1995 Chrysler Concorde 3.5 V-6 from North America


Excellent, comfortable, stylish, strong performer, excellent mileage


Front disc brake rotors replaced twice due to shaking in the steering wheel.

Transmission fluid lines replaced due to leaks.

A bit more wind noise than it should have.

I would not begin to try to do anything under the hood, terribly crowded but fortunately, I never had a problem.

Expensive tune-up at 60,000 miles.

General Comments:

Excellent performance from 3.5 engine.

Excellent heating and air conditioning.

25 to 27 miles per gallon consistently.

Very comfortable seats.

Excellent leg room and comfort.

Large trunk.

Muffler looked like it would last for 20 years.

I was told repeatedly that this car would fall apart within minutes of leaving the showroom. The weak spots were supposed to be the air conditioning system and transmission.

I never had a bit of trouble with either but I maintained the automatic every 30,000 miles.

I think Chrysler gets a bad rap, mainly from people who never owned one.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st February, 2001

13th Apr 2001, 14:50

As a former Dodge Neon owner, I state with certainty that Chrysler's bad rap comes from:

1) Those who owned Chrysler products that were poorly built.

2) Those who contacted Chrysler trying to get them to fix their poorly built cars.

I just bought a 1993 Concorde from a MOPAR fanatic who is also a mechanic. If I didn't know him personally (we go to the same church), I would not have sought out a Chrysler product.

30th Apr 2001, 01:24

What I have noticed about Chrysler is bad quality control in their factories. They build many well designed cars but many leave the factory poorly built. This could be explained as: unskilled laborers, inconsistent quality checks, unobservant quality control persons, etc. It's a quality issue, buying a mopar can be a risky thing- you have a good chance of buying a dud. but if it isn't a dud and it is in accordance with the vehicles blueprint tolerances, then it is a good car that will last you a long time.

You can never blame a brand in whole, always in part. Like Chevy, their upper management in their engineering Dept. are all penny pinchers. Their cars are commonly cheap, but well built. Quality control. Ford- they make a lot of cheap cars and a lot of expensive cars. That is how they stay afloat, the cars that don't cost a lot is ballenced by the cars that do cost a lot. Ford is pretty predictable with their cars quality. They have good quality procedures at their plants and their motto is "you get what you pay for"..

Think Quality.