Last post on Apr 04, 2013 at 10:40 PM
You are in the Dodge Avenger
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Avenger, Coupe
#29 of 198 see ya; good luck; PS (Parting Shots)
Jun 06, 2002 (3:47 pm)
Since I do care about what the poster wanted, I won't waste space arguing with you anymore. But I did post a fact that Dodge vehicles are, in general, not reliable and not well-built. Having owned a Dodge and knowing others who have [owned Sebrings, the mechanical twin], and seeing consistent data in print to this effect, I believe this is a general statement of truth. Deny it all you like, whale-bait. And it was YOU that started the name-calling and "third-grade taunts" - once again, you have no memory. Go back and read the early posts.
Good luck to you, the Avenger-seeker. I honestly hope you get one that is trouble-free. For your sake, I hope Chrysler quality has improved, even if the hard data isn't showing that to be the case.
PS - you want facts? See the 4/00 issue of Consumer Reports (2000 was the last model year they made the Avenger). You don't have to trust my opinions or stated facts. Trust all the people who reply to CR's annual auto survey - all the owners of Avengers who report on them. I'll save you the flipping time - it's on page 42. The Avenger's reliability gets a black dot - the worst rating (it means "much worse than average"). It also got a black dot for [owner] satisfaction. These are the OWNERS making these ratings. I quote, "Reliability has been poor. This is the last year for the Avenger/Sebring pair."
From the 2000 CR Buying Guide, page 277, "Used Cars to Avoid": 95-97 Dodge Avenger (they sold so few of them in '98 that CR had insufficient data for the 98 model year & at the time of publication, the survey for '99 models was not complete. Also note '95 was the debut year, so for all years they had sufficient data, it was a used car to avoid.) On page 286, you can see a breakdown of its reliability data. Most troublesome areas: electrical & [body] integrity, then hardware, then brakes, then ignition, and then paint/trim. All of these areas received below average marks. All but the last two areas received the dreaded black dots. Again, these are owners' statistics. Strangely, these are the same problem areas our neon has had so much trouble with. But I guess you would call that coincidence. Whatever.
Jun 06, 2002 (6:01 pm)
Finally some relevant data!
And you had to go digging to find a two-friggin'-year-old copy of your beloved CR to do it, because you don't actually know ANYTHING! It comes to the same conclusion I offered numerous posts back: Pass. Imagine that! Seems a '95-'97 is a risky proposition: well, whaddaya knowbout dat?
Conveniently, your bathroom reading search contains nothing on the years I suggest looking at. Now THERE'S a coincidence. Your Neon shares an engine block with the Avenger/Sebring, and that's about it, BTW, so call it whatever YOU want.
You could try Allpar, and go to the owner's web ring, so you can find some real info on the cars from real owners who actually know something about their cars. It's much more illuminating than CR, where broken stereo knobs and blown fuses get listed as "electical issues". Better yet, try dirtying your tiny nail-bitten fingers on a car once in a while. But you don't care, do you? Nope.
Why? Well to put it in terms you'd use yourself and therefore understand, because you're a know-it-all dickless loser whose entire pathetic life is lived in the pages of old issues of magazines. The IS should be a perfect long-term car for you. See, to have children (your own at least), you'd actually have to have a set of reproductive organs, as well as the brains to actually use them. So it pretty much looks like you won't ever have to worry about growing out of a Corolla, unless you adopt.
Shifty Joe: after you delete all the BS posts from this thread, feel free to e-mail me my notice. It's been ages since we've talked.
#31 of 198 good riddance
Jun 07, 2002 (3:21 am)
Just the response I expected! - "Finally some relevant data!" Actually, all I did was get page numbers - this data was what I based my statements on all along (and I didn't hide the print source - I said it was CR). I didn't have to go digging - they're in a magazine rack in my closet. And, not that it matters, but CR is not beloved - I let the subscription run out a year ago. I had to get the year 2000 issues because that was the last year they made the POS Avenger. I explained why there was no data on the '98 and '99 model years. Any fool who wants to risk buying an Avenger of those years can feel free to do so. Its reliability history speaks for itself.
I figured after [you] having to admit that it was relevant data (as I spoke of all along - just now getting page numbers to satisfy you), you would then: A. attempt to attack the credibility of CR (and fail miserably), and then: B. having bombed at that, you would then launch a vicious, immature, verbal assault on me personally. I don't take it personally because you don't know me and because you have just shown yourself to be the jerk I said you were all along (with your name-calling, arguing, assumptions, etc). I think most people would say the engine block is a very significant shared part, if not the most important. After all, that IS what makes the car move (its sole purpose in life) - at least, from my limited automotive knowledge <sarcasm>, I think it is the engine that makes the car move.
CR readers, some of which are undoubtedly mechanics, don't have to be the "under the hood" types to be able to point out obvious problems when they occur. You lose any credibility when you refer to CR data as not real. Like anyone is going to believe some website over a respected publication. We all believe everything we read on the web <sarcasm>. BTW, I don't bite my nails, if you really want to know.
I'm not going to respond to your silly name-calling. I will just say that I have been happily married to a 5'1" 103lb beauty for six years. We have a beautiful 2 year old daughter and our second child is due in January. I never planned on buying an IS, thinking it was too small, until my wife test drove a midsize Accord and was not comfortable piloting something that large. Since, after having a kid for two years, we have never had a problem fitting her stuff in the trunk of the neon, I figure we are safe with a similar size trunk in the IS (I have a truck, too, anyway). Plus, she loved the car and all its standard safety features.
To the host: if you feel any or all of my posts are irrelevant and/or inappropriate, please feel free to delete them as well. Thanks.
Jun 07, 2002 (7:09 am)
Well, since Shifty appears to be on vacation, you can continue your idiotic diatribe for a while longer, and I will respond in kind, so that you'll comprehend.
A) After all your silly generalizing, you actually scurried off to find some hard data to support what I'd already suggested to Avenger: PASS! I never once said he should take the car. If you'd had the brains to "find the page numbers" in the first place, and post the relevant data on the car in question, there would be nothing to discuss. I don't dispute the CR statistics, nor their recommendation. The fact that they lump their data into broad categories is irrefutable, though obviously necessary for reporting purposes.
B) As I said, I never disputed the reliability, or lack thereof, of the '95 Avenger with you, CR, or anyone else. What your infant mind can't seem to process is that your moronic blanket statement: ...all Chrysler products (or Mitsu)" are crap; and your insistance that it is fact, is MY point of contention (what YOURS is, nobody will ever figure out). Not only is it an OPINION, it is an unsubstantiated one. You still have yet to offer a piece of hard evidence that supports it.
Try something like: "According to the most recent JD Power IQ survey, Chrysler, at 141, as a manufacturer, has more complaints per vehicle than the industry average, which is 133."
See, now THAT'S a fact, as opposed to hyperbole! Can't really argue with that. It certainly does not imply that everything they make is a piece of crap, though. GM, BTW, is above the average, yet Nissan is topped not only by DCX, but Ford and Mitsu, and Mazda appears nowhere in the top fifteen (#15 is Kia, at 212).
Keep trying though. I give your full marks for tenacity. Like a puppy with a wet slipper.
#33 of 198 more [of the same]
Jun 07, 2002 (8:42 am)
Still insulting... how disappointing.
I told you in the beginning that my statement of the unreliability of Chrysler products (Mitsus too) was based on, in part, hard data gleaned from CR. I didn't just read that data for the first time. I got page numbers of data I had already read (years ago) because you were in denial of the facts as I stated them. Most people, unlike you, don't ask for page numbers. I gave you the name of the printed source in the beginning. Normally, that is enough. But you are not normal.
Since "crap" is general negative term, I will rephrase my statement to say that Chrysler and Mitsu cars are generally unreliable. This is backed up by CR (see issues already mentioned). Since we are talking about a Dodge here, you can look at the poor reliability ratings of the other Dodge models on and around the same pages as I gave for the Avenger model. Flip a few pages forward and note the ratings for Honda models and then Toyota models. Note how Honda and Toyota models received a lot of full red and half red dots (better than average - excellent reliability). Then note how Chrysler/Dodge and Mitsu models received many full black and half black dots (below average - much worse than average reliability). From this data, even your feeble mind can safely conclude that reliability tends to be very consistent between the models of a particular make of vehicle. From the facts of years of reliability data, I confidently state that Chrysler products in general are unreliable. As I stated in the beginning. But you mistook it for ranting.
Nissan's ratings have indeed declined. I believe I read something about the JD Power study in the news that said Mazda was included in Ford's ratings, which is why it didn't appear on the list. But you are talking about an Initial Quality study, which is not the same thing as Long Term Reliability.
Jun 07, 2002 (9:36 am)
"Unless you like having a vehicle that breaks down. While nice-looking, as others have said, it is a modest performer, to say the least. What is more important is that it, like all Chrysler products (or Mitsu) is a piece of crap. Trust me, I own a Dodge (for another nine months -- I'm counting down) and I have read extensively about the brands. They are junk. Period. Chrysler = nice styling, roomy interiors, low price, but NO QUALITY OR RELIABILITY."
Your own first post on the subject. Yeah, I mistook that for ranting. How silly of me.
"Since 'crap' is general negative term, I will rephrase my statement to say that Chrysler and Mitsu cars are generally unreliable." "I confidently state that Chrysler products in general are unreliable..."
Nice back-pedal. Toned down and getting closer to a true statement. I never mentioned Honda or Toyota. That they are the current industry leaders in quality and reliablility is not now, nor has it been a point of contention. Did I tell him not to look at a Honda or Toyota if he so pleased? NO! He asked about a Dodge Avenger, and I gave him viable, useful information on a Dodge Avenger. He didn't ask about shopping for other cars, he asked if there were any issues he needed to know about with this car. What is it you don't get?
"From this data, even your feeble mind can safely conclude that reliability tends to be very consistent between the models of a particular make of vehicle..."
Which duly explains why the Escort is a CR Good Bet, but the Windstar is a Reliability Risk? Of course it does.
Again, what don't you get? An intelligent statement, such as "in general, Chrysler offerings are less reliable than Toyota and Honda", is factual, with statistical information available to back it. Only a twit would try to refute that statement, and the rest of us can enjoy the show. Somebody at least interested in offering constructive advice would have perhaps said: "You might want consider a '95 Camry coupe. They book at about the same price, though there will be a few less amenities, but the performance will be very close, and reliability should be much better." Again, hard to refute under any circumstances. But you didn't because you not only don't know, but don't care, and would rather take the opportunity to rant about all Chryslers being "junk".
Jun 07, 2002 (10:43 am)
Well let's just close up the entire topic then if no one can get along. The considerable it would take to delete all posts and notify all users seems pointless. You all know the Town Hall rules on courtesy and that we discourage flaming and personal attacks on other users.
Just so that there is something relevant to leave in archive, Consumer Reports rates the Avenger very poorly, among the worst reliability records possible.
So I trust the original poster will take that data for whatever it is worth and let's move on.
#36 of 198 Headlight covers, airdam, wheels
Mar 23, 2005 (4:15 pm)
I've had a '98 since new, and 100,000 miles later, I still love it.
The parts are getting scarce and expensive; it's had a few minor problems; but overall, it has been the best car I've ever owned.
I've been disappointed in the design of the headlights (no parts available, just the whole module), the clearance of the front airdam, and the size of the delicate alloy wheels. 17" tires are a lot more money (with no apparent improvement in handling).
So, although there is plenty of room for improvement, and parts are overpriced, it is still a joy to drive while listening to the Infinity sound system (with added XM satellite).
My ES model has leather, a sun roof, electric mirrors, air, a V-6 with automatic front wheel drive, and anything else a comparable BMW has for about half the cost!
#37 of 198 Miss my Avenger!
Mar 31, 2005 (12:28 am)
I just traded in my Indy Red 95' ES with sunroof and leather 110,000 miles. I am bummed. Since I first saw the car, and in the 10 years I've owned it, I have only seen a few cars that I think look as hot as that Avenger! I don't know why. Actually, I was glad there weren't that many sold. I hate driving cookie-cutter cars! In our town of 50,000, I think mine was the only one. After 10 years and many coats of "Wet" polish by Eagle One, the thing looked brand new (EXCEPT for the VERY cloudy headlights). I even live in AZ and the car was never garaged. Also, all the bells and whistles still worked fine. People were always saying it looked like a new car. I cried when I cleaned the car out. I have sellers remorse and am thinking about buying it back from the dealer, just for the way it looked! (typical female!)
Actually, before I could replace the headlights recently, it turned on me. The tranny went and it needed EGR valve, belts and a tune-up. With a $3000. bill looking at me, and the prospect of another brutal desert summer upon us, I figured I better give it up. It was generally a reliable car though. I can't complain. If I had the money, they'd have never gotten the car away from me! I just couldn't afford to keep the car fixed up for the long haul. Mechanics say casually, "oh, that'll be $900. to fix". Like it's NOTHING! I would have loved to have kept the car till it was a "antique". Oh well. Of course I had to see a very sharp black one in town this weekend, to make me feel worse!
For anyone's info.(flavenger) I found new after-market headlamp assemblys for it for $140.+ $10 shipping each at BB Auto parts, out of the Bronx, NY
#38 of 198 Remote entry module location
May 03, 2005 (8:54 am)
I just bought a 97 Avenger with remote entry that doesn't work. I would like to know where the module is so I can remove and replace it with a working model. Thanks,