Last post on Sep 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM
You are in the Chrysler Concorde
What is this discussion about?
Chrysler Concorde, Sedan
#265 of 1273 Cconcordes
Apr 26, 2000 (6:29 pm)
I have recently traded my 1996 Concorde for a 2000 LXI. The '96 was an excellent car. The lonly noise experienced was from the Traction Control an dABS. they couldn't fix because they said that it was supposed to make noise. My 2000 is actually much quieter and I certainly hope it stays OK. I went from a 94 Saable to th e'96 concorde and will tellthat there is no comparison. I'll stay with Chrysler until they prove themselves unfit for me.
Apr 26, 2000 (10:20 pm)
#267 of 1273 Avoid My Mistake
Apr 27, 2000 (4:09 pm)
In October 1997,I purchased a new '97 Concorde LX from a dealership in Conroe, Texas. At 6,000 miles the transmission casing began leaking like a sieve. Apparently it was porous due to a manufacturing defect. After MANY trips to the dealership and many inconveniences/horrendous customer service, I was able to replace the car in July '98 through the state's lemon law (which in Texas is heavily skewed in favor of the dealer and manufacturer). By then, the car had 17,000 miles and I was forced to accept a new '98 Concorde Lxi.
Within two weeks, the horn was replaced because it shorted out. The window motors for the driver's side and the driver's side rear have been replaced a combined total of four times. Shortly thereafter, the transmission sensor went out so the car would not shift as expected which meant another trip to the dealer's service department. The rack and pinion was replaced at 40,000 miles. Also, engine mount shims were added due to a technical service bulletin( Chrysler TSB# 021699-Dec'99) referencing steering problems even though the car was within front-end alignment tolerance. The dealer never told me about the bulletin, but I researched it myself with the help of my local Firestone Service Center. I also had to have the windshield washer nozzles repaired. The car is noisy inside and it has no power from a dead stop since the 3.2 liter engine on the '98 has less torque than the 3.5 liter engine on '97 Concordes. If you still feel enamored of the Concorde's stylish appearance, go ahead and make the same mistake I made when I purchased my first and last Chrysler. I had no idea I would spend as much time and effort in scheduling repetitive vehicle repairs at the dealership for new cars which should have been free of major mechanical problems. Prior to the purchase of the '97 Concorde, I had been a lifelong Ford/Mercury customer. With the hell I have endured because of these two lemons and the shoddy customer service received from Chrysler dealerships/service departments, I will never again make the mistake of buying Chrysler products!!!
Apr 27, 2000 (4:19 pm)
for the record, the 3.2l torque is 225 ft/lbs, the old 3.5l was 221 ft/lbs.
Apr 28, 2000 (2:54 am)
I have a 99 LXI which I have had for about 10 months and just turned 27,000 miles so I thought I would let prospective buyers know about my driving experience.
I have posted many times in here....some negative and some possitive and with most of my posts someone will either accuse me of being either a Chrysler lover or hater...but none of that nonsense really matters to me as I just tell it the way it is based on my driving expierence.
This post is strictly based on the mechanical aspects of my 99 Concorde.
Well like I said in 27,000 driving miles I have not had one problem mechanically with my Concorde.
I have not had it in for any service related repair on the drive train to date......If I had to rate my Concorde based on the drive train or reliabillity of the car I would have to say that I would give it a very high rating.
I know there are many new readers in here thinking about buying a new Concorde and looking for advise from current owners...without really going into detail the best honest answer I would give is.....The Concorde is a gorgeous car both on the outside as well as the inside...handles great...reasonably economical...very roomy except for the passenger leg room...priced very fairly...fun to drive but on the down side it is very noisy riding car.
Even though I have been very satisfied mechanically with my car many others have not been so lucky....so my advice would be...buy the extended warranty and if you don't mind a car that picks up road noise I think you will be very happy overall with your Concorde....
#270 of 1273 My 2000 Concorde
Apr 28, 2000 (1:53 pm)
I have in the past posted my thoughts on my new Concorde concerning road noise and the price that I paid for my car. I said that I noticed the road noise too compared to my previous car but with a great stereo with 8 speakers aboard, who really cares about a little wind noise!! LOL!
My husband swore that he would NEVER own a Daimler-Chrysler product until we came upon the Concorde and it was so much car for the money and with the 0.9% financing, how could you go wrong?
Can I just tell you that this car has stolen my husband's heart! He is in love. And as for the road noise, I have since bought a used (1993) Jeep Wrangler with a soft top and let me just say that if any of you complain about road noise or wind noise, drive a Wrangler. Wow. But I absolutly love the Jeep for driving around town and goofing off in but the Concorde is THE CAR!!
Who would have thought that a 100% pure Chevy family would now be almost all Daimler-Chrysler!
LOL!! ( We still own a Chevy pick-up ) Anyways, just thought I would share my 2 cents with you.
Happy driving and keep the stereo up to eliminate the noise...Ha!
Kari in PA
Apr 28, 2000 (7:21 pm)
Your post on the torque is informative, 221 v 225 lb ft (when I was younger, it was foot pounds, now it is pounds feet; who made the change, when, and WHY?????). But, I believe, more importantly, at what rpm does the engine attain those readings? Example: if 3.2L develops 225 at, say, 1700 rpm, but the 3.5L develops 221 at 4000 rpm (an rpm value rarely reached by most drivers with an auto trans), the 3.2 will perform much better between 0 and 60 mph, whereas the 3.5 will perform better between 80 and 120 mph, also a figure rarely reached by most drivers in their entire driving life.
So we really must compare liters with torque with RPM, with the RPM reaaly the most important factor of all, since who needs a car with all of its torque available at 100 mph?
#272 of 1273 marsha
Apr 28, 2000 (7:44 pm)
i hear what you are saying. the 3.2l has a max of 225 ft-lbs of torque available at 3800 rpm. however, a very healthy does of that max is available much earlier than 3800 rpm. as for the old 3.5l, i don't know any specific details but i'm pretty sure its torque curve was very similar to that of the 3.2l.
Apr 29, 2000 (3:41 am)
I just posted #298 about my 1998 chrysler concorde the good and the bad.
#274 of 1273 Concorde 3.2L v. 3.5L
Apr 29, 2000 (9:40 pm)
Dear Engineers, Physicists, et al:
Since I've owned both a '97 Concorde LX and a '98 Concorde LXi, I can tell you from experience that from a dead stop, the 3.5L 24-valve Concorde LX was far and away a more powerful engine than the 3.2L 24-valve LXi. I am neither an engineer, mathematician nor physicist so I won't speculate about the torque, rpms or foot pounds/pounds feet.
My understanding is that as of 1998, the 3.5L 24-valve engine which was in the '97 Concorde is now on the LHS and the 300M. The Concordes now have the weaker 2.7L and 3.2L engines. My experience with the 3.2L engine has been of a significantly weaker engine from a dead stop; especially if you do not have lengthy on-ramps thereby turning your highway merges into adrenaline-inducing experiences. Performance aside, Chrysler's consistently inconsistent reliability due to inferior parts and poor quality control in their manufacturing process should give prospective buyers pause. In addition to the mechanical problems, Chrysler vehicles have a greater likelihood of having suffered raildust damage to their paint since they are transported via rail. Those paint imperfections may not become apparent to the customer until they've had the car for awhile (especially visible on white and light-colored cars). I only posted the major mechanical problems I experienced with both models.
While no reasonable person should expect a utopian experience when purchasing a new car, how post-purchase contingencies/problems are handled by a dealership/manufacturer speaks volumes about their regard for the customer, their professionalism, reputation and any interest in repeat business. Based on my experience, I will NEVER buy Chrysler again.
A former Chrysler victim in Conroe, Texas