Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars 50 Worst Cars of All Time
298 messages, Last post on May 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
That's just the start: 99% of all Neons seemingly had head gasket failure, but it seemed 99.9 % also had Air Conditioner failure and Auto Tranny failure. You couldn't count the amounts of rattles and squeeks by the time you reached 40,000 miles you had more rattles than miles. Leaky glue under the window trimmings, leaky gas tanks, faulty parking breaks, bad belts, bad starter wires and cables, corrosive wires and cables and batteries, and on and on.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (May 07, 2009 2:42 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 07, 2009 2:29 pm) I thought the Neon had a lot of promise when it first came out, and I liked it a lot. Finally, FINALLY, a little car that I felt comfortable in! And it came with 132 hp, standard. Sure, there were other small cars that had stronger optional engines, but I don't think anything in the Neon's class had that much power standard. Heck, even today, the Corolla only has 132 hp standard, while the Civic is only 140. Shifty, what larger-displacement engine went in the Neon? I was under the impression that the only engine was the 2.0, although it came in several configurations. 132 hp was base, with a 150 option, and yet another that was 175 or something like that. Supposedly, the Neon's platform couldn't handle the extra torque of the 2.4 engine. It is a shame that they rushed out the 2000 version, just so it could be the "first new car of the new millenium". What a flash in the pan that turned out to be. They dumped the coupe and the hot engines. And worse, I don't think they even offered a 4-speed automatic until something like 2002. Oh well, at least by this time the 3-speed automatic, which dated to the '78 Horizon/Omni, had most of its kinks worked out. And as non-competitive as the Neon was, considering where fuel prices went, I bet they would've done better if they just kept it in production, rather than bringing out the Caliber.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (May 07, 2009 5:51 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Like you, Andre and Shifty, I also had great hopes for the first generation Neon, and was disappointed, for the reasons already mentioned. I liked the styling of the first generation Neon better than the second. However, once it adopted the 4-speed automatic, I thought the Neon performed competently, and was a decent car. I rented three of them, and that was my conclusion. Then, just when the Neon was reasonably competitive, Chrysler replaced it with the Caliber. I've also rented three Calibers, and, contrary to what one reads, I found that they were okay. The two improvements I'd recommend would be a better interior, and more communicative steering. I didn't mind the CVT transmission. In fact, the driving experience is kind of interesting with the CVT. I understand that Nissan sets the standard, in terms of CVT refinement. I think that Caliber sales would have been better if it had also been offered in a sedan. Although I like the Caliber's hatchback configuration, I imagine they lost a lot of former Neon owners by not also having a sedan. By the time the Neon had the 4-speed automatic, it may not have been among the best cars in its class, but it was definitely not among the worst cars. I think the same applies to the Caliber. Unfortunately, neither has the "gotta have it" factor, so, as mediocre entries they have to sell on price. Would I buy a Neon or Caliber? Sure, but only a used one. They may be bargain used cars. I hope Fiat will change this, and doesn't disappoint us, as the first Neons did. |
|
| ...does it really keep drinks cold? | |
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 07, 2009 8:10 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (May 08, 2009 6:27 am) OR she could be the luckiest woman on earth.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (May 07, 2009 5:51 pm) One wonders what they did for the turbo 2.4 in the Neon SRT-4, then? I used to see those around, but they've pretty much vanished in the last few years. I suppose the fall-apartitis that claimed the more pedestrian Neons got to those, too.
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (May 08, 2009 6:27 am) And heck, I even knew someone who had a 1994 Eagle Vision, who got about 160,000 miles out of it, original engine and tranny, before giving it to her kid. I think he ultimately wrecked it. She was always griping about it being a piece of crap, but she and her husband weren't exactly religious about maintaining their cars. Plus, I think that whatever the issue was, the dealer just wasn't fixing it properly. So sometimes, there is a good one in the bunch I guess. But anyway, my guess is that with the Neon, after a few years they started improving them, as they got the kinks out. And when the 2000 came out, I don't think it was a horrible car, when it comes to reliability/durability. It's just that it didn't do anything else all that well. It was bigger than the 1995-99 model, which hurt performance a bit And they got rid of all the fun engines. And didn't bother to put a 4-speed automatic in it. It's like they just did the bare minimum to get the car built and out the door as fast as possible, without any real effort. The last time I rode in a Neon was a few years ago. A friend of mine, who has a 2004 Crown Vic, had his car in the shop and he had a Neon as a loaner. It seemed competent enough for the most part, but was no great shakes. I'd personally rate it more desireable than a Civic or Corolla of the time, simply because it felt roomier inside and fit me better...so it would be a more useful car, for my needs...but not necessarily the majority who buy these types of cars. Really though, all they would've had to do was throw maybe 50 bucks more into the interior quality, and it would've been a respectable car. One thing I remember about it was that it had cloth inserts on the door panels, which I normally like. However, they were so rough to the touch and so thinly padded, it was like why bother? |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars 50 Worst Cars of All Time
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
