I can get low finance and high rebates on Ford and GM cars in my region. Good looks - hard to argue with that one (come on, admit you're a sucker for a pretty face), Cheaper MSRP - not by much. I think the reliability is much improved over the cars built under the rule of Lee Iaccoca (salesman extrordinaire).
I agree. Chrysler has better quality nowadays than under Iacccoca. Which is not saying much.
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.
I've driven Plymouth, Volkswagen, Pontiac, Dodge, Honda, Ford and now Chrysler. Each car had it's plusses and minuses. Overall, they've all been fairly reliable. The Honda, actually had the more costly problems with the A/C compressor failing, and the routine maintenance (specifically the timing belt replacement) was pretty costly (we owned two Hondas at the time and they both needed timing belts at around the same time...OUCH!).
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>)
I think it is a fact that no matter what kind of car you drive you will most likely have something go wrong. Even my wifes '98 Accord had problems with the rear trunk release when using the keyless remote. My Mom's '99 Mercedes 300E has had more problems(minor) than either of my current cars('98 Accord and '99 Mercury Cougar). Also my Dad's Lexus GS400 has had its share of pesky problems. Bottom line is that most cars will experience some sort of glitch before the end of its usefule life.
There is no doubt that Chrysler has time to market and styling figured out far better than anyone else (tried to buy a PT lately?). Their approach seems to be that if you can get enough new buyers in (low financing, big rebates, innovative styling, etc.), then it really doesn't matter if you lose the old ones -- who needs reliability?
Maybe they're right. P. T. Barnum had much the same theory.
Our 1999 GC SE is our first Chrysler product. We are impressed with the attention to quality and 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.
The transmission issues you're reading about in the LS topic have nothing to do with the Getrag manual my car's equipped with. The Eagle was the first (and last) car that I drive myself equipped with an automatic transmission.
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.
My response was for your numerous "PT Barnum had much the same theory". You were a longtime Chrysler guy (I've owned 73,74,84,and 99 Chrysler vehicles), but I was a longtime Ford owner. My Fords were great...for a few years, but when they came apart, boy did they come apart. I may well have been suckered into Chrysler by their style and ad's. Maybe PT Barnum was working in the DC marketing department, I don't know. From past experience "Quality is Job 1" convinced me that PT Barnum WAS working for Ford. Good luck with your LS. May we both find 5 years down the line that our choices were good.
It's clear we're on diverging paths regarding Ford/Chrysler, but maybe it's worth pointing out that the LS is a huge leap of faith for me, given that the Eagle was the first "American" (turns out the Eagles were built in Canada) car I'd ever bought new, and I was fully prepared to go back to Japanese after what I saw happening with the three Chrysler products I'm closest to (my Eagle, my wife's Caravan & my mother-in-law's Intrepid). The two closest runners-up to the LS were the Lexus GS300 & the Infiniti I30t, and if I have the kind of trouble with my LS that you had w/ your Ford iron, I'll probably never own another "American" car as long as I live.
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.
after my sordid experience with Volvo and VW. Now I read of very disturbing problems with the 1999 and 2000 Honda Odyssey. Ironic as the majority of nay sayers about DC reliability were Odyssey owners until Edmunds stopped flame wars.
As luck would have it, I rented a Caravan(not GC) for a week with my job. It is the only time I have ever driven the shorter version van. I was impressed. The shorter vans are like sports cars compared to the longer vans. They are much more maneuverable with the shorter wheelbase. 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.
Rental companies exist to make money for the owners. If a vehicle has a higher resale, would it not be more profitable for a car rental company 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?
had Caravans, full size 15 passenger Dodge vans and PT Cruisers to rent. As you can imagine, the PT cruisers are all gone when I'm there. I only see them on the lot when I turn my rental in. 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 think most rental companies don't purchase Odyssey's or Sienna's is because these vans cost much more initially than do bulk Caravans. As Pat84 says, the rental companies probably get good deals on these Caravans.
"Has Chrysler Reliability Improved ?" in fairness, maybe Edmund's should include "Has (other brand) reliability Improved ?" forums. 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'm a former Ford owner. 1993 T-bird and 1995 Windstar - both with the 3.8 liter engine. Both with blown head gaskets. The Windstar tranny is now acting up at 65,000 miles.
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.
And is a sure method to start flame wars. The owners with problems are elated to find a place to "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.
read the comments in Edmund's. There is always hope that improvements will result from stated problems. As for other brands' reliability, let the chips fall where they may. As for the lack of objectivity and small sample sizes of your favorite magazine, we do agree on that for sure.
I had written GM many times concerning things they could improve...finally gave up and bought a DaimlerChrysler product (would have purchased the Odyssey if an LX-C had been available with a reasonable wait). Ody and GC are only minivans with a separate rear heater at a reasonable price. (Windstar has one in vans over $27K.)
is really a 2 part issue with cars/trucks. The first part is how well the vehicle holds up and what problems, if any ;-) develop. The second part is how the dealer/manufacturer deals with a problem when it arises. This second part has a great deal to do with how you are going to feel about the vehicle, since any car can have a defective part. If they make it right with a minimum of fuss, it adds to the reliability. If you have to jump through more hoops than a 3 ring circus has, then they are unreliable.
if a manufacturer correctly deals with a problem then you have satisfied customers. Unfortunately, I had to sue Chrysler to get them to pay for the third transmission rebuild in my 90 Spirit (I won). I will never again purchase a product from DaimlerChrysler. On the other hand, if I had bought a Spirit that didn't have the A604 tranny in it I might be a happy consumer. The car is great except for the fact that the transmission falls apart on the average of 30,000 miles. I also have a 96 Windstar that has been fantastic. Although that could change next week/ year, and depending on how Ford deals with it I might purchase another Ford product.
If head gasket failures and transmission problems on 1990-1995 Taurus, Sable, Windstar, T-bird, Mustang, Cougar and Lincoln are any indication, you'd better pray that the Windstar doesn't develop any problems. My past experience is that Ford really doesn't care. I owned a 93 T-bird, and still own a 95 Wind"moneypit"star and a 98 Taurus. Obviously, the Taurus was bought prior to the head gasket failures and tranny failure in the other 2 cars. As a result of Fords "customer focus", I will NEVER have another Ford in my gargage. I currently have a small claims case pending for the head gasket repair on my T-bird.
the '96 and newer 3.8 engine is different from the previous years. I think Ford used a different head gasket for these engines. Unfortunately it seems that there are plenty of problems with the newer engines (I didn't know about this until after I purchased our '96 Windstar). I did however buy an extended warranty. You shouldn't have any problem winning in court as Ford extended the warranty on 94-95 models, and your 93 is exactly the same. Good luck!
Read back - When someone talks about the lack of reliability in Chryslers, and cites Ford as a glowing example, I HAVE to point out that being as good as Ford ain't saying much.
I just got done reading a long term test of a '99 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited. They said that the reliability of this vehicle was GREAT. They stated that this may be the turning point of the Chrysler quality woes!!!!!! Lets hope so!!!!
And strangely enough, none of my friends has had trouble with DC minivan reliability. My 1999 GC SE has had zero problems and now has 17,431 miles. I had mixed experiences with GM...some very reliable but others were annoying. Good experience with one Ford...a used 1979 Fairmont we got for our daughter and it is still providing reliable service to my nephew as a 21 year old car. 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.
As those who've followed the board for awhile know, I've been trying since May to sell a '94 Eagle Vision Tsi (loaded, good trans, yada, yada, per the newspaper/Auto Trader ads). Going back to posts #102 & 107, I was trying to make the point that the marketplace votes on what a used vehicle is worth. If the word on the street is that vehicle XYZ has trouble, the perceived value will go down. Conversely, if people generally perceive (by talking to folks at work, or their neighbours) that vehicle PDQ has no problems, that registers as well.
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.
I don't really care about resale value, as is evidenced by the $3500 I got in trade for my 1993 Thunderbird. BTW - I intended to keep the Tbird for 3 more years, but wounldn'tchaknow, the dang blang engine blowed out the headgaskets and after the fix, felt like the whole dang engine was gonna go, so had to trade it... just couldn't live with myself trying to sell a POS to an unsupecting individual. Enjoy your Lincoln!
As Honda vehicles simply do not live up to the high expectations. Go read in the Odyssey Problem Forums in the Town Hall for a second opinion. Chrysler does not have a monopoly on vehicles with problems.
No manufacturer has a monopoly on vehicle problems, but a lot of what I have seen/heard is that some manufacturers thru their dealerships (Honda) are very good about resolving problems and others (Dodge) only after you put a legal "gun" against their head, will then cooperate but only grudingly. Again it comes down to how you are trated when you have a problem. If you are told that a problem is "normal" and given a lot of run around before your problem is resolved, then the reliability is going to be very low.
Talked to a friend who had a DC tranny (Voyager) to go 4K miles after a dealer changed fluid (40K at failure)in his DC tranny. He can not prove it but they apparently did not use the currently recommended DC auto tranny fluid.
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.
And since Dextron is used so frequently, and allowed in an emergency, you wonder what idiot designed the trans to require a unique fluid - knowing that dextron is close and many people will use it. what a goof up.
who specified a unique power steering fluid in Honda's. I know, after the local Jiffy lube "added a little power steering fluid" to my 86 Prelude, when I discovered I needed a new power steering pump, because Honda used a "special" fluid. Checked it out in Chilton's later and, by golly, they were right. As I've said, Chrysler holds no patent on stupidity - even the Almighty Honda goofs from time to time.
There's no substitute for the manual -- even before all else fails, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS. That said, I heartily agree that a "robust" design is one that is tolerant of what's likely to come its way. "Way back when" ATF was pretty much universal and it went in the transmission and the steering pump as well. However, when I worked the midnight shift at a gas station on Route 66 (I40 was just being built, so I date myself), there were two types of Atlas (it was a Standard Oil station) fluid -- "standard" and "FLM", which went in Ford/Lincoln/Mercury products.
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!
is that Chrysler says that it's OK to use Dexron II in early TSB's then later states (I believe TSB# 18-24-95) that Dexron II can cause clutch shuddering, then the latest TSB's show that ONLY type 7176 can be used. My owner's manual for my 90 Spirit says that Dexron II should only be used if type 7176 is not available. I had a trans service done back in 1992 where a Dodge dealer used Dexron II, then the tranny disintegrated 3,000 miles later. You would figure that a dealer stocks type 7176...
Like everything else it comes down to the costs. If type 7176 is more expensive than dextron II, which according to the owners manual is acceptable, then the dealer will not stock it so they can cut their costs.
DC and most other manufacturers are using 5-year coolant as far as I know. It's available at any auto supply (Prestone makes it, and probably others). It's a big step in the right direction in my opinion (no more annual cooling system flush). Are you saying your T&C uses something else that's non-standard?
I am looking for a minivan. I really hate the looks of most of them, but the wife wants it for the comfort and easy of getting in and out. With a $4000 rebate plus dealer discount, the Town and Country-top of the line- would cost about $24,500. I came to my senses in time. I remembered the engine work on the 86 Reliant and 88 Shadow, the replaced map sensors, the tranny work on the 90 Spirit which has 52K miles and burns oil like crazy. I want quality and am willing to pay for it. Can you spell H O N D A ?
I personally would avoid a vehicle assembled in Mexico. There are no 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 ?
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.