Tell me about certain Chrysler/Dodge vehicles
- Thread starter renegade_987
- Start date
- Status
We're at 100,000 miles on our 41TE 4-spd FWD, and ours has a (factory sandbag rated) 245 ft-lbs of torque twisting through it
Just Valvoline ATF+4 changes.
The Stratus started life well. It ranked favorably when compared to the Ford Contour (Mondeo) and Nissan Altima. Even though it was compact sized, it was ranked as a midsize based on interior volume.
But then something went wrong. Driving dynamics took a dive. By 2004 it's best attribute is that it is often a bargain compared to competitors.
Our 2.4 isn't bad. Not bad at all (except for mpg) The turbo 2.4 has forged cracked rods, Mahle cast eutectic aluminum alloy pistons, and a high hardness steel crankshaft. It's built a little better than the regular 2.4 so reliability may vary.
Timing belt is a pain though. Water pump, tensioner, idler, and belt all got changed and I fully intend to leave them in there for a full 100,000 miles this time.
My experience with the Stratus is mostly with the convertible. I like the exterior style, gauges, seats, fabrics, gear selector, HVAC controls....etc...and I hate the way it drives.
The sedan is just boring. The coupe is not a Stratus at all, it is a 3rd gen Eclipse.
Just Valvoline ATF+4 changes.
The Stratus started life well. It ranked favorably when compared to the Ford Contour (Mondeo) and Nissan Altima. Even though it was compact sized, it was ranked as a midsize based on interior volume.
But then something went wrong. Driving dynamics took a dive. By 2004 it's best attribute is that it is often a bargain compared to competitors.
Our 2.4 isn't bad. Not bad at all (except for mpg) The turbo 2.4 has forged cracked rods, Mahle cast eutectic aluminum alloy pistons, and a high hardness steel crankshaft. It's built a little better than the regular 2.4 so reliability may vary.
Timing belt is a pain though. Water pump, tensioner, idler, and belt all got changed and I fully intend to leave them in there for a full 100,000 miles this time.
My experience with the Stratus is mostly with the convertible. I like the exterior style, gauges, seats, fabrics, gear selector, HVAC controls....etc...and I hate the way it drives.
The sedan is just boring. The coupe is not a Stratus at all, it is a 3rd gen Eclipse.
My wife wants a Chrysler 200. She had one as a rental and liked it. My Father in law just bought a loaded model with the 3.6L V6 and it claims to get the same city/highway mileage that my wife's Highlander gets. We'll see how his does. We'll be looking for a new car in about 2 years... we'll see. Just my 2 cents, I'd rather invest in a Ford Fusion or something similar.
Well, I can't answer for Chrysler's quality and reliability TODAY! I have always had a fondness for Mopar vehicles. I like the way they looked(style) drive, ride/handle, comfort(seats fit my structure) and I have always loved their minivans better than the competition. And their muscle cars of yesterday...Oh Boy! But, that's just me.
On the other hand, I have owned Chrysler vehicles from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's and they've all been disasters to own in terms of reliability and repairs. But, the fixes were always on the cheap side but, way too often. I was always fixing them!
And it has left me buying other MFG's vehicles as I just don't trust Chrysler vehicles for myself although I know folks that have good luck with'em.
On the other hand, I have owned Chrysler vehicles from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's and they've all been disasters to own in terms of reliability and repairs. But, the fixes were always on the cheap side but, way too often. I was always fixing them!
And it has left me buying other MFG's vehicles as I just don't trust Chrysler vehicles for myself although I know folks that have good luck with'em.
The 1998-2001 Ram 1500 was a decent truck, but was mostly behind the pack as far as technology and fuel economy. The 5.2 and 5.9 tend to get pretty bad gas mileage, but are very reliable if cared for. So is the 3.9. They are all "Magnum" descendants of the old LA engines. Hard to beat an all iron pushrod engine for durability. I've seen a 1998 5.9 experience a catastrophic head gasket blowout while towing a trailer, but it was already badly beaten and neglected at that point...hard to just blame it on the truck. The automatic transmissions are a weak point for those years and I would go manual if possible. The dashboards were prone to cracking and eventually developing a massive hole during these years in hot climates. Something like a 3.9, manual, 2WD Ram ST that some old guy had will probably go forever.
2002-on was much more refined, but still used the 5.9 for a year. I'm not sure if early ones still had trans issues, but I know whenever they went to 5-speed autos that pretty much stopped. The 4.7 is good, but a Quad Cab 4x4 is pushing it. I drove an '06 4.7 4x4 Quad Cab rental extensively for a couple days. It had enough power empty, but it wasn't a rocket and with a heavy load or trailer it would probably be overworked. At the end of the second day of driving it, something went very wrong...CEL came on, engine lost power, and it got LOUD. Not sure what happened, maybe an exhaust manifold gasket blowout. I wasn't beating on it, I was just cruising along at about 35 MPH when it happened. I was able to limp it another hundred miles or so back to the rental company. I liked the truck otherwise. It had SLT trim and was pretty comfortable. Build quality seemed good, but it did have some cheapo stuff like awful fake wood around the radio.
I would not get the 3.7 in anything other than a regular cab 2WD, and even then you should probably just get the 4.7. The 3.7 is adequate in a Liberty, not so much in a Ram. A friend of mine had an '03 3.7 auto 2WD regular cab, and while it got around okay and was reliable, it was definitely the bare minimum amount of engine you could get away with in a truck that size and weight. That Ram never hauled a load larger than a small motorcycle. Dodge did build 3.7 Quad Cab automatics, I have seen a few. Would definitely avoid that one, especially if you haul anything.
Overall, they are good trucks, you just need to look for the more desirable engine and transmission combos.
2002-on was much more refined, but still used the 5.9 for a year. I'm not sure if early ones still had trans issues, but I know whenever they went to 5-speed autos that pretty much stopped. The 4.7 is good, but a Quad Cab 4x4 is pushing it. I drove an '06 4.7 4x4 Quad Cab rental extensively for a couple days. It had enough power empty, but it wasn't a rocket and with a heavy load or trailer it would probably be overworked. At the end of the second day of driving it, something went very wrong...CEL came on, engine lost power, and it got LOUD. Not sure what happened, maybe an exhaust manifold gasket blowout. I wasn't beating on it, I was just cruising along at about 35 MPH when it happened. I was able to limp it another hundred miles or so back to the rental company. I liked the truck otherwise. It had SLT trim and was pretty comfortable. Build quality seemed good, but it did have some cheapo stuff like awful fake wood around the radio.
I would not get the 3.7 in anything other than a regular cab 2WD, and even then you should probably just get the 4.7. The 3.7 is adequate in a Liberty, not so much in a Ram. A friend of mine had an '03 3.7 auto 2WD regular cab, and while it got around okay and was reliable, it was definitely the bare minimum amount of engine you could get away with in a truck that size and weight. That Ram never hauled a load larger than a small motorcycle. Dodge did build 3.7 Quad Cab automatics, I have seen a few. Would definitely avoid that one, especially if you haul anything.
Overall, they are good trucks, you just need to look for the more desirable engine and transmission combos.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
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.
Sorry, but that's a pile of [censored]. Their FWD 4 speed autos had their issues, but the RWD 4 speeds are fine.
The 5 speed 545RFE is solid. The 42/44/46RE aren't the best transmissions ever, but they're certainly not bad if they're taken care of. Pop in a shift kit and add a big cooler and they'll last [censored] near forever.
The 46RE in my Jeep is still original at 149k, not a single sign of it wearing out any time soon. I added a shift kit at 120k, shortly after I cranked up the engine power a bit. Big trans cooler was added at 102k, shortly after I bought the Jeep. I run it pretty hard (plenty of hard driving, some drag strip passes, etc.) and have towed at full tow rating before and the trans has never missed a beat. Oh, and it has no problem chirping the 1 - 2 shift at WOT.
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.
Sorry, but that's a pile of [censored]. Their FWD 4 speed autos had their issues, but the RWD 4 speeds are fine.
The 5 speed 545RFE is solid. The 42/44/46RE aren't the best transmissions ever, but they're certainly not bad if they're taken care of. Pop in a shift kit and add a big cooler and they'll last [censored] near forever.
The 46RE in my Jeep is still original at 149k, not a single sign of it wearing out any time soon. I added a shift kit at 120k, shortly after I cranked up the engine power a bit. Big trans cooler was added at 102k, shortly after I bought the Jeep. I run it pretty hard (plenty of hard driving, some drag strip passes, etc.) and have towed at full tow rating before and the trans has never missed a beat. Oh, and it has no problem chirping the 1 - 2 shift at WOT.
My buddy Ed(RIP) had a new '97 RAM that went through 3 transmissions by 110K in 2005. And Ed only use the RAM as his only vehicle back & fourth to work.
Lots of other issues too with this RAM. Computer, suspension parts, ignition system failures etc. The transmission was always maintained too with ATF+ and screen changes regularly.
I talked to guys in transmission shops that just shook their heads with these transmissions.
Lots of other issues too with this RAM. Computer, suspension parts, ignition system failures etc. The transmission was always maintained too with ATF+ and screen changes regularly.
I talked to guys in transmission shops that just shook their heads with these transmissions.
Last edited:
The 46RE did seem to die more often in the trucks. A big part of it was lack of adequate cooling from the factory. Putting a bigger cooler on helps a lot. Turning up the line pressure or adding a shift kit gets rid of the super-soft factory shifts (done for comfort) and helps durability as well.
We've had three new Chrysler vehicles since new. An 04 Sebring with the 2.7L. The only problem we had with that was the water outlet cracked. At 80k it was traded for our Galant. The 2004 Stratus RIP. One problem, stuck caliper at 109k. Also had the oh so evil 2.7L. Both had 5k oil changes with some sort of Valvoline, no varnish no sludge. At all. The third is the 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee. 4.7L with the 545RFE. No overheating or head gasket problems. Only thing that went on her was the front drjve shaft u-joints and the oil pan rusted out. 249k mikes and she still runs like a top. Regularly pulls 7500+ pounds of hay. GREAT vehicles.
Originally Posted By: MysticGold04
My wife wants a Chrysler 200. She had one as a rental and liked it. My Father in law just bought a loaded model with the 3.6L V6 and it claims to get the same city/highway mileage that my wife's Highlander gets. We'll see how his does. We'll be looking for a new car in about 2 years... we'll see. Just my 2 cents, I'd rather invest in a Ford Fusion or something similar.
The 200 is actually a VERY good deal right now. All the auto mags rag on it for being an "old" platform, but the engineers who went through it with a fine toothed comb before calling it "200" instead of "Sebring" did an excellent job of accumulating very small gains from a vast number of places. Its FAR better than any JA-platform car that preceeded it, but priced low because it is still technically an older (and therefore well amortized) platform. With the 3.6, its as close as any FWD car can ever be to a true muscle car, and it gets a 6-speed transmission that's built for hauling minivans and is pretty under-loaded in this application. More engine than God intended, and guaranteed to put a smile on your face partly because it can have really bad manners when you unleash the horsepower.
My wife wants a Chrysler 200. She had one as a rental and liked it. My Father in law just bought a loaded model with the 3.6L V6 and it claims to get the same city/highway mileage that my wife's Highlander gets. We'll see how his does. We'll be looking for a new car in about 2 years... we'll see. Just my 2 cents, I'd rather invest in a Ford Fusion or something similar.
The 200 is actually a VERY good deal right now. All the auto mags rag on it for being an "old" platform, but the engineers who went through it with a fine toothed comb before calling it "200" instead of "Sebring" did an excellent job of accumulating very small gains from a vast number of places. Its FAR better than any JA-platform car that preceeded it, but priced low because it is still technically an older (and therefore well amortized) platform. With the 3.6, its as close as any FWD car can ever be to a true muscle car, and it gets a 6-speed transmission that's built for hauling minivans and is pretty under-loaded in this application. More engine than God intended, and guaranteed to put a smile on your face partly because it can have really bad manners when you unleash the horsepower.
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
I talked to guys in transmission shops that just shook their heads with these transmissions.
Sorry, but they're idiots if so. The "problems" with those transmissions were traceable to misbegotten efforts to make them more "refined." An anti-drainback valve to prevent totally harmless convertor drainback, aka "morning sickness," turned into a big restrictor in the cooling lines and is a big part of many heat issues with the 46RH/RE transmissions. Any transmission guy worth his salt knows the $5 fixes to make one bulletproof. The exact same thing is true of their contemporaries like the 4Lx0E and A4OD, and a good transmission shop knows the simple tricks for all 3. The schlock shops learn the 4lx0E and ignore the others, just like the schlock mechanics used to treat every engine out there as if it were a Chevy 350.
That said, both of our 200k+ mile 46R transmissions still have the "morning sickness" valve in them, and have never had an issue. But neither tows, either- they haul, but don't tow and that can be the difference with that valve.
I talked to guys in transmission shops that just shook their heads with these transmissions.
Sorry, but they're idiots if so. The "problems" with those transmissions were traceable to misbegotten efforts to make them more "refined." An anti-drainback valve to prevent totally harmless convertor drainback, aka "morning sickness," turned into a big restrictor in the cooling lines and is a big part of many heat issues with the 46RH/RE transmissions. Any transmission guy worth his salt knows the $5 fixes to make one bulletproof. The exact same thing is true of their contemporaries like the 4Lx0E and A4OD, and a good transmission shop knows the simple tricks for all 3. The schlock shops learn the 4lx0E and ignore the others, just like the schlock mechanics used to treat every engine out there as if it were a Chevy 350.
That said, both of our 200k+ mile 46R transmissions still have the "morning sickness" valve in them, and have never had an issue. But neither tows, either- they haul, but don't tow and that can be the difference with that valve.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
That said, both of our 200k+ mile 46R transmissions still have the "morning sickness" valve in them, and have never had an issue. But neither tows, either- they haul, but don't tow and that can be the difference with that valve.
I've still got the valve in mine as well. I think a good bit of the issue wasn't the valve itself, but the valve gunking up over time, especially if the fluid wasn't changed enough, which led to it restricting flow.
That said, both of our 200k+ mile 46R transmissions still have the "morning sickness" valve in them, and have never had an issue. But neither tows, either- they haul, but don't tow and that can be the difference with that valve.
I've still got the valve in mine as well. I think a good bit of the issue wasn't the valve itself, but the valve gunking up over time, especially if the fluid wasn't changed enough, which led to it restricting flow.
My 99 Ram had a bad Torque Converter and it was disturbingly common.
All of mine have been just fine, though the newest I had was an '84 Lebaron.
- Status
