.8 would blow my 2.7 away, though.
So I guess in the end, both cars have their plusses and minuses. Which one is best just depends on which plusses and minuses matter to you the most!
Even the Monte Carlo with the 3.4L 24 valve V-6 (rental car) would leave my Trep in a cloud of smoke! GM just builds some very nice engines. And it was a sleek looking red, which at least made the car look like it was accelerating more quickly.
And DC deleted the rear sway bar in 2003 model year, because my 02 SE has it. Pretty sleazy, since most people would not notice that it was deleted. In 2002, the suspension was called 'four wheel independent touring suspension', the same suspension used on the ES/SXT models. On the 2003 sticker, the suspension on the SE model was called 'normal suspension'.
http://www.dodgedart.org/brazil/79chgrad.jpg
It was an odd looking beast in the cgi pics, but hopefully it'll look better in person!
Now back in the early 90's, and up through maybe 1998 or 1999, there was a DOHC 3.4 V-6 that was used in some GM intermediates, like the Lumina Z34 and the Monte Carlo. It put out something like 215 hp and had plenty of kick at low and high speeds. However, it was expensive to build and unreliable, so it got canned once GM finally got the non-supercharged 3.8 V-6 up to around 200 hp.