Chrysler is dead

[nh_mopar_fan]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

[Old Moparz]

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

Let's hope it just doesn't take 86 years like other things do.   

[Kevin68N71]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

[Big Lebowski]

  The Dodge trucks have never failed me. I'm selling my old '95 Ram 2500, but I'm keeping my '99 Ram 2500 club cab 4wd. V-8 longbed, 9 mpg, it's a winner.

[Brock Samson]

 
 
just messin witcha... 

[Ghoste]

They all make good cars and they all make junk.  End of story.

[nh_mopar_fan]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

I'm well aware of their bias and it drives me nuts. The point you may be missing is that the Avenger finished dead last. That means the GM and Ford offerings finished higher as well. Say what you want about their tests but I went back and read it and it's spot on. The car is crude and harsh.

I'm not a big fan on Consumer Reports either (talk about your bias) but they don't do well there either.

It's not me, it's not one magazine, it's not one review, it's not one car. If it was, sure it'd be easy to write off. But, as the negatives, from different sources pile up, there's more than just smoke there.

They may be selling some a couple models like mad. They're not selling anything in enough volume these days to make up for the rest of the product line which sucks.

Don't point me at the kernal of corn in the crap and tell me it's a all good.

Your mileage may vary.

[Kevin68N71]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

I'm well aware of their bias and it drives me nuts. The point you may be missing is that the Avenger finished dead last. That means the GM and Ford offerings finished higher as well. Say what you want about their tests but I went back and read it and it's spot on. The car is crude and harsh.

I'm not a big fan on Consumer Reports either (talk about your bias) but they don't do well there either.

It's not me, it's not one magazine, it's not one review, it's not one car. If it was, sure it'd be easy to write off. But, as the negatives, from different sources pile up, there's more than just smoke there.

They may be selling some a couple models like mad. They're not selling anything in enough volume these days to make up for the rest of the product line which sucks.

Don't point me at the kernal of corn in the crap and tell me it's a all good.

Your mileage may vary.

I think we are in agreement on most of this.  The Avenger, your cars, and some biased publications make the whole corporation bad.  The hot selling 300, the dependable Magnum, the whole truck line, the Charger, the Challenger, years of minivans, the hemi powerplant, are just "kernels of corn in poop", yech.  Besides these good things, the car company's dead.  I am clear.

[nh_mopar_fan]

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

Let's hope it just doesn't take 86 years like other things do.   

<Checks standings>

Uh, Bob, were you in a coma the last 10 years and just came out of it? 

If so, I have some bad news..... 

[nh_mopar_fan]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

I'm well aware of their bias and it drives me nuts. The point you may be missing is that the Avenger finished dead last. That means the GM and Ford offerings finished higher as well. Say what you want about their tests but I went back and read it and it's spot on. The car is crude and harsh.

I'm not a big fan on Consumer Reports either (talk about your bias) but they don't do well there either.

It's not me, it's not one magazine, it's not one review, it's not one car. If it was, sure it'd be easy to write off. But, as the negatives, from different sources pile up, there's more than just smoke there.

They may be selling some a couple models like mad. They're not selling anything in enough volume these days to make up for the rest of the product line which sucks.

Don't point me at the kernal of corn in the crap and tell me it's a all good.

Your mileage may vary.

I think we are in agreement on most of this.  The Avenger, your cars, and some biased publications make the whole corporation bad.  The hot selling 300, the dependable Magnum, the whole truck line, the Charger, the Challenger, years of minivans, the hemi powerplant, are just "kernels of corn in poop", yech.  Besides these good things, the car company's dead.  I am clear.

Yup. Everything is just peaches at Chrysler these days. No worries.

You buying all stock these days?

It's quite a deal.

[Joshua]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s.  Growing up with musclecars, Mopars were always regarded as tinny but with great engines.

So before we go on about how "I would never buy anything besides my first and second generation Dodge!" let's count up how many of us have had rusted floor pans, trunk pans, frame rails! and areas of rust that you just don't see with anywhere near the frequency in same year Mustangs and Camaros for example.

I love 'em, but they're tinny, they've always been tinny.  The difference is that the cars are so loved now that we FIX all these issues and garage them.  Let's not compare our weekend toys to new drivers.

As for new cars, Chrysler could take some quality lessons from Buick if they want to get their ratings higher.

Truth.....
I love Mopars over the other brands, just alot of cooler options, wild engine packages, bright colors, etc, plus, just like the "underdog" I guess,....anyway,.... the fact is, during the musclecar era (well, most of the 50's as well) Mopars had CRAPPY build quality, when compared with the others, in particular GM....
For the most part, cars have been in a constant state of poor build quality and "cheapness" since WWII.....
Hell, new Ferrari's just don't have the fit and finish of Ferraris of the 60's...

[Mike DC (formerly miked)]

     

Mopars are great designs on paper that are executed like crap. 

GMs are crappy designs on paper that are executed very well. 

Fords are all over the place.  Some good, some bad. 



Toyotas & Hondas are decent designs on paper that are executed very well. 

(But the problem is they're life-threateningly boring.  And they're not American.)

[resq302]

Well, I for one will not be buying any new Chrysler or Dodge anytime soon unless their quailty goes up significantly.  I had a 2005 Hemi Ram quad cab 1500 4x4 that I can no longer discuss due to a gag order as part of them buying it back "voluntarily" so as not to deem it a lemon.  But let me just say, I did not have even 6000 miles on the truck and it was a basket case.  Stuff that you would never think to go wrong did, even more than once.  And then when they replaced the part, they had an "option" of putting a remanufactured unit in place of a new on on a new truck.  C'mon people!  The truck is still new, why put a "used but new" part a new car.  As far as the sheet metal, I was washing the truck within the first month of getting and and leaned on the fender with my palm to reach the center of the hood and I put a damn crease in my fender and I weigh only 180 lbs.   

So much for kwalety being job wun.  (spelled intentionally)

[Magnumcharger]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s. 

Here's the reason:
The 1957s started to rust within several months of being built. They leaked water on both sides of the windshield posts on all models. Torsion bars broke leaving cars looking like fallen over Towers of Pisa. Upholstery split, seams tore, seat springs popped through, paint flaked off in huge chunks, hubcaps wouldn't stay on, rear view mirrors vibrated, door handles broke with ease, locks froze easily, and interior appliances fell off. However, in all fairness to Chrysler, they were NO worse than Ford or Chevrolet in that era. Ford quality was just as bad, if not worse.

“Just a few weeks into the 1957 production, of course, the rushed assembly began to come home in the form of quality problems gone out of control. To Chrysler's credit, the engineers charged right in and began to get on the line fixes to areas that truly needed help. By the time the 1958 models came out, a lot of the areas were fixed. The windshield leaks had been rigged with plugs, nipples and small rubber hoses in a kit. Likewise, the rear window had been rigged. No, the actual leaks had not been stopped, but at least the water, for the most part, ran out into the wheel wells instead of on your feet or your luggage in the trunk. Extra braces were fitted in the structure. The body metal was assembled using larger rivets. A heavier gauge of sheet metal was employed. Longer posts were tried for the rear view mirrors. (The vibration never truly went away on any of the models fitted with the dash mirror). Extra sound deadening was liberally applied, especially in the floor pans and rear trunk. Seat springs and materials were completely changed. The small $2 rubber boot that had been taken away by the "bean counters" to cover the end of the Torsion Bars was quickly reintroduced. It prevented dirt from entering the rear of the bar seat area and causing it to bind and break. The 1959 models were discernibly better, except for rust.

Some 20 years later, in the 1970s, it was alleged that, to aid the economy of Japan in the mid 1950s, steel was melted down for shipment to the United States. Under a subsidy, this steel was sold to the automotive industry; purportedly this steel was from the Atom Bombed buildings left in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Remelted iron and steel returns to normal, without radiation, but it contained high levels of iron, a notorious oxidizer; and adding nickel or chromium into the molten steel to resist oxidation was prevented due to cost. The use of that poor quality steel, along with the lack of rust resistance methods on the line, garnered Chrysler a poor reputation that still lingers today. Yet, given what we know now about the steel from Japan, it is unfair to lay all the rust problems at Chrysler's door step. They were doing their patriotic duty for the country, as they had when refusing profits from World War I. They were never repaid for that.

http://www.allpar.com/history/chrysler-years/1957.html

[MoParJW]

Brian, are you telling me Mopars didn't have a serious rust issue over other cars because of poor undercoating and design areas like the....... Unprotected fender well area's?  Come on?   Even Most Mopar lovers will tell you of the serious Mopar rust issues.  And I do not agree they are all the same.  There are and were good and bad auto manufactures throughout the years. 

Considering their age, I think 60's & 70's mopars (and chevy's & Fords also) are doing pretty well
There's a lot of old american iron still on the road over here, still being driven daily, still in good shape
All the european cars from that era have rusted away years ago 

[Mike DC (formerly miked)]

 

1960s automobile market studies indicated that the average new-car buyer kept the car for 3 years.  The cheapskates kept them for five years.


So a 1969 Charger was never really intended to last much beyond about 1971-73. 

[Orange_Crush]

I have owned Chrysler vehicles almost exclusively since I could drive.  SO what are the wors vehicles I've ever owned?  Two fords and a Volvo.  The Mustang grenaded its rear end 30,000 miles in.  The Crown Vic lost a tranny at 98000 miles and went through two sets of idler and pittman arms before I finally bought Moogs.  The Volvo had WAY too many problems to list, but emptying the entire contents of its crankcase on my driveway the day I got it home was just the beginning ('98 S70 BTW).

I have also had a '91 Accord and an '84 Mercedes which were pretty good cars.

The best, most reliable cars that I have ever owned have been Chryslers.  I had an '84 Omni that went 150,000 miles before I finally wrecked it.  All I ever had to buy for it was an A/C hose.  I have a 2002 Grand Caravan that ate its tranny at 160,000 miles because I NEVER changed the tranny fluid.  That car has been rode hard and put up wet every day of its life (idling in 100 degree heat for 2 and three hours at a time) and yet, other than the tranny, has given me 180,000 trouble-free miles.  About the chrysler I ever owned that was even close to being what I would consider a "bad" car was a '95 Cirrus that the window trim kept popping off of.

My brother has a '90 Grand Cherokee with 285,000 miles on it.  Its his daily driver.  Not ONE problem.

I, for one, am a proud member of the Mopar or no car crowd.

[moparstuart]

I have owned Chrysler vehicles almost exclusively since I could drive.  SO what are the wors vehicles I've ever owned?  Two fords and a Volvo.  The Mustang grenaded its rear end 30,000 miles in.  The Crown Vic lost a tranny at 98000 miles and went through two sets of idler and pittman arms before I finally bought Moogs.  The Volvo had WAY too many problems to list, but emptying the entire contents of its crankcase on my driveway the day I got it home was just the beginning ('98 S70 BTW).

I have also had a '91 Accord and an '84 Mercedes which were pretty good cars.

The best, most reliable cars that I have ever owned have been Chryslers.  I had an '84 Omni that went 150,000 miles before I finally wrecked it.  All I ever had to buy for it was an A/C hose.  I have a 2002 Grand Caravan that ate its tranny at 160,000 miles because I NEVER changed the tranny fluid.  That car has been rode hard and put up wet every day of its life (idling in 100 degree heat for 2 and three hours at a time) and yet, other than the tranny, has given me 180,000 trouble-free miles.  About the chrysler I ever owned that was even close to being what I would consider a "bad" car was a '95 Cirrus that the window trim kept popping off of.

My brother has a '90 Grand Cherokee with 285,000 miles on it.  Its his daily driver.  Not ONE problem.

I, for one, am a proud member of the Mopar or no car crowd.

[69_500]

Proud to be of the MOPAR OR NO CAR minority it seems. However I for one do believe in brand loyalty. That stretches far past just being loyal to car brands. When I find a brand of just about anything that is very well done, then I stick to it. Same holds true with sports teams and the such. Seems that the car hobby isn't void of "FAIR WEATHER FANS" either though. To each their own. Every car company makes good cars, and every company has cars that are their bottom of the line cars with the cheapest sticker prices, and least amount of options that anyone can afford. And call it crazy but the striped down models are typically the ones that last the longest, even though they often see the roughest lives.

[Mike DC (formerly miked)]

I just don't excuse the problems anymore.


We can map the human genome, or land a craft on Mars, or make a gigantic airliner run almost trouble-free for a million miles. 

We should be able to commute in a 100,000 mile car without having to keep a standby fund of $2000 on hand for unscheduled failures.