2000 Dodge Intrepid from North America - Comments

My motor blew out at 35,000 miles. When I took it to the dealer to look at first they said they needed to open the motor up to get a better idea of what was wrong and they did and told me that I didn't change the oil which I did in a timely manner and always took it to the dealer service department to change the oil. They told me that I would have to pay for a new motor and of course I declined because the car is not even paid off and only has 35,000 and the oil was always changed at 3,000 miles or every 3 months. They gave me a customer service number and the representative read my file and the service department has written in it that I had sludge in my motor (not what they told me) so I informed her that they told me different so she said to get the district manager's number from them, but of course they refused. I am still waiting for something to be done about my car. They said the district manager would call me, but still no call. I have no idea what I can do about this problem.

Ahhhh Chrysler Corps. customer service. . . . . .

Is this the way to keep old customers and gain new ones?

The 2.7 liter engine appears to be an inferior design prone to premature failure.

Why Chrysler continues to use this engine is beyond me.

The 3.5 and the 3.7 V6's are strong solid engines.

You've still got to worry about Chrysler's quirky electronics though.

As a manufacturer, Chrysler is probably on par with the other American manufacturers. However their customer service

appears to need improvement, especially after reading some of these reviews.

"As a manufacturer, Chrysler is probably on par with the other American manufacturers."

I absolutely 110% disagree with that statement. For one thing, Chrysler is now German owned. But that technicality aside, I'd never even consider anything made by them, ever. That's based on what I've seen firsthand with Chrysler manufactured vehicles that friends and relatives have owned. I've had mostly good experiences with GM vehicles and one Ford product, though admittedly there have been cars from those manufacturers that have been stinkers too, I've just steered clear of them. To me, Chrysler products look nice, but are just way too risky across the whole product line from the standpoint of reliability. I'm sticking with GM and Ford and probably will for many years to come.

You can stick with GM & Ford, but you'll be missing out on some of the finest American cars we have seen in a long long time.

Why is it that GM & Ford are struggling, and Chrysler is surging?

Obviously you haven't looked at the new Chrysler products, have you?

"You can stick with GM & Ford, but you'll be missing out on some of the finest American cars we have seen in a long long time."

Go back and read my comment-Chrysler is German owned and no longer an American company. It's Daimler-Chrysler, remember? Furthermore, I fail to see how weak engines (like the 2.7 V6) and weak transmissions constitute "fine quality." Go do some very thorough research. Chrysler vehicles seem to have much lower than average reliability overall. Go back many years and the same thing still seems to be true. Now, I'm sure some people have had great luck with their vehicles. Good for them. Based on the evidence I've seen, I'll stay far, far away from Chrysler vehicles, thank you very much. They're just too much of a gamble from the standpoint of reliability. I've seen firsthand what some of these are like. I simply would not feel comfortable purchasing one.

"Why is it that GM & Ford are struggling, and Chrysler is surging?"

That's because 1) Chrysler knows how to make very appealing vehicles in terms of styling and performance. I'll admit, they've made some beautiful cars over the past decade. The first generation LH sedans are beautiful cars. Even their minivans look good. But from the angle of reliability, these vehicles (and all of the rest, current and past) put me off in a big way.

2) Again, Chrysler is German owned. They're not really standing on their own anymore.

3) GM is in bad shape partly because of management blunders that are coming back to cripple them financially. GM and Ford both rely way too heavily on truck and SUV sales and those markets declined with the recent spike in gas prices. In addition, both (particularly GM) need to focus and improve their product lines to make them more appealing in terms of styling and performance. Both are making progress, but it's slow. GM needs to eliminate the redundant vehicles in their lineup, and both Ford and particularly GM need to inject a healthy dose of excitement into their products. I do have to give Daimler-Chrysler credit here, they have a much better marketing and sales strategy and the vehicles have character. They just need to improve the reliability-a lot.

4) In fairness, both GM and Ford have had their "dark ages" when they made substandard vehicles, which I'm sure scared some people away the same way Chrysler vehicles have scared me away. Unfortunately, Chrysler seems to consistently miss the mark on reliability, while GM and Ford have ups and downs. Looks that way to me, anyhow.

"Obviously you haven't looked at the new Chrysler products, have you?"

In fact, I have. I follow the auto industry closer than most people follow their favorite professional sports team. The new Chrysler vehicles look great on paper in terms of styling and performance (except the 300C/Magnum/Charger, I hate the styling on those). But how well will they hold up in the real world? Based on the research and what I've personally seen in the past, I'm not willing to take the chance. Some of the new ones have Mercedes components in them, and that doesn't change my mind, either. The notion that German auto engineering is so wonderful is one of the biggest automotive myths ever. I'm still staying with GM and Ford, and if they give me a reason to leave, I'll go Toyota. But Daimler-Chrysler? Not in this lifetime, no matter how appealing they look.

Just more anti-Chrysler propaganda. Yawn!