You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Dodge/Plymouth Neon
1773 messages, Last post on May 23, 2013 at 7:30 AM
You are in the Dodge/Plymouth Neon Forum.- Your Hosts are Kirstie@Edmunds & Karen@Edmunds
What is this discussion about? Dodge Neon, Plymouth Neon, Sedan
#667 of 1773 2001 R/T review by hersbird
May 21, 2001 (9:41 am)
I thought Edmunds review of the R/T neon was done well except with relation to value. They fail to mention there is a $1000 rebate (there is always at least a $1000 rebate on neons) and that probably every Dodge dealer in the country will do at least $1000 under MSRP on the neon with little haggling and that puts their loaded R/T at $16500. Thats leather, sunroof, side airbags, and more. A more basic R/T would be $15500. I bet the Nissan SE-R or Ford SVT they talk of waiting for cost so much more then this R/T that you could add a supercharger to the neon and still beat their prices. Or just wait as www.car-truck.com reports the turbo powered 220 HP neon SRT is a go for 2002 or 2003, everybody has better stuff coming, the question is what is best right now.
#668 of 1773 by pat
May 21, 2001 (11:02 am)
A link to edmunds.com's Road Test of the 2001 Dodge Neon R/T by John DiPietro now appears in the Additional Resources box on the left sidebar of this page.Pat
Host
Sedans and Women's Auto Center Message Boards
#669 of 1773 Edmund's R/T review by buoyant
May 21, 2001 (10:44 pm)
Overall, it struck me as pretty valid though the complaining about the lack of cruise control on the test car seemed petty. It's not as if they couldn't have gotten a test car with the feature, so I didn't understand the complaint.Interestingly, I never see such criticism of the Kia Rio (or any of the Kia models) by the editors at Edmunds, and that car isn't even AVAILABLE with cruise control! And, speaking of Kia, did anyone else just read J.D. Powers new Initial Quality Study release?
Dodge, as a make, came in right about average, and surprisingly, Plymouth came in quite a bit above average. I suspect some of the unique-to-Dodge (particularly the light trucks) models brought it's quality rating down to average.
As always, VW (with a reputation in this country for building hip, unreliable cars) came in below average and Kia continues to set new lows (three of the worst four individual models are made by Kia). Exactly many problems can one have with a utilitarian car devoid of any power accessories is a question I keep asking myself.
Also, whoever stated that the MSRP has little bearing on what one actually pays for cars is right on the money. If you can't get a Neon at dealer invoice (I'm not counting the holdback here - they have to make something on the vehicle), you're doing something wrong. Trying to dicker with Honda and Toyota dealerships is like trying to brush your dog's teeth. It's a fruitless battle.
Furthermore, with the exception of Mitsubishi and Mazda, the competitive imports never seem to offer rebates (I do see them sometimes offering special financing deals, but the programs are so short that you pretty much have to buy out of dealer stock to beat the program deadlines, whereas you can do an order-out with the Dodge, get the exact color and features you want, and still count on the perennial $1000 rebate being there at the time of delivery). I.e., a loaded Neon may have a comparable MSRP to Protege, Sentra, a bare-bones Jetta, Corolla and Civic, but I still think it's impossible to find any better value when you look at real, out-the-door prices.
#670 of 1773 Neon RT review by edswords
May 22, 2001 (8:11 am)
I didnt expect much from the Edmunds review. We all aready know they dislike the Neon and will go out of their way to let every visitor to their website know it.I dont think they gave the Neons good attributes enough justice. My 2k Neon feels like it was carved out of granite. Its has a high quality solid feeling structure.
It also has excellent predictible handling and when equipped with the 5 speed a competent shifting transmission.
I assume the R/T's handling and shifting are even better.
Yes, its expensive. Its the top of the line Neon and it includes almost all options (including leather). If they were on a budget, they should have tested the new ACR.
I agree with Edmunds knocking the 3 speed automatic and the lack of power windows for the rear doors. But the questions they should be asking are what does a 150 hp Focus cost? or Protege? Or Huyndai? Or Sentra? or Honda? - Oh yeah, thats right, they dont have 150 hp models yet.
How much does a loaded Z24 cost? or GTI? 17500+ dollars!
Edmunds would have all 4 door sport sedan buyers wait for the 2 door SVT ZX3? Would you like to be the first to buy Fords first attempt at 6 speed transmissions and variable valve timing?
I didnt think so!
#671 of 1773 Asking for advice by sergeis
May 24, 2001 (10:42 am)
I am looking for a car for my daugter who is graduating from high school - and I saw a 1996 PLYMOUTH NEON SPORT 2 Dr Coupe auto, cruise, power etc. with 87Kmiles for $5K.I have driven Dodge Neon only once as a rental car, was reasonable - my questions are:
Does this seem to be reasonable price? Is there difference between Plymouth and Dodge? Are there some things to check in Neon and particularly in 1996 model? How bad is having only 3-speed automatic? What about fuel economy?
#672 of 1773 by eneth
May 24, 2001 (11:56 am)
Before you do anything else, if you're at all concerned with her safety, check out the crash-test data on the 95-99 Neons. The cars are rated poor in crashworthiness - you may not want a relatively new, young driver in a car like the Neon. There are much better choices in small cars from a safety standpoint.
By 87,000 miles, chances are the head gasket has been replaced at least once, hopefully with the upgraded version. If not, it's a common point of failure on all Chrysler 2.0 and 2.4L 4-cylinder engines. If you can't get Chrysler to foot the bill, it'll run you about $700 to have it replaced, assuming no other damage has been done.
There's no difference between the Dodge and Plymouth versions; most of the 2-door Neons were built in Toluca, Mexico, while the 4-doors are more likely to have been built in Belvidere, Illinois.
#673 of 1773 saftey by hersbird
May 24, 2001 (5:22 pm)
actually every small car is horrible when it comes to crash saftey. The only thing they have going for then is active saftey, the ability to avoid an accident with handling and braking, something the neon is good at (even the auto!) The crash ratings are alway assuming hitting something of equal weight and admit if weight were taken into account it would be the single biggest factor over riding all other factors (in otherwords why even do the tests). So if saftey was of primary concern you wouldn't even be considering a small car regardless of how many stars it has. According to injury ratings of the Highway Loss Data Institute for 97-99 models your best choice is the GMC 2500 series 4WD pickup, just don't roll it. The best small car is the Audi A4, good luck finding one anywhere near $5000. After that standout (the A4 gets a 62) the numbers get pretty close to each other with the Saturn SL being the next best in injury ratings. It scores a 101 (the lower the better) to the Neon's 148. BTW the GMC gets a 31.#674 of 1773 by eneth
May 24, 2001 (6:02 pm)
No, that's absolutely untrue.It is true that the laws of physics dictate that a small car will come off second-best in a collision with a larger vehicle.
It is also true that some small cars are well-designed, with passenger compartments that stay intact in collisions. Other small cars simply fall apart in collisions, doing little to protect the driver beyond what the Federal Government requires. The Neon (along with some other poor performers like most Kias, Daewoos, etc.) is such a poor performer.
If you're looking for a decent small car with a much better crash rating, along with a far better reliability rating at a price roughly the same as what a used Neon would cost, look no further than a Ford Escort. It protect better in a crash - and isn't prone to the faulty head gaskets, poor window sealing, and other design flaws the Neon is known for.
#675 of 1773 crash tests by buoyant
May 25, 2001 (5:22 pm)
I hate to argue with people, but hersbird is right on the money on this issue.The NHTSA conducts its tests (except for side impact and bumper ratings) by crashing vehicles into FIXED barriers. I.e., the force exerted on the vehicle in the crash is a force equal to the weight of the vehicle.
So, while NHTSA tests might have indicated that Ford Escort's safety cage may survive an impact remaining structurally sound after a collision with a vehicle of comparable weight, it says nothing about how sound the structure would be after a collision with something twice its size...or...how the safety cage would perform if the vehicle were struck from a different angle (I hate to talk Calculus, but there are an infinite number of different angles of which we're speaking).
Interestingly, if you tested these vehicles (the Ford and the Dodge) again using the same exact test conditions (right down to the speed, angle of impact, vehicle weight, etc.), you would still get a different (albeit probably not dramatically so) result.
So, trying to implicitly determine how the Escort will perform when crashing at a different angle or velocity into a vehicle/fixed object of another shape at a different force (the weight and velocity of the other object) by using one of these 2 fixed tests is like trying to accurately determine the specific point at which lightning will strike next Tuesday (I'm only seen that done once before, and in that instance Michael J. Fox had a time machine).
The problem with these government tests is that consumers place too much emphasis on them now and are being lulled into thinking that their vehicle's safety can easily be rated on a scale of 1-5. Unfortunately, car manufacturers know this and "safety" is now more of a marketing gimic than an engineering goal.
I don't know how many people I've heard lately talking about how they purchased the vehicle they did because it had one more star than another vehicle they were considering. If ONLY the real world was that simple!
This opens the way for manufacturers, who are well aware of exactly which crash tests will be conducted on their vehicles and in exactly what manner they will be conducted, to design cars to do well on these fixed tests. The problem, of course, is that very few accidents out are carbon copies of these accident simulations. There are thousands upon thousands of variables out there that affect how a car protects its occupants in a crash. Probably the "best" indicator of how a car will protect its passengers in a crash are the insurance industry ratings for injury claims.
I think they now rate the manufacturers on lichert scales too, if you're a person who likes to keep safety easy-to-understand.
All told, if you value safety above all else, buy the heaviest vehicle with the best handling you can afford. Because the only variables "fixed" in a real crash are the laws of physics.
Otherwise, drive responsibly and buckle-up! Even the smallest car (with the worst gov't crash tests) on the road today will afford its driver adequate protection in all but the most severe accident - so long as that driver remains in his/her seat.
#676 of 1773 Gas mileage update by 71charger
May 26, 2001 (6:40 am)
As an example of how different mileage can be, even in the same car, here are my last two tanks. The last one, I drove the car for the entire tank from Frederick, MD to Reston, VA and got 34.2mpg. This trip was a mix of two lane highway, divided highway and stop and go. I was pleased. The tank before my wife drove the entire tank around town. She WILL NOT shift out of third gear. I think she just likes the way the car feels (responsive) this way. She got 26.3mpg. Not bad considering her driving style.To POST a message, please
Sign In.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement