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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (May 08, 2009 6:27 am) Aren't those the same 4 cylinder engines the Neons used? PT Crusers are nothing more than a Neon with a retro body. Are those ever dogs to sell now!
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (May 08, 2009 6:43 am) I had totally forgotten about that. However, wasn't that the 2nd-gen Neon? The 2nd gen was based on the same architecture as the PT Cruiser, and was beefy enough to handle the 2.4. However, I don't think the first-gen was. I guess it's always possible to beef them up though. Heck, I saw a PT Cruiser with a 426 Hemi in it once! I wonder what all they have to do to accommodate that? 
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 08, 2009 6:43 am) |
|
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
