Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
Thanks for your help.
I had a similar problem about 13 years ago, with a '92 Grand Am I rental. I was in Garden Grove, CA, late at night, in a not-so-nice neighborhood when the horn got stuck. I searched all over for the fuse panel, figuring it was underneath the dash. Looked in the glovebox, under the hood, everywhere, but couldn't find it. Finally yanked the cover off the steering wheel and yanked the wiring loose to kill it!
The next morning, in daylight, I saw this panel built into the side of the dash that you could only see when you opened the driver's side door. And there behind this panel was the fuse box!
My mother's 1999 Dodge Intrepid is experiencing some vibraton at low speeds. Once you get over 20 mph or so the vibration goes away.
According to the local tire dealer, the bowtie bushing is wearing out. It costs only $22 for the part, but the labor brings the bill up to $220. This is a fairly recent occurrence. Any chance she can go for a while without making the repairs?
Thanks for any input!
Jim
My neighbor just traded in his 99 3.2 ES with fewer than 50K miles on it because it was not good to tow behind his new motor home. He bought himself a new Malibu Maxx--v6 because it is so easy to hook up for the towing. I didn't ask him what the problem was with the Intrepid, maybe because the front end is so low.
His Intrepid was just like mine, except dark gray leather interior rather than tan. If I were looking for a used car, I would go take a look at that one. In the same amount of time, I put 103K miles on mine.
Enjoy the ride!
:shades:
If anybody truly misses me, I can be found on numerous topics, like auto insurance, uninsured motorists insurance, Ford Crown Vic, Dodge Ram 1500, and others...
Thanks for the comraderie, and I wish you the best...
As John McLaughlin would say..."Bye-Bye!!!"... :shades:
Got the car back a week and a half ago, ran fine for all this time, now... same problem!!
If ANYONE has had similar problems, or a solution, We would really appreciate any help!!!
I have driven a few 3.5 cars, both Intrepids and Magnums, and the 4-speed there seemed more sluggish to me. On upshifting, it seemed like it would kind of pause a moment as it went through the gears. And it did seem a bit more reluctant to downshift.
I always thought Chrysler did that because the trannies were weak, and to keep them from shredding they'd find a way to "lose" some of the power between the engine and the wheels! I don't know if fuel economy really has much to do with it. My '00 was EPA-rated at 20/29, which isn't bad, but not exactly stellar nowadays.
BTW, with you guys having the water leaks, do your cars have sunroofs by any chance? I've heard that sometimes the little drains for the sunroof can get clogged and leak into the car. I think most sunroof cars end up draining the water down the A-pillar.
Another possibility, but remote...do you guys park in places where you get a lot of leaves and other junk from the trees falling on your cars? This isn't a common problem anymore as fresh air intakes are usually protected better and placed better, but back in the day, the drains from those fresh air intakes would get clogged, and water would run into the passenger compartment. Just ask any Dodge Dart owner...they'd be intimate with this problem! :surprise:
Every other week I consider getting a new vehicle but end up enjoying the lack of a payment and decreased insurance costs. Even if I did get a new car, I'd likely keep her because her value as a second/winter car exceeds her trade in value. Hope all is well and happy holidays...
Since I paid off the car, I've sunk the following into it...
$207: new rear brake pads, turn rotors, adjust parking brake, inspect front brakes/rotors which I replaced myself a couple months before.
$73: new battery. The old one was fine, but I was going on a trip soon, and didn't want to take any chances with it being over 5 years old
$121: fix oil pan after I stripped it. D'oh! Damn aluminum pans! :mad:
$22: new windshield wipers...had to go back to the dealer because they're hard to find otherwise.
So basically, I've had to sink around $423 into it over the course of a year, plus a few oil changes, for what amounts to mainly either maitenance-type stuff (brakes/battery) or damage that I inflicted myself (the oil pan)
When it does come time for a new car, right now the only contenders I see that interest me are a V-6 Charger or V-6 Fusion. I might trade in the Trep, depending on how much they'd give me, but as long as it's running well, it might be more worthwhile to just hang onto it.
I have broken 30 mpg on a trip a few times, but usually it's more like 25-28. I used to really have to work hard to get under 20 mpg around town (like deliverig pizzas, in the winter, using oxygenated gas, and even then it would get like 19.7). Nowadays though, I'm often getting around 17 mpg. However, my short 3.5 mile commute to work might have something to do with that! The car spends most of its driving time warming up, and not much at normal operating temperature, and just doesn't get much of a chance to "stretch its legs"
Unfortuately (or perhaps fortunately), my parents traded in my mother's 1994 Intrepid ES for a new Charger SXT. When my Intrepid was in the shop, I borrowed their Charger for a trip to the Carolinas. I wasn't bowled over until I took it on the extended trip. It amazes me how they got the engineering "right" on these models. I made slightly over 19mpg in city driving and better than 27 on the highway. I did NOT spare the whip. Despite weighing significantly more than the Intrepid, having poorer aerodynamics and a larger engine--the mileage was significantly better. I'm quite impressed with the Charger!
I wonder if the good mileage of the Charger comes from the 5-speed automatic transmission. I've always heard that Chrysler's 4-speed automatic wasn't very efficient at transferring the power to the wheels.
From the Chargers I've been in, my complaints are pretty minor for the most part. The trunk is smaller than the Intrepid. When I sit in the back seat, I can hit the rear window with my head. And the interior seems a bit downgraded and more plasticky than my '00 Intrepid. However, the Intrepid did get its interior cheapened a bit in 2002, so it probably wouldn't be as much of a shock when compared to a newer Trep.
My 3.2L ES get 22 mpg city and 28-30 mpg highway with probably similar acceleration the 4 speed auto. Are they really any ahead?
20/29 with the 2.7 (with or without the variable intake)
19/28 for the 3.2
18/26 for the 3.5
For swan-song 2004, the ratings were massaged just a bit, to:
21/29 for the 2.7
19/27 for the milder 3.5 (SXT?)
18/27 for the stronger 3.5 (ES?)
In comparison, the Charger is:
21/28 for the 2.7 (I think this is a rental/fleet only model not available to the general public)
19/27 for the 3.5
17/25 for the 5.7 Hemi
14/20 for the 6.1 Hemi
As for acceleration times, for some reason the old 3.2 seemed to be all over the map...I think I've seen anywhere from 8 to 9.5 seconds. Edmunds tested an Intrepid ES 3.2 in 2000, and got 0-60 in 8.4. I found an old test on the Auto Channel website of a 1999 ES 3.2, and they got 0-60 in 8.9. I think the the 3.5 tends to be more consistent though in the Intrepid/300M, at around 7.8-8.0 seconds.
With the 3.5 used in the Charger, Magnum, and 300, I think I've seen 0-60 from 7.5-8.5 seconds.
So maybe it's not really a big jump ahead, but at least they seem to be keeping performance and fuel economy up, despite putting on weight and going back to RWD.
Now if something happened to my '00 Intrepid, which has around 112,000 miles on it, I don't think I'd be willing to sink $3,000 or more into it. But at 62,000 miles, if the body and interior still look good, I might be tempted.
From what I've heard, the 2.7 is a very expensive engine to work on. Also expensive to have rebuilt, and even used ones in the junkyard are expensive. If putting in a 3.2 or 3.5 doesn't end up costing much more than the valve job on the 2.7, it might be worth it.
But if you're getting to the point that you hate the car, it might be best for your peace of mind to just get rid of it and not sink any more money into it.
However, the 2.7 is more complicated and expensive to build than the 3.2/3.5 SOHC. You'd almost think that Chrysler would've just taken the 3.2/3.5 block and de-bored or de-stroked it if they needed a smaller base engine.
Maybe Chrysler had greater plans for the 2.7, and they just never materialized once the Benz takeover went into effect? Supposedly you can modify it to get 250 hp at the wheels (stock it only gets around 150 at the wheels on an Intrepid).
About the only real advantage I can think of for the 2.7 is that it got slightly better EPA ratings than the 3.2. Something like 20/29 versus 19/28. And despite the bulk associated with DOHC, overall it's a bit smaller physically than the 3.2/3.5 SOHC, so it's possible that the 3.2/3.5 wouldn't have been a useable engine for the Sebring/Stratus.
Looking back, though, it does almost seem like an answer to a question nobody asked. Very expensive to build, work on, and replace, and a milder or smaller-displacement version of the 3.2/3.5 probably would have done just as well.
Now I can't complain about my particular 2.7, as it has served me well. But if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I might have been swayed into a 3.2. One thing I'm still glad about, though, is that I bought the Intrepid over the Impala and Malibu I looked at on that same day! :shades:
One thing I noticed about the '99 Intrepid at Carlisle that had the swap done was that it looked like the radiator support had been removed. You could tell by the way the paint was chipped around the bolts. I'm guessing that to swap the engine they took off the front fascia, radiator, support, etc?
If you go to Google and type in "Intrepid 2.7 3.2 conversion", you'll get a few hits that might put you in the right direction.
For the marketing side of it, even if the 2.7L engine is more expensive than the 3.2L engine, the 3.2L is obviously better in every respect so should cost more.
If it weren't for the EPA regs and CAFE fines, Chrysler could probably get off really cheap if they just went ahead and made the 300 V-8 only, and just de-tune the cheaper models.
I am sure that if they did more with the gearing they could improve the mileage of the V-8's. I would be happy to see the 3.5 L engine as base in these cars as it was for the 300M and the LHS.
And I don't know if they could do much with the gearing of the V-8. The 345 Hemi uses a fairly tall 2.82:1 axle ratio. Couple that with the overdrive gear of the tranny, and I'm sure it's loafing along at highway speeds. Gear it much taller and you might lug the engine. Besides, for something that weighs 4,000 pounds, has 340 horsepower, and can do 0-60 in about 6 seconds, 17 city/25 highway IS good fuel economy!
I would like to see what numbers these cars really get for mileage. My wife's Pacifica with the 3.5L gets something like 15/22 mpg which is close to EPA. Of course, it weighs more has AWD and a 4 speed auto.
Any thoughts??
Thanks!
I have not had a problem with the 2.7 in my car. It gives a level of performance and economy hard to beat in a car in this price range. I can easily get 30 mpg on the highway.
I have been looking for a replacement for the Intrepid. There is not much out there with the same room,comfort or economy. This car is still a great value. I would buy a new one if I could.
Thank you for the entertainment, thoughts and replies through the year.
Merry Christmas to all!! Enjoy the season, remembering the real reason for this.
:shades:
Ed
Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!