Chrysler is dead

[Kevin68N71]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

[Kevin68N71]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s.  Growing up with musclecars, Mopars were always regarded as tinny but with great engines.

So before we go on about how "I would never buy anything besides my first and second generation Dodge!" let's count up how many of us have had rusted floor pans, trunk pans, frame rails! and areas of rust that you just don't see with anywhere near the frequency in same year Mustangs and Camaros for example.

I love 'em, but they're tinny, they've always been tinny.  The difference is that the cars are so loved now that we FIX all these issues and garage them.  Let's not compare our weekend toys to new drivers.

As for new cars, Chrysler could take some quality lessons from Buick if they want to get their ratings higher.

[pettyfan43]

Cars built after '72 are all junk anyways......regardless of make..... trucks up till @ 1980...

My 73 Charger and I take exception to that statement! 

[1969chargerrtse]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s.  Growing up with musclecars, Mopars were always regarded as tinny but with great engines.

So before we go on about how "I would never buy anything besides my first and second generation Dodge!" let's count up how many of us have had rusted floor pans, trunk pans, frame rails! and areas of rust that you just don't see with anywhere near the frequency in same year Mustangs and Camaros for example.

I love 'em, but they're tinny, they've always been tinny.  The difference is that the cars are so loved now that we FIX all these issues and garage them.  Let's not compare our weekend toys to new drivers.

As for new cars, Chrysler could take some quality lessons from Buick if they want to get their ratings higher.

WoW, you are the Man!  Well written.  I'm actually shocked by what I've been reading?  I made a couple negative Dodge comments when my car kept having problems.  The one thing I got from this site was that many people were just wearing rose colored glasses.  If I brought up great GM cars like the Camaro's and Chevelles, I heard crap, yet there are so many because they were well made and lasted, and lets not forget many people bought them because of the style reputation and power.  I actually got turned off by all the "Mopar is the best" attitudes.  This is what I've learned, they are rare for a reason, and the main reason is rust and terrible undercoating and design.  Come on!  GM and the others used FENDER WELLS!!!!!  My Charger, and I love it, is a rust designed disaster under that front fender.  God forbid I caught a stone, it would fly up and put a dimple on top of the fender.   This is a true thread and there are a lot more GM lovers on this Mopar site than I ever knew?  The 72 454 vette conv I sold to buy the Charger was an extremely well made, great piece of car.  I never had any problems with it, and the new owner loves it.  I ain't bad mouthing GM no more.   and don't even try the " Go back to GM " thing with me, I love, love , love my Charger.  But finally a thread about real Mopar issues and respect for the other auto makers.

[pettyfan43]

As far as late model mopars, I have had Dakotas (91 and 94) Ram Trucks (94, 97, and my current 04) plus a 94 Eagle Vision TSi and a 2000 Intrepid. The Vision was a GREAT car 3.5 H.O. had nice power and got killer gas mileage. Unfortunately my x wife broke that car permanently.

The 2000 Intrepid was Ok, it had its issues and was just never as comfortable as the Vision.
My favorite truck I have owned was probably the 97 Extended cab Sport. Just a great truck that never let me down .. Well when the original battery finally died at about 85k it did start one last time and get me to work!!! We sold Interstate batteries.

I love my Hemi Powered 04, but I'm not sure it is the truck that 97 was. If I had that Hemi drivetrain in the 97, it would be the perfect truck.

I like all that smoke under the hood of the 04 but I just don't know if the truck itself is as good as those 94-01s.

The Dakotas were great , not a bad word to say about them .

Man i would really like to have a new Challenger but for that kind of green, BOTH of my Chargers would be FINISHED.

[pettyfan43]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s.  Growing up with musclecars, Mopars were always regarded as tinny but with great engines.

So before we go on about how "I would never buy anything besides my first and second generation Dodge!" let's count up how many of us have had rusted floor pans, trunk pans, frame rails! and areas of rust that you just don't see with anywhere near the frequency in same year Mustangs and Camaros for example.

I love 'em, but they're tinny, they've always been tinny.  The difference is that the cars are so loved now that we FIX all these issues and garage them.  Let's not compare our weekend toys to new drivers.

As for new cars, Chrysler could take some quality lessons from Buick if they want to get their ratings higher.

WoW, you are the Man!  Well written.  I'm actually shocked by what I've been reading?  I made a couple negative Dodge comments when my car kept having problems.  The one thing I got from this site was that many people were just wearing rose colored glasses.  If I brought up great GM cars like the Camaro's and Chevelles, I heard crap, yet there are so many because they were well made and lasted, and lets not forget many people bought them because of the style reputation and power.  I actually got turned off by all the "Mopar is the best" attitudes.  This is what I've learned, they are rare for a reason, and the main reason is rust and terrible undercoating and design.  Come on!  GM and the others used FENDER WELLS!!!!!  My Charger, and I love it, is a rust designed disaster under that front fender.  God forbid I caught a stone, it would fly up and put a dimple on top of the fender.   This is a true thread and there are a lot more GM lovers on this Mopar site than I ever knew?  The 72 454 vette conv I sold to buy the Charger was an extremely well made, great piece of car.  I never had any problems with it, and the new owner loves it.  I ain't bad mouthing GM no more.   and don't even try the " Go back to GM " thing with me, I love, love , love my Charger.  But finally a thread about real Mopar issues and respect for the other auto makers.

Man one of my two or three favorite cars I ever owned was a triple black 71 Buick GS 350. First engine I ever built by myself, and I used to take the car to the drag strip EVERY weekend and beat it like a drum. NEVER a failure.  One of the cars in my "fantasy garage" would be a Saturn Yellow GSX with a Stage 1 and a 4 speed! Another car I had that I loved was a 68 Mercury Cyclone GT.  That car was really neat.
I always like the 67-70 Cougars and 68-72 Olds 442s.    I am a MOPAR man but I havea  soft spot for a LOT of different cars, because I have owned a little of everything, and have great memories of a lot of different cars.

[WingCharger]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s.  Growing up with musclecars, Mopars were always regarded as tinny but with great engines.

So before we go on about how "I would never buy anything besides my first and second generation Dodge!" let's count up how many of us have had rusted floor pans, trunk pans, frame rails! and areas of rust that you just don't see with anywhere near the frequency in same year Mustangs and Camaros for example.

I love 'em, but they're tinny, they've always been tinny.  The difference is that the cars are so loved now that we FIX all these issues and garage them.  Let's not compare our weekend toys to new drivers.

As for new cars, Chrysler could take some quality lessons from Buick if they want to get their ratings higher.

WoW, you are the Man!  Well written.  I'm actually shocked by what I've been reading?  I made a couple negative Dodge comments when my car kept having problems.  The one thing I got from this site was that many people were just wearing rose colored glasses.  If I brought up great GM cars like the Camaro's and Chevelles, I heard crap, yet there are so many because they were well made and lasted, and lets not forget many people bought them because of the style reputation and power.  I actually got turned off by all the "Mopar is the best" attitudes.  This is what I've learned, they are rare for a reason, and the main reason is rust and terrible undercoating and design.  Come on!  GM and the others used FENDER WELLS!!!!!  My Charger, and I love it, is a rust designed disaster under that front fender.  God forbid I caught a stone, it would fly up and put a dimple on top of the fender.   This is a true thread and there are a lot more GM lovers on this Mopar site than I ever knew?  The 72 454 vette conv I sold to buy the Charger was an extremely well made, great piece of car.  I never had any problems with it, and the new owner loves it.  I ain't bad mouthing GM no more.   and don't even try the " Go back to GM " thing with me, I love, love , love my Charger.  But finally a thread about real Mopar issues and respect for the other auto makers.

Man one of my two or three favorite cars I ever owned was a triple black 71 Buick GS 350. First engine I ever built by myself, and I used to take the car to the drag strip EVERY weekend and beat it like a drum. NEVER a failure.  One of the cars in my "fantasy garage" would be a Saturn Yellow GSX with a Stage 1 and a 4 speed! Another car I had that I loved was a 68 Mercury Cyclone GT.  That car was really neat.
I always like the 67-70 Cougars and 68-72 Olds 442s.    I am a MOPAR man but I havea  soft spot for a LOT of different cars, because I have owned a little of everything, and have great memories of a lot of different cars.

I knwo where you can pick up a 67 Cougar out of a side yard.

[Charger-Bodie]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s.  Growing up with musclecars, Mopars were always regarded as tinny but with great engines.

So before we go on about how "I would never buy anything besides my first and second generation Dodge!" let's count up how many of us have had rusted floor pans, trunk pans, frame rails! and areas of rust that you just don't see with anywhere near the frequency in same year Mustangs and Camaros for example.

I love 'em, but they're tinny, they've always been tinny.  The difference is that the cars are so loved now that we FIX all these issues and garage them.  Let's not compare our weekend toys to new drivers.

As for new cars, Chrysler could take some quality lessons from Buick if they want to get their ratings higher.

I agree with most of this ,But ALL cars have their own rust issues!! one car is just differant than another.

And Rob , weve been through this "inner fender" thing before, Youre Charger had inner fenders , they are just in a differant place ( if you Charger doesnt have them , wheres youre battery mounted?). Thats just how they were built!

Also as far as the original topic goes , I agree the Chrysler Corporation That I know and love died a long time ago!!

And besides , that brand loyal crap only holds back the person that is so diehard that they think Chryslers are built on a special planet were everything is better than the "other" brands planet.

ALL AUTO MAKERS CAN BUILD GOOD CARS AND THEY ARE ALL GUILTY OF BUILDING JUNK!!

[Kevin68N71]

WoW, you are the Man!  Well written.  I'm actually shocked by what I've been reading?  I made a couple negative Dodge comments when my car kept having problems.  The one thing I got from this site was that many people were just wearing rose colored glasses.  If I brought up great GM cars like the Camaro's and Chevelles, I heard crap, yet there are so many because they were well made and lasted, and lets not forget many people bought them because of the style reputation and power.  I actually got turned off by all the "Mopar is the best" attitudes.  This is what I've learned, they are rare for a reason, and the main reason is rust and terrible undercoating and design.  Come on!  GM and the others used FENDER WELLS!!!!!  My Charger, and I love it, is a rust designed disaster under that front fender.  God forbid I caught a stone, it would fly up and put a dimple on top of the fender.   This is a true thread and there are a lot more GM lovers on this Mopar site than I ever knew?  The 72 454 vette conv I sold to buy the Charger was an extremely well made, great piece of car.  I never had any problems with it, and the new owner loves it.  I ain't bad mouthing GM no more.   and don't even try the " Go back to GM " thing with me, I love, love , love my Charger.  But finally a thread about real Mopar issues and respect for the other auto makers.

Well I appreciate.  The fact is, I'm a car nut, always have been.  When I was a little squirt it was the Jaguar XKE.  I didn't know a thing about Mopars until my dad's employee took me for a ride in a 1969 Hemi Super Bee in 1976.  That was all she wrote.  I love cars, but the Mopars just do it for me a little better.  As far as current cars go, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon that all American cars suck and all imports are better, especially when if you are willing to spend the time and look you find out that Buick and Cadillac beat at almost all other car makes on the planet in quality ratings.  Oh well.

That said, I'm not going to go through life with blinders on that Mopars are it and everything else is garbage.  How many times have we seen "musclecar shoot outs" and come to find that it has more to do with how you get off the line and the rear end ratio as anything else.  And let's face it.  All the cars stock did very high 13s to 15s.  Yeah, some ran a bit better.  Yeah, some like hemis could be built more.  But stock performance they ran around those times.

I can't imagine someone looking at a Buick GSX and really believe it sucks...or a 454 SS Chevelle, or a 3x2 GTO, a Hurst Olds, and on and on.  My 1969 AMX will put your dentures in the back of your throat, has 0 rust and I've only done a few minor things to it since I had it.  It definitely doesn't suck.

Yes, Mopars do it for me the most.  They're the ones I am drawn the most to.  But some other cars of the time were built better, looked great, and are fun to drive too.  I am certainly not going to turn my back on them and lose out on the fun experiences.  That's just me.

[1969chargerrtse]

Let's not look back in history with rose colored glasses either.

Chrysler had SEVERE rusting problems in the late 50s.  Growing up with musclecars, Mopars were always regarded as tinny but with great engines.

So before we go on about how "I would never buy anything besides my first and second generation Dodge!" let's count up how many of us have had rusted floor pans, trunk pans, frame rails! and areas of rust that you just don't see with anywhere near the frequency in same year Mustangs and Camaros for example.

I love 'em, but they're tinny, they've always been tinny.  The difference is that the cars are so loved now that we FIX all these issues and garage them.  Let's not compare our weekend toys to new drivers.

As for new cars, Chrysler could take some quality lessons from Buick if they want to get their ratings higher.

I agree with most of this ,But ALL cars have their own rust issues!! one car is just differant than another.

And Rob , we've been through this "inner fender" thing before, Your Charger had inner fenders , they are just in a differant place ( if you Charger doesn't have them , wheres yours battery mounted?). Thats just how they were built!

Also as far as the original topic goes , I agree the Chrysler Corporation That I know and love died a long time ago!!

And besides , that brand loyal crap only holds back the person that is so diehard that they think Chryslers are built on a special planet were everything is better than the "other" brands planet.

ALL AUTO MAKERS CAN BUILD GOOD CARS AND THEY ARE ALL GUILTY OF BUILDING JUNK!!

Gee, and I thought I was gonna get threats and thrown off the site.   Well Brian, what I mean as "fender well" are the nice round one piece stamped huge thick pieces of steel the GM cars had, below the actual fender.  Sorry I do not see the same thing on the Mopars of that era and why I believe there was always such an rust issue there.  That's all.   And you my friend are definitely a big time Mopar loyalist.  As Jerry S once said " Not that there's anything wrong with that".   

[Charger-Bodie]

Rob,

My point is this:

   All cars rust if exposed to the wrong elements. Some rust here ,some rust there , some rust worse than others , some get rusty frames ,and their rear bumpers drag 'til they fall off.

Its not because of brand. its cause they are made of metal.

[1969chargerrtse]

Brian, are you telling me Mopars didn't have a serious rust issue over other cars because of poor undercoating and design areas like the....... Unprotected fender well area's?  Come on?   Even Most Mopar lovers will tell you of the serious Mopar rust issues.  And I do not agree they are all the same.  There are and were good and bad auto manufactures throughout the years. 

[Charger-Bodie]

Brian, are you telling me Mopars didn't have a serious rust issue over other cars because of poor undercoating and design areas like the....... Unprotected fender well area's?  Come on?   Even Most Mopar lovers will tell you of the serious Mopar rust issues.  And I do not agree they are all the same.  There are and were good and bad auto manufactures throughout the years. 

I personally dont think mopars had any more of a rust problem than any other auto make. 

But then again I live in Iowa, where everything is a rusty pile after 10 years if its driving in the salt on a regular basis.......by the way you should have seen the rusty 70 Chevelle we did a couple years ago! 

[moparstuart]

Brian, are you telling me Mopars didn't have a serious rust issue over other cars because of poor undercoating and design areas like the....... Unprotected fender well area's?  Come on?   Even Most Mopar lovers will tell you of the serious Mopar rust issues.  And I do not agree they are all the same.  There are and were good and bad auto manufactures throughout the years. 

I have fords and gm's in the salvage yard that are rusted just as bad as any of my mopars, and i have some rusty mopars 

[1969chargerrtse]

Brian, are you telling me Mopars didn't have a serious rust issue over other cars because of poor undercoating and design areas like the....... Unprotected fender well area's?  Come on?   Even Most Mopar lovers will tell you of the serious Mopar rust issues.  And I do not agree they are all the same.  There are and were good and bad auto manufactures throughout the years. 

I have fords and gm's in the salvage yard that are rusted just as bad as any of my mopars, and i have some rusty mopars 

Well, I have always found the Mopars more "Tinny" but,  maybe I'm wrong?  I always thought Mopars rusted terrible compared to others.  You two say no and are in the buisness, maybe I'm wrong.  O.K I'm hearing ya.

[nh_mopar_fan]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

[Old Moparz]

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

Let's hope it just doesn't take 86 years like other things do.   

[Kevin68N71]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

[Big Lebowski]

  The Dodge trucks have never failed me. I'm selling my old '95 Ram 2500, but I'm keeping my '99 Ram 2500 club cab 4wd. V-8 longbed, 9 mpg, it's a winner.

[Brock Samson]

 

just messin witcha... 

[Ghoste]

They all make good cars and they all make junk.  End of story.

[nh_mopar_fan]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

I'm well aware of their bias and it drives me nuts. The point you may be missing is that the Avenger finished dead last. That means the GM and Ford offerings finished higher as well. Say what you want about their tests but I went back and read it and it's spot on. The car is crude and harsh.

I'm not a big fan on Consumer Reports either (talk about your bias) but they don't do well there either.

It's not me, it's not one magazine, it's not one review, it's not one car. If it was, sure it'd be easy to write off. But, as the negatives, from different sources pile up, there's more than just smoke there.

They may be selling some a couple models like mad. They're not selling anything in enough volume these days to make up for the rest of the product line which sucks.

Don't point me at the kernal of corn in the crap and tell me it's a all good.

Your mileage may vary.

[Kevin68N71]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

I'm well aware of their bias and it drives me nuts. The point you may be missing is that the Avenger finished dead last. That means the GM and Ford offerings finished higher as well. Say what you want about their tests but I went back and read it and it's spot on. The car is crude and harsh.

I'm not a big fan on Consumer Reports either (talk about your bias) but they don't do well there either.

It's not me, it's not one magazine, it's not one review, it's not one car. If it was, sure it'd be easy to write off. But, as the negatives, from different sources pile up, there's more than just smoke there.

They may be selling some a couple models like mad. They're not selling anything in enough volume these days to make up for the rest of the product line which sucks.

Don't point me at the kernal of corn in the crap and tell me it's a all good.

Your mileage may vary.

I think we are in agreement on most of this.  The Avenger, your cars, and some biased publications make the whole corporation bad.  The hot selling 300, the dependable Magnum, the whole truck line, the Charger, the Challenger, years of minivans, the hemi powerplant, are just "kernels of corn in poop", yech.  Besides these good things, the car company's dead.  I am clear.

[nh_mopar_fan]

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

Let's hope it just doesn't take 86 years like other things do.   

<Checks standings>

Uh, Bob, were you in a coma the last 10 years and just came out of it? 

If so, I have some bad news..... 

[nh_mopar_fan]

Basing one's experience and slamming an entire car line for it doesn't have much meaning.

I had an Interpid, a 1998 1500 Sport and a 2002 1500 Sport truck.  No real trouble with any of them.  So using this same logic, Chrysler is the perfect car company.

I know people with Magnums and Chargers, and they are not falling apart, and those cars have been out there for years.

So again, guess that is a perfect car company.

I have rode in 100,000 mile Hondas, and THAT is a rattletrap, so do Hondas suck?  I am sure there are people on here that swear how great their 200,000 mile Honda is.

Slamming an entire car line on my experience? Have you picked up a Motor Trend and read the reviews? Have you seen tests against other makes?

They recently tested the Avenger, it came in dead last of the 8 models they tested.

Your Charger is relatively new. It SHOULD be a great car. Talk to me in 3-4 years.

Press being on board gives me hope. If they can survive long enough, they may be able to turn the tide.

You're joking, right?  A comparison test with Motor Trend?  Most auto magazines are so pro-import it's a joke. Pick ANY comparison test and the domestics are always on the bottom--even if it's just by a few points.  It's like saying that most news coverage isn't biased to the left.  Of course it is. They begrudgingly give the Corvette awards because it's such an awesome value that it would be like denying the sun sets in the west. But compare the glowing coverage of the newest Fartwhistle on a Honda against really nice machines like the Saturn Skye.  When the S2000 came out, which was undrivable for many people, you didn't stop hearing about that car for two years.  That's because the S2000 was a Honda, and the Skye is an American car.  How often have you heard car magazines scream about GM parts sharing, but never mention the crummy Toyota underpinnings in a Lexus?  Need I go on about car magazines?  Let me know.

Yet people do buy American cars, and Chryslers, some models in droves, and the quality ratings are as high or higher than imports.  Rentals and fleets buy them and beat them to death. Are they all wrong? Do all their cars suck?  Are they all stupid?  I don't have the new Charger, I have friends that do, but I already told you I had other Dodge products with no problem.  And as I mentioned, the Magnums have already been out for years, no one I have heard about has had massive problems, same is for the 300.

I am not defending all Chrysler products, there may easily be some lemons in there I don't know about.  But I stick by my original statements.  If you want to say a whole car company is dead because of the experience with your cars and because Motor Trend gets a woody over Toyotas, be my guest.  But it doesn't wash with me.

I'm well aware of their bias and it drives me nuts. The point you may be missing is that the Avenger finished dead last. That means the GM and Ford offerings finished higher as well. Say what you want about their tests but I went back and read it and it's spot on. The car is crude and harsh.

I'm not a big fan on Consumer Reports either (talk about your bias) but they don't do well there either.

It's not me, it's not one magazine, it's not one review, it's not one car. If it was, sure it'd be easy to write off. But, as the negatives, from different sources pile up, there's more than just smoke there.

They may be selling some a couple models like mad. They're not selling anything in enough volume these days to make up for the rest of the product line which sucks.

Don't point me at the kernal of corn in the crap and tell me it's a all good.

Your mileage may vary.

I think we are in agreement on most of this.  The Avenger, your cars, and some biased publications make the whole corporation bad.  The hot selling 300, the dependable Magnum, the whole truck line, the Charger, the Challenger, years of minivans, the hemi powerplant, are just "kernels of corn in poop", yech.  Besides these good things, the car company's dead.  I am clear.

Yup. Everything is just peaches at Chrysler these days. No worries.

You buying all stock these days?

It's quite a deal.