01 Town and Country LXI
A+ because my wife likes it and I haven't had to spend much on it.
A+ because my wife likes it and I haven't had to spend much on it.
Last edited:
Grade your vehicle!
- Thread starter daves87rs
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
The car is built on a Jaguar platform. And you can FEEL the euro influence to it.
Uh, not to diminish your zeal in the least (because the LS is a great car), but the LS and S-Type Jag share the same Ford DEW platform, which was designed by Ford (with some input from Jag engineers.)
The car is built on a Jaguar platform. And you can FEEL the euro influence to it.
Uh, not to diminish your zeal in the least (because the LS is a great car), but the LS and S-Type Jag share the same Ford DEW platform, which was designed by Ford (with some input from Jag engineers.)
1999 Chrysler 300M: C+
I had this car for 7 years and put about 65,000 miles on it (for a total of 97,000). The 300M is based on Chrysler's 2nd generation LH platform and was designed totally in a computer. Every piece of the car fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. You look under the hood and wonder "How in the heck did they get every little part to fit so closely and exact?" That's how. It all seems very neat and cool until you actually have to work on the car. Example: You can't even see the back of the headlights from under the hood, let alone get to them to replace the bulbs. You have to remove the entire front fascia of the car and remove the headlights to replace the bulbs. Ridiculous. Same situation with the battery. It's buried down in the right front fender well. You have to jack up the right front of the car, remove the right front tire, and then replace the batter through an access panel in the fender well.
The 2nd gen LH platform is amazingly stiff with torsional rigidity that surpassed every other domestic maker when these cars were introduced in 1998. But one thing domestic makers have never understood is that with rigid body structures you've got to up the quality of interior trim pieces or you are going to be continually plagued with rattles, creaks, and buzzes as the car ages. After 7 years and nearly 100,000 miles the body of my 300M was tight and rattle-free but the interior wasn't. Mind you it was nowhere near as bad as domestic cars used to be, but still enough rattles to be annoying.
One thing that always bothered me about this car was the noisy ride. Road noise and wind noise intrude at levels you would not expect in a car costing nearly $30,000.
The 300M with the 3.5 HO engine was fun to drive and really good on gas. Hwy mileage was always over 28 mpg and rarely dropped below 20 mpg in around town driving. The car handled as well as any FWD car could with over 60% of the cars weight hanging off the front end.
Overall reliability of the car was pretty good. The common things that plagued most LH cars plagued mine: The AC evaporator went out, which required removing the entire dash to replace it. The extended warranty saved my butt on that one because the repair was almost $3000. The input and output sensors on the transmission went out. I knew to expect this and had already purchased spares. I replaced these myself and didn't bother using the extended warranty. One of the electric cooling fans on the radiator went out and the driver's power window motor went out, both replaced under the extended warranty. One of the lines from the transmission to the oil cooler (don't know if it was the input or output line) would occasionally develop a leak at the crimp joint. This always puzzled me since the leak would mysteriously seal itself up. Everytime when I thought it was going to keep leaking and make plans to take it to the shop and have the lines replaced it would quit leaking and go for months and not leak. Then one day I'd see a spot on the driveway, crawl under the car, and sure enough the crimp joint on the hose would be wet. Had I not traded the car, I was going to have the hoses replaced when I had the radiator flushed later this fall.
Overall, I was happy with the 300M. It was a roomy and comfortable car, with plenty of power and good fuel economy. The quality of the interior really began to show as the car aged, but the leather held up well with no cracking. The 3.5 SOHC 24 valve engine was bullet proof, but as the 100,000 mile mark was approaching I knew I was facing a timing belt replace. What would be a $400 job on most cars is a $1000 job on the 300M because of how tightly the engine is wedged in there. You have to remove a lot of the front end, including the radiator, to do the timing belt. (By comparison, on my 07 300 there is about 10" of space between the radiator and the timing cover on the engine. Plenty of room to work to change the belt.) Facing the prospect of this timing belt replacement was one reason I started looking for another car.
2007 Chrysler 300 Touring: A-
I traded the 300M last month for an 07 300 Touring. I've not spent enough time with this car to adequately evaluate it, but I can say that Chrysler addressed every one of the LH deficiencies when they designed this car. Based on the totally new RWD LX platform, the new 300 has a great deal of Mercedes derived engineering in it. The rear suspension is the superb patented 5-link independent design first seen on the Mercedes W201 cars that debuted in 1984. While other makers have gone through several independent rear suspension designs since 1984 (BMW is currently on its third design), for the last 25 years Mercedes has not had to change a thing--largely because what the other companies are striving for, Mercedes attained with this design. Mercedes engineers hit the ball out of the park with this suspension and it's now found in every RWD Mercedes platform from the C Class all the way up to the Maybach.
The fit and finish of the new 300 is light years ahead of my 300M. The doors close with bank vault solidity. Interior road noise and wind noise are virtually non existent in comparison. And there are no squeaks or rattles--though let's see how that goes as the care ages.
As roomy as the 300M (or any LH) is, the new 300 is even roomier. Having a 120" wheelbase helps. This is the only car ever that I've been able to sit in the front passenger seat, and with the seat not even adjusted all the way back I can stretch my legs as for out as possible and still not touch the floor where it curves up into the firewall.
One thing I've missed over the years is not having a steering wheel that telescopes as well as tilts. Well, the wheel on the 300 does both. I can now have my seat adjusted back for stretch out leg room without having my arms at full stretch too. And to give you some idea of the sort of room this car has, I don't have to tilt the steering wheel up to exit or enter the car. The last car I was in where that was possible was my dad's 1972 Imperial (which had a tilt/telescope wheel). Heck, even with all the room my Olds mini van has, I still cant get in and out comfortably without first tiling the wheel up all the way.
The steering on the new 300 is much lighter than it was on the 300M, but vastly superior in "road feel." Handling is flat and neutral, thanks to RWD and an almost perfect 50/50 weight distribution. This was partially achieved by putting the huge battery in the trunk, which means no more having to remove the front wheel to get to the battery. And the headlight bulbs can be changed without tearing the entire front end off the car.
Like the LH, the LX cars have certain "problem areas," one of the main ones being the front suspension. These cars are prone to develop "clunks" and "squeaks" in the front end that are usually traceable to two things: the tie rod ends and the sway bar end links. A couple of weeks ago, after we had monsoon type rains for a week, my car developed a rubber-on-rubber crunching sound in the front end when I would go over low frequency, undulating type bumps. I took it to my local shop and he put it up on the rack. Sway bar end links were shot. And he showed me that the tie rod ends had excessive play in them as well. So, I've had the car a month and already had to use the extended warranty for a repair. But I researched the LX cars before I made the purchase and was expecting this to be an issue--just not this quickly. But it's done now so hopefully I won't have this to deal with again.
The front end work is the only reason I did not rate the 300 an A+. As the years go by, that may change because the car really is a fantastic vehicle from a styling, driving, and engineering standpoint. Having to use the extended warranty for a repair this soon after the purchase has barely tarnished my enthusiasm for this great car. Let's hope it's smooth sailing from here on out.
I had this car for 7 years and put about 65,000 miles on it (for a total of 97,000). The 300M is based on Chrysler's 2nd generation LH platform and was designed totally in a computer. Every piece of the car fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. You look under the hood and wonder "How in the heck did they get every little part to fit so closely and exact?" That's how. It all seems very neat and cool until you actually have to work on the car. Example: You can't even see the back of the headlights from under the hood, let alone get to them to replace the bulbs. You have to remove the entire front fascia of the car and remove the headlights to replace the bulbs. Ridiculous. Same situation with the battery. It's buried down in the right front fender well. You have to jack up the right front of the car, remove the right front tire, and then replace the batter through an access panel in the fender well.
The 2nd gen LH platform is amazingly stiff with torsional rigidity that surpassed every other domestic maker when these cars were introduced in 1998. But one thing domestic makers have never understood is that with rigid body structures you've got to up the quality of interior trim pieces or you are going to be continually plagued with rattles, creaks, and buzzes as the car ages. After 7 years and nearly 100,000 miles the body of my 300M was tight and rattle-free but the interior wasn't. Mind you it was nowhere near as bad as domestic cars used to be, but still enough rattles to be annoying.
One thing that always bothered me about this car was the noisy ride. Road noise and wind noise intrude at levels you would not expect in a car costing nearly $30,000.
The 300M with the 3.5 HO engine was fun to drive and really good on gas. Hwy mileage was always over 28 mpg and rarely dropped below 20 mpg in around town driving. The car handled as well as any FWD car could with over 60% of the cars weight hanging off the front end.
Overall reliability of the car was pretty good. The common things that plagued most LH cars plagued mine: The AC evaporator went out, which required removing the entire dash to replace it. The extended warranty saved my butt on that one because the repair was almost $3000. The input and output sensors on the transmission went out. I knew to expect this and had already purchased spares. I replaced these myself and didn't bother using the extended warranty. One of the electric cooling fans on the radiator went out and the driver's power window motor went out, both replaced under the extended warranty. One of the lines from the transmission to the oil cooler (don't know if it was the input or output line) would occasionally develop a leak at the crimp joint. This always puzzled me since the leak would mysteriously seal itself up. Everytime when I thought it was going to keep leaking and make plans to take it to the shop and have the lines replaced it would quit leaking and go for months and not leak. Then one day I'd see a spot on the driveway, crawl under the car, and sure enough the crimp joint on the hose would be wet. Had I not traded the car, I was going to have the hoses replaced when I had the radiator flushed later this fall.
Overall, I was happy with the 300M. It was a roomy and comfortable car, with plenty of power and good fuel economy. The quality of the interior really began to show as the car aged, but the leather held up well with no cracking. The 3.5 SOHC 24 valve engine was bullet proof, but as the 100,000 mile mark was approaching I knew I was facing a timing belt replace. What would be a $400 job on most cars is a $1000 job on the 300M because of how tightly the engine is wedged in there. You have to remove a lot of the front end, including the radiator, to do the timing belt. (By comparison, on my 07 300 there is about 10" of space between the radiator and the timing cover on the engine. Plenty of room to work to change the belt.) Facing the prospect of this timing belt replacement was one reason I started looking for another car.
2007 Chrysler 300 Touring: A-
I traded the 300M last month for an 07 300 Touring. I've not spent enough time with this car to adequately evaluate it, but I can say that Chrysler addressed every one of the LH deficiencies when they designed this car. Based on the totally new RWD LX platform, the new 300 has a great deal of Mercedes derived engineering in it. The rear suspension is the superb patented 5-link independent design first seen on the Mercedes W201 cars that debuted in 1984. While other makers have gone through several independent rear suspension designs since 1984 (BMW is currently on its third design), for the last 25 years Mercedes has not had to change a thing--largely because what the other companies are striving for, Mercedes attained with this design. Mercedes engineers hit the ball out of the park with this suspension and it's now found in every RWD Mercedes platform from the C Class all the way up to the Maybach.
The fit and finish of the new 300 is light years ahead of my 300M. The doors close with bank vault solidity. Interior road noise and wind noise are virtually non existent in comparison. And there are no squeaks or rattles--though let's see how that goes as the care ages.
As roomy as the 300M (or any LH) is, the new 300 is even roomier. Having a 120" wheelbase helps. This is the only car ever that I've been able to sit in the front passenger seat, and with the seat not even adjusted all the way back I can stretch my legs as for out as possible and still not touch the floor where it curves up into the firewall.
One thing I've missed over the years is not having a steering wheel that telescopes as well as tilts. Well, the wheel on the 300 does both. I can now have my seat adjusted back for stretch out leg room without having my arms at full stretch too. And to give you some idea of the sort of room this car has, I don't have to tilt the steering wheel up to exit or enter the car. The last car I was in where that was possible was my dad's 1972 Imperial (which had a tilt/telescope wheel). Heck, even with all the room my Olds mini van has, I still cant get in and out comfortably without first tiling the wheel up all the way.
The steering on the new 300 is much lighter than it was on the 300M, but vastly superior in "road feel." Handling is flat and neutral, thanks to RWD and an almost perfect 50/50 weight distribution. This was partially achieved by putting the huge battery in the trunk, which means no more having to remove the front wheel to get to the battery. And the headlight bulbs can be changed without tearing the entire front end off the car.
Like the LH, the LX cars have certain "problem areas," one of the main ones being the front suspension. These cars are prone to develop "clunks" and "squeaks" in the front end that are usually traceable to two things: the tie rod ends and the sway bar end links. A couple of weeks ago, after we had monsoon type rains for a week, my car developed a rubber-on-rubber crunching sound in the front end when I would go over low frequency, undulating type bumps. I took it to my local shop and he put it up on the rack. Sway bar end links were shot. And he showed me that the tie rod ends had excessive play in them as well. So, I've had the car a month and already had to use the extended warranty for a repair. But I researched the LX cars before I made the purchase and was expecting this to be an issue--just not this quickly. But it's done now so hopefully I won't have this to deal with again.
The front end work is the only reason I did not rate the 300 an A+. As the years go by, that may change because the car really is a fantastic vehicle from a styling, driving, and engineering standpoint. Having to use the extended warranty for a repair this soon after the purchase has barely tarnished my enthusiasm for this great car. Let's hope it's smooth sailing from here on out.
1) 2002 Silverado 1500 Extended Cab LT A
Rides great, better than a truck should, handles better than a truck should, plenty of power, good mileage for a truck (5.3L v8), power everything, excellent reliability (have had no issues other than the need to change oil and brake pads, normal stuff). 140k and very happy, would definitely buy another one
2) 1994 GMC 2500 Regular Cab Long Bed B+
I like the older style trucks such as this, there's just something comfortable about it, like an old pair of jeans. However functional it is, and easy to work on, when I drive my 2002 truck I notice it feels like a spaceship by comparison, they're just way more advanced, ergonomic, etc. That being said, I give this a B+...great durability, easy to work on, tried-and-true 350 engine, easy to drive, plenty of parts available, does what I need it to do, and does it well. It would get an A, but it's a regular cab, no power anything, just very basic, and gets less MPG than the newer trucks. For what it is, it's good.
2005 Caravan 2.4L
(wife's car)
I may be biased here, because I am not a fan of minivans at all, so keep that in mind, in all fairness. But if I'm asked to grade this vehicle, I'd give it a C. I'd love to give it an F, out of pure hatred for the entire line of minivans ever, and Chryslers in particular, with their transmission troubles galore, but I can't honestly give it an F because it has gone 122k without issue really, other than having ZERO power for roadtrips, and snapping a timing belt (2k after the recommended change interval), and taking out a few valves with it, requiring an overhaul of the cylinder head and plenty of unplanned work and $...Other than that, it has done its job so far - to be boring, fit 7 people in it so the other 6 can get out and help push it uphill, and collect gum wrappers and empty cups from the kids, and make my wife happy. All of these, it has done well, the latter being the most important. She would give it an A, but she's not posting, so I give it a C
Rides great, better than a truck should, handles better than a truck should, plenty of power, good mileage for a truck (5.3L v8), power everything, excellent reliability (have had no issues other than the need to change oil and brake pads, normal stuff). 140k and very happy, would definitely buy another one
2) 1994 GMC 2500 Regular Cab Long Bed B+
I like the older style trucks such as this, there's just something comfortable about it, like an old pair of jeans. However functional it is, and easy to work on, when I drive my 2002 truck I notice it feels like a spaceship by comparison, they're just way more advanced, ergonomic, etc. That being said, I give this a B+...great durability, easy to work on, tried-and-true 350 engine, easy to drive, plenty of parts available, does what I need it to do, and does it well. It would get an A, but it's a regular cab, no power anything, just very basic, and gets less MPG than the newer trucks. For what it is, it's good.
2005 Caravan 2.4L
(wife's car)
I may be biased here, because I am not a fan of minivans at all, so keep that in mind, in all fairness. But if I'm asked to grade this vehicle, I'd give it a C. I'd love to give it an F, out of pure hatred for the entire line of minivans ever, and Chryslers in particular, with their transmission troubles galore, but I can't honestly give it an F because it has gone 122k without issue really, other than having ZERO power for roadtrips, and snapping a timing belt (2k after the recommended change interval), and taking out a few valves with it, requiring an overhaul of the cylinder head and plenty of unplanned work and $...Other than that, it has done its job so far - to be boring, fit 7 people in it so the other 6 can get out and help push it uphill, and collect gum wrappers and empty cups from the kids, and make my wife happy. All of these, it has done well, the latter being the most important. She would give it an A, but she's not posting, so I give it a C
1992 Plymouth Voyager 3.0L, 225k miles. A
Been in the family since new, still runs great. Burns a little oil between changes but not bad, especially for the 3.0. Never left anyone stranded in 17+ years of service. Most issues I'm having with it now are simply due to age- like a reclining mechanism in the driver's seat that failed. Can't fault Chrysler for that when the car's 17 years old. If Chrysler still built 'em like this one, they would never have declared bankruptcy. Which brings me to my next car...
2004 Dodge Stratus 2.4L, 74k. D
I bought it in January of 2008 at 53k miles to be a daily driver and take some of the load off of the Voyager, now it has 74k on it. In that time, I have replaced or have had replaced one power window regulator (with the other three making the tell-tale thunk when the window rolls down), the alternator, the blower motor resistor, the water pump (and timing belt), head gasket, complete transmission due to a hydraulic pressure leak (that was after a new gear set was installed to remedy transfer gear whine), and a brake switch for the cruise control. It also has an intermittent rough idle that two new sets of plugs and wires have not fixed and cannot be explained. Luckily I bought it Certified Used and most of this work has been covered by a warranty, but I fear that when the warranty runs out, I won't be able to afford this thing....
Originally Posted By: gmchevroletruck
2005 Caravan 2.4L
(wife's car)
I may be biased here, because I am not a fan of minivans at all, so keep that in mind, in all fairness. But if I'm asked to grade this vehicle, I'd give it a C. I'd love to give it an F, out of pure hatred for the entire line of minivans ever, and Chryslers in particular, with their transmission troubles galore, but I can't honestly give it an F because it has gone 122k without issue really, other than having ZERO power for roadtrips, and snapping a timing belt (2k after the recommended change interval), and taking out a few valves with it, requiring an overhaul of the cylinder head and plenty of unplanned work and $...Other than that, it has done its job so far - to be boring, fit 7 people in it so the other 6 can get out and help push it uphill, and collect gum wrappers and empty cups from the kids, and make my wife happy. All of these, it has done well, the latter being the most important. She would give it an A, but she's not posting, so I give it a C
So the only issue with it was something you honestly caused by not paying attention to the maintenance schedule, and you gave it a C? You're right, you are biased. Sounds to me like you're getting your money's worth out of the van. I would be happy I have a van that is running so well and making my wife happy, and keep my mouth shut. But that's just me.
Been in the family since new, still runs great. Burns a little oil between changes but not bad, especially for the 3.0. Never left anyone stranded in 17+ years of service. Most issues I'm having with it now are simply due to age- like a reclining mechanism in the driver's seat that failed. Can't fault Chrysler for that when the car's 17 years old. If Chrysler still built 'em like this one, they would never have declared bankruptcy. Which brings me to my next car...
2004 Dodge Stratus 2.4L, 74k. D
I bought it in January of 2008 at 53k miles to be a daily driver and take some of the load off of the Voyager, now it has 74k on it. In that time, I have replaced or have had replaced one power window regulator (with the other three making the tell-tale thunk when the window rolls down), the alternator, the blower motor resistor, the water pump (and timing belt), head gasket, complete transmission due to a hydraulic pressure leak (that was after a new gear set was installed to remedy transfer gear whine), and a brake switch for the cruise control. It also has an intermittent rough idle that two new sets of plugs and wires have not fixed and cannot be explained. Luckily I bought it Certified Used and most of this work has been covered by a warranty, but I fear that when the warranty runs out, I won't be able to afford this thing....
Originally Posted By: gmchevroletruck
2005 Caravan 2.4L
(wife's car)
I may be biased here, because I am not a fan of minivans at all, so keep that in mind, in all fairness. But if I'm asked to grade this vehicle, I'd give it a C. I'd love to give it an F, out of pure hatred for the entire line of minivans ever, and Chryslers in particular, with their transmission troubles galore, but I can't honestly give it an F because it has gone 122k without issue really, other than having ZERO power for roadtrips, and snapping a timing belt (2k after the recommended change interval), and taking out a few valves with it, requiring an overhaul of the cylinder head and plenty of unplanned work and $...Other than that, it has done its job so far - to be boring, fit 7 people in it so the other 6 can get out and help push it uphill, and collect gum wrappers and empty cups from the kids, and make my wife happy. All of these, it has done well, the latter being the most important. She would give it an A, but she's not posting, so I give it a C
So the only issue with it was something you honestly caused by not paying attention to the maintenance schedule, and you gave it a C? You're right, you are biased. Sounds to me like you're getting your money's worth out of the van. I would be happy I have a van that is running so well and making my wife happy, and keep my mouth shut. But that's just me.
acura integra
a-
Insane handling(koni sports shocks/eibach springs, 22mm rear sway bar), outstanding gas mileage(35+), 90k miles and only done maintenance so far. Engine is really responsive
cons; some interior rattles, oil filter pain to take off
a-
Insane handling(koni sports shocks/eibach springs, 22mm rear sway bar), outstanding gas mileage(35+), 90k miles and only done maintenance so far. Engine is really responsive
cons; some interior rattles, oil filter pain to take off
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2025
2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 A-. 60,000 miles I have owned it since 6000 miles and aside from some rattles, It has been real good condsidering the life it leads at the track.
1998 Buick Regal GS B+. 92,0000 Car is silent. I have had to replace the supercharger coupler, radiator cap, and I added a shift kit because I don't like the soft shifting 4T65E but it has been a good car and with the Supercharger it does well. I have a bunch of mods done to this car to and seems to like the beating that it endures daily.
Oh to the guy who said why does it need a 3.6, it dosen't the Buick either had a 3.8 or 3.1.
Please it you are going to [censored] on something. Do it right!
2007 Chevy Equinox B. It is what it is, runs good dosen't give me any problems. The wife likes it. We have 50,000 miles on it and I haven't had to do anything accept oil changes and put gas in it. Thing that annoys me about is it is loud when cold and I don't like Aisin 5 speed unit.
1989 GMC 1 Ton. A. 180,000 miles I bought this Truck in 1993 and since then it has been used for everything and borrowed by everyone. In the time I have owned it I have done brakes, ball joints and replaced all the house and radiator last year. It has never let me down and it still tows my 28 foot Fifth wheel just fine. It is however starting to show it's age and the type of life it has had as it has a few rattles that it never had.
1998 Buick Regal GS B+. 92,0000 Car is silent. I have had to replace the supercharger coupler, radiator cap, and I added a shift kit because I don't like the soft shifting 4T65E but it has been a good car and with the Supercharger it does well. I have a bunch of mods done to this car to and seems to like the beating that it endures daily.
Oh to the guy who said why does it need a 3.6, it dosen't the Buick either had a 3.8 or 3.1.
Please it you are going to [censored] on something. Do it right!
2007 Chevy Equinox B. It is what it is, runs good dosen't give me any problems. The wife likes it. We have 50,000 miles on it and I haven't had to do anything accept oil changes and put gas in it. Thing that annoys me about is it is loud when cold and I don't like Aisin 5 speed unit.
1989 GMC 1 Ton. A. 180,000 miles I bought this Truck in 1993 and since then it has been used for everything and borrowed by everyone. In the time I have owned it I have done brakes, ball joints and replaced all the house and radiator last year. It has never let me down and it still tows my 28 foot Fifth wheel just fine. It is however starting to show it's age and the type of life it has had as it has a few rattles that it never had.
Originally Posted By: gmchevroletruck
1) 2002 Silverado 1500 Extended Cab LT A
Rides great, better than a truck should, handles better than a truck should, plenty of power, good mileage for a truck (5.3L v8), power everything, excellent reliability (have had no issues other than the need to change oil and brake pads, normal stuff). 140k and very happy, would definitely buy another one
2) 1994 GMC 2500 Regular Cab Long Bed B+
I like the older style trucks such as this, there's just something comfortable about it, like an old pair of jeans. However functional it is, and easy to work on, when I drive my 2002 truck I notice it feels like a spaceship by comparison, they're just way more advanced, ergonomic, etc. That being said, I give this a B+...great durability, easy to work on, tried-and-true 350 engine, easy to drive, plenty of parts available, does what I need it to do, and does it well. It would get an A, but it's a regular cab, no power anything, just very basic, and gets less MPG than the newer trucks. For what it is, it's good.
2005 Caravan 2.4L
(wife's car)
I may be biased here, because I am not a fan of minivans at all, so keep that in mind, in all fairness. But if I'm asked to grade this vehicle, I'd give it a C. I'd love to give it an F, out of pure hatred for the entire line of minivans ever, and Chryslers in particular, with their transmission troubles galore, but I can't honestly give it an F because it has gone 122k without issue really, other than having ZERO power for roadtrips, and snapping a timing belt (2k after the recommended change interval), and taking out a few valves with it, requiring an overhaul of the cylinder head and plenty of unplanned work and $...Other than that, it has done its job so far - to be boring, fit 7 people in it so the other 6 can get out and help push it uphill, and collect gum wrappers and empty cups from the kids, and make my wife happy. All of these, it has done well, the latter being the most important. She would give it an A, but she's not posting, so I give it a C
I really LOL'd when I read the minivan part....
1) 2002 Silverado 1500 Extended Cab LT A
Rides great, better than a truck should, handles better than a truck should, plenty of power, good mileage for a truck (5.3L v8), power everything, excellent reliability (have had no issues other than the need to change oil and brake pads, normal stuff). 140k and very happy, would definitely buy another one
2) 1994 GMC 2500 Regular Cab Long Bed B+
I like the older style trucks such as this, there's just something comfortable about it, like an old pair of jeans. However functional it is, and easy to work on, when I drive my 2002 truck I notice it feels like a spaceship by comparison, they're just way more advanced, ergonomic, etc. That being said, I give this a B+...great durability, easy to work on, tried-and-true 350 engine, easy to drive, plenty of parts available, does what I need it to do, and does it well. It would get an A, but it's a regular cab, no power anything, just very basic, and gets less MPG than the newer trucks. For what it is, it's good.
2005 Caravan 2.4L
(wife's car)
I may be biased here, because I am not a fan of minivans at all, so keep that in mind, in all fairness. But if I'm asked to grade this vehicle, I'd give it a C. I'd love to give it an F, out of pure hatred for the entire line of minivans ever, and Chryslers in particular, with their transmission troubles galore, but I can't honestly give it an F because it has gone 122k without issue really, other than having ZERO power for roadtrips, and snapping a timing belt (2k after the recommended change interval), and taking out a few valves with it, requiring an overhaul of the cylinder head and plenty of unplanned work and $...Other than that, it has done its job so far - to be boring, fit 7 people in it so the other 6 can get out and help push it uphill, and collect gum wrappers and empty cups from the kids, and make my wife happy. All of these, it has done well, the latter being the most important. She would give it an A, but she's not posting, so I give it a C
I really LOL'd when I read the minivan part....
I didn't know chrysler made vans with a 4 cylinder, wow.
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
I didn't know chrysler made vans with a 4 cylinder, wow.
The turbo charged ones were not bad.
I didn't know chrysler made vans with a 4 cylinder, wow.
The turbo charged ones were not bad.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2025
Well the Original 2.4 used in the early Stratus was originally designed for the Mini-Van and was used in there.
The 88 and 89 Caravan could be had with 2.5 Turbo.
The 88 and 89 Caravan could be had with 2.5 Turbo.
2005 Honda Element
2006 Honda Element
2005 Mercury Grand Marquis
1956 Ford Crown Vic
All get an A from me.
2006 Honda Element
2005 Mercury Grand Marquis
1956 Ford Crown Vic
All get an A from me.
1993 Ford Taurus SHO
Grade: B
grade when factoring price in: A
negative...... expensive clutch, horrible traction from a launch, differential prone to taking out transmission case with excessive burnouts and stock open diff, most have old worn out suspension that needs to be entirely replaced, stock brakes suck, but are easily upgraded from the stock 10.1" rotor to a 11.6" rotor or 13" rotor, and rod bearing wear......
positive....... amazing engine that takes a licking and keeps on ticking when properly maintained. People road race these engines with 400,000 miles on the clock...... enough said. Awesome powerband that is still [censored] near unrivaled today. stock rated 220hp car that is just as fast as all the 260ish hp rated v6 sedans today.... High RPM capable, 7200 rpm stock, 8k with a couple mods....
banging through the gears in a 93 Taurus smoking mustangs.......
30mpg on the highway
unique sounding engine
leather interior
mine is modified a lot. I've replaced every suspension component. I've replaced and upgraded most of the brake system. I've upgraded the horrible stock exhaust. I've put on bigger wheels/tires. Its not that much faster then a stock SHO, but it sure is fun to drive. These engines are like crack, once your hooked its hard to let go
Grade: B
grade when factoring price in: A
negative...... expensive clutch, horrible traction from a launch, differential prone to taking out transmission case with excessive burnouts and stock open diff, most have old worn out suspension that needs to be entirely replaced, stock brakes suck, but are easily upgraded from the stock 10.1" rotor to a 11.6" rotor or 13" rotor, and rod bearing wear......
positive....... amazing engine that takes a licking and keeps on ticking when properly maintained. People road race these engines with 400,000 miles on the clock...... enough said. Awesome powerband that is still [censored] near unrivaled today. stock rated 220hp car that is just as fast as all the 260ish hp rated v6 sedans today.... High RPM capable, 7200 rpm stock, 8k with a couple mods....
banging through the gears in a 93 Taurus smoking mustangs.......
30mpg on the highway
unique sounding engine
leather interior
mine is modified a lot. I've replaced every suspension component. I've replaced and upgraded most of the brake system. I've upgraded the horrible stock exhaust. I've put on bigger wheels/tires. Its not that much faster then a stock SHO, but it sure is fun to drive. These engines are like crack, once your hooked its hard to let go
Is that the one with the Yamaha engine?
yes sir, I have a 3.2L engine from the automatic car, with the 3.0 cams(slightly more lift) in my manual transmission car.
requires just basically using the 3.2 block and setting everything else up like a 3.0(mounts/exhaust/accesories/timing belt/Intake manifold)
I even changed out my blue Ford oval emblems on the front and rear of the car with some body colored Silver ones that say powered by Yamaha, super high output, with emphasis on the Yamaha word... I should take some pics of it lol
its a pretty nice car, has a few blemishes, but for 900 bucks, and its rust free.... I can't complain
although my mods and maintenance are probably 4 times what I spent on the car intially
requires just basically using the 3.2 block and setting everything else up like a 3.0(mounts/exhaust/accesories/timing belt/Intake manifold)
I even changed out my blue Ford oval emblems on the front and rear of the car with some body colored Silver ones that say powered by Yamaha, super high output, with emphasis on the Yamaha word... I should take some pics of it lol
its a pretty nice car, has a few blemishes, but for 900 bucks, and its rust free.... I can't complain
although my mods and maintenance are probably 4 times what I spent on the car intially
Originally Posted By: ms21043
2004 Neon R/T: A.
Bought it new as a cheap work beater and it now has 145k+ miles on it.
The good: Has had zero problems, nothing ever.
It gets 33mpg all the time.
Uses only a pint of oil between its 10k mile oci's.
Excellent brakes. 4 wheel disc w/abs.
Excellent handling.
No rattles or squeaks yet.
The bad: Needs more power, it's rated at 150hp but if Chrysler gave it at least 25 more they would have sold lots more of them.
The shifter, compared to Asian brands it was sloppy. Could use better seats.
I have made a few improvements. First was the shifter, a $20 set of urethane bushings took care of it, nice and tight now. Then was the handling. Although very good stock, I figured a set of wider wheels and tires, Hotchkis stabilizer bars and SRT springs to lower the back end would make it better. They did.
Overall I'd say this car has been a bit of a surprise, I've owned a few cars before this one but none as reliable.
Glad to see the Neon love.... I had a 2k1 R/T for 5 years. I loved it. Only thing I ever had to replace that failed was the window switch. It was a great car. I put 130,000kms on mine. I wonder where it is now?
I miss it.
As for my current car..
First of all, I've owned 2 Saturn S Series, A 97 SL1 and a 96 SL2. Both have not let me down ever, and both cost me $800 to buy.
They get an "A" from me..
It's the simple fact, for what they were produced for, (to be simple, cheap, good on gas, and reliable) they hit the nail on the head. The upscale trim (Sx2, SL2, SC2, SW2) over the 1 models (SOHC engines, no sway bars, different gears) actually make the cars incredibly fun to drive and relatively rev happy. The seats (Subjective) I find excellent, better than any other car I've owned, mileage is good, don't track actual MPG's, but cost per week is minimal to say the least.
My favorite part.. The parts are cheap, and repairs are easy. Aside from doing most of the common Saturn stuff (some mentioned previous in this thread!) I haven't done much outside that, which is good for a car you can buy so cheaply.
My 96 is now due for something in the front suspension, I suspect ball joint... But that's OK, it's essentially a 2 bolt design (control arm/joint are one piece) and I can change it out in probably half an hour, and pay a song for the part.
Mine consumes oil, but its just inherent with these cars and their piston ring issues. Not a reliability qualm, just something S-series owners are used to.
I love my S-series! Next I want to find a mint condition '96 SC2 coupe! PM me if you have one for sale
2004 Neon R/T: A.
Bought it new as a cheap work beater and it now has 145k+ miles on it.
The good: Has had zero problems, nothing ever.
It gets 33mpg all the time.
Uses only a pint of oil between its 10k mile oci's.
Excellent brakes. 4 wheel disc w/abs.
Excellent handling.
No rattles or squeaks yet.
The bad: Needs more power, it's rated at 150hp but if Chrysler gave it at least 25 more they would have sold lots more of them.
The shifter, compared to Asian brands it was sloppy. Could use better seats.
I have made a few improvements. First was the shifter, a $20 set of urethane bushings took care of it, nice and tight now. Then was the handling. Although very good stock, I figured a set of wider wheels and tires, Hotchkis stabilizer bars and SRT springs to lower the back end would make it better. They did.
Overall I'd say this car has been a bit of a surprise, I've owned a few cars before this one but none as reliable.
Glad to see the Neon love.... I had a 2k1 R/T for 5 years. I loved it. Only thing I ever had to replace that failed was the window switch. It was a great car. I put 130,000kms on mine. I wonder where it is now?
As for my current car..
First of all, I've owned 2 Saturn S Series, A 97 SL1 and a 96 SL2. Both have not let me down ever, and both cost me $800 to buy.
They get an "A" from me..
It's the simple fact, for what they were produced for, (to be simple, cheap, good on gas, and reliable) they hit the nail on the head. The upscale trim (Sx2, SL2, SC2, SW2) over the 1 models (SOHC engines, no sway bars, different gears) actually make the cars incredibly fun to drive and relatively rev happy. The seats (Subjective) I find excellent, better than any other car I've owned, mileage is good, don't track actual MPG's, but cost per week is minimal to say the least.
My favorite part.. The parts are cheap, and repairs are easy. Aside from doing most of the common Saturn stuff (some mentioned previous in this thread!) I haven't done much outside that, which is good for a car you can buy so cheaply.
My 96 is now due for something in the front suspension, I suspect ball joint... But that's OK, it's essentially a 2 bolt design (control arm/joint are one piece) and I can change it out in probably half an hour, and pay a song for the part.
Mine consumes oil, but its just inherent with these cars and their piston ring issues. Not a reliability qualm, just something S-series owners are used to.
I love my S-series! Next I want to find a mint condition '96 SC2 coupe! PM me if you have one for sale
1995 Toyota Camry LE. A+ Super Comfortable, and Uber Reliable.
252k and only had to replace an engine mount, other than normal maintanence. I would drive this car to Florida tomorrow. This is how confident I am in it's reliability.
2003 Ford Windstar SE. A solid B+, this is due to a few issues, first is reliability. Since we bought it in September of 2005, we have had a number of small, yet irritating problems.
Shortly after purchase, on a 20 degree day, the heater blend door actuator failed. Leaving us with no heat.
Next the van's idle would surge, then stay high at random times by itself. The IAC, and isolator bolts for the intake were replaced under warranty. Next when ever driving the interior lights would flicker randomly. Not good with sleeping kids in the car. (Dealer never found this one, however I've traced it to a faulty ignition switch. If they come on while driving, I pull on the ign cylinder and the lights go out.) And finally the driver's side power window motor is broken, and the passenger's side is dying also.
Another reason for this grade is comfort; The seats are rather flat, and lack lateral support, and the lumbar cushon is WAY too high on my back. I feel like this van was designed for someone who is 6'3". I'm only a mere 5'2", so I don't get the support I need from that. Though even with all these problems it has been good for an "American" car. (Though it was produced in Canada)
I still feel that it is sad that I have to lower my expectations b/c it is an "American" car. My "Japanese" Camry was produced in Kentucky, and has had ZERO problems. But then again my expectations are higher, as it is a Toyota, and not a Ford.
But after all this I would still buy another Ford, as my experience has been a positive one. I would also buy another Toyota due to the comfort and the reliability.
Justin
252k and only had to replace an engine mount, other than normal maintanence. I would drive this car to Florida tomorrow. This is how confident I am in it's reliability.
2003 Ford Windstar SE. A solid B+, this is due to a few issues, first is reliability. Since we bought it in September of 2005, we have had a number of small, yet irritating problems.
Shortly after purchase, on a 20 degree day, the heater blend door actuator failed. Leaving us with no heat.
Next the van's idle would surge, then stay high at random times by itself. The IAC, and isolator bolts for the intake were replaced under warranty. Next when ever driving the interior lights would flicker randomly. Not good with sleeping kids in the car. (Dealer never found this one, however I've traced it to a faulty ignition switch. If they come on while driving, I pull on the ign cylinder and the lights go out.) And finally the driver's side power window motor is broken, and the passenger's side is dying also.
Another reason for this grade is comfort; The seats are rather flat, and lack lateral support, and the lumbar cushon is WAY too high on my back. I feel like this van was designed for someone who is 6'3". I'm only a mere 5'2", so I don't get the support I need from that. Though even with all these problems it has been good for an "American" car. (Though it was produced in Canada)
I still feel that it is sad that I have to lower my expectations b/c it is an "American" car. My "Japanese" Camry was produced in Kentucky, and has had ZERO problems. But then again my expectations are higher, as it is a Toyota, and not a Ford.
But after all this I would still buy another Ford, as my experience has been a positive one. I would also buy another Toyota due to the comfort and the reliability.
Justin
1974 F-250, Supercab, Long-bed, 360CID/auto, 149K mi when sold: B, because it still worked after being abused for 30 years.
1988 Mercury Cougar: B+ It worked great for a long time (I had it 118K to 236K) and then took a dive, but still will not die. It looked great, got 25+MPG, and took major beatings without complaint (got 28.5MPG @ 115MPH, drove over Cottonwood Pass in Colorado, rear ended, bounced off guard rails, bounced off curb at 65MPH, launched through grassy freeway median, cooling fan fell off, started in minus 50F windchill weather and driven right onto the freeway) Thus, though only a B+, totally badA$$ in black.
1994 Taurus: B because it still worked well after being totalled, not even out of alignment after being sandwiched at a stoplight. Good gas mileage, good handling, lots of people and stuff space. Now retired because a quickie-lube guy broke a tranny fluid fitting internally, and a smashed Taurus with a badly leaking tranny is not worth fixing.
1995 Sable LTS: C Lovely car, wife thinks it's great, but the stupid oil pump went out and ovalled the rod journals.
1994 Buick Park Avenue: A--Has had a hard life, but at 83K mi I have not performed even one actual repair that was not somehow related to body-slamming a 8-point buck at 73MPH. Even so, I basically just wired the hood down and kept driving. Holding the hood down was the biggest chore, next to winching the front cross-member out straight...car is still 100% reliable and uber-comfortable. Would visit the in-laws in Colorado without hesitation (because I love driving my car so much).
K
1988 Mercury Cougar: B+ It worked great for a long time (I had it 118K to 236K) and then took a dive, but still will not die. It looked great, got 25+MPG, and took major beatings without complaint (got 28.5MPG @ 115MPH, drove over Cottonwood Pass in Colorado, rear ended, bounced off guard rails, bounced off curb at 65MPH, launched through grassy freeway median, cooling fan fell off, started in minus 50F windchill weather and driven right onto the freeway) Thus, though only a B+, totally badA$$ in black.
1994 Taurus: B because it still worked well after being totalled, not even out of alignment after being sandwiched at a stoplight. Good gas mileage, good handling, lots of people and stuff space. Now retired because a quickie-lube guy broke a tranny fluid fitting internally, and a smashed Taurus with a badly leaking tranny is not worth fixing.
1995 Sable LTS: C Lovely car, wife thinks it's great, but the stupid oil pump went out and ovalled the rod journals.
1994 Buick Park Avenue: A--Has had a hard life, but at 83K mi I have not performed even one actual repair that was not somehow related to body-slamming a 8-point buck at 73MPH. Even so, I basically just wired the hood down and kept driving. Holding the hood down was the biggest chore, next to winching the front cross-member out straight...car is still 100% reliable and uber-comfortable. Would visit the in-laws in Colorado without hesitation (because I love driving my car so much).
K
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jdeare
2001 Buick Regal LS: D-
This car is on the verge of failing. I've had it from 14,000 miles to almost 41,000 miles now.
Minuses: Burns oil. Tons of rattles both inside and out. Terrible handling. Numb ride and steering. Wheels do not hold air very well (5+ pounds lost/week). Gas mileage is miserable (~15 around town, ~24 hwy) considering the anemic way it accelerates. Seats are very uncomfortable for a 30 min drive, almost unbearable on a road trip. HVAC is not very effective and the fan does nothing on "low" setting. Has failing manifold gaskets that will need to be addressed soon (at either large expense or large inconvenience). Has stranded me twice when it refused to start. Surprisingly small interior considering the size of the exterior. [censored] leather seating. Stodgy looks and there is a definite Buick bias among other drivers... there is the assumption that a Buick will be going slow and possibly the driver will not know where they are going... so I get a lot of tailgaters and guys cutting me off because they don't want to be behind me (people who know me know that I drive fast and smooth and I generally know where I'm going).
Plusses: It's paid for.
My Buick is a heap. This is most likely just my car, not Buicks in general.
Sounds pretty much like my wife's 98 Lesabre. Junk. Similar issues plus more.
John
2001 Buick Regal LS: D-
This car is on the verge of failing. I've had it from 14,000 miles to almost 41,000 miles now.
Minuses: Burns oil. Tons of rattles both inside and out. Terrible handling. Numb ride and steering. Wheels do not hold air very well (5+ pounds lost/week). Gas mileage is miserable (~15 around town, ~24 hwy) considering the anemic way it accelerates. Seats are very uncomfortable for a 30 min drive, almost unbearable on a road trip. HVAC is not very effective and the fan does nothing on "low" setting. Has failing manifold gaskets that will need to be addressed soon (at either large expense or large inconvenience). Has stranded me twice when it refused to start. Surprisingly small interior considering the size of the exterior. [censored] leather seating. Stodgy looks and there is a definite Buick bias among other drivers... there is the assumption that a Buick will be going slow and possibly the driver will not know where they are going... so I get a lot of tailgaters and guys cutting me off because they don't want to be behind me (people who know me know that I drive fast and smooth and I generally know where I'm going).
Plusses: It's paid for.
My Buick is a heap. This is most likely just my car, not Buicks in general.
Sounds pretty much like my wife's 98 Lesabre. Junk. Similar issues plus more.
John
Originally Posted By: CharlieJ
I really doubt anyone here is going to fail there vehicles.
Yes but most people here know how to take care of vehicles better than the average Joe so IMHO these ratings are more accurate than something you see on Epinions or other car review websites.
Most of you seem to really like your cars but some of the faults you say they have are not faults I'd want to deal with in any car I owned, so I'd probably pass on owning some of these brands or models personally.
I really doubt anyone here is going to fail there vehicles.
Yes but most people here know how to take care of vehicles better than the average Joe so IMHO these ratings are more accurate than something you see on Epinions or other car review websites.
Most of you seem to really like your cars but some of the faults you say they have are not faults I'd want to deal with in any car I owned, so I'd probably pass on owning some of these brands or models personally.
- Status
