Morning all, I was hoping some current Chrysler owners could give me some insight on their vehicles. I've never owned one of their cars but lately I've been interested in their vehicles, along with other Ford and GM owning family members (Lets just say we have had some bad luck vehicle-wise lately) A few of the vehicles we've been looking at are; the 1998+Ram 1500's with the 5.9 and 5.2, the 2002+ Rams with 5.7L or 4.7L, 2004 + Stratus with (most likely) the 2.4L, and all Ram models with a V6, either the 3.7 or 3.9. I just want to know how they are as far as reliability and longevity. Thanks!
Tell me about certain Chrysler/Dodge vehicles
- Thread starter renegade_987
- Start date
- Status
Chrysler is a pretty volatile word here. Some people will say Chrysler products are complete garbage, some will say they have never had anything go wrong on a Chrysler product ever.
I'm of the mindset that late 90s - Late 00's Chryslers are very bad.
Automatic transmission problems are VERY common on Chrysler products. The 3.7 engine has head gasket problems as did the 4.7 v8. The 2.7V6 was a sludger.
*IF* you get a ram with a manual trans - you should be okay. They were pretty solid trucks. The 4x4 trucks tend to eat hub bearings pretty quickly. The automatic transmissions did not last.
The Stratus ... weren't good cars. They're always rusting out here (even the 2004s!). They had sub-par transmissions ... but if you keep the fluid changed frequently and add a cooler, it might last.
I'm of the mindset that late 90s - Late 00's Chryslers are very bad.
Automatic transmission problems are VERY common on Chrysler products. The 3.7 engine has head gasket problems as did the 4.7 v8. The 2.7V6 was a sludger.
*IF* you get a ram with a manual trans - you should be okay. They were pretty solid trucks. The 4x4 trucks tend to eat hub bearings pretty quickly. The automatic transmissions did not last.
The Stratus ... weren't good cars. They're always rusting out here (even the 2004s!). They had sub-par transmissions ... but if you keep the fluid changed frequently and add a cooler, it might last.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
Morning all, I was hoping some current Chrysler owners could give me some insight on their vehicles. I've never owned one of their cars but lately I've been interested in their vehicles, along with other Ford and GM owning family members (Lets just say we have had some bad luck vehicle-wise lately) A few of the vehicles we've been looking at are; the 1998+Ram 1500's with the 5.9 and 5.2, the 2002+ Rams with 5.7L or 4.7L, 2004 + Stratus with (most likely) the 2.4L, and all Ram models with a V6, either the 3.7 or 3.9. I just want to know how they are as far as reliability and longevity. Thanks!
I had an '04 Ram 1500 with the 4.7l, I loved it. The only thing that I didn't like was that it had the 4.7l instead of the 5.7l. Not because the 4.7l isn't a good performer, but because for a mere 1-2 mpg hit you can get the Hemi with soooooo much more pull. The only issues I had with it were front suspension components which is very common for a lot of Chrysler vehicles. Also, I know this will generate some debate on here, but the 4.7l can be a sludger with lack of maintenance. All arrows point to the plastic baffle as being the root of the problem.
04'+ Stratus should treat you well as long as you take care of her. However I would opt for the 2.7l over the 2.4l. There is a drastic difference in performance between the two and as with the Hemi, not a significant decrease in mpg. I've never owned one but have driven a few and they feel like tight little cars if used for A to B purposes. Not the greatest vehicle out there but not a bad vehicle to say the least. The interior was a weak point, nothing but heavy plastic in all directions.
Morning all, I was hoping some current Chrysler owners could give me some insight on their vehicles. I've never owned one of their cars but lately I've been interested in their vehicles, along with other Ford and GM owning family members (Lets just say we have had some bad luck vehicle-wise lately) A few of the vehicles we've been looking at are; the 1998+Ram 1500's with the 5.9 and 5.2, the 2002+ Rams with 5.7L or 4.7L, 2004 + Stratus with (most likely) the 2.4L, and all Ram models with a V6, either the 3.7 or 3.9. I just want to know how they are as far as reliability and longevity. Thanks!
I had an '04 Ram 1500 with the 4.7l, I loved it. The only thing that I didn't like was that it had the 4.7l instead of the 5.7l. Not because the 4.7l isn't a good performer, but because for a mere 1-2 mpg hit you can get the Hemi with soooooo much more pull. The only issues I had with it were front suspension components which is very common for a lot of Chrysler vehicles. Also, I know this will generate some debate on here, but the 4.7l can be a sludger with lack of maintenance. All arrows point to the plastic baffle as being the root of the problem.
04'+ Stratus should treat you well as long as you take care of her. However I would opt for the 2.7l over the 2.4l. There is a drastic difference in performance between the two and as with the Hemi, not a significant decrease in mpg. I've never owned one but have driven a few and they feel like tight little cars if used for A to B purposes. Not the greatest vehicle out there but not a bad vehicle to say the least. The interior was a weak point, nothing but heavy plastic in all directions.
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
I think a bigger problem is buying a vehicle of that age. There are a lot of what if's about the service history. IMO, that will play a bigger roll in a 10+ year old car that whether or not the Chrysler product is good or bad.
Originally Posted By: RamFan
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
Ok thanks. Also, was the 2.7 sludge issue ever corrected on the newer models?
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
Ok thanks. Also, was the 2.7 sludge issue ever corrected on the newer models?
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
Originally Posted By: RamFan
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
Ok thanks. Also, was the 2.7 sludge issue ever corrected on the newer models?
It was corrected in either '01 or '02. The engine on my mom's Sebring has pretty much been the only item that we haven't had an issue with.
Originally Posted By: RamFan
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
Ok thanks. Also, was the 2.7 sludge issue ever corrected on the newer models?
It was corrected in either '01 or '02. The engine on my mom's Sebring has pretty much been the only item that we haven't had an issue with.
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
Originally Posted By: RamFan
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
Ok thanks. Also, was the 2.7 sludge issue ever corrected on the newer models?
Depends on who you ask. Some say after 2002/2004 *(can't remember which one) there are NO sludge issues. Yet, the engine still had sludge happen and is just a poor design from a maintenance standpoint.
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
ALL 4 speed automatics designed by Chrysler. Just like Ford, Chrysler just couldn't make a 4 speed automatic work. The Benz sourced units were reliable, as are the Aisin / ZF autos they use in some vehicles.
Originally Posted By: RamFan
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
As long as you keep up on maintenance you shouldn't have an issue. You probably won't get a straight answer on which years.
Ok thanks. Also, was the 2.7 sludge issue ever corrected on the newer models?
Depends on who you ask. Some say after 2002/2004 *(can't remember which one) there are NO sludge issues. Yet, the engine still had sludge happen and is just a poor design from a maintenance standpoint.
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
ALL 4 speed automatics designed by Chrysler. Just like Ford, Chrysler just couldn't make a 4 speed automatic work. The Benz sourced units were reliable, as are the Aisin / ZF autos they use in some vehicles.
Yup, I had to replace the 4 speed in my F150.
The head gasket problems on the 3.7/4.7 are almost always the result of an overheat.
The 3.9 is underpowered. You can get better mileage with the 5.2 or 4.7.
Any sludge issues are lack of maintenance. LOTS of newer cars are reported to have sludge problems.
Just remember, you're looking at 15 year old (1998) trucks. They're going to have some problems.
The 3.9 is underpowered. You can get better mileage with the 5.2 or 4.7.
Any sludge issues are lack of maintenance. LOTS of newer cars are reported to have sludge problems.
Just remember, you're looking at 15 year old (1998) trucks. They're going to have some problems.
What about the Ram 6 speed auto?
By the time they got to six speeds they had pretty well solved their problems.
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
A few of the vehicles we've been looking at are; the 1998+Ram 1500's with the 5.9 and 5.2, the 2002+ Rams with 5.7L or 4.7L, 2004 + Stratus with (most likely) the 2.4L, and all Ram models with a V6, either the 3.7 or 3.9. I just want to know how they are as far as reliability and longevity. Thanks!
Out of everything you've mentioned, I would summarize as follows:
1) Avoid the 2.4. Its a fine engine, but it was never paired with a good transmission (other than the 5-speed stick), and really didn't go in many very good vehicles.
2)2002+ Rams with the 4.7 or 5.7- EXCELLENT vehicles. If you can afford it, go with a 2008 or newer. They fixed a lot of pesky HVAC glitches with the later ones, and gave the 4.7 an extra 80 horsepower starting in 2008. Both of those engine choices are typical Chrysler bulletproof engines, with the advantage of being paired with an equally bulletproof 545RFE transmission and a solid chassis.
3) Ram 1500s with 5.2 and 5.9. They were very good... in their day. If you can find one with low miles and in good condition, it wouldn't be a bad bet. The 46RH / 46RE transmission was OK, being based on the old A727. But the O/D tacked onto it was not as strong as the rest of the transmission. The 5.2 and 5.9 Magnum had some issues with the lower cover on the intake plenum leaking and letting oil mist get sucked into the intake stream causing extreme pinging, but that's fixable with a revised lower plenum cover gasket from Hughes (and I think it was fixed from the factory around 97 or so).
So in short, I would recommend the newest Ram with a 5.7 or 4.7 that you can get.
A few of the vehicles we've been looking at are; the 1998+Ram 1500's with the 5.9 and 5.2, the 2002+ Rams with 5.7L or 4.7L, 2004 + Stratus with (most likely) the 2.4L, and all Ram models with a V6, either the 3.7 or 3.9. I just want to know how they are as far as reliability and longevity. Thanks!
Out of everything you've mentioned, I would summarize as follows:
1) Avoid the 2.4. Its a fine engine, but it was never paired with a good transmission (other than the 5-speed stick), and really didn't go in many very good vehicles.
2)2002+ Rams with the 4.7 or 5.7- EXCELLENT vehicles. If you can afford it, go with a 2008 or newer. They fixed a lot of pesky HVAC glitches with the later ones, and gave the 4.7 an extra 80 horsepower starting in 2008. Both of those engine choices are typical Chrysler bulletproof engines, with the advantage of being paired with an equally bulletproof 545RFE transmission and a solid chassis.
3) Ram 1500s with 5.2 and 5.9. They were very good... in their day. If you can find one with low miles and in good condition, it wouldn't be a bad bet. The 46RH / 46RE transmission was OK, being based on the old A727. But the O/D tacked onto it was not as strong as the rest of the transmission. The 5.2 and 5.9 Magnum had some issues with the lower cover on the intake plenum leaking and letting oil mist get sucked into the intake stream causing extreme pinging, but that's fixable with a revised lower plenum cover gasket from Hughes (and I think it was fixed from the factory around 97 or so).
So in short, I would recommend the newest Ram with a 5.7 or 4.7 that you can get.
Well just to add a data point here I've got an 05 4x4 hemi automatic. Transmission has never been opened,it will rip the tires off basically at will and has 270000 on it.
The front end has never had work nor has it needed any.
Basically change the fluids and drive.
It might be a fluke though?
The front end has never had work nor has it needed any.
Basically change the fluids and drive.
It might be a fluke though?
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
ALL 4 speed automatics designed by Chrysler. Just like Ford, Chrysler just couldn't make a 4 speed automatic work. The Benz sourced units were reliable, as are the Aisin / ZF autos they use in some vehicles.
They had problems with FRONT DRIVE 4-speeds. As I said in the previous post, the truck 4-speeds (46RH and relatives) that were based on the A727 worked quite well. The overdrives were weaker than the front half, but still strong enough for the most part. Of the two 46RH trucks we had, both are still going despite a lot of neglect- one at well over 250k miles.
Even the front drives were generally as good as the rest of the industry after about 93 ([censored] with faint praise, I know). I put 150k on a 42LE in a Vision TSi, and then another 200k on its replacement. Not quite up to the 300k you could put on an old rear-drive 3-speed, but better than you can expect from a 2013 Honda Odyssey automatic.
That said... I don't recommend any older front-drive Chrysler except for the Intrepid/Concorde with the 3.2 or 3.5L engine. No 2.7s under any circumstances, no Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze. I own a PT (wife's), but I really don't recommend it either.
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
What specific years did the auto's have alot of problems? Ive already replaced one transmission this year, mostly why im looking for something else
ALL 4 speed automatics designed by Chrysler. Just like Ford, Chrysler just couldn't make a 4 speed automatic work. The Benz sourced units were reliable, as are the Aisin / ZF autos they use in some vehicles.
They had problems with FRONT DRIVE 4-speeds. As I said in the previous post, the truck 4-speeds (46RH and relatives) that were based on the A727 worked quite well. The overdrives were weaker than the front half, but still strong enough for the most part. Of the two 46RH trucks we had, both are still going despite a lot of neglect- one at well over 250k miles.
Even the front drives were generally as good as the rest of the industry after about 93 ([censored] with faint praise, I know). I put 150k on a 42LE in a Vision TSi, and then another 200k on its replacement. Not quite up to the 300k you could put on an old rear-drive 3-speed, but better than you can expect from a 2013 Honda Odyssey automatic.
That said... I don't recommend any older front-drive Chrysler except for the Intrepid/Concorde with the 3.2 or 3.5L engine. No 2.7s under any circumstances, no Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze. I own a PT (wife's), but I really don't recommend it either.
As a Chevy guy, I will try and be as unbiased as possible. My son during his rebellious teenage years began to put down Chevy and said how great Dodge/Chrysler are. So for his first car I bought him a '02 Neon with 70,000 miles, like new interior and no rust. It was the little things that made that car seem junky. Squeaks, unrefined sounding engine and various random stalling issues led us to sell it 2 years later with 75,000 miles. Wife got a '05 Chrysler 300 from her brother with 105,000 miles on it in 2010. Now at 155,000 miles, again it's the little things that add up. Engine is noisy on startup, burns about 1 qt. oil per oil change, loud clunking in front end that I still can't find ( it would drive me crazy but she doesn't care), turnsignal cancel switch is broken, parking lock override plastic cam broke (fixed in driveway-not too bad) and averages 21mpg HGWY. Son drives a '02 Taurus now and is happy. Wife wants a Buick again when her car pukes. Overall, they were so-so. No major problems but it seemed like a step down from GM or Ford IMHO. I personally have no interest in their products but that is my only experience with Mopar vehicles.
- Status
