Last post on Oct 08, 2012 at 4:35 PM
You are in the Dodge Intrepid
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Intrepid, Sedan
#180 of 3457 Don't build 'em like they used to.
Aug 24, 2000 (1:19 pm)
This really applies to everything, from electronic appliances, furniture, automobiles, lawn equipment...you name it. When emale said "cars today just aren't built like they used to be", I think he was generally refering to the typical 80's/90's car vs the typical 50's/60's/70's car, or 80's car using 70's technology. In addition to my 2000 Intrepid, I also have a 1989 Plymouth Gran Fury with 112,000 miles, a 1968 Dodge Dart with 337,000 miles, and a 1957 DeSoto. I also have a 1967 Pontiac Catalina convertible and used to have a 1979 Chrysler Newport. I can attest that, with every newer generation of cars, they have found ways to cheapen them. They roll the sheetmetal thinner, put more plastics in them, use lighter suspension components, etc...but they have to, in the interests of fuel economy. My Intrepid easily gets 19-20 mpg in city driving. The other cars I mentioned would all get about 13, except for the Pontiac, which gets about 10. The only one that would easily break 20 mpg on the highway was my '79 Newport.
As for emissions output, when I ran my Newport through the emissions test back in 1997, it passed with no problem...and this was a car I bought from the junkyard, with 230,000 miles on it. Here are the results...
HC CO CO2
State: 470ppm 5.00pct 6.0pct
Newport 162ppm 0.03pct 14.5pct
If a junkyard car can do this well, I'm sure that most new cars are so clean that any discrepancies between them would be negligible.
Now I know my Intrepid will never live to be as old as my DeSoto, my Dart, or maybe even my Gran Fury. It's just too complicated, has too much plastic, and too many electronic things that can go wrong. These are just features with any new car, and they will count against it as the car ages. It's not any inherent fault with DC, it's just the way they everybody builds 'em nowadays.
#181 of 3457 some more on mpg weirdness
Aug 24, 2000 (4:22 pm)
this is verbatim from chryslercars.com Concorde|features|perfomance web page:
LXi´s 225-horsepower 3.2-liter 24 valve V6 is equipped with a
three-plenum intake manifold for optimum wide-open throttle
power at high speed. Fuel economy is 20 city, 29 highway.
(Actual mileage may vary.)
LX´s 2.7-liter 24-valve V6 sports smooth-running dual overhead
camshafts and delivers 200 horsepower, making it one of today´s
most efficiently potent engines. Fuel economy is 18 city, 26
highway. (Actual mileage may vary.)
Should someone write these guys and tell them their data is bass-ackwards?
Anyway, just got back from Vegas (flew - didn't drive). But did ride in many cabs including a '96 Concorde with 370K miles!!! - driver said he thought it was on its second engine; and a '98 Concorde with 130K miles - driver said it has been a great car, no problems.
I think taxi driving in HOT DESERTS can be added to the list of other uses (police pursuit and pizza delivery via Andre) as a rigorous test of the durability of any car.
#182 of 3457 re: coachditka
Aug 24, 2000 (4:38 pm)
I personally wouldn't buy a 'trep or any other car that was once a rental car. Too many people get them and proceed to drive the #$% out of them.
That's my 2 cents.
Aug 24, 2000 (5:21 pm)
personally, I wouldn't brag about 18/26 out of a V-6 engine. The EPA on your average late 80's GM mid-size or full size V-8 was about that! I remember the window sticker on my 2.7 saying 20/29, but I thought the 3.2 was only a bit less, like 19/29 or 19/28.
Good to see the LH cars are holding up well as taxi cabs. Here in MD, it seems the cabbies still prefer Caprices and Crown Vics, but I have seen an Intrepid or 2. I recall hearing about some cabbie up in Canada that had a 1962 Dodge Dart cab, that had close to a million miles on it. It was just about to hit a million when it was totaled in an accident. I heard that Chrysler gave him a new Intrepid for making such a milestone.
Aug 24, 2000 (7:31 pm)
once again, with elegance, you have been able to succinctly put in words what we are all thinking. good job!
pretty much agree with you. alot of things aren't built like they used to be. and for the record i'm not saying that an intrepid or accord can't be driven 300k miles, they certainly could. what i am saying is that these cars would likely need more serious/major repair than say a 64 polara being driven the same distance. oh well, at least the new ones are betting at avoiding the rust bucket problems of old!
#185 of 3457 This EPA gas mileage thing
Aug 24, 2000 (11:40 pm)
seems to validate a pet theory of mine that goes something like this: A larger capacity(within reason) engine with higher torque will often get better fuel mileage than a smaller "more stressed" engine in the same vehicle. I'm not a physicist but I imagine there's a scientific reason for this. Additionally, the larger engines are often geared lower (numerically) and turn less rpms (and burn less gas). The last sports coupe I owned was a Chevy Z28 with 350 V8 (275 HP) and six speed manual trans. I routinely got 26-27 mpg on the highway with it. The engine was never strained in normal driving. It also had .6 to 1 top gear ratio which acted as an overdrive. The engine loafed along at 1500 to 1600 rpms at 65 miles per hour. I am able to get 25 mpg (best so far) with the 3.5 liter in my Intrepid. I'm just happy that performance and economy can coexist with modern vehicles.
Aug 25, 2000 (2:01 pm)
What I mean is that since the Intrepid has flooded the rental market, the retail value of our intrepids is lower than if there was not the mass amount of them in rental fleets. Dealers will buy from rental companies to fill the used car lot. So sometimes, the used cars were once rentals, so buyers beware! Just something to think about. Hope everyone has a good weekend.
Aug 25, 2000 (3:15 pm)
Probably the BEST thing to do BEFORE buying a used one is to have the dealer run the VIN number through the Chrysler computer to see what work has been done on the car and if and when it was serviced at the dealer. I would imagine that this would be a good idea for ANY used car before buying it. Just make sure that you're right there watching as the results come up! )
#188 of 3457 Boy was that fun!
Aug 25, 2000 (5:20 pm)
I don't think I've ever stirred up so many people in my life. Kind of like throwing a rock at a hornets nest. Any way I enjoyed the format in which many of you were able to provide me with info (albeit somewhat subjective). I agree with emale though, these cars today might have more "technology" built into them but the old guys just knew how to make them--in some areas. I won't disagree that many things are better now then they ever have been. And concerning the low resale--heck that's one of the most attractive aspects to me. Not everyone can or wants to buy new, and for those of us that buy and keep it till it dies (200K+)-a good car for little money is the best way to go. As others have said there is going to be some bad apples in every make of car just some more than others. I think the intrepid can hold its own though!
#189 of 3457 It's FRIDAY!
Aug 25, 2000 (11:59 pm)
I feel the need....the need for neon (or Neon)!
Have a good weekend everybody.