Last post on Oct 08, 2012 at 4:35 PM
You are in the Dodge Intrepid
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Intrepid, Sedan
#2917 of 3457 Re: Jason... [andre1969]
Nov 20, 2005 (3:48 pm)
I have 1999 ES (3.2L, autostick) purchased new in Sept. 1999 with just over 65,000 miles on it. Under warranty the winshield washer reservoir and the drivers window control modules were replaced. Shortly after the warranty expired (36K) I had a transmission sensor and a front wheel bearing fail and be replaced for about $450 at a Chrysler (not Dodge) dealer. I also had the trans fluid changed with the sensor. About a year ago it began to run rough and give a mis-fire cylinder 1 error. I exchanged the #1 coil with the #6 coil with no effect and then replaced the spark plugs again with no effect. I then took it to the same Chrysler dealer to figure out what was causing the problem. They looked at it and only charged me $40 to tell me that they also had no idea what the problem was. They did suggest using one or two gas treatments (fuel injector cleaner). I did this and have not had the problem again. However, I am sure that changing the plugs did not hurt. This year I replaced the sepentine belt (a horrible job) and replaced the front and rear pads and the front brake rotors (an easy job). The pads did not really need replacing with about 60,000 miles on them, but the front rotors were warped. I feel that this is an incredibly small amount of maintenance for a 6 year old vehicle. It is still very quiet, smooth and powerful and looks really good. I average 22 mpg in town and 28-30 on the highway. I did buy a new vehicle (2006 Odyssey EX-L) because the Intrepid is small for my family on trips. However, I drive the Intrepid as much as I can because it is a pleasure to drive, gets great mileage, and costs much less in depreciation and insurance.
Nov 20, 2005 (5:26 pm)
I kinda wish I'd splurged for the 3.2 back when I bought my Trep. It seems like out in the "real world", owners are actually getting BETTER economy with the 3.2 than with the 2.7! I'm guessing that it's got enough extra power so it doesn't have to work as hard, but at the same time it's not THAT much bigger, so it doesn't guzzle.
I have broken 30 mpg on a trip a few times, but usually it's more like 25-28. I used to really have to work hard to get under 20 mpg around town (like deliverig pizzas, in the winter, using oxygenated gas, and even then it would get like 19.7). Nowadays though, I'm often getting around 17 mpg. However, my short 3.5 mile commute to work might have something to do with that! The car spends most of its driving time warming up, and not much at normal operating temperature, and just doesn't get much of a chance to "stretch its legs"
#2919 of 3457 Andre/fljoslin...
Nov 20, 2005 (7:15 pm)
Good to hear from you both. My day to day gas mileage seems to hover right around 19-21. That includes fairly short trips (in town)and several highway jaunts. When I get on the highways I'm usually exceeding 65 so my mileage hits the mid-20's at best. All in all I'm content.
Unfortuately (or perhaps fortunately), my parents traded in my mother's 1994 Intrepid ES for a new Charger SXT. When my Intrepid was in the shop, I borrowed their Charger for a trip to the Carolinas. I wasn't bowled over until I took it on the extended trip. It amazes me how they got the engineering "right" on these models. I made slightly over 19mpg in city driving and better than 27 on the highway. I did NOT spare the whip. Despite weighing significantly more than the Intrepid, having poorer aerodynamics and a larger engine--the mileage was significantly better. I'm quite impressed with the Charger!
Nov 21, 2005 (5:59 am)
I did a little surfing on the net, and while the Charger certainly looks a lot blockier than the Intrepid, the aerodynamics aren't much worse. The Intrepid, IIRC, has a coefficient of 0.30, which not many family cars exceed. I think the Passat does, and the Prius and Insight, but for the most part I think that's territory left to fairly exotic cars. The Charger, I've seen quoted around 0.33-0.34.
I wonder if the good mileage of the Charger comes from the 5-speed automatic transmission. I've always heard that Chrysler's 4-speed automatic wasn't very efficient at transferring the power to the wheels.
From the Chargers I've been in, my complaints are pretty minor for the most part. The trunk is smaller than the Intrepid. When I sit in the back seat, I can hit the rear window with my head. And the interior seems a bit downgraded and more plasticky than my '00 Intrepid. However, the Intrepid did get its interior cheapened a bit in 2002, so it probably wouldn't be as much of a shock when compared to a newer Trep.
#2921 of 3457 Re: Andre/fljoslin... [Jason5]
Nov 21, 2005 (10:35 am)
This has the 3.5 L engine which is the big brother of the 3.2 L. About 25 more HP and ft/lbs of torque. I am sure that the 5 speed auto helps. Also, how does the Charger mileage compare to the old 300M and LHS which had this same engine?
My 3.2L ES get 22 mpg city and 28-30 mpg highway with probably similar acceleration the 4 speed auto. Are they really any ahead?
Nov 22, 2005 (8:02 am)
the EPA ratings for the Intrepid were:
20/29 with the 2.7 (with or without the variable intake)
19/28 for the 3.2
18/26 for the 3.5
For swan-song 2004, the ratings were massaged just a bit, to:
21/29 for the 2.7
19/27 for the milder 3.5 (SXT?)
18/27 for the stronger 3.5 (ES?)
In comparison, the Charger is:
21/28 for the 2.7 (I think this is a rental/fleet only model not available to the general public)
19/27 for the 3.5
17/25 for the 5.7 Hemi
14/20 for the 6.1 Hemi
As for acceleration times, for some reason the old 3.2 seemed to be all over the map...I think I've seen anywhere from 8 to 9.5 seconds. Edmunds tested an Intrepid ES 3.2 in 2000, and got 0-60 in 8.4. I found an old test on the Auto Channel website of a 1999 ES 3.2, and they got 0-60 in 8.9. I think the the 3.5 tends to be more consistent though in the Intrepid/300M, at around 7.8-8.0 seconds.
With the 3.5 used in the Charger, Magnum, and 300, I think I've seen 0-60 from 7.5-8.5 seconds.
So maybe it's not really a big jump ahead, but at least they seem to be keeping performance and fuel economy up, despite putting on weight and going back to RWD.
#2923 of 3457 2000 intrepid 2.7 junk
Nov 28, 2005 (4:35 pm)
im glad someone has had good luck with their intrepids, not here. mine has 62000 miles on it and ive had loads of trouble with it i fix one problem and then another one rises up. right now its been sitting quietly in my garage for about 3 months because the timing chain slipped and bent all the vaves , the garage says 3000.00 will fix it. but i think it would be a great boat anchor, i am a true dodge man but i do have my limits on how much i can spend on it, i think i could have bought a new hummer
#2924 of 3457 Re: 2000 intrepid 2.7 junk [96dodge]
Nov 29, 2005 (5:43 am)
I wonder how much it would cost to have the 2.7 pulled out and a 3.2 or even a 3.5 put in there? When I was at the Mopar Nationals in Carlisle PA this past summer, there was a '99 Intrepid on the field with its hood up. I remember looking under there and seeing the stickers that said "2.7" on the radiator support. But looking at the engine bay, it looked different from mine. Then in the windshield, I noticed there was a sign stating that it had been converted to a 3.2.
Now if something happened to my '00 Intrepid, which has around 112,000 miles on it, I don't think I'd be willing to sink $3,000 or more into it. But at 62,000 miles, if the body and interior still look good, I might be tempted.
From what I've heard, the 2.7 is a very expensive engine to work on. Also expensive to have rebuilt, and even used ones in the junkyard are expensive. If putting in a 3.2 or 3.5 doesn't end up costing much more than the valve job on the 2.7, it might be worth it.
But if you're getting to the point that you hate the car, it might be best for your peace of mind to just get rid of it and not sink any more money into it.
#2925 of 3457 Re: 2000 intrepid 2.7 junk [96dodge]
Nov 29, 2005 (11:21 am)
Sorry to hear your bad news. I would not put $3000 into a 2000 Intrepid. If you cannot fix it yourself, I would sell it as is. Might be worth $1000 to someone. I do not understand why DC went with the 2.7 L engine in the first place and why they continue to use it in their new cars. If every Intrepid had come with at least the 3.2 L engine, they would have sold many more cars and would have had a much more satisfied consumer. I cannot believe that the 2.7 L engine, especially with a DOHC setup, costs much less than the 3.2 L engine.
#2926 of 3457 I'm a bit confused...
Nov 29, 2005 (12:31 pm)
about the 2.7 myself. It seemed like a great idea when it came out in 1998. A 2.7 V-6 with DOHC and 200 hp sounded pretty awesome back in 1998, especially when you compared it to the Taurus, which was putting out around 150 hp with its standard 3.0 Vulcan, and the Lumina, which had a standard 3.1 only put out 160 hp.
However, the 2.7 is more complicated and expensive to build than the 3.2/3.5 SOHC. You'd almost think that Chrysler would've just taken the 3.2/3.5 block and de-bored or de-stroked it if they needed a smaller base engine.
Maybe Chrysler had greater plans for the 2.7, and they just never materialized once the Benz takeover went into effect? Supposedly you can modify it to get 250 hp at the wheels (stock it only gets around 150 at the wheels on an Intrepid).
About the only real advantage I can think of for the 2.7 is that it got slightly better EPA ratings than the 3.2. Something like 20/29 versus 19/28. And despite the bulk associated with DOHC, overall it's a bit smaller physically than the 3.2/3.5 SOHC, so it's possible that the 3.2/3.5 wouldn't have been a useable engine for the Sebring/Stratus.
Looking back, though, it does almost seem like an answer to a question nobody asked. Very expensive to build, work on, and replace, and a milder or smaller-displacement version of the 3.2/3.5 probably would have done just as well.
Now I can't complain about my particular 2.7, as it has served me well. But if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I might have been swayed into a 3.2. One thing I'm still glad about, though, is that I bought the Intrepid over the Impala and Malibu I looked at on that same day!