 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / June 2007Chrysler Magazine
Chrysler Magazine is looking for owners to feature in the publication. Must have a unique story about car, job, life, etc. and be enthusiastic about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. How about former Chrysler owners that believe their current cars being built are so ugly that they had to buy something else. > Chrysler Magazine is looking for owners to feature in the publication. > Must have a unique story about car, job, life, etc. and be enthusiastic > about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to > Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. > How about former Chrysler owners that believe their current cars being built > are so ugly that they had to buy something else. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to > > Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. Very good point. This owner of several Chrysler cars from 1981 is waiting out Chrysler's games with RWD and ugly cars without space for a real spare tire. Fortunately my '95 Chrysler Concord holding up very well, but I'm close to giving up waiting. Those Toyotas are getting very tempting. My Chrysler dealer understands my frustration with recent Chrysler products and even suggested I look at the Toyota products at his Toyota dealership, even though he's having great trouble moving the 300 and bigger vehicles. > Very good point. > This owner of several Chrysler cars from 1981 is waiting out Chrysler's > games with RWD Buy a Sebring, cause I never will. This Chrysler owner spent 20 years waiting for Chrysler to stop screwing around with front-drive, and hopes it never makes a comeback. Yes, I own one FWD (93 LH car) but when it dies, its getting replaced with a rear-drive, probably a Magnum. > > Very good point. > > This owner of several Chrysler cars from 1981 is waiting out Chrysler's > > games with RWD > Buy a Sebring, cause I never will. This Chrysler owner spent 20 years > waiting for Chrysler to stop screwing around with front-drive, and hopes > it never makes a comeback. Yes, I own one FWD (93 LH car) but when it > dies, its getting replaced with a rear-drive, probably a Magnum. Fine for you but not for me mainly because of our winter driving conditions. Since going to FWD in '81 winter driving is so much easier. RWD, particularly high horsepower, vehicles are not very effective driving to a ski hill, in fact I didn't see a 300 or Magnum at our ski hills all last winter. Wise drivers! I had a Magnum rental for 2 weeks. Poor visibility and typical RWD poor tracking on highway curves, requiring constant steering corrections. When I returned to my Concord my how nice it was to see outside again. Amazing observation when these two cars were 10 yrs apart in age. I won't get in to other things I didn't like about the Magnum, other than mention the stupid trunk design which kills it's space for carrying two sets of golf clubs across the rear. The new Sebring fails to meet my needs, the previous Sebring could have. > Fine for you but not for me mainly because of our winter driving > conditions. > Since going to FWD in '81 winter driving is so much easier. > RWD, particularly high horsepower, vehicles are not very effective > driving to a ski hill, in fact I didn't see a 300 or Magnum at our ski > hills all last winter. Wise drivers! Actually, every magazine that has reviewed an LX in winter driving gives it high praise. Traction control and RWD is a winning combination. > I had a Magnum rental for 2 weeks. Poor visibility and typical RWD poor > tracking on highway curves, requiring constant steering corrections. I'll grant you the poor visibility, but "typical RWD poor tracking on highway curves" is an absurd claim. RWD handles FAR better than front-drive under all conditions, and especially high-speed sweeping curves. Every LX rental I've had feels like its on rails, and although my wife's LH handles better than 99% of all front-drives out there it STILL understeers like a dump truck. Always has, always will- because that's the nature of FWD. > > I had a Magnum rental for 2 weeks. Poor visibility and typical RWD poor > > tracking on highway curves, requiring constant steering corrections. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > STILL understeers like a dump truck. Always has, always will- because > that's the nature of FWD. You must have driven a flawed FWD car. Saying that RWD handles far better than FWD "under all circumstances" just isn't a fact and points out your bias. I'm talking modest speed highway curves at legal speeds. Another recent experience with this was a few yrs ago in Australia with a rental RWD Ford; yes they still build oldie Fords down there. I will agree that RWD is better to a point with hard highway driving when significant power is being applied, but that just isn't my driving style, I drive just over the legal limit not at excessive speeds. Simply pulling out very quickly from stopped into the traffic turning sharp right is so superior with FWD. I had to do that yesterday; how nice it is with no wheel spin and the great low speed torque of the 3.3L Concord engine, up to 40 mph (in the city) in very short order. My extensive driving on winter slippery roads allows me to evaluate the difference between FWD and RWD at reasonable speeds. All season tires do the job very well with FWD, it's not necessary to mount winter tires. Although I've had a FWD car for over 20 yrs, most of my experience is still with RWD. >>> I had a Magnum rental for 2 weeks. Poor visibility and typical RWD poor >>> tracking on highway curves, requiring constant steering corrections. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Although I've had a FWD car for over 20 yrs, most of my experience is > still with RWD. I agree with you about FWD superiority over RWD in winter conditions. Minnesota born and raised.... >I agree with you about FWD superiority over RWD in winter conditions. >Minnesota born and raised.... <snip> I live out west where ice and snow are rare, except in the mountain ranges, so it's not a big consideration. However, wet traction IS a consideration, and in that regard, FWD is clearly superior to RWD anything. Big problems with early FWD cars were "torque steer" and a plowing understeer, even under power. Lots of people who learned to drive with RWD (including, as it turns out, most cops) learn how to "steer" the rear end of the car by inducing oversteer with excessive power. "Excessive power" isn't an option for most reasonable people these days, making that feature not an option. With low power, RWD cars will understeer almost as much as most FWD cars. Some older RWD cars, like AMCs and many Buicks, would plow into an understeer no matter how much power was applied, due to suspension design. I can't make my M-body oversteer appreciably in hard cornering with the 318, but I could do it with a 360 equipped version easily. Who cares? I never drive like that. The worst wet road handling new car I ever drove was a 1992 Camaro....slipperiest rear axle in on the road. The California Highway Patrol had a fleet of Z28s, and they were retired early because of dangerous wet road handling characteristics. Same went for the Nevada State Patrol. Reportedly, the "new" Camaros were somewhat better in that regard, due to losing the rigid rear axle. > Big problems with early FWD cars were "torque steer" and a > plowing understeer, even under power. -I did notice the slight torque steer on our early '80 Horizon with VW drive train, but only when pulling out into traffic with high power and hard over steering. They just didn't have enough power to give trouble. -My '81 TC3 with the 2.2L engine had bags of power, but torque steer was hardly noticeable. -Torque steering isn't a factor with my '95 LH's longitudinal engine mounting. -Torque steer on my Wife's quite powerful '01 Sebring is very slight under high power; hardly noticeable. > The worst wet road handling new car I ever drove was a 1992 > Camaro....slipperiest rear axle in on the road. The California > Highway Patrol had a fleet of Z28s, and they were retired early > because of dangerous wet road handling characteristics. Same went for > the Nevada State Patrol. Reportedly, the "new" Camaros were somewhat > better in that regard, due to losing the rigid rear axle. Those cars are a joke in snow, which exaggerates poor slippery road handling. On packed damp snow (the worst for traction) I've seen them having great difficulty moving ahead on level roads. A car only recommended for dry roads. > ...-Torque steering isn't a factor with my '95 LH's longitudinal engine > mounting... Longitudinal or tranverse engine mounting does not affect torque steer. That becomes clear when you study a free-body diagram. There will be some spin-up rotational inertia torque (counteracting what it takes to accelerate the crankshaft and flywheel) transfered to the frame from the engine block, but engine torque going onto turning the wheels gets counteracted by the transmission and does not transfer into the frame - that component is the same regardless of engine orientation. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> ...-Torque steering isn't a factor with my '95 LH's longitudinal >> engine mounting... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') Never mind - see my other post - Longitudinal inherently gives equal length axles, transverse inherently offsets the transaxle to one side => different axle lengths. Nothing to do with orientation of crankshaft rotation pers se. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > -Torque steering isn't a factor with my '95 LH's longitudinal engine > mounting. I understand you like FWD, and can understand why if you drive half the year in snow. But as a person who's put 240,000 miles on a LH car with the same longitudinal engine, I can tell you that the above is DEAD WRONG. Any time either front wheel breaks loose, the steering wheel jerks like it has a mind of its own. That's a form of torque steer. > Simply pulling out very quickly from stopped into the traffic turning > sharp right is so superior with FWD. I'll gladly admit "bias." I make no bones about preferring RWD. But there's plenty of quantitative observation behind my bias. To me, your example above is one of the WORST things FWD does. Torque steer from hell with the wheel sawing back-and-forth as alternate front wheels bite, and when *both* front wheels start spinning the car looses all steering control and just plows straight across the lane you want and right into oncoming traffic. By that point, lifting off the gas won't always restore front grip and you're screwed. A RWD car will *turn*, and the only thing you have to worry about is snapping the rear end around, but that's completely controllable with the amount of throttle applied... and most importantly you *never* lose steering control the way FWD does. FWD is fine for low-powered 4-cylinders, but even the modest (215) horsepower of my wife's 1993 LH is really beyond the limits of a FWD car. FWD Cadillac Northstars can be a *real* handful, and can't really use the engine to its fullest extent except in a straight line. I'm with the testers who found it ironic that a peformance sport-luxury yacht's strongest area is straight-up drag racing, and solid-axle rear-drive cars costing less and with less power eat it for lunch when the road gets curvy, or in around-town situations. >> Simply pulling out very quickly from stopped into the traffic turning >> sharp right is so superior with FWD. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cars costing less and with less power eat it for lunch when the road > gets curvy, or in around-town situations. I thought torque steer was due to different front end right and left axle lengths, and that this was a serious problem with early FWD cars, but now, not so much. > I thought torque steer was due to different front end right and left > axle lengths, and that this was a serious problem with early FWD cars, > but now, not so much. "Torque steer" is simply the coupling of engine torque to the need for a corrective input with the steering wheel. Its got many, many, many different causes. Even RWD cars can exhibit torque steer, especially solid rear axle cars with big torque-monster engines (muscle cars are a prime example). I've never really understood the claim that unequal-length halfshafts contribute greatly to torque steer on FWD cars. The only possible reason for that would be if the CV joints are forced into binding on the short-shaft side, and that shouldn't ever happen if the design is any good at all. Not many FWD cars have truly equal-length halfshafts. If FWD is so superior why do BMW and Mercedes retain RWD in the larger cars? DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > If FWD is so superior why do BMW and Mercedes retain RWD in the larger cars? Could it be that a compact FWD car doesn't convey the high end image those two cars project? Of course space efficiency isn't as big a problem in a larger car. So why did Volvo finally switch to FWD. My Volvo loving brother in law was very upset when Volvo switched to FWD. I suggested he look at the RWD Lincoln. Finally he bought a FWD 2001 Volvo and loves it. He lives in snowy Toronto, snow like Sweden gets! > I thought torque steer was due to different front end right and left > axle lengths, and that this was a serious problem with early FWD cars, > but now, not so much. You are right on, plus LH cars don't have torque steer due to the length wise engine mounting. Actually Steve doesn't know what torque steer is. He's talking excess power causing a loss of steering traction. See my other post on that. >>I thought torque steer was due to different front end right and left >>axle lengths, and that this was a serious problem with early FWD cars, >>but now, not so much. > > You are right on, plus LH cars don't have torque steer > due to the length wise engine mounting... Except for the counteraction of acceleration of the crank and flywheel, there is no torque transferred into the frame by the engine - other than crank/flywheel acceleration, torque gen'ed by the engine is exactly counteracted by the transmission housing. Just so people aren't getting the idea that *all* engine torque contibutes to torque steer - only the part that goes into accelerating the crank and flywheel against their rotational mass. I just realized something: I would expect an intuitive but incorrect assessment of torque steer from engine torque to say that a longitudinal engine, but not a transverse mounted engine, would give torque steer. What is the thinking behind a transverse mounted engine causing torque steer but not a longitudinaly mounted one? Or does this go back to the different axle lengths due to transaxle offfset? Ahh - that must be it. OK - the light just went on. Longitudinal is less likely to cause torque steer because the transaxle willl tend to be centered - equal-length axles. Transverse mount wants to offset the transaxle to one side, taking power off the rear of the engine - different length axles. Got it. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') I think the biggest issue with unequal-length halfshafts is that the longer halfshaft tends to twist or flex a bit more than the short halfshaft under hard acceleration or other transient inputs (such as unequal traction under either tire). >>>I thought torque steer was due to different front end right and left axle >>>lengths, and that this was a serious problem with early FWD cars, but [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >>>You are right on, plus LH cars don't have torque steer due to the length >>>wise engine mounting... Will this myth NEVER die? Torque steer is primarily caused by non-zero scrub radius in the steering geometry. When one wheel loses traction, the other wheel with traction exerts forward thrust on the steering knuckle. And when the scrub radius is non-zero, that forward thrust (no longer countered by an equal and opposite thrust on the other side of the car) causes a torque on the steering knuckle which tries to rotate the steering wheel. It has NOTHING to do with transverse vs. longitudinal engine mounting. It has NOTHING to do with half-shaft length. Similar phenomena even occur with REAR-drive cas, although many people don't call the resulting effect "torque steer" because it doesn't manifest immediately as a force on the steering wheel. > > Simply pulling out very quickly from stopped into the traffic turning > > sharp right is so superior with FWD. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > right into oncoming traffic. By that point, lifting off the gas won't > always restore front grip and you're screwed. That's garbage in so far as normally powered cars are concerned. I don't drive a race car and FWD is the last thing I would use for a race car, only RWD for that application. Of course I wouldn't drive a high power RWD race car on snowy roads; that would be STUPID! My '81 TC3 with 2.2L engine had bags of power and all it did was hold into the turn, requiring my to pull it back to the line I wanted. Neither of it's front wheels would spin on normal road conditions. > FWD is fine for low-powered 4-cylinders, but even the modest (215) > horsepower of my wife's 1993 LH is really beyond the limits of a FWD > car. My 3.3L LH Concord has no torque steer. With it's engine mounting it can't have. You are talking applying excess power for the road conditions, causing plowing due to loss of traction on the front wheels. That isn't torque steer! With slippery roads that can happen and most drivers have enough sense to back off the power, so steering traction can return. I have many years of experience with both RWD and FWD on very slippery roads and I prefer the control on being to go on and off the power of a FWD car to bring it around a slippery corner. Of course traction control, which I don't have, makes this very easy for any driver. With RWD the rear swings out under excess power and it can be very difficult to stop the swing, spin outs being very common. >>>Simply pulling out very quickly from stopped into the traffic turning >>>sharp right is so superior with FWD. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's garbage in so far as normally powered cars are concerned. I consider a 214 horsepower 3.5L "normally powered" and thats EXACTLY what it does. A 300 horsepower Cadillac is also quite "normally powered" and its worse. > My 3.3L LH Concord has no torque steer. With it's engine mounting it > can't have. FALSE. Engine mounting has nothing to do with torque steer. Torque steer is *any* phenomenon that causes the driver to have to apply steering input in response to application of engine power. Rear wheel drives can exhibit torque steer under certain conditions- that's exactly why 440 and 426-powered Chrysler B-bodies from the late 60s had a different number of spring leaves on each side in back- to prevent it from jumping a lane sideways under hard acceleration. >>>> Simply pulling out very quickly from stopped into the traffic >>>> turning sharp right is so superior with FWD. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > number of spring leaves on each side in back- to prevent it from jumping > a lane sideways under hard acceleration. In RWD, the engine torque does get transferred into the chassis because the torque element it reacts against is not rigidly tied to the engine - it reacts against the chassis instead. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > In RWD, the engine torque does get transferred into the chassis because > the torque element it reacts against is not rigidly tied to the engine - > it reacts against the chassis instead. The only drive configuration that I am aware of where engine torque does NOT get transferred to the chassis is the old "Torque Tube" drive like some GMs had in the 50s where the driveshaft is enclosed in a hollow tube rigidly connecting the engine and rear axle (and AWD Chrysler Minivans use it today for the rear wheels, but that only absorbs part of the engine torque). But it isn't about ENGINE torque anyway, its about wheel torque and more importantly the forces on the steering system that result from wheel torque. A Torque Tube will 100% eliminate torque steer (and preferential right-rear wheelspin) on rear-drive cars... at the penalty of frickin' ENORMOUS unsprung weight :-p The whole claim of unequal halfshaft length being related to torque steer in FWD cars is a red herring IMO for several reasons. First off, even longitudinal engine FWD cars have very unequal length half-shafts (a good 4"-6" difference in the case of a Chrysler LH series). And in the second case, that shouldn't matter at all unless the shaft is so short that it makes a CV joint start to bind. What really minimizes torque steer is setting the front suspension up with a near-zero scrub radius so that the front wheel's thrust doesn't get turned into a force on the steering linkage at all, but that has some other implications. That is why the old FWD full-size GM cars from the 60s (Olds Toronado, Cad Eldorado) had wheels with such a huge negative offset from the hub to the rim, and had to have astrodome shaped hubcaps as a result- to get the scrub radius close to zero. > The whole claim of unequal halfshaft length being related to torque steer > in FWD cars is a red herring IMO for several reasons. First off, even > longitudinal engine FWD cars have very unequal length half-shafts (a good > 4"-6" difference in the case of a Chrysler LH series). And in the second > case, that shouldn't matter at all unless the shaft is so short that it > makes a CV joint start to bind. Unequal length halfshafts are a primary cause of torque steer in FWD cars. Google "define torque steer" for some good write-ups on it. Unequal-length shafts are always mentioned as a significant factor, and the reason that most manufacturers today use equal-length shafts as a direct result. If the halfshafts are unequal length and are otherwise identical, the longer halfshaft will tend to twist or flex a bit more under acceleration and other transient inputs. With both equal and unequal length shafts, there can be some torque steer under some transient inputs such as if one tire has less traction than another under acceleration, but the torque steer will be amplified with unequal length shafts due to the uneven shaft twist/flex. In the past, some manufacturers used an intermediate shaft that was fixed in place, so that both of the regular halfshafts could still be equal-length. That helped a little. Other manufacturers made sure the longer shaft was thicker or stronger to resist flex and twist, but if the longer shaft weighs significantly more then you might still have torque-steer. Some manufacturers then add a weight to the shorter shaft to compensate. I like the longitudinal layout Chrysler adopted with the LH cars, with a centered differential and equal-length shafts. Seemed much more elegant to me. >>The whole claim of unequal halfshaft length being related to torque steer >>in FWD cars is a red herring IMO for several reasons. First off, even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Unequal length halfshafts are a primary cause of torque steer in FWD cars. Only in people's imaginations. > Google "define torque steer" for some good write-ups on it. Yeah, its on the web so it must be true. :-/ > Unequal-length > shafts are always mentioned as a significant factor, and the reason that > most manufacturers today use equal-length shafts as a direct result. Name me ONE common FWD car that has equal-length half-shafts. I can't think of a single one, though there may be a few out there in fact. 99% of FWD cars don't have equal-length shafts, though. Yes, many are a lot more nearly equal today than in the past, but none are truly equal. Not even the Chrysler LH cars with a longitudinal engine have equal-length halfshafts. The driver's side shaft is significantly longer than the passenger's side shaft. >>>The whole claim of unequal halfshaft length being related to torque steer >>>in FWD cars is a red herring IMO for several reasons. First off, even [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yeah, its on the web so it must be true. :-/ You mean you didn't know? We've only been talking about this phenomenon in the USA since 1980. That's just dumber'n a coal bucket. But hey, don't let me stop you. Make fun of the truth and see if you can get it to go away. >>>>The whole claim of unequal halfshaft length being related to torque steer >>>>in FWD cars is a red herring IMO for several reasons. First off, even [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the USA since 1980. That's just dumber'n a coal bucket. But hey, don't let > me stop you. Make fun of the truth and see if you can get it to go away. The truth is that the whole "unequal length half-shaft" myth was as much a myth in 1980 as it is now. And the first US built front-drives go back a lot further than 1980, too. 1978 was the first US-built transverse-engine FWD (Omni/Horizon), but Toronados and Eldorados go back to the 60s, and of course we had Cords in the 30s. But torque steer has always been about scrub radius, not half-shaft length. Have you never noticed that the Eldorados and Toronados had very unusual extremely offset (inboard) wheels? That wasn't a stylistic choice, it was to move the scrub radius closer to zero. > If the halfshafts are unequal length and are otherwise identical, the longer > halfshaft will tend to twist or flex a bit more under acceleration and other > transient inputs. With both equal and unequal length shafts, there can be > some torque steer under some transient inputs such as if one tire has less > traction than another under acceleration, but the torque steer will be > amplified with unequal length shafts due to the uneven shaft twist/flex. Having a differential between the shafts by definition guarantees the exact same torque on both shafts even if one is twisting and the other is not (dropped torque on one side due to twisting gets exactly reflected on the othrer side (differential action). Think about it: If a CJ joint on one side breaks under acceleration, the troque on the other side immediately drops to zero (differential action). A twisting shaft on one side is just a less severe case of that. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >My Chrysler dealer understands my frustration with recent Chrysler >products and even suggested I look at the Toyota products at his Toyota >dealership, even though he's having great trouble moving the 300 and >bigger vehicles. <snip> That alone is cause for DC to yank his franchise. > Chrysler Magazine is looking for owners to feature in the publication. > Must have a unique story about car, job, life, etc. and be enthusiastic > about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to > Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. My '94 Intrepid 3.5 story Fuel rail problem at about 50,000 - raw gas spewing over hot engine - not good. Water pump went bad at 70,000. AC compressor at about 80,000. I Inner tie rod bushings at 90,000. Cheap original brake rotors (warped quickly). Flaking paint - absolutely hideous. The entire roof is peeling. >> Chrysler Magazine is looking for owners to feature in the publication. >> Must have a unique story about car, job, life, etc. and be enthusiastic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Fuel rail problem at about 50,000 - raw gas spewing over hot engine - > not good. Covered under a recall > Water pump went bad at 70,000. Normal maintenance item. > AC compressor at about 80,000. I Since a dozen other manufacturers around the world also use Nippondenso AC compressors, is that really Chrysler's fault? > Inner tie rod bushings at 90,000. Normal maintenance item. > Cheap original brake rotors (warped quickly). Normal maintenance item. > Flaking paint - absolutely hideous. The entire roof is peeling. Yep, that one sucks. Depends on the paint color and batch of paint used. All carmakers had that problem during the switch over to more "environmentally friendly" paint chemistry. How about my '93 3.5 story.: Couple of water pumps (at normal timing belt replacement intervals) Transmission at 150,000 miles Currently over 240,000 miles, still going strong. Still looks pretty darn good, a few door dings notwithstanding One of the best cars I've ever had. >>> Chrysler Magazine is looking for owners to feature in the publication. >>> Must have a unique story about car, job, life, etc. and be enthusiastic [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Since a dozen other manufacturers around the world also use Nippondenso >AC compressors, is that really Chrysler's fault? <snip> It's not, especially with R-134A and PAG oil. NDs are almost as universal now as Frigidaire A-6s were in the '60s-'70s, and they fail the same, no matter what car they're on. Failing contacts on ND starters is also a long standing trademark that plagued the first Toyotas and Hondas up to the new Chryslers of today. However, many ND 6P and 10Ps from long ago, run on properly charged and dry R-12, are still original and trouble-free. R-134A/PAG is a noxious combination should anything go wrong temperature and pressure-wise, which oft times happens, moreso than the hydroflouric acid problems with similarly abused 12 systems. >> Inner tie rod bushings at 90,000. > >Normal maintenance item. <snip> I tend not to agree here. A front end that lasts less than 100K isn't much of a front end, to me. >> Cheap original brake rotors (warped quickly). >Normal maintenance item. <snip> This seems to be a Chrysler trademark, as well. Even my M-body's original rotors were potato chips, even after heated resurfacing. Replacements were trouble-free. We won't talk about the ABS plastic calipers at all, though. >> Flaking paint - absolutely hideous. The entire roof is peeling. > >Yep, that one sucks. Depends on the paint color and batch of paint used. >All carmakers had that problem during the switch over to more >"environmentally friendly" paint chemistry. <snip> "Modified" acrylics are having more problems with UV rejection than did previous formulations. It's industry-wide, judging from the peeling Hondas and Toyotas I see around town. Most long-lived clear coat: Cadillacs in the early '90s. Many STILL aren't peeling and have great gloss after 15 years. >How about my '93 3.5 story.: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Still looks pretty darn good, a few door dings notwithstanding >One of the best cars I've ever had. >>> Chrysler Magazine is looking for owners to feature in the publication. >>> Must have a unique story about car, job, life, etc. and be enthusiastic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Covered under a recall No recall existed when my car had the problem. I couldn't believe the dealer would let me drive off with the car in such dangerous condition. I paid for the repair myself. Much later came the recall and I was reimbursed. I was put off by the whole experience. Such a dangerous thing..... >> Water pump went bad at 70,000. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Since a dozen other manufacturers around the world also use Nippondenso > AC compressors, is that really Chrysler's fault? Uh... EeeYeeaaahhh... Chrysler made the decision to put them in their cars.... Buck stops there, IMO. >> Inner tie rod bushings at 90,000. > > Normal maintenance item. Normal? I've never experienced such a gross front-end failure in any other car I've owned. >> Cheap original brake rotors (warped quickly). > Normal maintenance item. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All carmakers had that problem during the switch over to more > "environmentally friendly" paint chemistry. I assume they used the same paint on the hood and rear deck. No peeling problems there. They screwed up in their roof painting procedures IMO. Also, the clear coat on the black plastic c-pillar covers deteriorates quickly. They have to be replaced periodically ("normal maintenance"?). The b-pillar covers do not have the problem. > How about my '93 3.5 story.: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Still looks pretty darn good, a few door dings notwithstanding > One of the best cars I've ever had. I would but your e-mail address doesn't end in chrysler.com Who are you really? Ken  Signature"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go from thirty-third to Buffalo. From Broadway bright the tubes run right Into the Road of Anthracite" Erie - Lackawanna > Chrysler Magazine is looking for owners to feature in the publication. > Must have a unique story about car, job, life, etc. and be enthusiastic > about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to > Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. >"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go >from thirty-third to Buffalo. >From Broadway bright the tubes run right >Into the Road of Anthracite" >Erie - Lackawanna Actually, that little ditty advertising the DL&W's "Phoebe Snow" premier passenger train predated the Erie-Lackawanna merger by at least four decades. "The Road of Anthracite" was keeping dirty mine towns, like where Noodles lives now, in business. When the FTs started shoving steam off that road, it was the beginning of the end of NE Pennsylvania's economy. ...which causes me to pen this limmerick: "Northeast Penna's anthracite Ran Phoebe Snow all night When diesels took the Phoebe Snow Charlie Nudoes had to go!" It is a magazine publisher. Just add www. to her email address. >I would but your e-mail address doesn't end in chrysler.com > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to >> Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. Which email address? Message came from a gmail address, yet she writes meredith.com in the message. Larry Behold Beware Believe > It is a magazine publisher. Just add www. to her email address. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to >>> Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Sounds like an email addy harvester. Send email, get spam. > Which email address? Message came from a gmail address, yet she writes > meredith.com in the message. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >>> about your Chrysler. Please send information for consideration to > >>> Kristin.Appenbrink@meredith.com. Thanks in advance for your help. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.