Chrysler working on emergency overhaul of Avenger & Sebring interiors

[Paolino]

So, is there any indication as to when we might see this revised interior?

[Drew Dowdell]

why doesnt cerberus just use chysler as a fleet whore to stop losses while they totally redesign all the models

too late

[A Horse With No Name]

I've been a Chrysler fan for many decades. We've driven exclusively Chrysler (and AMC) vehicles since I got rid of my '76 Chevy pickup in 1981. But the last few years have seemed like a rerun of the very unfortunate 1962 model year for Chrysler. Remember the bizarre styling and lack of full-sized cars in the Plymouth & Dodge lines in '62 (not to mention the virtual discontinuance of larger displacement engines except for special order)? That's what the past several years of Chrysler have seemed like to me; a repeat of 1962 over and over again. The chunky exterior styling of most of Chrysler's lineup hasn't impressed me and the interiors are downright nasty with their big blocks of molded plastic, especially the door panels. Consequently, we are back behind the wheel of a Chevy again (the new Caravan/T&C minivans really didn't cut it).

The Malibu Maxx ain't exactly a beauty queen but it has a great combo of interior space, comfort, drivability and performance.

I've owned three Chryselrs (first gen Minivan, an Omni 0-24 Coupe back in the 80's and a nice FWD Concorde). Chrysler really was on the right track before Daimler bought them.

Now they seem to build silly slab sided vehicles with terrible gas mileage and terrible interiors that no one seems to want.

My in laws just adore the T&C and Caravan (previous gen) that they currently own, but don't seem to like the new generation at all.

Here's hoping that they change. Chrysler has built some great vehicles over the years but the current lineup is a national embarassment.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

So, is there any indication as to when we might see this revised interior?

Given what we've seen out of Chrysler the last few years, do you really think it will possibly be any better????

Chris

[NeonLX]

Given what we've seen out of Chrysler the last few years, do you really think it will possibly be any better????

Chris

Well, at least they're out from underneath Daimler's thumb now. Those b@st@rds really wrecked what was my favorite auto company. Sucked the R&D juices right out of the company's body and tossed the husk off into the ditch when they were done.

My relationship with Chrysler goes way back to my old '66 Plymouth Belvedere with the "Poly" 318 V8. That car was fantastic--fast, roomy & quite fuel-efficient, even with my heavy foot. It was also bullet-proof; never did a thing to it beyond regular maintenance. I also had a '71 Chrysler Newport which took one heckuva beating but kept coming back for more. That car would cruise day in and day out comfortably at 90 MPH without missing a beat. My '73 Dodge W200 4X4 pickup was slow as molasses with its 318 V8 trying to breathe through a soda-straw 2V carb, but the doggone thing took everything we could throw at it on the farm. My six Mopar minivans down through the years have all been really good vehicles, as have my two Neons and the '94 Dodge Spirit I bought at an auction (even though it had been ridden hard in its former life).

It really chaps my hide to see what's left of the formerly great company after Daimler richarded it all up.

[Ravenfreak13]

Well as of 4500 miles, the sebring shows no problems and is a comfortable drive.

[CMG]

Remember the bizarre styling and lack of full-sized cars in the Plymouth & Dodge lines in '62 (not to mention the virtual discontinuance of larger displacement engines except for special order)?

Bizarre styling is bang on as far as accuracy goes, the 62 MoPars were styled by a freak....

No full size cars? Haha What's a 1962 Dodge 880 to you? "Small"? haha It was a behemoth by today's standards, and a full size car for sure.

The large displacement engines were common as well. 1962 had the 413, the high performance versions *might* be what you are thinking of if you think they were "special order", but a 365hp 413 wasn't anything out of the ordinary in 1962.

What weird styling...?

hahahaha

[NeonLX]

Bizarre styling is bang on as far as accuracy goes, the 62 MoPars were styled by a freak....

No full size cars? Haha What's a 1962 Dodge 880 to you? "Small"? haha It was a behemoth by today's standards, and a full size car for sure.

The large displacement engines were common as well. 1962 had the 413, the high performance versions *might* be what you are thinking of if you think they were "special order", but a 365hp 413 wasn't anything out of the ordinary in 1962.

What weird styling...?

hahahaha

I don't want to sound picky but the 880 model wasn't introduced until the middle of the 1962 model year. It was a "hurry up" hatchet job, marrying the front end of the 1961 full-sized Dodge to the rear of the 1962 Chrysler Newport. If you went into your local Dodge dealer in December of 1961, you wouldn't have seen even a hint of the 880 model. Of course, Plymouth never did get another true "full sized" model until 1965 (the 119" wheelbase Fury models).

As for the 413 in 1962 Dodges & Plymouths, the sales brochures don't mention it as part of the regular powertrain lineup, and even the automotive press during the 1962 introductions noted that the 361 was the biggest mill regularly available in the new "downsized" models from Plymouth & Dodge. Fortunately, these models were fairly light so the 361 did a decent job. Yes, the 413 was available on special order, but its applications were quite restricted--especially early in the model year.

Now, I'm going on memory here and could very well be off my nut...but that's how I remember it.

[Robert Hall]

I don't want to sound picky but the 880 model wasn't introduced until the middle of the 1962 model year. It was a "hurry up" hatchet job, marrying the front end of the 1961 full-sized Dodge to the rear of the 1962 Chrysler Newport. If you went into your local Dodge dealer in December of 1961, you wouldn't have seen even a hint of the 880 model. Of course, Plymouth never did get another true "full sized" model until 1965 (the 119" wheelbase Fury models).

As for the 413 in 1962 Dodges & Plymouths, the sales brochures don't mention it as part of the regular powertrain lineup, and even the automotive press during the 1962 introductions noted that the 361 was the biggest mill regularly available in the new "downsized" models from Plymouth & Dodge. Fortunately, these models were fairly light so the 361 did a decent job. Yes, the 413 was available on special order, but its applications were quite restricted--especially early in the model year.

Now, I'm going on memory here and could very well be off my nut...but that's how I remember it.

Yes, the 880/Custom 880 was added, probably due to dealer reaction to the hideous downsized '62 Dodges....kind of similar to how the Parissienne came to US Pontiac in '83 after the Bonneville was downsized in '82.

Styling wise, the '62 downsized Dodges and Plymouths were pretty ugly, IMHO, but not as awful as the '61s--esp. the '61 Plymouth looked like something out of a Godzilla movie... IMHO, Ford and GM had far nicer styling in the early '60s than Chrysler Co.

[Drew Dowdell]

Given what we've seen out of Chrysler the last few years, do you really think it will possibly be any better????

Chris

[VenSeattle]

IMHO, Ford and GM had far nicer styling in the early '60s than Chrysler Co.

Amazing how history continues to repeat itself.

[Oracle of Delphi]

My aunt had one of these beauties until the mid 80's. It had a pushbutton transmission. She could never understand why nobody would ride with her! :rotflmao:

[NeonLX]

I actually liked the funky styling on the compact Valiant and Dodge Lancer, but when it got enlarged to the mid-sized models, it got pretty weird. Friend of ours had a '62 Dodge wagon that really startled me first time I saw it...and kept on startling me every time I saw it thereafter. But the thing would certainly scoot, in spite of having "only" a 361 under the hood.

[NeonLX]

I was doing some browing over at Allpar.com and found an article about the 1962 Plymouth lineup. It looks like the 413 did become a reasonably available engine during the 1962 model year, though it apparently wasn't at the beginning...

There were other engines that were introduced along with the "Super Stock" Plymouth 413, and the "Ram Charger" 413 over at Dodge. These were largely overshadowed by the screaming orange 413s. The enthusiast magazines stuck the label of Max Wedge on the race ready 413, however, that was not a factory nomenclature. Quietly, the corporate 383 was made available in the 1962 Plymouth line. There were two versions available in the 383 form. One had a single 4 barrel, while the other had two 4 barrel carburetors. Motor Trend tested the milder form of the single 4 barrel in a 1962 Plymouth. It produced 15.9 second quarter miles with a trap speed of 95 miles an hour. Motor Trend also praised the Plymouth brakes, calling them the "strongest set of drum brakes that we have ever witnessed."

To ensure that the 413 made its presence known, two street versions were also made available, although they didn't receive much attention. One was a street ready engine with an 11.1 compression ratio, and a single 4 barrel carb. It made 365 horsepower, and 400 foot pounds of torque. For those wanting a bit more, a twin 4 barrel version was offered, producing 380 horsepower, and 455 foot pounds of torque. In essence, the street wedge were upgraded versions of the corporate 413 used to haul big Imperials and large Chrysler around in quiet servitude. It was easily achieved, since the 413 was the engine that powered the Chrysler 300 letter series of cars since 1959.

With the racing introduction of the Super Stock 413, sales did actually take an upswing. However, most of the model year had already gone by. It was just too late. Sales were the lowest in decades at 182,520 units, slipping Plymouth to 8th in production overall, the lowest of the low points in its history.

There was another engine. A special edition, issued by the factory. Unfortunately, no numbers were made available on the number of any of the engine options built. The featured car here is equipped with a twin four barrel 361 cubic inch V8. It was available at the beginning of the production run. This particular car was purchased new in Atlanta, Georgia in late January 1962. It is not known if the original owner was upset when the 413 Super Stock came out. It was raced "occasionally." No further explanation of that indicated was offered or forthcoming. I didn't press it.

Full article at: http://www.allpar.com/reviews/1962/sport-fury.html

[Drew Dowdell]

Styling even a Soviet would cringe at.....

[Duncan]

I was doing some browing over at Allpar.com and found an article about the 1962 Plymouth lineup. It looks like the 413 did become a reasonably available engine during the 1962 model year, though it apparently wasn't at the beginning...

Full article at: http://www.allpar.com/reviews/1962/sport-fury.html

If Dodges and Plymouths hadn't had speed during 1962, there wouldn't have been a hell of a lot else to sell. (Personally, I kinda like the '62 Dodge grille, but I probably wouldn't have actually bought one had I been around then.)

And remember, the 413 Ramcharger (with ram-induction) was the direct predecessor to the equally legendary 426 Hemi.

[Duncan]

Styling even a Soviet would cringe at.....

I dunno - this isn't bad for Russian design:

[A Horse With No Name]

Bizarre styling is bang on as far as accuracy goes, the 62 MoPars were styled by a freak....

No full size cars? Haha What's a 1962 Dodge 880 to you? "Small"? haha It was a behemoth by today's standards, and a full size car for sure.

The large displacement engines were common as well. 1962 had the 413, the high performance versions *might* be what you are thinking of if you think they were "special order", but a 365hp 413 wasn't anything out of the ordinary in 1962.

What weird styling...?

hahahaha

Actually I like it. Also, I've pulled 413's out of Chrysler vehicles in Salvage yards (one was an old Indian State Highway Patrol car, so I guess you could say it was "special service") But they definitely were there from the factory.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, at least they're out from underneath Daimler's thumb now. Those b@st@rds really wrecked what was my favorite auto company. Sucked the R&D juices right out of the company's body and tossed the husk off into the ditch when they were done.

My relationship with Chrysler goes way back to my old '66 Plymouth Belvedere with the "Poly" 318 V8. That car was fantastic--fast, roomy & quite fuel-efficient, even with my heavy foot. It was also bullet-proof; never did a thing to it beyond regular maintenance. I also had a '71 Chrysler Newport which took one heckuva beating but kept coming back for more. That car would cruise day in and day out comfortably at 90 MPH without missing a beat. My '73 Dodge W200 4X4 pickup was slow as molasses with its 318 V8 trying to breathe through a soda-straw 2V carb, but the doggone thing took everything we could throw at it on the farm. My six Mopar minivans down through the years have all been really good vehicles, as have my two Neons and the '94 Dodge Spirit I bought at an auction (even though it had been ridden hard in its former life).

It really chaps my hide to see what's left of the formerly great company after Daimler richarded it all up.

Exactly. While I may seem negative hre in my posts, really I think I'm just a frustrated Idealist or frustrated optomist. I would really like to see Chryselr get back on its feet, it just ain't gonna happen with the current product lineup though.

Chris

[NeonLX]

The 413 was quite popular in police duty, especially in the Newport "Enforcer" and Dodge 880 models. Great Highway Patrol cruisers, they were. I remember seeing a local sheriff's '63 880 with the 413 back in the day. He later traded it for a 1966 Ford Galaxie 390 and quickly regretted it (thought the big Dodge was pretty tired by that time).

The 383 did a tremendous job in the "mid-sized" B-bodies as well. Ma Mopar knew how to put cop cars together.

[CMG]

I don't want to sound picky but the 880 model wasn't introduced until the middle of the 1962 model year.

The 880 was available in January of 1962.

Not that it SOLD in January of 62....

:AH-HA_wink:

Hahaha

I very rarely see (or saw) many Dodge 880s.

[CMG]

Amazing how history continues to repeat itself.

Like your Chrysler bashin posts..?

:AH-HA_wink:

LOL!!!

[CMG]

I was doing some browing over at Allpar.com and found an article about the 1962 Plymouth lineup. It looks like the 413 did become a reasonably available engine during the 1962 model year, though it apparently wasn't at the beginning...

The 413 was readily available in all sorts of forms since it's debut in 1959. The base model 413s were plentiful and ordinary, the high performance versions, some of them with VERY high compression- were available in many variations.

The single 4bbl 413 was commonplace.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

I dunno - this isn't bad for Russian design:

That's not a true Volga, as the M21, on which the styling of that coupe is based, was only built as a sedan when it was available as a new car in the USSR during the 1950s (this car is and always will be known as Russia's most popular piece of rolling iron; it was built from the early 1950s, remained popular through the 1960s, even though it was an outdated model, and finally ceased to be available as a new car in 1970, but even then, myriads of different plants throughout the USSR made money making refurbished models). As a matter of fact, Volgas have never built in coupe form. A private automotive firm in Russia built that Volga coupe not too long ago, recently as a matter of fact, as a special model for one of their customers and mechanically based it on the old BMW M6 coupe. If you were to pop the hood, you would see M badges on the engine cover.

Here's the Volga M21 which that "Volga coupe" is stylistically based on.

Edited January 10, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Robert Hall]

That Volgabimmer is pretty cool...they've done a couple more since then..a Volga on a 6-series convertible and a updated Gaz something, I think..

[VenSeattle]

Like your Chrysler bashin posts..?

:AH-HA_wink:

LOL!!!

Consider it earned perspective... I've dealt with two Chrysler products over the past 10-12 years and used Chrysler Corp more than once for research papers in college. I'm not a naive child who's too young to have owned a new car, let alone several. Just because I don't like a product or brand doesn't mean I shouldn't post... because everyone else her spews their open hatred for particular GM brands (Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, SAAB, HUMMER, etc.)

[Oracle of Delphi]

Consider it earned perspective... I've dealt with two Chrysler products over the past 10-12 years and used Chrysler Corp more than once for research papers in college. I'm not a naive child who's too young to have owned a new car, let alone several. Just because I don't like a product or brand doesn't mean I shouldn't post... because everyone else her spews their open hatred for particular GM brands (Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, SAAB, HUMMER, etc.)

I don't!

[CMG]

Consider it earned perspective... I've dealt with two Chrysler products over the past 10-12 years and used Chrysler Corp more than once for research papers in college. I'm not a naive child who's too young to have owned a new car, let alone several. Just because I don't like a product or brand doesn't mean I shouldn't post... because everyone else her spews their open hatred for particular GM brands (Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, SAAB, HUMMER, etc.)

Yeah, I don't have an "open hatred" for any brand either.

THEY ARE CARS!!!!!

lol

Some of you C&G guys are just plain brand blinded.

[6t5frlane]

Styling even a Soviet would cringe at.....

...But not an Aztec engineer

[VenSeattle]

Yeah, I don't have an "open hatred" for any brand either.

THEY ARE CARS!!!!!

lol

Some of you C&G guys are just plain brand blinded.

Just remember there can be different sources for irritation with other brands and/or manufacturers. Not all of it is bias or blindness. I've given credit to Chrysler for what I've agreed with. I blast them for things that I don't agree with.

Considering we're in a topic discussing "emergency overhauls" for two recently released Chrysler products (for a rather crucial segment), my implication that Ford and GM currently have better styling must have some merit.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Considering we're in a topic discussing "emergency overhauls" for two recently released Chrysler products (for a rather crucial segment), my implication that Ford and GM currently have better styling must have some merit.

Don't forget that GM and Ford must have better materials too.

To be fair, the interior of the Charger/Magnum do have some decent materials. Dip down into Avenger/Caliber territory and then things start getting scary.

[NeonLX]

I've been with Chrysler through thick & thin...unfortunately, it often seems like too much thin...but anyway, the fact we're now driving a GM product (replacing our Dodge minivan) says a lot. Again, I place virtually all the blame on Daimler; they simply sucked the company dry and left it for dead.

Now, I've always been a fan of GM products as well, though they ticked me off royally when they got rid of my favorite car division, Oldsmobile (or should I have said "royale-y"?).

I've never actually owned a Ford product, though there are some I'd certainly like in my driveway, old and new.

[Cory Wolfe]

As much as it may surprise a few certain people, I like Chrysler. But... and this an important one... I'm not blind to reality.

[makfu]

I've been with Chrysler through thick & thin... <snip>

I just don’t understand this mentality. Chrysler, like GM, is a company owned by shareholders and operated by people. It is not a living entity – it doesn’t have feelings or reward your loyalty. If a car company builds a great car, then celebrate that product. If a car company produces numerous excellent cars over time, you can celebrate the lineage and excellence of those products and respect the organization that built them. However, the day that company starts building crap, stop buying their product, because there is absolutely NO point in rewarding a company for building garbage.

I have bought a number of BMW products because they have always proven to be fun and durable products that I enjoyed owning. I am now on my second Cadillac because I think Cadillac makes unique, fun and surprisingly good cars, nowadays. That said, I think GM is an interesting company, as much for its history as for its spectacular failures of the last 35 years. Let’s be honest, GM mostly built bland and poorly assembled crap during the 90’s, though occasionally had moments of brilliance (93-2002 F-Body, the 95-99 Aurora, C5 Vette, 92-97 Cadillac STS). If BMW started building bland, boring, or otherwise crap cars, I would say f-them. If GM returns to their 70’s, 80’s and 90’s malaise, then f-them too. I might still be interested in both companies, but I sure as hell am not going to continue buying their products out of loyalty – that’s doesn’t help me and, long term, it really doesn’t help the company.

Chrysler of this decade has shown moments of genius (the LX cars), but the Sebring, Avenger, Nitro, Compass and Caliber are, reliability aside, simply dreadful. Outside of getting one of these vehicles at some ridiculously low transaction price, NOBODY should buy these things. You are MUCH better off buying the infinity better GM, Ford and import options. If Chrysler LLC can’t be fixed, well that’s Cerberus’ (and its employees) problem, but there is no reason anyone should follow a brand or a company into the ground – they wouldn’t do the same for you.

[A Horse With No Name]

I just don’t understand this mentality. Chrysler, like GM, is a company owned by shareholders and operated by people. It is not a living entity – it doesn’t have feelings or reward your loyalty. If a car company builds a great car, then celebrate that product. If a car company produces numerous excellent cars over time, you can celebrate the lineage and excellence of those products and respect the organization that built them. However, the day that company starts building crap, stop buying their product, because there is absolutely NO point in rewarding a company for building garbage.

I have bought a number of BMW products because they have always proven to be fun and durable products that I enjoyed owning. I am now on my second Cadillac because I think Cadillac makes unique, fun and surprisingly good cars, nowadays. That said, I think GM is an interesting company, as much for its history as for its spectacular failures of the last 35 years. Let’s be honest, GM mostly built bland and poorly assembled crap during the 90’s, though occasionally had moments of brilliance (93-2002 F-Body, the 95-99 Aurora, C5 Vette, 92-97 Cadillac STS). If BMW started building bland, boring, or otherwise crap cars, I would say f-them. If GM returns to their 70’s, 80’s and 90’s malaise, then f-them too. I might still be interested in both companies, but I sure as hell am not going to continue buying their products out of loyalty – that’s doesn’t help me and, long term, it really doesn’t help the company.

Chrysler of this decade has shown moments of genius (the LX cars), but the Sebring, Avenger, Nitro, Compass and Caliber are, reliability aside, simply dreadful. Outside of getting one of these vehicles at some ridiculously low transaction price, NOBODY should buy these things. You are MUCH better off buying the infinity better GM, Ford and import options. If Chrysler LLC can’t be fixed, well that’s Cerberus’ (and its employees) problem, but there is no reason anyone should follow a brand or a company into the ground – they wouldn’t do the same for you.

Exactly why I'm not buying another Toyota product-not so much that they are an asian company as the current product lineup is really bland.

And your right, no one with any sense whatsoever should be buying these things.

Chris

[Intrepidation]

Styling is subjective and also it alternates between whose get the better styling. `57-`59 Mopars had looked better than much of the competition at the time IMO. History tends to repeat itself in that the late mid to late 90's into 2005 or so Chrysler was again the styling leader in many respects IMO. LH cars, LX cars (compared with the ugly then boring Impala, the hideous last Malibu and the boring one before that), previous Dakota, and so on.

Styling is subjective, but we can all agree that every company has it's highs and lows of automotive design, except maybe Honda and Toyota...which never really had many highs.

[Bimmer325]

I just don’t understand this mentality. Chrysler, like GM, is a company owned by shareholders and operated by people. It is not a living entity – it doesn’t have feelings or reward your loyalty. If a car company builds a great car, then celebrate that product. If a car company produces numerous excellent cars over time, you can celebrate the lineage and excellence of those products and respect the organization that built them. However, the day that company starts building crap, stop buying their product, because there is absolutely NO point in rewarding a company for building garbage.

I have bought a number of BMW products because they have always proven to be fun and durable products that I enjoyed owning. I am now on my second Cadillac because I think Cadillac makes unique, fun and surprisingly good cars, nowadays. That said, I think GM is an interesting company, as much for its history as for its spectacular failures of the last 35 years. Let’s be honest, GM mostly built bland and poorly assembled crap during the 90’s, though occasionally had moments of brilliance (93-2002 F-Body, the 95-99 Aurora, C5 Vette, 92-97 Cadillac STS). If BMW started building bland, boring, or otherwise crap cars, I would say f-them. If GM returns to their 70’s, 80’s and 90’s malaise, then f-them too. I might still be interested in both companies, but I sure as hell am not going to continue buying their products out of loyalty – that’s doesn’t help me and, long term, it really doesn’t help the company.

Chrysler of this decade has shown moments of genius (the LX cars), but the Sebring, Avenger, Nitro, Compass and Caliber are, reliability aside, simply dreadful. Outside of getting one of these vehicles at some ridiculously low transaction price, NOBODY should buy these things. You are MUCH better off buying the infinity better GM, Ford and import options. If Chrysler LLC can’t be fixed, well that’s Cerberus’ (and its employees) problem, but there is no reason anyone should follow a brand or a company into the ground – they wouldn’t do the same for you.

One of the best posts I've read in a long time, makfu. I couldn't agree more.

[BrewSwillis]

I just don’t understand this mentality. Chrysler, like GM, is a company owned by shareholders and operated by people. It is not a living entity – it doesn’t have feelings or reward your loyalty. If a car company builds a great car, then celebrate that product. If a car company produces numerous excellent cars over time, you can celebrate the lineage and excellence of those products and respect the organization that built them. However, the day that company starts building crap, stop buying their product, because there is absolutely NO point in rewarding a company for building garbage.

Chrysler, and the UAW, paid for my education (my father was an electrician).....why would I not support them?? No Asian or foreign car maker has ever helped me or my family. Chrysler has always been an innovator instead of a follower.....and I admire that. I don't blindly follow them. In 2002 I was looking for a new vehicle, and Chrysler didn't have anything that appealed to me, so I bought my first non-Chrysler vehicle ever, a Monte Carlo SS. But, when Chrysler came out with the 300, well it was too much not to trade the Monte in for. I still would consider Chrysler 1st, and it used to be Chrysler or nothing....but now it's American or nothing.

Edited January 13, 2008 by BrewSwillis

[makfu]

Chrysler, and the UAW, paid for my education (my father was an electrician).....why would I not support them?? No Asian or foreign car maker has ever helped me or my family. Chrysler has always been an innovator instead of a follower.....and I admire that. I don't blindly follow them. In 2002 I was looking for a new vehicle, and Chrysler didn't have anything that appealed to me, so I bought my first non-Chrysler vehicle ever, a Monte Carlo SS. But, when Chrysler came out with the 300, well it was too much not to trade the Monte in for. I still would consider Chrysler 1st, and it used to be Chrysler or nothing....but now it's American or nothing.

For profit corporations do not, and never will, exist to provide help or charity. They exist for one all consuming and singular purpose – to make money for their shareholders by providing products and services to customers in a profitable fashion. Everything else, no matter how generous, warm or comforting to employees, customers or the public, is done for the sole purpose of enabling and enhancing the company’s one real function, which is as it should be.

With that in mind, neither Chrysler nor the UAW “helped” you. Chrysler didn’t provide any of those benefits (via your father) out of kindness; it did it because it was part of the compensation and benefits package negotiated by the UAW on behalf of its PAYING members. Your FATHER helped you pay for your education by holding down a good job and (probably) working very hard for Chrysler, which in turn provided benefits to help pay for your education. Furthermore, the UAW is an organization your father PAID to be a member of, and thus, was providing benefits and protections as a result (just as surely as I pay for my AAA membership).

Credit your father alone, not Chrysler or the UAW because Chrysler was just doing what it was required to do in order to keep talent and the UAW was providing a service paid for by your father.

Edited January 13, 2008 by makfu

[CMG]

One of the best posts I've read in a long time, makfu. I couldn't agree more.

I agree too, but it's not brand particular when reading those "don't support a brand blindly" posts.

I've had nothing but good luck with Chrysler products and almost all nightmares with GM products.

I have a new GM Express work van, first GM product I've tried in over a decade, it's not impressive at all but aside from a tranny and a stuck interior light switch it hasn't let me down in the first 45,000 miles.

I'll see how it goes....

[CMG]

Chrysler has always been an innovator instead of a follower.....and I admire that. I don't blindly follow them.

I agree 100%.

I've bought new Chrysler products and must have had the cream of the crop, cause I REALLY liked them all. Even a 3.3 Caravan Sport which I bought assuming I would hate it- I've never had a more troublefree vehicle in my life, and I sold it with 230,000k on it. I wish I never sold it.

Some stuff surprised me (like the Caravan) and some stuff - like our Magnum- impressed me immensely.

My worst Chrysler product was a new 1975 Dodge Colt... but it was a Mitsubishi. I wasn't terribly impressed, but it wasn't meant to be an impressive car.

[makfu]

I agree 100%.

I've bought new Chrysler products and must have had the cream of the crop, cause I REALLY liked them all. Even a 3.3 Caravan Sport which I bought assuming I would hate it- I've never had a more troublefree vehicle in my life, and I sold it with 230,000k on it. I wish I never sold it.

Some stuff surprised me (like the Caravan) and some stuff - like our Magnum- impressed me immensely.

My worst Chrysler product was a new 1975 Dodge Colt... but it was a Mitsubishi. I wasn't terribly impressed, but it wasn't meant to be an impressive car.

First, I would love to hear about your GM problems (I think it would be interesting to know). Second, why are you on a GM board if you have been bitten by GM in the past? Given my Chrysler experiences, I sure wouldn’t spend any time on a Mopar board, even if it was in the “other guys” threads.

Frankly, every Chrysler my family has ever owned has been an absolute pile of &#036;h&#33;, including:

76 Dodge Aspen - Parents (incredibly awful - seared into my head as a child are the frightening incidents with that car, like stalling in the middle of an intersection while making a left turn and a terrifying brake failure incident while coming down a hill)

87 LeBaron GTS Turbo - My second used car (total crap, died at ~45k when the 2.2’s head gasket blew and the aluminum head warped)

94 Chrysler Concord LX 3.5 – New car (Gave Chrysler yet another chance - disposed of after only 7,000 miles due to massive problems and a Lemon Law suit)

97 Neon – Acquired via marriage (litany of problems to numerous to list, starting from when it was new – brakes issues alone, all of which were “non-covered” problems, cost me thousands in repairs over the span of ownership)

Now that is just my experience, but I have a coworker whose 92 Acclaim burst into flames on i684 in Purchase NY back in 2001. My best friend’s mother has a previous generation Jeep Grand Cherokee that is on its third transmission (and it’s under 100k last I spoke to her). One of my other colleagues has a 1 year old Grand Caravan that he absolutely hates because of “all the little stuff, like interior bits falling apart”.

Then there are my recent Mopar rentals, which is all I seem to get today because Chrysler is flooding the rental market. I had a brand new PT Cruiser for several months, which, amoung other things, had a trans shudder and smelled of gas (both likely a result of rich fuel mixture due to a faulty O2 sensor). Last month, in Chicago, I had to endure a Dodge Nitro with hood flutter and the nastiest interior I have ever seen (flash lines are totally unacceptable today). In my experience, Chrysler historically vacillates between beautiful cars, interesting cars and boring cars, all with subpar quality.

I only know ONE Chrysler customer IRL who actually thinks they build good vehicles and admittedly he had no problems with his Dodge Intrepid or his Durango and, as a result, he just bought one of the new Mopar minivans. However, I don’t know of any other car company that has produced products that have pissed off so many people I actually know. Sure, I know people who have had a bad experience with Ford and GM, but it’s not every GM or Ford customer I know (sans one)!

[Intrepidation]

We can go on and on about how Chrysler has turned out various piles of crap in the past but let's not forget GM and Ford have done the same as well.

[Oracle of Delphi]

For profit corporations do not, and never will, exist to provide help or charity. They exist for one all consuming and singular purpose – to make money for their shareholders by providing products and services to customers in a profitable fashion. Everything else, no matter how generous, warm or comforting to employees, customers or the public, is done for the sole purpose of enabling and enhancing the company’s one real function, which is as it should be.

With that in mind, neither Chrysler nor the UAW “helped” you. Chrysler didn’t provide any of those benefits (via your father) out of kindness; it did it because it was part of the compensation and benefits package negotiated by the UAW on behalf of its PAYING members. Your FATHER helped you pay for your education by holding down a good job and (probably) working very hard for Chrysler, which in turn provided benefits to help pay for your education. Furthermore, the UAW is an organization your father PAID to be a member of, and thus, was providing benefits and protections as a result (just as surely as I pay for my AAA membership).

Credit your father alone, not Chrysler or the UAW because Chrysler was just doing what it was required to do in order to keep talent and the UAW was providing a service paid for by your father.

One of the best post, I've have read here.

[Cory Wolfe]

I only know ONE Chrysler customer IRL who actually thinks they build good vehicles and admittedly he had no problems with his Dodge Intrepid or his Durango and, as a result, he just bought one of the new Mopar minivans. However, I don’t know of any other car company that has produced products that have pissed off so many people I actually know. Sure, I know people who have had a bad experience with Ford and GM, but it’s not every GM or Ford customer I know (sans one)!

My family's experience is pretty much equal with Ford, GM, and Chrysler. They've all been &#036;h&#33;. But here I am...

[CMG]

First, I would love to hear about your GM problems (I think it would be interesting to know). Second, why are you on a GM board if you have been bitten by GM in the past? Given my Chrysler experiences, I sure wouldn’t spend any time on a Mopar board, even if it was in the “other guys” threads.

Frankly, every Chrysler my family has ever owned has been an absolute pile of &#036;h&#33;, including:

76 Dodge Aspen - Parents (incredibly awful - seared into my head as a child are the frightening incidents with that car, like stalling in the middle of an intersection while making a left turn and a terrifying brake failure incident while coming down a hill)

87 LeBaron GTS Turbo - My second used car (total crap, died at ~45k when the 2.2’s head gasket blew and the aluminum head warped)

94 Chrysler Concord LX 3.5 – New car (Gave Chrysler yet another chance - disposed of after only 7,000 miles due to massive problems and a Lemon Law suit)

97 Neon – Acquired via marriage (litany of problems to numerous to list, starting from when it was new – brakes issues alone, all of which were “non-covered” problems, cost me thousands in repairs over the span of ownership)

Now that is just my experience, but I have a coworker whose 92 Acclaim burst into flames on i684 in Purchase NY back in 2001. My best friend’s mother has a previous generation Jeep Grand Cherokee that is on its third transmission (and it’s under 100k last I spoke to her). One of my other colleagues has a 1 year old Grand Caravan that he absolutely hates because of “all the little stuff, like interior bits falling apart”.

Then there are my recent Mopar rentals, which is all I seem to get today because Chrysler is flooding the rental market. I had a brand new PT Cruiser for several months, which, amoung other things, had a trans shudder and smelled of gas (both likely a result of rich fuel mixture due to a faulty O2 sensor). Last month, in Chicago, I had to endure a Dodge Nitro with hood flutter and the nastiest interior I have ever seen (flash lines are totally unacceptable today). In my experience, Chrysler historically vacillates between beautiful cars, interesting cars and boring cars, all with subpar quality.

I only know ONE Chrysler customer IRL who actually thinks they build good vehicles and admittedly he had no problems with his Dodge Intrepid or his Durango and, as a result, he just bought one of the new Mopar minivans. However, I don’t know of any other car company that has produced products that have pissed off so many people I actually know. Sure, I know people who have had a bad experience with Ford and GM, but it’s not every GM or Ford customer I know (sans one)!

GM problems?

LOL Name the vehicle!

My mother bought a 1972 Nova with a 350. Two door, gold exterior white interior. We loved it. For the first year and a bit...

By the time it was three years old it had already had a camshaft wipe out, the rear blew (spider gears) and the quarter panel was rusted beyond belief. (MOST old cars rysted in the 70s so it wasn't that surprising).

In 1976 we were taking runs at the entrance ramp to her apartment to get it out of her underground for her.

LOL!

It was a 350 Nova keep in mind!

Down the road she eventually bought a Chrysler Cordoba, and me and my buddies were all into Chevys. One of my buddys yelled "buy a Chevy" at her, my Mom FLIPPED! Haha She was the mildest meekest woman, but it struck a nerve, she let my buddy have it like the sharpest internet heroes can only do today. I was completely stunned.

I owned and built a TON of Chevys when I was younger, and I've owned a couple here and there over the years. I have a new Chevy Express that already had a warranty transmission, it went bad at 35,000k and was eventually replaced at 43,000k. Slipped like a bugger.

My neighbour's brother takes the "all time" cake- his brand new Silverado 4x4 took two rear ends and three times went in for transfer case problems. He did NOT 4 wheel with it either, it was a pavement prncess. His truck was in the shop so often we never saw it much for quite a few months.

Most of my experiences have been with Chevys before 1990ish, when I stopped buying them. I stopped focusing on building Chevys in the early 1980s. They were cheap to build but they weren't the highest quality. We (a bunch of us) switched to MoPars because we could build faster, more reliable cars for less money.

No stud gridles needed, no screw in studs, no cams wiping out, no common problems that were fairly cheap to fix but a true pain in the rump when they happened.

I built engines for a living for over a decade in a high performance shop. The only make with a worse track record we saw was the Pontiac guys, misinformation and odd parts problems- such as lifter oil heights etc would eat more than a few Pontiacs. Keep in mind- I LIKE PONTIAC ENGINES.

I would rather have a 421 SD Catalina than it's Chevy/Buick/Olds counterparts hands down.

I've had SB Dodge plugged intake crossovers, seen re-rung BB Dodges spin rod bearings (original rod bolts stretched) and other common MoPar problems as well.

NO DOMESTIC AUTOMAKER is free of problems. To think anything close to that way is blindness.

We picked what worked for us, and we all switched, and never looked back. No regrets.

I know my Chevrolet engine stuff pre-1980 pretty danged well though. Better than most so-called "Chevy guys".

Take a small block Chevy and a B/RB Dodge engine. Cut them apart and compare.

BB Dodge has a skirted block, an external oil pump and a front mounted distributor, but most of the meaningful performance geometry and layout is the same between the two. We were diehard SB Chevy guys, but we went to BB MoPars for a reason.

The styling was another factor for us too.

Mainstream guys liked the 69 Camaros and 70 Cudas etc...

We weren't mainstream!!!!!!!

We liked the oddball stuff, the cars with character. Wings, fins, oddball dashes, materials, trim and color. We liked the weird stuff. Chevy and Ford wasn't catering to the "weirdo crowd" in the 50s/60s/70s unless in small areas.

If you only know ONE person who has had trouble with a GM you better get out more. SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!

Your 76 Aspen that had a stall in the middle of driving wasn't terribly uncommon for a carbureted car in the 70s. I had both GMs and Chrysler do the same. I had my brakes fail in a 1963 Dodge, a 1966 Cutlass and a early 60's Mercury of my brother's. That's all three automakers. LOL The Dodge's brakes failed right AFTER I went down a big hill.

The turbo head gasket failure is common with raised boost levels and/or low coolant levels. I've had a few.

Ever hear of "Dex-cool" though? :AH-HA_wink:

I've had the same failures due to the coolant choice from the general!

Your Concord I have absolutely NO experience with, I know people who have owned and loved them, and I gotta say it surprised me. They look like a boring car as far as I'm concerned. The 3.5 engines aren't terrible from what I have read, the 2.7 engines are. But like I said, EVERY automaker has had MORE than just one bad engine.

Take a look at a late 1970s Honda CVCC engine. (Reputation vs. reality especially)

My brother-in-law had his new 1990 Chevy van burst into flames. It was 4 months old.

I sat in the back of a 1966 GTO, 389 tri-power, 4 speed on the way to work. The rear carb line burst and soaked the distributor, catching the car on firs and basically burning it to the ground.

Are 1966 GTOs substandard piles of garbage?

We bought parts of another guy who had the same experience, HIS GTO burned under the same circumstances. He chose to part his out, we rebuilt ours.

I've owned HUNDREDS of cars. I've owned 11 cars and a couple trucks AT THE SAME TIME. Not junkers, but decent drivable cars. All sorts of makes, but almost all were GM or Chrysler. Not many Fords, I'm not much of a Ford fan until the late 80s Mustangs came around- they were decent cheap "bang for the buck" cars.

It's not hard to see the "cons" for Chrysler are exaggerated here and the "pros" for GM are also exaggerated. It's a GM forum though, what do you think I expect?

:AH-HA_wink: :AH-HA_wink: :AH-HA_wink:

[CMG]

My family's experience is pretty much equal with Ford, GM, and Chrysler. They've all been &#036;h&#33;. But here I am...

Haha

I've had good and bad from EVERY car brand I have owned. Domestic AND import.

[NeonLX]

OK, maybe I should explain a bit more: A big part of my "loyalty" to Chrysler has been the excellent service I've received from our local Chrysler dealer. We've never experienced a major mechanical issue with any of our Chrysler products down through the decades--but for routine service and the occasional problem (serpentine belt tensioner on our '96 Voyager comes to mind here) the dealership has always come through with no fuss.

There's also a certain amount of familiarity that goes into one's perception; after years of driving Chryslers, they usually felt "right". Back in my generation, it wasn't uncommon for people to identify themselves as a "Chevy man" or "Olds guy", or whatever. My dad was always keen on Oldsmobiles but he wouldn't touch a Ford--or God forbid, a Toyota or Honda.

At one time, I thought Chrysler had the best combo of engineering and performance for the price. That really held true in the mid & late 1960s--and maybe into the early 1970s as well. I also had several AMC vehicles of that era and was impressed with them as well. GM seemed to lead in styling & features, from my standpoint--hence my '72 Olds 98, which was probably the prettiest car I ever owned, not to mention the plushest.

So I don't always think about cars completely rationally--that's what my wife is for!

[A Horse With No Name]

Styling is subjective and also it alternates between whose get the better styling. `57-`59 Mopars had looked better than much of the competition at the time IMO. History tends to repeat itself in that the late mid to late 90's into 2005 or so Chrysler was again the styling leader in many respects IMO. LH cars, LX cars (compared with the ugly then boring Impala, the hideous last Malibu and the boring one before that), previous Dakota, and so on.

Styling is subjective, but we can all agree that every company has it's highs and lows of automotive design, except maybe Honda and Toyota...which never really had many highs.

Ditto on the LX cars thing here. Were Chrysler still building cars like the first/second gen Neon, the LX series, etc. I'd be looking at one.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

OK, maybe I should explain a bit more: A big part of my "loyalty" to Chrysler has been the excellent service I've received from our local Chrysler dealer. We've never experienced a major mechanical issue with any of our Chrysler products down through the decades--but for routine service and the occasional problem (serpentine belt tensioner on our '96 Voyager comes to mind here) the dealership has always come through with no fuss.

There's also a certain amount of familiarity that goes into one's perception; after years of driving Chryslers, they usually felt "right". Back in my generation, it wasn't uncommon for people to identify themselves as a "Chevy man" or "Olds guy", or whatever. My dad was always keen on Oldsmobiles but he wouldn't touch a Ford--or God forbid, a Toyota or Honda.

At one time, I thought Chrysler had the best combo of engineering and performance for the price. That really held true in the mid & late 1960s--and maybe into the early 1970s as well. I also had several AMC vehicles of that era and was impressed with them as well. GM seemed to lead in styling & features, from my standpoint--hence my '72 Olds 98, which was probably the prettiest car I ever owned, not to mention the plushest.

So I don't always think about cars completely rationally--that's what my wife is for!

One of the things that makes me really sad is that there is a wonderful family owned Chrysler store near me that I would love to do buisiness with...if the product lineup were different.

Chris