Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Has Chrysler Reliability Improved?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As to your question on why there are so many Chryslers on the road: In my opinion thare are 2 reasons. 1) As fastdriver said, they offer great rebates and financing. 2) Chrysler products are innovative. They tend to have very appealing styling and great feature content.
This last reason is just my honest opinion: Anyone who says they will only buy a car because
it is the only brand they have ever driven and have had good luck with it is totally missing the boat. This has to do with ALL makes (American and Foreign). I hear people say all the time "I am a Chrysler(pick brand) guy and never will buy another make" How can anyone that says that have an "honest" opinion? They have nothing to compare it to. Its like saying Goodyear tires are the best eventhough they have never tried another brand.
Bottom line is that everyone can buy the car that they want, its all a matter of personal opinion. It is America you know.
See Ya!!!!
The Ford was the only one to leave me stranded (head gasket failure). My first car, a 1974 Plymouth Satellite Sebring, was bulletproof. Great car. My 78 VW Scirocco was rear ended 2 weeks after I bought it, and once it was fixed, gave me no trouble (but it never was "right" after that either). My 82 Grand Prix was fine, but had a nasty habit of the dash trim flaking off. My 84 Dodge Daytona was fun to drive, but it was plauged with many minor problems. The 86 Prelude was a good car, with the exception of an anemic AC system that seized up, and my 93 Thunderbird was one of the best cars I'd owned, up to the day it blew up on me. So, I got taken in by the looks of the 300M. So far, the car hasn't had even one "nitpicking" problem. By this point in time (9 months), my old Dodge had several minor things going on, so in that respect, the reliability of the 300M is far better than it was on my 84 Dodge - thus leading me to believe the Chrysler reliability HAS improved.
Finally, you last statement is exactly right - we've got the freedom to drive whatever we want (even if we can't afford it!), and it is all a matter of personal opinion.
Oh yes, and even though fastdriver has had more than his fair share of problems with his 300M, he DOES keep it looking fine! Ask him to post some pics 8>)
Good luck with you 300M. It is a nice car!!!
Maybe they're right. P. T. Barnum had much the same theory.
the complete absence of problems with our Caravan.
No vibration at any speed, tracks straight, every item works properly, seminar conducted monthly by dealership to acquaint new owners with service where any questions posed were answered, and outstanding service each time we have gone in for routine maintenance.
Have to admit that Chrysler does have nice rebates, innovative styling, and inclusion of most
very desirable features. As with swampcollie, we can not say enough good about Dual Zone Temp.
You posted the same thing on the 300M board, so I'll post a similar reply here:
It isn't just DC. You drive a Ford (Lincoln) product. Quality is Job 1 over there, you know. I used to believe that job 1 stuff. I owned 3 Fords, a 1993 t-bird, a 95 Windstar, and a 98 Taurus. Between the T-bird and the Windstar, I've got about $6,000 in "unsheduled maintenance" charges due to blown head gaskets in the t-bird and Windstar, and a bad transmission in the Windstar. Since the T-birds head gasket failed at highway speeds, and the car ran "funny" after the $2,000 repair, I traded it in on a 300M.
So, I'll admit - I'm the "sucker" replacing you in the DC fold, but you gotta remember that YOU are the "sucker" replacing me in the Ford fold.
BTW - I hope the tranny issues I'm reading about in the LS topics aren't too severe.
Happy Driving
I still maintain that quality/reliability, at least of the type that concerns me ("delivery defects" aren't the subject), can't be determined in the first several years of ownership, and those who lease cars or trade them in as or before the warranty runs out will probably never have any significant problems. Those who drive cars longer seek reliability, and if the 300M guys are still as pumped in 3 - 5 years as they are now, more power to them (you).
Interesting how Chrysler used to make a big deal out of a 7 year/70,000 mile powertrain warranty until 1994. That year it was option, but the "full-coverage bumper-to-bumper" 3/36 choice was the one recommended by the dealers. In '95 and subsequent years, only the shorter warranty was available.
Happy driving!
Either way, we each have reasons for the opinions we've developed, and here we are.
BTW, I clicked on your handle and learned absolutely nothing from your profile. That seems to be the style on these boards, so I guess I'm a (typically) naive trusting Canuck for putting all the detail I do into mine. Sometimes it's nice to know a little more about the people with whom one's communicating.
Anyway, good luck w/ your 300M.
My ODY is over one year old and over 21K miles. I have never had a problem with it. The ODY transmission only has to last another 51.1K miles to exceed the record set by the transmission in my 96 GC.
to buy, rent and then re-sell the vehicles with the highest resale value?
Or does the much maligned DC minivan family have the lowest over-all operating cost if one considers purchase price, maintenance costs, and depreciation?
I think Thrifty rents Chrysler products exclusively. I've never seen an Odyssey or Sienna for rent anywhere in the U.S.
I would imagine that rental agencies are interested in initial cost. They probably get fleet rates that are real low compared to what an average consumer would pay. They don't keep their cars very long so I would guess that maintenance is not important. I would guess that operating costs are built in the rental rates.
I really enjoyed the Caravan, especially it's ability to whip around in traffic.
I had a 1976 Ford Econoline, I had such good luck with it, I replaced it with a 1986 Econoline. My last FORD ever. It was a real piece of crud.
I next bought a Dodge GC. It was fine until the tranny was about to blow at 72K miles, when I traded it in on a Honda Odyssey.
Bottom line : Edmund's is heavily populated by vocal people with problem's with whatever they are driving now. They may take out their frustrations in other forums.
As with my Odyssey, only time will tell if this was a good choice.
As with Chrysler reliability improving, only time will tell.
Without starting a flame war, I find it quite ironic that Ford owners question Chrysler reliability, based on my experience with both.
I bought a Chrysler 300M to replace the T-bird. I am satisfied right now. Time will tell if the decision was right or wrong.
I notice that whenever a manufacturer runs ads touting quality, then the cars usually lack it. For example, in the mid 80's Lee Iaccoca (a former Ford man) had ads for Chrysler where he looked into the camera and said "If you can find a better car - buy it". Well, 80's vintage Chryslers weren't exactly the model for quality. Then, Ford started the "Quality is job 1" campaign. And it turns out that quality was more like job 2,356.
So, Iaccoca's been gone a while and Bob Eaton seems like more of a "car guy". At the same time, Ford has Bill Ford, who is very photogenic and poses well with sunglasses on the cover of Fortune magazine. I'll take my chances with Chrysler.
"get even" with the manufacturer. I read of problems with virtually every model of every brand
in the Town Hall. Sure wish the Town Hall had been
available when I had too many costly problems with
my Volvo and Volkswagens.
Based on personal experience, Chrysler makes perfect vehicles while every Volvo and Volkswagen
is junk. Of course, my experience is a very small sampling and probably no more reliable than the results of small sampling reported by a magazine well known for bias and unreliable narrative which is usually not supported by the tests conducted by the staff of the magazine.
As for the lack of objectivity and small sample sizes of your favorite magazine, we do agree on that for sure.
(Windstar has one in vans over $27K.)
Your host, Bruce.
In my experience, new vehicles start showing problems within one week of purchase or just never
seem to develop any problems for 7 or 8 years when things like brake pads, brake linings, fan belts, mufflers, etc wear out.
That said, the Eagle finally sold for $300 more than the '89 Accord we bought for our two soon-to-be driving age kids. Without repeating all of what's in the earlier posts, it's worth pointing out that the Eagle was five years newer and had 40,000 fewer miles on it, as well as the leather, climate control, much larger size, etc., etc. Point being, perceived reliability translates into resale value. Make of that what you will.
All the zealots (I'm sure Mr. Young is proud to be included) need to consider resale value of their rebated, 0% interest vehicles in a few years. Of course, if one leases, a certain immunity ensues. I'm among those who buy a vehicle to keep it well past: 1) when the loan in repaid, 2) when the least is up or 3) when the warranty expires.
FWIW.
I AGREE with you 100%!!!!!!
fastdriver
I wonder how many DC auto trannies are blown due to the wrong fluid being used. Be a real shame if using the wrong atf is the major cause of that problem.
It ain't the lions and tigers that will get you-it is the nits and gnats.
I learned fairly early on in my transmission woes that the DC fluid was different (+3 -- Valvoline & others sell it, plainly labeled). How did I learn it? By reading the owners manual, which says (or at least did in '94 & '95) that +3 was "preferred" but Dexron was okay "in an emergency." I've had other people tell me that one can measure the life of the transmission in weeks after a quart or more of incorrect fluid is added. Sounds like your friend's car met that fate.
And you're right -- maybe many others. But not my three, all of which went south for other reasons.
what a goof up.
Our family just went with a used Honda three or four months ago, and within days of buying the thing the PS pump started leaking. Took us awhile to get it fixed, and I'm 99% certain that the guy selling it (or his generic "mechanic") topped off the fluid with the wrong stuff. . .and there we were.
Anyway, a robust design uses standard stuff, and there are a ton of the other kind of designs out there. Beware!
Honda is Nord Mercan now. Cost per man hours...they beat all but they are going down in Quality.
Daimler/Chrysler is tops on man power per vehicle.
Oppppsss that must be wrong. A person spends to much time building in the part of the car?
That's BAD?
Yikes!!!!!
Honda gave the world an idea!
We beat them again!
Took time but we beat em!
Hate the fact that my FORD was built in Mexico!
Might just trade it in for a Intrepid.. 0.8%?
Hmmmmmmmmm....
With Respect,
anti-pollution laws (compared to the U.S.) in Mexico. That and cheap labor is why some cars are now assembled in Mexico.
Does the transmission Dipstick in the DC indicate the wrong transmission fluid ?
I wondered if the failure of our transmission in a 1995 Dodge Ram was related to the service when it occurred.
We had the transmission serviced at 60K miles and at 67K miles had to have the transmission rebuilt. I have often wondered if the two were related.