Last post on Feb 21, 2007 at 11:24 AM
You are in the Chrysler Pacifica
What is this discussion about?
Chrysler Pacifica, Car Buying, Wagon
#39 of 43 Re: Nicely stated... [Jason5]
Jan 03, 2007 (3:01 pm)
I didn't leave. I carefully read all your post with interest. I don't have anything against Chrysler and I'm not here to ruin its reputation. I'm afraid Chrysler might do that on its own. Simply put, there are too many complains for me to fell comfortable buying a Chrysler. I mean, look at this website alone. How many "lemon" complaints do you see? Now, check out Mazda or Honda forums. The number of complains drops drastically.
The bottom line is that the choice to buy a Chrysler is not necessarily a bad one. If you like the car enough, you simply assume the greater risk and move on. The fact that you might have additional expenses down the road, versus let's say Honda or Toyota, is just an added expense of owning the car you want.
Just to make one thing clear. I've done an extensive research on the Pacifica and Chrysler in general. One thing that is consistent is poor service and frequent quality issues. The 2006 and late 2005 models seem to be much better, but still far behind many other auto makers. I'm still considering the 2006 model, but I haven't made up my mind.
I appreciate everyone's input. Keep them coming.
#40 of 43 Re: Nicely stated... [guinnessman]
Jan 03, 2007 (4:08 pm)
"FAR BEHIND other many other auto makers" is an inflated statement. I own a Pacifica, a Honda and a Volvo. I would accept that Pacifica is a little bit less sophisticated than Honda reliability wise, but Volvo is by orders of magnitude crappier than the other two together ! And my Volvo is a better than the new ones equipped with all that high-tech unreliable electronic crap !!!
For what you pay, I think Pacifica is a great car. FWD have better gas mileage than AWD, and are faster. More reliable too (less transmission parts).
#41 of 43 Of course...
Jan 03, 2007 (5:38 pm)
it's an inflated statement--and an inaccurate one. In cases like this--as in the other post--you'll see someone compare traditionally domestic makes to "Honda" or "Toyota" which is, of course, an unfair comparison. Compare domestics to domestics and you get a much more accurate and better picture. In fact, maintenance costs on traditionally domestic makes are more often lower than on traditionally imported makes. Room for improvement? Sure... Poor quality and service? Not true...
#42 of 43 Re: Nicely stated... [guinnessman]
Jan 04, 2007 (7:17 am)
First off, reading internet forums is not a reliable way to judge a vehicle.
Second, think about what you are actually reading. Is it a major complaint? A minor one? How often has one person posted about the same problem (making you think its a widespread problem, when its actually just a few really vocal people)?
Third, think about the comparisons you make to other vehicles. Honda is quite reliable for the most part, yes. But you could easily have gotten sucked into the whole transmission scare. It was all over the internet. All over the news when the recall and extended warranties went into effect. Lots of people complaining. In the end, there was something like 1% of owners affected. Also, when you look at other companies like Mazda, for instance, think about the small number of vehicles they sell compared to bigger manufacturers, like Chrysler.
Its funny. I actually have a habit of buying vehicles that internet forums tell me not to buy. And I've been perfectly happy with all of them.