Howdy, Stranger!

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

Dodge Intrepid



  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    I don't think that 210K miles and 11 years is by any means out of the question. Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I expect mine to do that with ease. Actually, at the current rate, it won't have 210K on it at 11 years. Now at nearly 7 years and only 103K.

    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!

  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    I have a 99 ES, no leather, 6years 2 months and 66K miles. The only thing that I do not like about this car is that it really does not like to downshift, for example, going up a hill. Is this a characteristic other owners observe and is it the same for 2.7 L cars. I have a 95 Suburban which downshift beautifully and my wife has a 2005 Pacifica with the 3.5 L which also downshifts dramatically better than my Intrepid. I am guessing that the Intrepids were set up this way for improved mileage. I have the autostick which is what I use on some particularly egreagous hills, but I should not have to. Any comments?
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    in, end of lease, this past January, almost 11 months ago, and I have been lurking and posting since then, I believ it is time to bid you good people adieu, as I doubt I have much to offer anymore...the car is discontinued, but I hope all of yours last at least 200K with no repairs except oil changes and tires... :D :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:
  • Help!!! My friend's '00 ES keeps dying! Turn the key, and... absolutely NOTHING!! We have had the car to a Dodge dealership, and they told him there were 2 fuses burnt out, but nothing to do with the problem. Load tested the battery, checked the output of the alternator... ect, ect.
    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!!!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    Fljoslin, I have the 2.7, and it seems pretty quick to downshift to me. It's also a bit too quick to upshift too, though, which seems to keep it out of its peak power range sometimes. :mad:

    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    Thanks for the reply. My ES seems to get into 3 rd gear very quickly (< 10 mph) but won't shift into 4th until about 37-40 mph. There is little problem in 3rd gear or below because of the torque available from the engine. Once it gets into 4th gear it really does not want to come out of it. Cruise control works fine and will get it to shift to maintain speed, but if you are not using cruise control it feels as if you have to push the pedal to the floor to maintain speed. This is more than an annoyance in my opinion since it is not good for the engine to "lug" up a hill in too low a gear. This car was like this from the factory and the transmission works fine in every other way, is very smooth and I believe shifts appropriately. I vaguely recollect when I bought this car something about an "adaptive" transmission which learns how the driver drives and optimizes shift conditiond. Was that a bunch of crap or was it true and is there something that I can do to change my driving style to change this? This characheristic of the car is more aggravating than it has been in the past since I live at the top of a hill where the speed limit is 35 mph. Usually you end up doing about 37 mph which is right where the car shifts into 4th and then it does not want to come out of that gear even though it should.
  • I have the same exact poblem. Water leaks onto the floor, drivers side during heavy rains. I can't figure out where it is coming in from. (2001 Dodge Intrepid) This needs to be fixed soon as it will surly rot the floor boards. Did you find the source of your leak??
  • I have the same freeking problem with my 2001 Intrepid SE. Water pools on the driver side floor. No idea where it is coming in from. My local dealership said they 'may' be able to fix it for around $150.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    do find out where these water leaks are coming from, please let me know! My 2000 Intrepid hasn't experienced this problem, but I'm really curious about it.

    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 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:
  • No sunroof here. Also, i checked my air intakes and no cloggage visable. I just had to soak water up from the driver side floorboard yet again. Very troubling. Anyone out there find out where thier leaks are coming from?? I was out in the rain last night with flashlight trying to find out where it is coming in from ... no luck. :-(
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    here's a pic of my Trep. 6 years old, almost 112,000 miles, and still kicking! :shades:
  • Jason5Jason5 Posts: 440
    since I touched base in here. My 2000 ES is still doing well. The only "new" repair was a tie rod that needed replacing. This week my Intrepid officially turned "6". I'm just shy of 127,000 miles and will probably add another 1500 miles before the holiday season is over. When the tie rod work was done, the dealer recommended changing the struts within the next year. They aren't leaking and will pass inspection, but he suggested that by 130K miles, they've done their duty. I tend to agree. Perhaps the biggest hit my car has taken is appearance. The ubiquitous chips and scuffs on the front end and hood from winters and serious highway mileage.
    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...
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    good to hear from you again, and to hear that your Trep is doing well. I go through the mental motions occasionally of getting a new car, as well, but then stop and think of how nice it is to not have a car payment. This month marks my 12th month of no car payment, and it feels nice!

    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! :blush: 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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    I have 1999 ES (3.2L, autostick) purchased new in Sept. 1999 with just over 65,000 miles on it. Under warranty the winshield washer reservoir and the drivers window control modules were replaced. Shortly after the warranty expired (36K) I had a transmission sensor and a front wheel bearing fail and be replaced for about $450 at a Chrysler (not Dodge) dealer. I also had the trans fluid changed with the sensor. About a year ago it began to run rough and give a mis-fire cylinder 1 error. I exchanged the #1 coil with the #6 coil with no effect and then replaced the spark plugs again with no effect. I then took it to the same Chrysler dealer to figure out what was causing the problem. They looked at it and only charged me $40 to tell me that they also had no idea what the problem was. They did suggest using one or two gas treatments (fuel injector cleaner). I did this and have not had the problem again. However, I am sure that changing the plugs did not hurt. This year I replaced the sepentine belt (a horrible job) and replaced the front and rear pads and the front brake rotors (an easy job). The pads did not really need replacing with about 60,000 miles on them, but the front rotors were warped. I feel that this is an incredibly small amount of maintenance for a 6 year old vehicle. It is still very quiet, smooth and powerful and looks really good. I average 22 mpg in town and 28-30 on the highway. I did buy a new vehicle (2006 Odyssey EX-L) because the Intrepid is small for my family on trips. However, I drive the Intrepid as much as I can because it is a pleasure to drive, gets great mileage, and costs much less in depreciation and insurance.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    I kinda wish I'd splurged for the 3.2 back when I bought my Trep. It seems like out in the "real world", owners are actually getting BETTER economy with the 3.2 than with the 2.7! I'm guessing that it's got enough extra power so it doesn't have to work as hard, but at the same time it's not THAT much bigger, so it doesn't guzzle.

    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"
  • Jason5Jason5 Posts: 440
    Good to hear from you both. My day to day gas mileage seems to hover right around 19-21. That includes fairly short trips (in town)and several highway jaunts. When I get on the highways I'm usually exceeding 65 so my mileage hits the mid-20's at best. All in all I'm content.
    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!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    I did a little surfing on the net, and while the Charger certainly looks a lot blockier than the Intrepid, the aerodynamics aren't much worse. The Intrepid, IIRC, has a coefficient of 0.30, which not many family cars exceed. I think the Passat does, and the Prius and Insight, but for the most part I think that's territory left to fairly exotic cars. The Charger, I've seen quoted around 0.33-0.34.

    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    This has the 3.5 L engine which is the big brother of the 3.2 L. About 25 more HP and ft/lbs of torque. I am sure that the 5 speed auto helps. Also, how does the Charger mileage compare to the old 300M and LHS which had this same engine?
    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?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    the EPA ratings for the Intrepid were:
    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.
  • im glad someone has had good luck with their intrepids, not here. mine has 62000 miles on it and ive had loads of trouble with it i fix one problem and then another one rises up. right now its been sitting quietly in my garage for about 3 months because the timing chain slipped and bent all the vaves , the garage says 3000.00 will fix it. but i think it would be a great boat anchor, i am a true dodge man but i do have my limits on how much i can spend on it, i think i could have bought a new hummer
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    I wonder how much it would cost to have the 2.7 pulled out and a 3.2 or even a 3.5 put in there? When I was at the Mopar Nationals in Carlisle PA this past summer, there was a '99 Intrepid on the field with its hood up. I remember looking under there and seeing the stickers that said "2.7" on the radiator support. But looking at the engine bay, it looked different from mine. Then in the windshield, I noticed there was a sign stating that it had been converted to a 3.2.

    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    Sorry to hear your bad news. I would not put $3000 into a 2000 Intrepid. If you cannot fix it yourself, I would sell it as is. Might be worth $1000 to someone. I do not understand why DC went with the 2.7 L engine in the first place and why they continue to use it in their new cars. If every Intrepid had come with at least the 3.2 L engine, they would have sold many more cars and would have had a much more satisfied consumer. I cannot believe that the 2.7 L engine, especially with a DOHC setup, costs much less than the 3.2 L engine.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    about the 2.7 myself. It seemed like a great idea when it came out in 1998. A 2.7 V-6 with DOHC and 200 hp sounded pretty awesome back in 1998, especially when you compared it to the Taurus, which was putting out around 150 hp with its standard 3.0 Vulcan, and the Lumina, which had a standard 3.1 only put out 160 hp.

    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:
  • i was wondering if a 3.2 would fit in my intrepid, would it bolt up ok ? dont get me wrong i love the car and its in excelent shape, ive heard alot of bad vibes on the 2.7 sence ive been having problems, maybe 3.2 is my answer
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    that they all use the same housing for the transmission, so the 3.2/3.5 would probably bolt right up. Some accessory-type things like the a/c compressor, alternator, starter, power steering pump, smog pump, manifolds, etc might be different though, or have different brackets/hoses/wiring and so forth.

    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    I think that much of the reason for the 2.7L in the base models and the 3.2L in the upgrades was short sighted marketing. In 1999 you had to buy an ES to get the 3.2L engine. This was about a $3000 option which came with ABS, autostick and some internal stuff.
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    is that in the 300, the Hemi is actually a dirt-cheap engine to build! The cylinder deactivation might add a bit to it, though. But anyway, the Hemi is cheaper to build than the 3.2, which is cheaper than the 2.7.

    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    The 2.7 L engine is the base engine in the Dodge Magnum and in the Chrysler 300. I laugh when I see these cars that look so tough but have an engine that I refused to buy six years ago because I felt that it was underpowered for the lighter Intrepid. How many feet does Chrysler have to shoot themselves in?
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,038
    the 2.7 goes in relatively few 300's and Magnums. There's also a rental/fleet-only version of the Charger that's not available to the general public that uses the 2.7. In contrast though, the majority of Intrepids, and even Concordes, were 2.7 models.

    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!
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    I am sure that you are correct about few cars getting the 2.7L engine. However, the cars that you see advertised with low prices do have that engine. If you want one of the bigger engines, you have to pony up a lot more.
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.