Dodge Intrepid

andre1969 · August 2004

gotta love those minivans with the 2.7 V-6! :-/

mike372 · September 2004

I hate to bring up the oil sludge discussion again but I took the advice of your last message. I think the DC dealers you talked to are full of ****. They have known about the problem for quite some time now and refuse to acknowledge it. Period. At least other manufacturers, ie. Toyota respond to consumer complaints and do something about the problem. Not DC!!!!

The site http://www.autosafety.org had an interesting article written to the CEO of DC.

andre1969 · September 2004

I wouldn't complain if they bumped out the warranty on the 2.7 to 10 years/unlimited mileage! I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

Considering the cost of a replacement 2.7, I wonder if it would just be cheaper to put in a larger 3.2 or 3.5? Is the bolt pattern on the tranny the same?

You probably couldn't do that with a Stratus/Sebring, as the 3.2/3.5 might be too big to fit, but it might be feasible in an Intrepid.

masonmi · September 2004

I'm still questioning why would they only address the 1998-2002 2.7 engines? wouldn't all model years be included in that letter from the center for auto safety? wouldnt the newer 2003 - 2004 models be included? or does the 7/70 extended warranty cover most engine parts?

mike372 · September 2004

Maybe they changed the design of the 2003-2004 2.7L engines. But I would stay away from any 2.7L Chrysler engine. The 7/70 warranty is probably useless anyway because DC will claim that the car was not maintained properly. From what I read on the net, DC is impossible when it comes to customer satisfaction. I can see why, when the Five Star Dodge dealer damaged my bumper, I had to pay for the repair....all of $467.00. The owner of Johnson Dodge is a real scum-bag, to put it as nicely as possible. Maybe a few pinstripes should mysteriously appear on his new inventory of Ram trucks! What goes around comes around.

mike372 · September 2004

Evwn if it was physically possible, the cost would be too high. And dont forget, you probably would have to change the computer, etc too.

You seem to be one of the fortunate ones in that your Trep has made to almost 100K miles. I hope the switch to Mobil One will solve the problem for me.

By the way, there must have been a hot rod car show in Macunzie (forgive the spelling) a few days ago, because I met two antique car owners at a gas station on Route 57 in NJ and they said they were returning from the show.

andre1969 · September 2004

it looks like they're mainly singling out the '98-02 2.7's because for the most part, the '03-05 2.7's aren't old enough yet to start developing problems. They did suggest that Chrysler might have made a running change to the engine in '03, but there's no proof of it, and if they did, Chrysler's not fessing up.

As the '03 and newer 2.7's age, though, they might start getting to the point that they develop problems, as well. They did mention that the average mileage at which one of these engines goes bad is about 63,000 miles, with some of the earlier ones failing around 30,000.

The 7/70K warranty would cover the engine parts, but if they try to pull the "neglect/abuse" routine, they're going to try their damndest to deny coverage.

Oh yeah, in reading that letter a bit further, it looks like there already is a company on the web geared towards retrofitting 2.7's with 3.2's. The website is http://www.2-7-fix.com. It still doesn't look cheap, not by a long shot, but evidently it still comes off cheaper than some of these 2.7 replacements.

I'm finally at that point with my 'Trep, that at 96000 miles and only 3 payments left on the books, if something did happen to the engine, I'd just sell it for parts or donate it, and be done with it. Hopefully it still has a few good years left in it, though!

Mike, there was a car show in Macungie back in August, the weekend of the 7th. It was a nice show, with a really good turnout. I was up there with a few other Edmund's townhallers: grbeck, lemko, and driftracer. I guess they have other car shows, but the only one I've ever been to is the "Das Awkscht Fescht". Here's a link... http://www.awkscht.com/

emale · September 2004

andre,

just get yourself one of those upcoming hemi chargers!! keep the trep for dirty work...!

emale · September 2004

per the 2.7l engine:

as i understand it chrysler has had some problems with the o-ring on the water pump which allowed moisture into the oil. apparently that problem was fixed but i'm not sure when...

also, apparently the engine does run rather hot...using full sythetic oil and doing proper oil changes should negate this issue.

masonmi · September 2004

I do plan on changing over to Mobil 1 Synthetic oil in my 2.7 I have the powertrain 7/70 warranty and it does cover quite a few engine parts also i'm keeping all of my oil change receipts from the dealer just in case theres any issues with my 2004 Intrepid.

Jason5 · September 2004

Interesting...I posted a response last night--#2487 I think--and it's gone. I'll post it again, in an abridged form.
       Couple thoughts on your post Mike. First--the article does has several factual errors. The 2.7 does not underpin much of the Chrysler line and is limited to two vehicle lines in the dates posted--the Intrepid/Concorde and the Stratus/Sebring. As others have noted a 2.7 NEVER found it's way into a minivan.
      Second--the data is quite clear that in the majority of cases--so called "sludge" is an artifact of either poor maintenance and care or atypical engine use.
       Third--I have no history with the Center for Auto Satety. Anyone else heard of them? One should never trust the word of an organization without understanding who and what they are--and who supports them. Anyone familiar with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth....wink...?
       Lastly.. The service managers include a family member who has never lied to me in the past--or to other customers that I'm aware of. Since I know him well, I suspect he's likely to be honest, as are the majority of my family. Toyota deciding to extend warranties could have as much to do with public relations as culpability. 16 reports? We've seen more posts here in a year by our residents neurotic flamers than that.....

andre1969 · September 2004

about 40-50% of the Chrysler 300's that leave the showroom are Hemi models, so that leaves two 3.5 models and one 2.7 model to fight over the remaining 50-60%. So if it's any consolation, the 2.7 is not making up the majority of 300 sales!

I haven't seen that many Magnums yet, but so far, every one I have seen on the road has been an SXT model, which has the 3.5. So even here, I don't think that many are getting the 2.7.

In contrast, the majority of Intrepids sold were just base models, whereas the ES, SXT, and especially the R/T were relatively scarce. So, simply put, there were a lot more 2.7 Intrepids to go around!

Over at Chrysler, the Concorde was a relatively rare sight, and around 2002, once they made the LHS into the Concorde Limited, but made all the Concordes look like LHS's, it muddled things further. But even here, I'd imagine that a good deal of the Concordes were just the 2.7 LX model.

As for why there are fewer complaints about the 3.2/3.5 models, versus the 2.7, well, I can think of a few...

1) As I just explained, there are simply many more 2.7's out there in the first place than 3.2/3.5's

2) The 2.7 is more complex, being DOHC, than the 3.2/3.5, so I'd expect it to be less reliable. I don't expect it to be a lemon, but in general, the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to break

3) The 2.7 has to work a lot harder in an Intrepid/Concorde than a 3.2/3.5. While it gets its peak HP/Torque at around the same RPM as the other engines, that's only going to come into play in all-out floored acceleration. And in normal driving, you'll have to floor a 3.2/3.5 less than you would a 2.7. Simply put, it might be too much car for the engine. Now back in the day, there were plenty of cars with engines that were too small for them, such as putting a slant six in a full-sized Mopar, or putting an inline-6 in a full sized Chevy. However, those engines come from an era when they were overbuilt, and they weren't that powerful to begin with. So instead of working their little butts off to move those big cars, they just rev kind of lazily and just don't move out that fast. But one thing this doesn't explain though, is why they would still be failing in the smaller, lighter Sebring and Stratus. The engine seems like it would be a perfect match for those cars.

4) Since the 2.7 has to work harder, I'd imagine that's part of what makes it run hotter, meaning maintenance is more crucial.

5) Since the engine runs hotter, works harder, and revs higher than the bigger engines, it's more crucial that you maintain it. Just like you can abuse and neglect the hell out of an old slant six or Chevy 250, I'd imagine that a 3.2/3.5 could take a bit more abuse than a 2.7.

I still have a feeling that the majority of these sludge cases are from owner neglect. I'll concede that, no matter how well an engine is designed, there are always going to be some that fail, but let's face it...who's actually going to ADMIT that they let their oil changes to too long, or that they let it run low on oil, let it overheat, etc? It's kind of like a car accident. What's the first thing a person says? "I didn't see you!" Not "I wasn't paying attention and didn't look and wasn't under control of my vehicle!"

mike372 · September 2004

You brought up some good points, however, I still see quite a few ES models out there ( you can always tell because they have the fog lights in the bumper). And although DC did not make the 3.2/3.5L engine standard in the ES until around 2002, I think, I would imagine alot of ES's came with the larger engines. It would be interesting to find out exactly how many Intrepids actually had the larger engines compared to the 2.7L engine.
My Celica GTS has a DOHC engine in it, and its not the most powerful car in the world), and so far at 117,000 miles there is no sign of sludge build-up. Usually, sludge appears in the cylinder heads and you can look in the oil fill hole to get a pretty good idea if you have sludge in the heads.

masonmi · September 2004

Thanks for the 2.7 information, i'm still changing over to Synthetic oil for my 2004, seems from what i've read owners haven't had any issues when running Synthetic oil compared to regular oil.

masonmi · September 2004

I thought there was a message about replacement tires for the Intrepid however I can't find it now, I thought it mentioned the Yokohama's as a good tire for the Intrepid, how is the Yokohama's in comparison to the Eagle's that I currently have on the Intrepid?

setzer · September 2004

My parents can get a 2000 Dodge Intrepid with 55,000 miles on it for $5600. The guy that is selling it doesn't own it, but his company is willing to let him pay $5600 to close out the lease and he wouldn't mind selling it to someone else for the same price he paid for it. My aunt works with the guy (thats how we found it) and she said the car is overall in good condition besides a few minor things that you would get with any 5 year old car. The only problem is that they would have to drive it up from California to Portland, OR. They have to make a decision tomorrow morning so any quick help would be great! Thank you!

andre1969 · September 2004

I put some Yokohama Avids on my Intrepid about a year and a half ago. Before that, I had some cheap Continental tires, and before that the Eagle GA's that came with the car. I'd say the only thing the Yokohamas give up is a little bit of ride quality, and they seem a bit noisier. I think that's because they have a longer treadwear rating, so they're not as "soft" of a tire. The Eagles that the car came with had a 300 treadwear rating, and were pretty much reduced to racing slicks at 30,000 miles. They were expensive, too. At the time, even on sale, I think replacement of all 4 tires would've been over $500. In contrast, the Yokohamas were about $250 online (can't remember if I got 'em at www.tirerack.com or www.discounttire.com), and the local garage charged me $50 to mount and balance them. The Yokohamas had a 620 treadwear rating, more than double the Eagle GA's. I think they improved the Eagles a bit over the years though, so maybe the newer ones don't have that same crappy treadwear rating?

I've been happy with the Yokohama's so far. They seem to hold the road pretty well, and even in wet/snowy/icy weather, they've been fine.

masonmi · September 2004

Thanks for the reply, I like the handling of the the Eagle GA's that I currently have, I'll have to keep the Yokohama's in mind when I change the Eagle's out, to bad the Eagle's don't have a longer tread life.

kingtut · September 2004

I had a 1999 Intrepid with the 2.7L engine and NEVER, NEVER had to crack the engine open. The only time I had service on the engine was for a camshaft position sensor at 50,000 miles and spark plug replacements at 130.000 miles. I waited too long for the spark plugs... Two are "welded" to he head and stayed there. As for brakes, my first brake job was at 74,000 miles! I had gone through a total of two sets of rotors for 156,000 miles. One radiator fan had to be replaced at 135,000 miles. The check engine light came on at 140,000 miles (catalytics). When I traded in the car (for a 3.5L Intrepid), I had 156,000 miles on the car. It was starting to burn some oil (about 1 qt per 1,000 miles), and I was getting nervous about the timing chain (still original).

I had trouble with the trans, but just sensors again (input and output speed sensors).

It's possible that I had little trouble with this car because I used it for highway driving (about 3 hours per day), 80 to 100 miles per day.
I don't think I was lucky, and I certaintly didn't baby the motor. I pushed my car to the limit almost daily.

I finally traded in the car on a new SXT trep today. I'll let you know how that turns out...
Personally, I think that the car was extremely well engineered.

2k1olds · September 2004

purchasing a 2002 Intrepid SE with 61,000 miles on it. Is there anything I should look for as far as routine problems with this car?

andre1969 · September 2004

if you don't mind me asking, how much of a trade did you get for your '99? Last year, I came close to trading in my '00, which had about 86,000 miles on it at the time, for an '02 Intrepid R/T with about 35K on it. At first they said my car was worth $3500, but then quickly bumped that up to what I owed on it at the time, $4822. That's pretty much where it stopped though, because once I drove the R/T, while I liked it, I didn't like it better enough than my '00 to even think about trading, so I didn't push negotiations any further. Plus, they couldn't produce any service records for it (I wanted to at least see a tranny service at 30K...I'm anal about that stuff!), and they couldn't give me an answer as to whether it had a 3/36K warranty or the longer one (5/70K? 7/70K?) that they instituted sometime in mid-year.

andre1969 · September 2004

I'd say if the car has good service records with it, and the price is reasonable, that it should be a good buy. With that kind of miles, I'd imagine a lot of it was highway. But then again, I put about 30K on my '00 in the first 10 months, because I delivered pizzas part time!

Here's a few things I can think of, though...
1) brake rotors: they're really easy to warp, on any car nowadays, because they cut 'em so paper thin.

2) thermostat housing: the one on my '00 2.7 started leaking, just a little bit. Ended up costing about $210 for the local mechanic to replace it. They might've fixed that problem with the newer models, but my mechanic told me back then that it was fairly common.

3) power windows: I haven't had any problems with mine, but a few other posters on here had mentioned power window problems in the past. I think one guy had to have all 4 replaced! Under warranty though, IIRC. Again, that might be something that's improved with the newer models.

4) transmission: Chrysler still has a reputation for problematic transmissions, but I think for the most part it's more talk and bad memories than it is reality, nowadays. Still, make sure it shifts okay, and check the dipstick to make sure the fluid doesn't look nasty or smell burnt.

5) sludge: the 2.7 does seem more prone than the 3.2/3.5 to developing sludge, and the 2.7 is also a pretty expensive engine to rebuild, or buy used. I think for the most part if you change the oil regularly and/or use a synthetic, you should be fine. But since this car already has over 60K miles on it, I'd make sure that I could get ahold of some service records for it. That would be true of any car at that age though, not just the Intrepid.

rbenton · September 2004

I'd always thought it was weird when the local dealer had bench seat Intrepid's in stock, not just one but a couple. A split bench front seat is mismash with the exterior design of the car.

andre1969 · September 2004

as well. Seemed like they were pretty rare a few years back, when I bought my 'Trep, but now I see them on a regular basis. I wonder if maybe when it came to do the final run of Intrepids and Concordes, they had a bunch of bench seats left over, and so they stuck them in the cars just to use them up?

My godmother used to have an '00 Intrepid with a bench seat. She liked it for the extra width it gave, not that she's big-boned, or big-bunned, or anything like that! But for 3-across seating, I'd think it would be useless. The Intrepid might have the shoulder room for it, but there's no room for your knees or legs there, the way the dash juts out.

mike372 · September 2004

are the ONLY way to go with the Intrepid! Even the console and shifter looks better than in some other cars ie. the Monte Carlo.

kingtut · September 2004

I got $1,000 as a trade-in. Note that the "check engine" light was on (catalytic converters, about $400 each to replace, an that doesn't include labor), and there was a dent in the right rear dorr, courtesy of my teenage daughter (the classic response to What Happened? "I Dooon't know..."), and the timing chain was NEVER replaced, and the Transmission was slipping a little...(shall I keep on going?). I changed oil about every 5,000 miles with 5W30, later 10W30 "high mileage" oil. Keep in mind that a "perfect condition '99 'Trep is worth about $2,000.

I think I got rid of it just before it became a large flowerpot. However, in its defense, I was well served by this vehicle. I did encounter some interesting problems. I broke the drivers side seat before the recall notice. When that happened, I got hosed by the dealer who insisted that it would take 4 hours' labor to "rebuild the seat". About two years later, the same thing happened again. I fixed it myself this time, with a 5/16" shoulder bolt. The repair took me about 30 minutes. Says a lot about those mechanics...
About a month later, DC came up with a recall on the seat. This time they fixed it in 30 minutes.

I don't buy cars for their resale value. I plan to drive 'em into the ground, and I believe that I got my money's worth with this one.
By the way, they sold me the new SXT 'trep with options for about $500 more than I paid for the original base sedan 6 years earlier. Now, that's a deal...

kingtut · September 2004

By the way, I had a problem with my oil pressure light, the same as you. I had the dealer check it our and they told me about the "wiring fix". Well, I did...nothing... for about three months, and the problem just went away.
It started at around 130,000 and stopped at about 136,000.

mike372 · September 2004

probably came with a 4,000 rebate, something that Chrysler was not offering in 1999. I almost bought a new 03 SXT from Reedman in Langhorne the winter of 2002-2003 for about 3000 more than my leftover ('02) Intrepid SE. It had no sunroof but did have ABS like my SE which was a requirement. Perhaps I s/h bought it instead, the engine was much better (3.5L, no sludge problems). However, the SXT was silver and it did not come in Steel Blue (my favorite color). Well.......hopefully my SE will last 130000 miles. If it does, then the car wont owe me a dime.

andre1969 · September 2004

the dealer I bought my car from had Intrepid SXT's and ES's for around $22-23K, which includes the $4000 rebate. And considering that price is off the MSRP, I'm sure I could get 'em down further,easily. And believe me, I've thought about it! The idea of getting an SXT, with a sunroof and all the other goodies for about the same price as what my '00 cost new is very tempting! But then, knowing that I only have 3 payments left on my car is a pretty nice feeling, too!

But I think it's too late now anyway, as the last time I was down at the dealer, the only Intrepids on the lot had plates on them and no window sticker (maybe they were demonstrators?), and the only thing roughly comparable they had was three Magnums.

mike372 · September 2004

would have cost me 19,818 at Reedman, plus tax. It had ABS, premium sound, 17 inch alloys with Michelin tires,fog lights,upgraded material on the seats which to me was a downgrade from my SE, no sunroof plus all the goodies std. on the SE. They had two silver SXT's on the lot at the time, including one which had a defective speedometer (a tribute to DC's QC). Anyway, I bought the SE for 16,900 cash so that I would have no payments. I am not used to car loans, never had one and hopefully never will.

andre1969 · September 2004

quiet in here lately. Don't really have anything new and exciting to report, except that the Trep is about to hit the 97,000 mile mark. And just two payments left on the books!

masonmi · September 2004

Did everyone sell their Intrepids? or is everyone following the Magnums now?

andre1969 · September 2004

I test drove a Magnum a few weeks ago, and liked it for the most part. I definitely did NOT like the rear visibility, and the transmission seemed to shift kind of funny, almost like, when it shifted from first to second, it hesitated for a moment. I'm still planning on hanging onto my Intrepid for a little while longer, though. I'd like to try going at least a year or two without car payments!

emale · September 2004

andre,

did you drive a 3.5l or 5.7l magnum...?

andre1969 · September 2004

it was just the SXT model, with the 3.5. I didn't really get out and punch it, because it only had 12 miles on it, but it just bothered me a bit the way the tranny seemed to just pause for a moment between gears every now and then. And, this is kinda hard to explain, but it almost felt like the tranny was holding the engine back, keeping it from realizing its full potential. The '02 Intrepid R/T I test drove last year felt somewhat similar. In the case of the Magnum though, could it have just been because it was brand-new? I've heard that newer transmissions have some kind of fuzzy logic in them that, over time, adapts to the characteristics of the individual driver.

Power wise, the 3.5 felt more than adequate. Even with the added weight of the Magnum, I know it would smoke my 2.7 Intrepid. I think if I were going with a car like this though, it just makes sense to go all the way and get the Hemi!

emale · September 2004

andre,

the 42LE tranny has always had fuzzy logic. but you are right...it could be that the tranny was so new and hadn't learned yet how to behave properly. lol!

are you seriously thinking about getting a magnum??

masonmi · September 2004

To me the Magnums look very boxy, however I do see several people driving them around, i'd rather have something sporty like the Intrepid instead. I wonder how the 2.7 Magnum would drive?

jsylvester · September 2004

Rear visibility looks pretty crappy in the Magnum. Based upon the way my wife drives, she is definate minivan-full-of-windows type driver.

She hates driving the Intrepid for the same reason - she is not comfortable with the rear visibility.

andre1969 · September 2004

I've been tossing around the idea of getting a Magnum or 300, but it won't be anytime soon. Maybe in the next year or two, when the hoopla over them dies down. I also want to wait until the Charger comes out, to see what it's like in person. And I've heard that they're thinking of making a 300/Charger coupe, as well as a sedan version of the Magnum.

As for acceleration, I've heard the Magnum and 300 with the 2.7 are good for 0-60 in about 10.5-11 seconds. Which is about the equivalent of a Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable with the base Vulcan V-6. In contrast, in the Concorde/Intrepid, I've seen 0-60 listed anywhere from 9.0-10.2 seconds. And IMO, that's not a good thing, when the newer cars are slower than the ones they're replacing. Especially since nearly everyone else has improved in the same timeframe.

From what I've read though, the 3.5 performs about the same as it did in the LH cars. And the Hemi is absolutely wonderful!

Jsylvester, it took me awhile to get used to the Intrepid's visibility, too. My main issue was not being able to see the trunk lid. I was used to older cars that had about twice the Intrepid's deck length, so in backing up, I'd tend to err on the cautious side, stopping well short when backing into a parking spot. And while the sleek, sporty style hides it from the outside, the C-pillar on the 'Trep, coupled with the blanked out spot in the rear of the doors, makes for a blind spot that would out-do most 70's cars!

mike372 · September 2004

I was wondering the same thing too......did everyone dump their Intrepids. Sometimes I dont feel like saying anything because it brings about arguments.
To me, the Magnum is just an oversized station wagon. If I wanted a SW, I would have bought one! I still havent got used to the Treps blind spot in the right rear, I have to be very careful when changing lanes, but I knew that the blind spot would be a problem when I bought the car. Its probably just as bad as the 1973 Mustang Mach One, which was nearly impossible to drive. When I mentioned the blind spot to Reedmans sales manager, he said 'you will get use to it', but I knew that was BS and the problem with rear visibility would always be there. Then again, the Trep would not look as good as it does if the rear end was designed differently. At least with the Monte Carlo rent a car I could see out of the rear, but I know you cant stand its looks.

andre1969 · September 2004

against the Monte Carlo if it wasn't for the fact that I used to own one! It was a 1986 with a 305 V-8 (just a base, I WISH it were an SS!) But I thought that was a good looking car. Nice proportions, classy lines, a decent interior for the time, etc.

When they brought the nameplate back for '95, I think the first thing that anybody who liked Monte Carlos said was "that's NOT a Monte...it's a 2-door Lumina!" And now with the 2000+ style, it just looks overdone. Like they tried to put 70's overtones on a modern car, and it just doesn't work!

I haven't liked GM's interiors, for the most part, for a long time now. They're usually just too cheap and plasticky, and have parts that don't fit well, and just don't have a nice, clean, flowing look to them like Mopar dashes. But now I DID like the Grand Prix coupe, which was Pontiac's sister to the Monte Carlo. I thought that was a good looking car!

As for arguments, I think one reason that some people are so quick to jump up in defense of the Intrepid is that, a few years ago, there used to be some major trolling going on in this forum! It still pops up from time to time, but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. One of them kept popping up from time to time under different user ID's, too, and would sometimes even carry on conversations among the various ID's!

fuzzer34 · September 2004

I have a 2000 R/T with 82K miles. I mostly change the oil around 5K miles. Now on it's second set of tires. The wife drove it for awhile, BEAT IT, then I got it back when she got a civic. I've been babysitting the 3.5L now for the last year or so. I have had almost zero problems with this car. The door seals, seat recall, and a winey door lock were all fixed by the local dealer. After fxing all the scratches the wife did, it makes a nice family car, and drives me to work 100 miles everyday. Did a sprint up into New England getting around 30mpg...It'll be paid for in feb'05 and we'll drive it into the ground from there. Don't think my budget will stand a Magnum in the future...nice lines though.

mike372 · September 2004

cheapest looking interior of ALL the cars I have owned ( and I admit, not all that many). The door panels are really cheap looking and plain (especially the rear doors). Dont forget, Andre, that thanks to DC's costing cutting initiatives, some things that were standard in 2000 were deleted in later years, such as cloth inserts in the door panels. I mean, the door panels remind me of my fathers '65 VW Beetle. Yea, that bad. And you cant even get better ones as far as know, since the ES and SXT have the same cheap panels. The seats in the SE are OK, the SXT came with worse 'industrial strength' plastic like seating material. The Monte Carlo had better looking seating materials than the SE. And a rear window that you could see out was also standard. My 1976 Firebird Esprit had super looking door panels, and even the 1979 Esprit has good ones. Believe it or not, I still have the '79. I saw the 76 in a junk yard in Pinebook, NJ several years after I sold it and it brought back memories (couldnt believe it was the same car). What are the chances that you would find your car in a yard that you just happened to be in several years later.

emale · September 2004

guys,

here is another LX sedan...could be the charger but not sure...

http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html

jsylvester · September 2004

Yeah, I have no problem with visibility, but the wife will drive my 94 Grand Marquis before the Intrepid. She also doesn't like the fact she cannot see the front of the car either.

I've been in my brother's 300C, and I don't think visibility is that great in that car either.

Still, I'm holding onto my Intrepid as long as I can. She may just drive the Grand Marquis once she becomes a stay-at-home Mom, and I'll drive her Corolla to work. At that point, a decision will have to be made.

masonmi · September 2004

Actually i'm very pleased with the interior on my 2004 Intrepid SE, its so much better than my old Buick Century the dash doesn't creak and make noise, and the seats are actually comfortable for a long drive. I do have to agree with rear and front visibility, i'm careful when changing lanes and turning into parking spots.

andre1969 · September 2004

a bit on the Intrepids since the 2000 model year, which I thought was a disappointment. I always looked at a Dodge as being a step up from a Ford or Chevy, and looking at a base Intrepid in 2000, compared to a Taurus or Impala, really seemed to bear that out. The Intrepid had nicer fabrics, less hard plastic, standard cruise control, a standard tach, rear sway bar, cloth and carpet on the door panels, etc. It just felt a step or two up from an Impala/Taurus the moment you stepped inside.

But since then (I think it was 2002 that they did it), they replaced the cloth on the door panels with vinyl (probably to save costs, since that's what they do on leather-seat models anyway), took the carpet off the door panels (maybe the ES still has it?), took away the sway bar, the tint across the top of the windshield, made cruise control optional, and I'm sure a few other little odds and ends.

My Dad has an '03 Regal GS, and I think my Intrepid's interior, and even the newer ones, are still a cut above. His Regal has this seating fabric that almost looks like a cross between burlap and corduroy, although it is more comfortable than it looks. It has these vinyl inserts in the door panels that are rippled a bit, I guess to give it a plush, supple look, but it just doesn't work in this car! The plastics have a nasty, irritating, Playskool-esque grain to them, and the dashboard doesn't even line up with the door panels! Where the lines carry over from the dash to the door, it looks like the dash is dropped about a half inch on the driver's side, and is also off on the passenger side as well.

One thing I'll say in its advantage,though, is that I find the front seats to be pretty comfortable, better than my Intrepid. I think that's because they're power assisted though, and I can put the seat back and up further than the manual adjust in my Intrepid. The Intrepid wins, hands-down, in the back seat, though.

The Intrepid also looks like it's put together better. On the outside, things like the door panels, hood, and especially the trunk line up much better than the Regal. However, when you close a door, the Regal does sound just a bit more solid. But then that gets negated a bit, because Dad's Regal, with around 23000 miles on it, has more squeaks and rattles than my '00 Trep with 97000!

My Intrepid also handles much better, although my Dad's Regal is stuck with old fashioned 215/70/R15 tires. His 3.8 would blow my 2.7 away, though.

So I guess in the end, both cars have their plusses and minuses. Which one is best just depends on which plusses and minuses matter to you the most!

mike372 · September 2004

that allpar pic just looks like another 300C. Not even close to the photos I saw on the internet awhile back. As far as I'm concerned, the best looking charger was the 1973 Charger SE. Now that was a cool looking car.\
Even the Monte Carlo with the 3.4L 24 valve V-6 (rental car) would leave my Trep in a cloud of smoke! GM just builds some very nice engines. And it was a sleek looking red, which at least made the car look like it was accelerating more quickly.
And DC deleted the rear sway bar in 2003 model year, because my 02 SE has it. Pretty sleazy, since most people would not notice that it was deleted. In 2002, the suspension was called 'four wheel independent touring suspension', the same suspension used on the ES/SXT models. On the 2003 sticker, the suspension on the SE model was called 'normal suspension'.

andre1969 · September 2004

had some computer generated pics of a Charger. It was green with matte black accents. Truthfully, it looked like they just took a 300C and grafted an Intrepid rear end on it, and then put on a front-end clip from a 70's Brazilian Dart, kinda like this...

http://www.dodgedart.org/brazil/79chgrad.jpg

It was an odd looking beast in the cgi pics, but hopefully it'll look better in person!

andre1969 · September 2004

The current Monte Carlo's 3.4 V-6 is just a pushrod, 2-valves-per-cylinder unit that puts out something like 180-185 hp, although it's pretty torquey and good for 0-60 launches. I've heard that that it'll run out of breath at higher speeds, though, which is one area where the 2.7, IMO at least, isn't half bad.

Now back in the early 90's, and up through maybe 1998 or 1999, there was a DOHC 3.4 V-6 that was used in some GM intermediates, like the Lumina Z34 and the Monte Carlo. It put out something like 215 hp and had plenty of kick at low and high speeds. However, it was expensive to build and unreliable, so it got canned once GM finally got the non-supercharged 3.8 V-6 up to around 200 hp.

Dodge Intrepid

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles