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.

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.

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.

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.

"Tell Him No" by Travis & Bob

Wonder how the ever-sinking U.S. dollar will affect the sticker price of these "Opels"...

I still miss the old Cherokee. Given its relatively light weight, the thing was almost a hotrod when they started using the EFI 4.0L inline six in '87. The Liberty just never did anything for me (except make me want to go somewhere else to look at vehicles).

The original Caravan/Voyager of 1984 had a curb weight of ~3000 lbs. We had an '89 Grand Caravan LE (technically still a first generation model) with the 3.0L/4-speed ATX. The thing weighed in the neighborhood of 3400 lbs. and was reasonably quick. Our outgoing '06 SWB Caravan weighs slightly over 4000 lbs. and is powered by the 3.3L V6. Performance feels roughly the same as the '89 did (actually, the '89 felt a little lighter on its feet). Interestingly, the fuel economy of the heavier & more powerful '06 is significantly better than the '89; it averages about 2 MPG better in all driving than the '89 did. The 3.3L is a good torquer, but it's certainly got its work cut out for it trying to yank over two tons around.

Well, that makes me feel all warm & fuzzy inside as I sock $60 a pop into my gas tank. I'm sure that trader is really hurting from selling "at a loss". It's nothing but @#$%^! legalized gambling that rules my life.

Only pictures I can find of these High Value 3.5L/3.9L V6s show the engine as installed, complete with that darned plastic cover that hides the intake manifold detail...

Was looking for info on my new Malibu Maxx's engine/tranny and ran across the GM Powetrain site. Wow, what a fantastic time-sink that is going to turn out to be (I'm such a geek)! http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpow...ther_engine.jsp

Thanks! I always wondered why it didn't sell better. They drive great, are very practical & seem especially solid. Pricing seemed pretty good as well.

Well, we "pulled the trigger" on the lower mileage (and lower priced) Maxx we found at the second dealer. Brought it home yesterday. It's a "2LT" model, complete with heated seats, power everything and a sunroof. It's "sandstone" in color with the beige-ish interior, complete with "plood" trim in place of the brushed metal trim (Being an old dude, I like the plood look!). It's a GM-certified car so we get an extra 3000 miles/3 months on the bumper-to-bumper warranty. The odometer read 13,851 miles when we left the lot yesterday, where we parted with just over $14,780. My wife absolutely loves the Maxx and it will primarily be her car. I'll continue driving the Neon until something big busts on it, which will hopefully be far, far in the future. I'd seriously consider a Cobalt to replace the Neon if something did happen. We drove an '07 Cobalt LTZ sedan before we drove the Malibu and it was a mighty nice ride; much more civilized than the Neon (and a lot spendier too, of course). Hard to believe I've gone almost 30 years without a GM vehicle (all the way back to my '76 K10 pickup that I drove through 1981).

I guess I'm kind of an "expert" on these vehicles because we're currently on our sixth Mopar minivan. Our first one was an '89 Grand Caravan LE which, while boxy, had nice styling. Ditto our '94 Grand Voyager Sport. Starting in '97, we switched to the standard-length models because the rounded off 3rd-gen. versions were quite a bit larger than the previous ones. Anyhoo, my impression of the '08 Mopar minivans is mainly negative. For one thing, they are too big. And too heavy. There is no longer a SWB version. Exterior styling is rather institutional, especially from the rear. Interiors are decent, especially the T&C with some woodtone accents to warm things up. I can see offering the overworked 3.3L FFV V6 as a "credit option" on the lower-end models, but for goodness sake, make the torquier 3.8L/6-speed standard on these massive tanks (a vehicle weighing 4500-lbs. and stretching 201 inches in length is NOT "mini"). Defenders of the new minivan's styling often say things like, "well, it's just a minivan". Yeah, but until now, Ma Mopar has managed to make their minivans look pretty good down through the years. Look at a late 1980s LX or ES version, or a '95 Voyager Rallye, or even our current '06 Caravan SXT with the spiffy "Ingot" wheels--these vehicles managed to look good while still maintaining practicality and value. We're in the process of finding a replacement for our '06 Caravan and while still undecided, the one vehicle that is definitely off the list is an '08 Caravan or T&C. Very sad, because I've really champioined & enjoyed these minivans since I first saw them come on the lots back in late 1983.

The lease is up on my wife's '06 Dodge Caravan SXT and we're looking for replacements. One vehicle we're NOT considering is the '08 Mopar minivans. The things are butt-ugly and they're even larger & heavier than the outgoing models. Yeah, the interiors are pretty nice and they've done some remarkable stuff with ride quality and sound insulation on the new models. But unfortunately, they're now big tubby tanks and have been supersized right up & out of our league. Saw an ad for price-leader "program cars" at a local Chevy dealership so we popped in to have a look. They let us have an '07 Malibu Maxx LT for the weekend to evaluate it. The car has 15,900 miles on it and was first put on the road in March of '07 (probably a rental). We both love the way it drives and interior comfort is quite good. We got them talked down from $17,900 to $16,700 pretty quickly. As we were cruising around earlier today, we spied another Chevy lot advertising deals. We found the very same vehicle (though different color) with 13,600 miles for $14,995. Needless to say, we're going to stop by and look at that one as well. I actually prefer the second car because the interior features woodtone trim rather than the brushed metal that the first has. But we need to take a spin in the second one to make sure it drives as nicely as the one we have right now (it's Sunday today so none of the dealers are open around here). Anyhoo, my questions about the Malibu Maxx: What is the ancestory of the 3.5L V6 in the Malibu? Is it related to the other, older 60-degree V6s like the 3.1L? How does it hold up? Also, what is the 4-speed ATX used in these cars? It seems to shift very smoothly and predictably. Thankfully, so does the 4-speed ATX in our '06 Caravan--the history of that tranny has been a bit "checkered", as they say. Though I've driven predominately Mopars over the past several decades, I've been impressed with recent GM efforts. I've had many GM products too, including '52, '55 and '56 Chevies, and a '72 Olds 98 Regency that I really regret unloading back in 1978.

A piece of crap floating in the toilet makes the CRV look like crap. Those things really are hideous, right up there with the Subaru Tribeca.

Colt Vista, man... I liked the very first Nissan Stanzas, the 5-door models. I think they even called them Datsuns when they first came out, circa 1982?

Well, at least it has chromed door pulls. The hood over the gauges looks like the one in my Neon. Yawn.

I gotta disagree. The current vans look good to me, especially with the 16" or 17" alloy wheels (depending on model). I also like the proportions of the SWB models like my current Caravan. The next gen models look clunky to me, at least from the pictures. But I'll reserve final judgement for when I see them in person. Sadly, I think we're on our last new Mopar minivan, since they took an axe to the SWB models.

Back to the minivans--I think the way to promote them is to equip the base models of the heavier next-gen models with an engine that's already overworked in the current tubby minivans and hook it to a mashed-potato-drive 4-speed transaxle. And while they're at it, they should make that the only powertrain option for the base models. Finally, for people who want the desirable powertrain, make them jump through at least $10,000 worth of hoops to get it. That ought to do the trick. NOTE: I've had SIX Mopar minivans down through the years and have really liked them. They offered a lot of comfort, utility and reasonable performance for the price. The new ones are going to be bigger, heavier and in base form anyway, gutless. I think they ought to make the torquier 3.8L/6-speed ATX standard and have the FFV 3.3L/4-speed ATX available as a credit option for fleets 'n' stuff. All of the other minivans have STANDARD engines in the 240-265 HP range; but here's Chrysler coming to bat with a 170 HP wheezer--an engine that does OK in my current "shorty" Caravan, but will be overwhelmed in the bigger/heavier next-gen models. At least the pushrod 3.8L has some torque, in spite of its puny 198 HP rating. The 4.0L/6-speed ATX combo should prove at least competitive--but you've got to pony up for the top-of-the-line model with all the toys in order to get it. Stupid.

Or since we're on a GM board, Vega... I'm on Neon #2; so far, the worst problem I've had with either is a stuck thermostat.

Now, if only that 4.0L/6-speed powertrain was more available. The base model will be coming with the 170 HP, 3.3L V6 and 4-speed ATX. Not very competitive with the rest of the offerings. But at least it's an FFV engine. I think they should have made the 3.8L/6-speed standard and kept the FFV 3.3L/4-speed as a credit option, and/or for fleet buyers.

The things I like about the Vibe are: 1. Relatively inexpensive (when incentives are thrown in, anyway). 2. Fairly roomy interior for exterior footprint 3. Very good fuel economy (though maybe at the expense of absolute performance). 4. Good repair history The Dodge Caliber, as I mentioned before, feels cramped inside to me, probably because of the high beltline. It's also a bit tubby (3100+ lbs.). The 2.0L CVT combo returns 26/30 MPG, which ain't bad I guess. The PT and HHR are heavier yet.

The Astra looks great. But I've heard the thing is going to be kind of spendy. When we got our '06 Caravan, we also looked at a Mazda 5. Problem was, the "5" cost as much as the much-roomier Caravan, and fuel economy wasn't significantly better either (with an auto tranny, anyway). I hope the Astra is priced aggressively. In my opinion, they need to take a page from Kia's playbook--get the vehicle established in the market, via good price & warranty. Don't go for the "fine, boutiquey German car" attitude to justify a high price.

I'd be all for it if they could develop decent, well-built, fuel-efficient vehicles on their own. Say what you will about the Vibe/Matrix, it's a nifty little wagon that gets good fuel economy. I love the Cobalt but there ain't a wagon version. Well, OK, there's the HHR, but it's a lot heavier (and thirstier).