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
http://www.allpar.com
for info on tranny repairs.
The waterpump issue is a possible $1,000 repair if you have the old 3.5 liter engine, as when it goes, it could cause some engine damage. Thankfully, the 1998 redesign brought a completely new 3.5 engine, and this is not an issue on the new one.
Again, for a repair of this cost, I would consider getting a second opinion. Many mechanics are so pressed for time to reach their hour requirements on repairs that they use a sledgehammer when sometimes a scalpel will work.
I just got this snippet from my Mopar mailing list...
"For those interested: Dodge will be back in the squad business for 2002. For 2002 and 2003 the Intrepid police package will be FWD and have the 3.5L-V6.
For 2004 the new Intrepid will see police service as a RWD police package with the 353 V8.
Mopar is doing this for 2002 and 2003 to prepare for the real squad launch in 2004. They are also doing this, because 2001 is the last year for the Cherokee squad, and they don't want to leave the squad market for two years in between for prestige/reputation reasons."
Hopefully, there's some truth to it ;-) I think it would be kinda cool do have an Intrepid with an engine putting out the same displacement at a '57 Saratoga! (well, almost...the '57 would've been a 354)
-Andre
2. At ~50k miles, replaced sway bar links. Dealer said this is typical.
3. Warranty replacement of A/C condenser.
4. Recharge A/C system 4 different years.
5. Transmission went out last year with ~120k miles. I didn't realize the transaxle gets gear lube oil and is not part of the transmission. Simply filling the gear lube with 80W-90 weight oil every year would have saved my transmission.
6. Water pump went out and chewed up my timing belt. Replacing them myself. Timing Belt and water pump cost ~$115.
7. Intake Manifold upper and lower gaskets replaced with ~122k miles. Dealer said this is typical for these to go out.
8. Had an engine 'miss' recently. I checked everything, cylinder compression, replaced plugs and wires, vacuum checks, etc. Dealer found that the spark plug gap is now 0.035" rather than 0.050" based on a Technical Bulletin. Car ran great until the water pump went out a few days later.
9. If it were not for me doing most of the work myself, I would have sold this car a long time ago due to the repairs.
When the car is running, its great with lots of head and leg room for me (I'm 6'3" ~250#), lots of trunk space, handles great, engine and transmission are smooth.
Our local police dept. has a few 98-99 Intrepids in police service. Of course, they still have a few Caprice, but I think for 2001 they bought Crown Vics.
WHAT IS IT?
-Andre
The reason this post is addressed to you Andre, is because we took the bus to the airport to rent a car for this weekend. We have to drive to my parents house for fathers day and can't take my wife's company car. We had the choice of renting an Escort (no way) or for $6.00 more we could rent a 6-cylinder Mustang (whoopee! I passed)$8.00 more a day to rent a Taurus (same as my wife's company car and I said no way to that too)or a 2001 Intrepid. We decided on the Intrepid. The one we rented was a Gold Intrepid SE with, I think, the 2.7 liter V6. I've only had it for less than half a day but I must say I'm pretty impressed with it if it's the base model. Nothing fancy, just power locks and windows, AC, etc., but thought I would give my input. Power is more than adequate, though torque is a little on the lean side at low speed. But it was much better than I expected. Leg room up front was typical Intrepid (as we had discussed earlier) but the engine was real smooth and quiet. In fact, this base model is much quieter on the highway than my '96 ES. Now, if there was more legroom up front, and the bottom seat cushion tilted back, I would seriously consider this car. I thought it did a little better in fuel mileage than what I'm reading (20/28). One final question: It doesn't appear the back seats fold down. Do they in yours and are they an option in higher-level Intrepids? Are you experiencing the fuel economy for which it is rated?
model. i have a 98 purchased new - have had no problems - 2.7 v6 gives me 29 on the highway and about 24-25 combined (depending how i drive) - i never got less than 23 on a tank
As for mileage, I've gotten anywhere from just under 20 mpg (when I used to deliver pizzas, and during the winter when we get stuck with the nasty gas) to just over 30 on the highway if I'm gentle. The last couple times that I've filled up, I've been getting about 22-24 mpg, which is mainly just driving back and forth to work, running errands, and goofing around. Mine's actually rated at 20/29, but they changed the ratings sometime in mid-year 2000, I think.
As for the back seats, they don't fold down in the base model, but I'm pretty sure you can get it as an option. My great-aunt just bought a 2001 SE, and I noticed that it has an arm rest in the back, but not sure if the seats fold down or not. My back seat is stationary, with no arm rest.
Well, good luck with your coolant problem...hope it turns out to me something minor!
I'm guessing with that kind of mileage, most of it was highway mileage, such as someone with a real long commute to work, a person whose work requires a lot of travel, or retirees who take a lot of vacations.
Then again, it could be someone like me, who used the car to deliver pizzas and put it through its paces. If I hadn't quit that job, I'd easily have that kind of mileage racked up in 3 years.
I'd say maintenance is the key issue. Pay special attention to the transmission...that's been a Chrysler weak spot for awhile now. If it goes too long without servicing or has the wrong fluid put in, you'll be looking at a rebuild/replacement, which isn't cheap.
A car with mileage that high isn't necessarily bad, as long as it's been maintained well. Just make sure you get it thoroughly checked out by a good mechanic.
-Andre
Just returned from dropping off the Intrepid at the rental car agency. I still am very impressed with that base model SE. The 2.7 was incredibly smooth and refined....way smoother than my 3.5 liter. Power was a little less, but more than adequate. We had four people in the car at 4000 ft elevation and the car had plenty of power. Overall, this 2001 Intrepid SE was far better than my wife's 1999 Taurus with the Vulcan V6. I'm not sure about the reliability of the new Intrepids but for a base model, it's an excellent car. Enormous trunk by the way.
Whenever I would load mine up with people or luggage, and/or do a lot of hilly/mountainous driving, I would notice a pretty big drop in acceleration. I think that's because I've just been used to old V-8 engines with a lot of low-end grunt that had to be SERIOUSLY weighted down before they'd start to strain.
I don't know how well this car is going to age, but afer 46,000 miles and about 19 months, nothing major has broken yet!
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2167/concordwagon.gif
Something I drew up about 4-5 years ago, experimenting around with a graphics package. I stretched out the wheelbase and gave it a L-O-N-G rear door, so I'm sure most people nowadays would complain about it being too big...
But if you go there and scroll down, there's a fake Intrepid convertible. If you click on that, it'll take you to another page that has some fake cars I did up.
I don't know what's up with that link though. Geocities is just obnoxious, I guess!
The reason I say that is if you take an SE model Intrepid, add the engine, autostick, antilock brakes, CD player, and the suspension, tire, exhaust, and brake upgrades, you have the R/T.
If it is just the engine, I assume it would be similar to the R/T to keep things simple at the factory.
Right now, I kind of look at the Intrepid R/T as the SE with a 3.5. After all, doesn't the R/T have the same interior as the SE, while the ES is more upscale?
Does anybody know if the tranny that gets mated to the 3.5 is beefier than the other trannies (like the 3.2 and 2.7?) If you just took an SE and threw in a 3.5, but without the upgrades, wouldn't that put some compromises on the car's performance?
When you factor in that HP is now rated DIN rather than the old SAE system, that 253 HP of the 3.5 L in the 300M would probably equate to at least 325 SAE horsepower. Not bad for 214 cubic inches! If the old 354 could be modernized with all the new technology, it would be putting out close to 420 horses.
As for 1 hp per cubic inch, the DeSoto Adventurer was actually the first model to offer it as standard in 1957, 345 hp, 345 CID. However, you're right, there was an option on the '56 Chrysler 300. Another nice fact to throw at the Chevy huggers...the Chrysler and DeSoto engines got their power from dual-quad carbs; Chevy had to resort to fuel injection, which was extremely unreliable back then (just ask Chrysler and DeSoto in 1958!)
What I was comparing to the Saratoga was the proposed Chrysler Hemi that's supposed to be coming out. I've heard it quoted as both a 5.7 and a 353. Wouldn't that make it a 5.8 though? Ford used to make a 351 that was also labeled as a 5.8, although they may have done that for marketing purposes, to make it sound better than Chevy's 5.7
here are some metric conversions...
353 cubic inches = 5.785 litres
351 " = 5.752 "
302 " = 4.949
i guess what litre the automakers pen to their motors depends on how far back they wanna go before they round up! ford is obviously pushing it by calling the 302 v/8 a 5 litre!
Dodge Intrepid ES: 119 mph (tested 12/97, I'm guessing a 3.2)
Chrysler Concorde LX: 118 mph (tested 5/99, 2.7)
Chrysler 300M: 143 mph (tested 6/98, 3.5)
Every once in awhile, Fox airs its "World's scariest police chases" or something to that tune, and they usually show a first-gen Intrepid that they estimate was doing about 126 mph running from the cops. It clipped another car, flipped on its roof, and slid, upside down for about 1/4 mile, amazingly with very little damage. The driver was unhurt. I don't know if it was a 3.3 or 3.5, though.
PS: An easy conversion from cubic inches to liters is: cu in X 0.01638
To convert from L to cu in (the answer will be approximate, since the quoted L value is usually rounded): L X 1000 divided by 16.38
To the guy who wants to know whether an Intrepid will do 120--"This test performed by professional drivers, please don't try this at home"!
For example, you know how the locks automatically engage when you get up to about 15 mph? Well, now mine lock as soon as I turn the key to the "on" position. They also unlock automatically when I turn the car off...all 4 of 'em, front and back. I think my alarm system was about $350.00 or so. The remote unlock has really gotten me spoiled, and I don't think I'd buy another new car without one, now!
I did rear-end a Grand Am rental car back in early 2000, though. Everything happened so fast though, that I don't think ABS would've saved me.
If you get very little snow or freezing rain, may not be worth it, but avoiding one accident pays for it. Just don't pump the brakes on them.
4 wheels stop or 2. do the back and frunt brakes go on at the saem time like abs.
I do know that cars with the disk/drum setup had a proportioning valve to vary the pressure between the front and the back. It takes a lot more effort to stop a disk brake, and if they were pressured equally, you'd be locking up the rear drums by the time adequate pressure was applied to the front disks.
I'm not sure if modern 4-wheel disks need to vary the front/back pressure. However, I think with ABS, the computer can sense which wheels are actually losing traction, and corrects them.
I've still got my 99 Intrepid ES, now with about 27K on it, and still completely love it. The only problem I've had with it was a failed transmission control module that left my wife and I stranded in Cheyenne, Wyoming for two days. The day the TCM failed, we had driven 500 comfortable and uneventful highway miles, but on the way to dinner, the car suddenly shifted into second gear and the check engine light came on. Although we were still able to limp around town, 40 mph/3200 rpm was about all the torture I could stand to give her.
Anyway, got the car to the dealer the next day and had the problem diagnosed very quickly, but had to wait until the next day for a new TCM to arrive, which was delayed by a huge spring blizzard. Cowboy Dodge in Cheyenne is a great dealership, and went out of their way to get us back underway as quick as possible despite what looked to me to be an overwhelmed shop.
Although I am disappointed that we've suffered a major problem so early, I still love the vehicle, especially on marathon road trips. The car is still very solid, with no rattles, and 80 mph highway mileage is always at least 30 mpg. We'll wait and see how the rest of the warranty period goes before deciding if this is a long term car or not.
1.) Transmission failure at 60k miles. Very expensive repair
2.) Steering bushings replaced due to extremely loose steering. Inexpensive repair
3.) Head gaskets replaced due to oil leak. Moderately expensive repair.
4.)O2 sensor replaced. Check engine light was coming on. Inexpensive repair.
5.) Radiator cap replaced. Engine severely overheated. Inexpensive repair.
However, this is anecdotal evidence and may not be indicative of all LH vehicles.
These are great cars when they're running properly. I have not had any problems with the air conditioner condensor and I have also not had any problems with the water pump (yet?) which was a common problem with the first generation LH vehicles. You might want to click on this link:
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/UsedSingleYear/Dodge/Intrepid/1997.asp#Reliability
The vehicle checks out okay for 1997. My 1996 has had most of the problems indicated by carpoint.
If you're buying the vehicle because you think you will fit in it better than a Taurus, you may want to reconsider as Andre and I have noted a distinct lack of driver's seat legroom. The back seat is enormous, but the front seat does not leave much room to get comfortable. However, only you can determine this. I just know that I'm 6'1" and don't have particularly long legs and I wish I had much more leg room.
Good luck.
The situation was greatly helped at 70K when I put Bendix' best pads on the front; now at least the tires will protest under hard pressure.
Thank you all.
Lee
((this same post by me appears on the 300M board))
http://www.collectorcartraderonline.com/addetail.html?967907
I was actually starting to question myself as to whether the '57-58 354 was a poly or a hemi, because I'd seen it referred to as a hemi in a couple of books. Well, I guess the pics in this ad pretty much cinch it (unless the engine was transplanted from something else!)