DCX recalls 45,000 Chargers, 300's & Magnums

[Dragon]

http://www.autonet.ca/Maintenance/Recalls/...1566153-ap.html

by Associated Press posted May 5, 2006

WASHINGTON -- DaimlerChrysler AG said Friday that it was recalling about 45,000 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum sedans for repairs to prevent brake fluid leakage that could lead to engine compartment fires.

DaimlerChrysler said the recall affects 2006 model-year vehicles with 2.7 liter engines. In some cases, the exhaust gas recirculation tube could come into contact with the brake tubes, leading to brake fluid leaking and a fire.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Max Gates said the automaker was aware of nine reported engine fires. He said there have been no reports of crashes, injuries or property damage.

The recall will involve inspecting the rear brake tubes for damage and replacement if necessary. Technicians also will install a clip on all the vehicles to secure the brake tubes and maintain proper clearance from the exhaust tube.

Gates said owners likely would be notified later this month.

DaimlerChrysler also said it would recall nearly 7,000 2006 Jeep Wranglers equipped with 6-speed manual transmissions because of potential problems with the clutch.

The automaker said the hydraulic clutch master cylinder rod could break, which could make it difficult for the clutch to disengage when the pedal is depressed.

Gates said the defect could prevent movement, lead to increased stopping distances and engine stalling. The company said it has received 17 complaints and no reports of crashes, injuries or property damage. Owners also are expected to be notified of the recall later in the month.

In both recalls, the vehicles will be repaired at no charge to owners.

DaimlerChrysler's U.S. shares rose 43 cents to $55.27 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, closer to the upper end of their 52-week range of $39 to $60.22.

[Variance]

DaimlerChrysler said the recall affects 2006 model-year vehicles with 2.7 liter engines. In some cases, the exhaust gas recirculation tube could come into contact with the brake tubes, leading to brake fluid leaking and a fire.

That'll teach them to buy a DCX car with that pitiful engine. I hope they learned their lesson.

[sciguy_0504]

The rental car companies are screaming right now.

[Sixty8panther]

It's a recall.... at least if your 300 or Charger is recalled

it is worth doing the fix, but if you're driving a Camry or

Civic it sucks before and after the recall.

[Intrepidation]

at least it's the base v6...but i thought the Charger only came with the larger v6?

[Variance]

at least it's the base v6...but i thought the Charger only came with the larger v6?

Canadian Chargers come with the 2.7L.

[Charger4U]

That'll teach them to buy a DCX car with that pitiful engine. I hope they learned their lesson.

I heard that engine was very unpowerful, i seen some guy with a base charger abd i say Nice Car, and he sais This? and i say Yes, then he sais its a piece of $h!..its so unpowerful, and then i told him he hast to get a higher trim level, the he says this looks good but its a piece of $h!

[regfootball]

I drove a 2.7 Magnum once. SLOOOOOO

i don't think this recall is a big deal.

[Intrepidation]

I heard that engine was very unpowerful, i seen some guy with a base charger abd i say Nice Car, and he sais This? and i say Yes, then he sais its a piece of $h!..its so unpowerful, and then i told him he hast to get a higher trim level, the he says this looks good but its a piece of $h! 

Ok first, unpowerful is not a word, so he is an idiot WHat makes him even more of an idiot is that it wouldn't be a piece of $h! if he wasn't a dumbass cheap bastard and at least went with 3.5 liter V6. Moron

Edited May 6, 2006 by Dodgefan

[Flybrian]

Fleet Chargers in the states also have the crappy 2.7l.

I guess these cars are hot after all.

[Drew Dowdell]

Fleet Chargers in the states also have the crappy 2.7l.

I guess these cars are hot after all.

You'll make more money as C&G Admin then a comedian Bri.

[Flybrian]

You'll make more money as C&G Admin then a comedian Bri.

In that case, I'm glad I have a real job.

[Charger4U]

Ok first, unpowerful is not a word, so he is an idiot WHat makes him even more of an idiot is that it wouldn't be a piece of $h! if he wasn't a dumbass cheap bastard and at least went with 3.5 liter V6. Moron

he actually said that it has no power, i said unpowerful and who gives a $h! wether its a word? you obviously understood me , and it was a rental car...

[76ChevyTrucker]

Engine fires are no good, niether are crappy clutch master cylinders, but kinda like y'all said, that's what they get for buying underpowered, fleet/rental grade vehicles.

[grandmarquis]

>quote:DaimlerChrysler spokesman Max Gates said the automaker was >aware of nine reported engine fires. He said there have been no >reports of crashes, injuries or property damage

what, they don't consider the car as property? it is if i'm making the payments on it. besides, anyone that buys one with that sludge motor deserves it.

[FAPTurbo]

besides, anyone that buys one with that sludge motor deserves it.

Yeah, ok. You realize that some people may have not been able to afford the 3.5L...

And with fuel economy dominating peoples' minds, can you blame them for buying the smaller engine?

I know it's a pathetic engine and all, but is it really the buyers fault?

[ponchoman49]

Yeah, ok. You realize that some people may have not been able to afford the 3.5L...

And with fuel economy dominating peoples' minds, can you blame them for buying the smaller engine?

I know it's a pathetic engine and all, but is it really the buyers fault?

It's hard for the younger ones to understand that the majority of the buying public isn't interested in super fast 0-60 times and a 2.7 liter equipped 300C or Charger will out accellerate many 1980's and some 1990's cars, even with V-8's. Most people I know are buyng cars based on fuel economy numbers, price, room and comfort and did I mention price. Also talked with folks that have rented 2.7 liter 300's/Magnums and Chargers and were quite happy with the overall performance of the cars, especially on the highway. These engines biggest achilles heel is off the line power which is pretty sedate.

[Sixty8panther]

Unless it's a high-compresion inline six no car that big

& heavy should be powered by a 2.7 liter engine. I'd

rather just buy a cheaper car that's got a better

power to weight ratio but then again the big three do

not give us too many choices for afforbable RWD

sedans. Esp. GM. :anrgy:

[Intrepidation]

I don't get why buyers jus opt for the 3.5 V6. Good power, good fuel economy...no engine fires...and you won't get made fun of for having such a PoS engine

If you're investing in a new car, you're putting a lot of money into it, why be cheap? Spend the extra grand and get the decent egine. The you won't regret it later down the road as `95 Neons fly past you

Edited May 10, 2006 by Dodgefan

[CaddyXLR-V]

It's hard for the younger ones to understand that the majority of the buying public isn't interested in super fast 0-60 times and a 2.7 liter equipped 300C or Charger will out accellerate many 1980's and some 1990's cars, even with V-8's. Most people I know are buyng cars based on fuel economy numbers, price, room and comfort and did I mention price. Also talked with folks that have rented 2.7 liter 300's/Magnums and Chargers and were quite happy with the overall performance of the cars, especially on the highway. These engines biggest achilles heel is off the line power which is pretty sedate.

Did you not complain about the 3.8 in the Lucerne making 197hp, and being too slow? But now its ok for a heavier car to have a less powerful engine?

[ponchoman49]

Did you not complain about the 3.8 in the Lucerne making 197hp, and being too slow? But now its ok for a heavier car to have a less powerful engine?

The Lucerne is a more expensive car, especially in CXL trim which as I said many times deserves the extra power and refinement of the superior 3.6 DOHC. The 3800 is fine for the base CX as I stated above that the target audience doesn't care about 0-60 performance. And my biggest complaint about the 197 hp version used in the Lucerne is that it is an embaressment that a 2006 higher end luxurious car that can go well over 30K has a less powerful engine than a 1995-2005 Buick LeSabre/Bonneville and is quite a bit slower too! At least DCX offers 2 alternative more powerfull and up to date engines as options. I have no problem that they offer the revvy little 2.7 as the base engine in the cheaper value leader models for those that don't want to spend the extra dough and want better mileage. My buddys 02 Intrepid with this engine actually had more top end power than my LeSabre with the 3800 so it can't be all that bad. Now if we were talking about a 30K 300 Limited with this engine, I would be the first to disagree with it. The higher end Lucernes with less hp and torque than a 1995 model, lower mpg fugures and quite a bit slower 0-60 times is unacceptable! The Lucerne CXL needs the 3.6 DOHC like right now!

[Dark Knight]

That'll teach them to buy a DCX car with that pitiful engine. I hope they learned their lesson.

Pretty harsh, but what about the GTO owners that have had fuel lines worn and cut by the engine cover and as a result lost their GTOs. Will that teach them? If you own a GTO it may be to your advantage to read through the link below and find out id your GTO suffers from that condition. Take care.

http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthread.ph...&highlight=Fire

[Dark Knight]

Variance,

By the way, I love the quote from Futurama in your signature, I laughed pretty hard when I read it. That is one of my favorite episodes.

[cmattson]

HP doesn't equate into speed. No question that the 3.8l's HP is a tad on the light side (especially for it's larger displacement), but torque is a key factor: and the 3.8l has gobs of it starting low in the RPM range. It gives you a very satisfying launch (providing you can find one not in a weighted-down Oldsmobuick Luxobarge). The other key factors are transmission/rear-end gearing and vehicle weight.

This brings me to a biatch-point: Why do auto reviews give us everything but a zero-sixty time? Rarely you'll find the stat mentioned. Because a vehicle's performance can vary significantly from all of the above-mentioned factors, the one consistent way to measure how well a car performs against another is a 0-60 time.. and you'll find review after review that doesn't supply it (but you'll find an endless supply of reviews that mention 3mm and 1mm panel gaps and other worthless crap).

[MyerShift]

Odd, I didn't see this in the headlines.

Must be Chrysler isn't so victim to the media now that it has the 300?