NeonLX

It is asking a lot of the 2.7L V6 to yank a big tub like the Sebring Convertible around with any kind of gusto. It ain't the torquiest engine ever built, though it would do fine in something 1000-lbs. lighter than the bulky Sebring 'vert. To add insult to injury, the engine has to twirl its feeble torque through Chrysler's mashed potato-drive 4-speed ATX. I guess it's a little better than a Dynaflow because at least the torque convertor locks up at highway speeds.

See my signature line for a PR photo of the '72 Ninety-Eight Regency. Gee, lookit that, I had hair back then...

I prolly shouldn't admit this, but I've had six different Mopar minivans down through the decades. I liked 'em all. But the current models really turn me off. The styling isn't as off-putting for me as it was when I first saw them, but it still isn't "good" in my eyes. The interior of the T&C is fairly inviting, but the Caravan's interiors are pretty cold-looking with all those acres of hard plastic ('course, same can be said about many other vehicles, including Hondas). My biggest gripe is the sheer size of these things--anything as long as a Tahoe and weighing in excess of 4400-lbs. should not be called a "mini" anything. The original Caravan/Voyager was 175" long and weighed 3000 lbs. You could pack a lot of stuff AND people into those things. And once they started putting V6 and/or turbo engines in them (1988), you could also get out of your own way with them. The new ones are just way too big and bulky for us--but I guess that is the direction the "mini"van market has been heading.

I became a big fan of the Cobalt after we rented an '05 LT sedan for two weeks during our vacation to Alaska in June of '05. I was really impressed with the car--good zip, quiet ride, decent fuel economy, nice handling and an attractive, comfortable interior. My wife really liked the car too, and she normally doesn't like "small" cars. So starting last summer, we began kinda sorta looking for Cobalt sedans on dealers lots, new or used--and they were darned hard to find. The salespeople said that they were tough to come by. We found a used '06 LT sedan with 21K miles on it, but then we came upon the '07 Malibu Maxx LT w/ 13K miles that we are driving now (though it has just passed the 27K miles mark). Anyhoo, I found myself lamenting the fact that Cobalts weren't more readily available--and that they weren't being "pushed" more. Chevy has a great compact going here and it's a shame more people don't know about it.

Remember the mildly-tuned 396 that was used in the 1969 full-sized Chevy cars? It had a 2V carb and a lower compression to run on regular fuel. I think this version was available only for the '69 model year. Friend of mine had one of these mills in his '69 Caprice. In 1970, the 400 CID small block was introduced and it became the larger displacement, mildly-tuned option for those cars.

Sheesh, I'd clean forgot about the 301 CID Pontiac V8. Thanks for the reminder!

One little tidbit: There was an Olds "big block" V8--the Olds 330 & 350 (+ later 260, 307 & 403 CID) were "low block" engines with a lower deck height than the 400/425/455 engines. As a result, the bigger engines look wider when you see them under the hood; even the intake manifold on the bigger engines is wider than the one used on the smaller displacement versions with the lower deck height. I believe the same hold true for Buick; the 350 and 455 were different blocks, IIRC (I know the earlier 300/340 CID engines were different than the 400/430 CIDs anyway). Not sure if Pontiac changed deck height going from the 326/350 up through the (389?), 400, 421, 428 & 455 either...wouldn't be surprised, given the lengthened stroke, especially on the 455. One other thing: I remember hearing that some of the V8 engines were easier to tune for compliance with ever-stricter emission standards than others, so GM would concentrate on bringing those engines up to snuff, rather than spending all the engineering $$ trying to get all of them to comply.

My mother-in-law had a '95 Riviera with the SC 3800. We took it on several trips and I had no problems averaging 30+ MPG on the highway. I normally kept speeds in the 65-70 MPH range. Back in 2006, she traded the Riv for a Volvo S60 non-turbo with an auto tranny (2.4L inline five). It has yet to achieve the highway MPG of her old Riv. and the Riv had a smoother and much quieter ride to boot. I was an idiot for not buying that Riv before she traded it; what a great car.

A little trivia--the Chevy 265 V8 was still available during the 1957 model year. I remember popping the hood on a '57 sedan and seeing a YELLOW small block under the hood. It was the 265. The 283s were painted the normal orangey-red color. Pontiac had a quickly evolving V8 during the 1950s, right? From memory, it seems like it was 287, 316, 347, 370 and 389 CID during the years 1955-'59...

OK, I did some quick browsing of that police car book and it says the 1994-'96 4.3L V8 displaced 265 CID and had the same bore X stroke dimensions as the original smallblock 265 engine of 1955-'57 vintage (3.75" X 3.00"). Performance in the big boat Caprice was "reasonable"; something like a 10.5 second 0-60 time with quarter mile runs in the high 17s. I'll post the exact specs when I have more time.

I've noticed that the slick, glossy pages of Consumer Reports make for really awful buttwipe. So that magazine has no value whatsoever in our household.

FWIW, they did make a SWB version of the Town & Country right up through the 2007 model year (though before 2005, the were called Chrysler Voyager; the '05-'07 models carried the Town & Country label). I came very close to getting a SWB T&C near the end of 2007; it's trimmed slightly nicer than the Caravan SXT (mainly because of the plood detailing on the dash) and it apparently came standard with the deluxe sound insulation package; something not available on SWB Caravans after about 2003 or so. You could also get those nifty looking T&C alloy wheels on the SWB model, which really spruced up the appearance. I'm still not fond of the new Caravan or T&C, though the higher-end T&Cs look reasonably classy. My nose is out of joint because they discontinued the SWB models, and the new minis are quite a bit tubbier than the previous generation, which were also rather porky in my view (though so are the Odyssey, Quest, Sienna, etc.). We've had six different Mopar minivans. We've had one in our driveway since September of 1989. The current models stopped that streak.

There's a book out there about Chevy police cars from 1955-'96. They mention the 4.3L V8 as a Caprice mill in the chapters for 1994-'96 and I believe there is even some performance data. I'll see if I can find the book and post some more info.

I was holding my breath waiting for the Journey to hit the streets, hoping I wouldn't regret landing on the Malibu Maxx before the Journey was out...but I'm breathing easy now. For what it is, the Journey is pretty nice, and the pricing is good too. But for me, it doesn't take the place of the discontinued SWB minivans. Not as much load space, especially in the vertical dimension, and it's even bigger than the last of the SWB minis (which were about 15" longer, 6" wider and 1000-lbs. heavier than the original minivans). The Journey weighs in about 500-lbs. less than the porky new minivans, however, so that's a plus (though at 3700-3800 lbs, it's no lightweight). BTW, I'm loving the Maxx--great power, nice ride, good comfort and fuel economy is decent as well. --former owner of six different Mopar minivans down through the years.

We're at 86" of snow here in south-central WI. Normal is 36" by this time of the season. But at least we got above zero today! I generally enjoy winter but this one just plain SUCKS.

We're absolutely loving the Maxx. Fuel economy so far has been about 24 MPG--almost all in-town driving, and we're having a NASTY winter here. I'm amazed at how quick this car is. The VVT version of the 3.5L V6 really puts out.

For many years, I drove what was arguably the worst car ever built for winter driving--a 1974 Gremlin X. Because of its bob-tail design and heavy powertrain plopped over the front wheels, the car had about a 70/30 front/rear weight bias. And of course it was RWD with no limited slip differential. Keep in mind that I live in the upper midwest where the winters can be brutal, yet I never got that Gremlin stuck or even into an ugly situation I couldn't get out of. I was still farming up into 1977, so the Gremlin would sometimes have to do "snowplow" duty out on the county roads before the crews made it out. I did put some gnarly snow tires on it in the winter, plus carried around four 50-lbs. bags of rock salt in the rear from November-March, but the thing got me through the worst winter crud for 10 years. For me, FWD by itself is a big improvement in most respects. I don't really want or need all that extra stuff twirling around underneath the car that comes with an AWD setup (not to mention the decreased fuel economy).

True enough, but that AWD adds even more to the sticker price, and subtracts even more from the fuel economy Never needed AWD in any of our Caravans or Voyagers down through the decades...

I hate to admit it, but I like the looks of the Magnum even less than I do the new minivans. I'd get over the styling for the chance to have a Hemi-powered wagon, but keep in mind this is essentially my wife's car. She doesn't like the Magnum's styling one bit. And when momma ain't happy...well you know the rest... We actually wanted FWD; seems to do better than RWD here in the WI winters. As I said before, the Maxx ain't much of a looker from the outside, but the interior is really nice. And it drives very nicely as well. Finally, Mrs. Neon loves the car--which is pretty much the whole ball game.

The T&C isn't too bad but the Caravan really rubs me the wrong way. The wheels on any model look too small relative to the slab sides and big wheel arches. And to me, they look positively institutional from the rear. Never got that impression with the '01-'07 models (or earlier versions, for that matter). I like the interiors of the '08s, especially the "classier"-looking T&C with the woodtone trim. I still think they're great vans; it's just that they've become too big & heavy for our needs.

What?!?!?!?! The SRT-8 is going to have a 4-speed auto trans? I know the "base" Challenger with the 3.5L v6 will have the 4-speed, but I can't imagine the SRT-8 will too...

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!

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.

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.

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