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
|
|
|---|---|
Maybe I'm just not noticing them, but for a car that was in production only a few years ago, and was produced in large numbers, you don't see too many Neons on the road anymore.
|
|
|
Replying to: isellhondas (May 08, 2009 6:46 am) Aren't those the same 4 cylinder engines the Neons used? The Acclaim used a 2.5 4-cyl that was a slight enlargement of the old 2.2 that debuted in the 1981 K-cars. It had around 100 hp I think, and was a good, simple, sturdy engine. Easy to work on, cheap to fix. I think it was designed by the same guy who did the slant six. Now the turbo versions had considerably shorter lifespans. Especially that hot 224 hp engine that Spirit R/T used, I imagine. But the regular engines were pretty durable, if uninspiring. The Neon 2.0, as well as the 2.4, were derived from the old 2.2/2.5, but they cut corners here and there, cheapening them no doubt. Plus, I'm sure upping the hp probably put some stress on them. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (May 08, 2009 6:50 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 08, 2009 7:24 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (May 08, 2009 8:35 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 08, 2009 8:42 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (May 08, 2009 8:53 am) |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (May 07, 2009 5:51 pm) The Neon didn't get good gas mileage anyway, especially with the 3 speed auto. I averaged about 25 MPG in mixed/mostly highway driving with it, and as you said, it had 132 HP, I averaged the same mileage in my V6 Accord that had 240 horses, and again, the same mileage in my Audi A3 with 200 horses and 207 lb/ft of torque. The Neon did have good numbers, but in real life it didn't live up to the numbers. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 08, 2009 7:24 am) Being as most 2000 Civics still look really good and run like new, and most 2000 Neons are already in the graveyard/junkyard or a mechanic's shop, I'm surprised the Civic is only 2x more valueable then the Neon of the same year. Should be 10X if you ask me. The point of a car is to get you from A to B. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 08, 2009 9:06 am) AMEN! Ain't that the truth!  However, what is your life worth? That "FREE" '96 Neon might cost you 6,000 dollars in repairs the first 1,000 miles you have it, but when you get in an accident in it, it might cost you your LIFE. You couldn't get me to take one IN MINT condition with 1,000 miles on it for FREE! |
|
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
