Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-10-2005, 03:45 PM   #16
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by StiMan
You are an idiot.

To American Cars: I dont really like them. I like Chrysler (Dodge and Plymouth) more than GM, and GM more than Ford. I just dont think they are as reliable as a Japanese car, or as designed as a German car in my opinion. We have a Chrysler T&C and it is constantly broken. All cars have problems, but from my experience, American ones seem to have more of them. It is really a sad thing to me. I hope to go into Mechanical Engineering to design cars, but perhaps Detroit isnt the place to do that anymore.

What year T&C do you have???

Our 2000 3.8 T&C (still being pathetic in our Garage) is still having problems to date and has yet to see 100k miles. Been through two trannies, various electrical problems, many interior items 'falling/coming off', speed sensor replaced, still have a spare tire squeaking problem, two of the six speakers are blown (and the speakers were never pushed hard...), had various leaking problems and the passenger side power seat stopped working. All in all it's the absolute worst vehicle we've ever owned and as soon as it hits 100k (if it does) it's being sold. I'm never buying another Daimler/Chrysler vehicle EVER again... If I'm getting another minivan... It's going to be the best on on the market - Odyssey, not buy one because it's discounted $8000 off.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 05:55 PM   #17
StiMan
CF Retired Post Whore
 
StiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Posts: 2,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
What year T&C do you have???

Our 2000 3.8 T&C (still being pathetic in our Garage) is still having problems to date and has yet to see 100k miles. Been through two trannies, various electrical problems, many interior items 'falling/coming off', speed sensor replaced, still have a spare tire squeaking problem, two of the six speakers are blown (and the speakers were never pushed hard...), had various leaking problems and the passenger side power seat stopped working. All in all it's the absolute worst vehicle we've ever owned and as soon as it hits 100k (if it does) it's being sold. I'm never buying another Daimler/Chrysler vehicle EVER again... If I'm getting another minivan... It's going to be the best on on the market - Odyssey, not buy one because it's discounted $8000 off.
Its a 2001. That is part of its problem. We bought it the first year its model cycle was out. (We had to because the previous ones AC died.)
__________________
John

StiMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 06:26 PM   #18
FordFromHell351
Banned
 
FordFromHell351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
If you look at statistics over time of all three brands you'll notice Daimler/Chrysler much farther down on the reliability list and Ford/GM basically switching spots for long term reliability. The way I look it at and have experienced it is this... A Daimler/Chyrsler vehicle will have problems in every which-way. A GM will probably need the water pump replaced... A Ford is likely to have various problems in various areas but I've experienced tranny problems the most.

Ill admit that the Chevy trannys are tougher than the Ford trannys for the most part. I know guys who will build up the engine in their Mustang, and then swap out the tranny for a Chevy one.

I remember my friends parents going out and buying a brand new 2001 Camaro Z28 for his mom, and a brand new 2001 Chevy Silverado 1500 for his dad and they had to take the Z28 back within 2 months and 3,000 miles because it had 2 spun bearings, and a horrible knock. So they got the engine replaced in it and drove it for about 2 weeks and it blew a head gasket so they traded it in for a 2001 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra and they havent had a problem with it It has 60,000 miles on it and no problems. The Silverado however didnt make it past 2,000. One day me my friend and his father were driving in it to go out to the track, and we heard a loud bang and we looked behind us and it was leaking oil all over the place and it just stopped. It blew the damn oil pan. So they traded that back in for a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500, and so far they have only had to replace the water pump and its up to 73,000 miles I believe.
FordFromHell351 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 06:28 PM   #19
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
What would make the oil pressure so high to make it explode like that?
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 06:28 PM   #20
FordFromHell351
Banned
 
FordFromHell351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
What year T&C do you have???

Our 2000 3.8 T&C (still being pathetic in our Garage) is still having problems to date and has yet to see 100k miles. Been through two trannies, various electrical problems, many interior items 'falling/coming off', speed sensor replaced, still have a spare tire squeaking problem, two of the six speakers are blown (and the speakers were never pushed hard...), had various leaking problems and the passenger side power seat stopped working. All in all it's the absolute worst vehicle we've ever owned and as soon as it hits 100k (if it does) it's being sold. I'm never buying another Daimler/Chrysler vehicle EVER again... If I'm getting another minivan... It's going to be the best on on the market - Odyssey, not buy one because it's discounted $8000 off.

Dodge Caravans and Chrysler Town and Countrys have never been the most reliable vehicle in the world
FordFromHell351 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 06:41 PM   #21
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
What year T&C do you have???

Our 2000 3.8 T&C (still being pathetic in our Garage) is still having problems to date and has yet to see 100k miles. Been through two trannies, various electrical problems, many interior items 'falling/coming off', speed sensor replaced, still have a spare tire squeaking problem, two of the six speakers are blown (and the speakers were never pushed hard...), had various leaking problems and the passenger side power seat stopped working. All in all it's the absolute worst vehicle we've ever owned and as soon as it hits 100k (if it does) it's being sold. I'm never buying another Daimler/Chrysler vehicle EVER again... If I'm getting another minivan... It's going to be the best on on the market - Odyssey, not buy one because it's discounted $8000 off.

And my 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser has 62k miles on it and has yet to have a single thing go wrong with it, or have anything fall apart. And I use it pretty hard, too. My best friend has a 2001 model, and the only things that haev gone wrong with it were due to him smashing it up (broken taillight lens, bent the gas filler backwards forgetting it was still open, and someone smashed out the passenger side front window trying to steal something in the car). Most PTs have been similarly reliable.

My dad still has a great running '89 Plymouth turbo Caravan.

I had a CRX once. it was constantly broken. If I formed the opinion that Hondas suck and are always broken because of that, would that be true?

Maybe we should stop being brand-opinionated and start being automotive enthusiasts.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 09:49 PM   #22
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by StiMan
Its a 2001. That is part of its problem. We bought it the first year its model cycle was out. (We had to because the previous ones AC died.)

Heck ours was the last year of the model cycle and look how bad its been.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 09:51 PM   #23
StiMan
CF Retired Post Whore
 
StiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Posts: 2,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
Heck ours was the last year of the model cycle and look how bad its been.
Thats true. Part of the problem is the long wheelbase. The Caravan (not the Grand Caravan) usually doesnt have as many tranny problems. Chrysler has had problems with every generation long wheelbase's tranny.
__________________
John

StiMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 09:57 PM   #24
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
And my 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser has 62k miles on it and has yet to have a single thing go wrong with it, or have anything fall apart. And I use it pretty hard, too. My best friend has a 2001 model, and the only things that haev gone wrong with it were due to him smashing it up (broken taillight lens, bent the gas filler backwards forgetting it was still open, and someone smashed out the passenger side front window trying to steal something in the car). Most PTs have been similarly reliable.

My dad still has a great running '89 Plymouth turbo Caravan.

I had a CRX once. it was constantly broken. If I formed the opinion that Hondas suck and are always broken because of that, would that be true?

Maybe we should stop being brand-opinionated and start being automotive enthusiasts.

I'm far from brand opinionated...I love Hondas because the 8...well 9 now that we've owned/own have never had one single problem and they've always been near top dog in population statistical reliability surveys. Mopars in general are known for not being as reliable as Hondas, simple statistical fact. I'm not leaning towards one brand or another because of just personal opinion, but because of statisical reliability. I know you've owned a ton of vehicles, but that still only represents such a small sample of the statistical population. Just as easily as you say your CRX broke down all the time I know people with CRX's still chugging along with 300-350k miles and just as easily as you say you've never had a problem with your PT I know people with PT's that have had constant oil leaking issues and one that has caught on fire. Simple fact of the matter is reliability should be based upon the statisical population and not just 'A' small sample statistic. I should of put in there I wont buy Daimler/Chrysler again JUST because of my experience with a product of theirs but also what the statistical population as a whole has experienced.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2005, 08:07 PM   #25
tovarich
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hoboken Belgium
Posts: 36
American cars

I was 8 years old when World war 2 ended. The majority of the European car industry was either completely destroyed or transformed into factories for military purposes.So in my youth (post war) the only cars I knew were American. The majority of the people had very little(the little savings we had during the war were gone to buy food and other essentials to stay alive. Everything was rationed. My father never owned a car in his life. My first car I bought when I was 31 years old.My generation was the last one where we did not have to work both in order to fulfill all our material desires. My wife stopped work (she was a well paid executive secretary)when our daughter was born. The next generation wanted cars when they were the legal age (18) to drive one.
In the US I know having extensively travelled the country you simply can't live without a car. It's a necessity. Here in Belgium we have an excellent public transport system plus the fact that our country is very small and closely populated. The European automotive engineers had to be very inventive and still make the best cars in the world.We cannot afford to produce petrol guzzling cars ( actual cost of 95 RON petrol is 5,3 $ per gallon). Also the laws for the protection of the environment(which Bush doesn't subscribe anymore) are essential.The two greatest pollutors; USA and China don't give a damn. Paul
tovarich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2005, 10:46 PM   #26
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
Just as easily as you say your CRX broke down all the time I know people with CRX's still chugging along with 300-350k miles

So do I, but I also see enough Hondas dead on teh Honda forums that "statisticallY, i could say that mine was representative. I DON'T say that. Becaeu I know that 90% of a car's reliability is in it's treatment.


Quote:
and just as easily as you say you've never had a problem with your PT I know people with PT's that have had constant oil leaking issues and one that has caught on fire.

And overall, according to the statistics kept by teh PT clubs, MOST people have experiences like mine wiht their PTs. Simply put, they are, in general, very reliable cars.

Quote:
I should of put in there I wont buy Daimler/Chrysler again JUST because of my experience with a product of theirs but also what the statistical population as a whole has experienced.

And you'd be just as wrong. Buy what you like, but don't use arguments like that.

But then again, if daily driver reliability were the mark of the best cars, then Camrys would be worshipped on posters around the world, and Ferrari's and Lamborghinis would be considered utter garbage by anyone who knew what a car was.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2005, 11:05 PM   #27
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by tovarich
I was 8 years old when World war 2 ended. The majority of the European car industry was either completely destroyed or transformed into factories for military purposes.So in my youth (post war) the only cars I knew were American.

And I think that cars overall have change a bit since the end of WWII.

Quote:
The European automotive engineers had to be very inventive and still make the best cars in the world.

Let's not forget the ONLY European cars that are "the best cars in the world" are low production cars that cost a LOT of money. The average European car isn't any better than any other car around the world, including the average American car.

Quote:
We cannot afford to produce petrol guzzling cars ( actual cost of 95 RON petrol is 5,3 $ per gallon).

So why are all the European cars that lay claim to the title of "the best cars in the world" such gas guzzlers? Top Cars from Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls, Bently, Porsche, Jaguar, even the top VW and Audis all use gas more than the average American car, and as you come back down in class levels, you find that the regular VWs, BMWs, and Audis with gasoline engines get similar fuel mileage to any other gasoline cars in their class regardless of country of origin. You DO have a lot of smaller cars and cars with small diesel engines in Europe that are often slow as hell, but those cheap small cars with tiny engines don't fall into the "best cars in the world" category by a long shot. Have you ever driven a base Punto or Saxo? Or even a low trim Polo, or any of the Skodas?

Quote:
Also the laws for the protection of the environment(which Bush doesn't subscribe anymore) are essential.The two greatest pollutors; USA and China don't give a damn. Paul

Hold up here... The EPA regulations in the US have been tougher than ANY other laws. Are you basing your opinion on Bush not backing Kyoto? Because if you are, then you seriously have a mistaken notion of what the Kyoto treaty did and didn't do. Cutting pollution is a good thing imho, but doing it at the expense of the richer nations is kinda sticky. Implementing something like Kyoto would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, would redistribute wealth from industrialized nations to tin-hat dictatorships all over the world, and would give the government yet another layer of regulation and control of the free market. If you think that cost would be borne by anyone other than you and me, I got a bridge to sell ya.

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm

Incidentally, I do think it's a coincidence that the polar ice caps on Mars happen to be melting just after the U.S. failed to ratify the Kyoto treaty...
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2005, 11:25 PM   #28
desertsoldier22
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 42
Actually according to EPA stats, The whole of Europe pollutes 3 times as much as the U.S. by itself. They not only pollute the air but they pollute world politics with needless rhetoric, political hatred (aka against our president), And factless alligations. You guys never change, 20 years from now you'll let another dictator take control and we will have to save your asses again. 40 years after that you'll hate us again. Vicious cycle,maybe you need two of your largest buildings to disappear before you realize what is going on around you.
desertsoldier22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 02:11 PM   #29
tovarich
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hoboken Belgium
Posts: 36
American cars

For ChrisV;Of course,when I said that European cars were the best in the worldI was not talking about a Fiat punto. Let's bze honest. When you guys can afford to buy A BMW, Mercedes, Audi ,Porche ... you will.When we were in Boston last September we saw more of those makes than in my hometown.
-Petrol guzzling: 50 % of our cars in Belgium have diesel engines abd you cannot have a lower consumption pere mile than that.
A Belgian car magazine "AUTO WERELD"(CAR WORLD) came out ,a few years ago; with a special edition about American cars and I would like to quote some of the details :QUOTE / ARE AMERICAN CARS BIGGER ?
:Yes. The small and middleclass cars are usually European or Japanese. The smallest A.C. sold in Europe is the Chrysler Neon and that is still a middleclass car.
-ARE A.C. BETTER EQUIPPED ? For the basic models you would have to pay a supplement to get the same in Europe. But at the same time they have lots of options;especially electronic drive and safety aid systems they have not heard of in the US.Exception made for Chrysler but that's because they desperately need their European customers.
-ARE THEY SAFER ? No because the European cars have taken a serious lead in active and passive safety. The A.C. driver is less exacting(Cadillac+Chrysler excepted)
-ARE THEY CHEAPER ? Some are. Chevrolet Alero but not comparable to a European equivalent.Not so nice to drive and the level of finishing and security provisions are not up to par with the E.C.
-ARE THE 4X4 BETTER ? About 50% of the cars sold in the US are 4X4,pick ups, SUV. They are,however not completely superior. The local success of the BMW X5, Mercedes M and the Lexus RX300 prove that the US customer wants more techinical refinement.For Europe the lack of them is due to the fact that there are no diesel engines available to make it fiscally interesting.Only Jeep Cherokee...are accepted but cannot rival theE.C or Japanese equivalents.
CONCLUSION/ European drivers could buy the cheaper prices A.C. on condition that they drive very few miles and like the easygoing, calm way of driving.Chevrolet Alero,Chrysler neon, Sebring or 300M. We also have very little remarks about Cadillac Seville and of course the Corvette.

UNQUOTE

Perhaps to fully understand our situation here in Belgium I will make another thread later to explain the cost of driving a car .

What the environmental issue is concerned there will always be several versions contradicting each other about any given subject.The fact that practically the whole world agrees that something should be done makes me wonder.It will always be an economical issue.
THE TRUTH IS TOO SIMPLE FOR US
tovarich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 08:35 PM   #30
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Tovarich, first you talked about reliability of European vs American cars. That's what this thread was about.

Your claim was that since Europeans make the "best" cars, they are more reliable. the average European car isn't any more reliable than the average American car.

On one hand you argue that most European cars are small, diesel (or small pettrol engine cars) so they get great mileage. But then you say that American s want European cars because wehn we can afford it we by Porsches and the like, so that proves European cars are "better." But that argument is not germain to the original statment that European cars are more reliable.

Then you say that Eurpeans don't make gas guzzlers because your gas is so expensive. But whan you say that you again stop talking about Porsches, Mercedes, Ferraris, Maybachs, Rolls, etc, (which ARE gas guzzlers, and the fact that Europeans make them invalidates your argument) and start talking about liittle 1.1 liter gas and diesel cars which are not of high quality nor any higher reliability than the average American car.

Your Belgian article was incorrect on many points, most importantly on what the buyer wants. The buyer wants STATUS, and spending more on a luxury namplate like BMW or Lexus does that. That doesn't make the vehicles superior, only more expensive and that shows off how well uyou are doing. Like having a larger house.

You change your POV so often so that you can twist things around to fit your previously biased view.

Let me ask you this... Why was it for so many years (in fact until recently) that European cars had to be modified to meet US emissions regulations? Because European cars (prior to the Greeens and teh EU) polluted more. Why did European cars have to be modified to meet US safety specs? Because European cars didnt' have side intusion beams, 5 mph bumpers, and more.

God, I like all cars, European, American, and Japanses. I've owned over 100 cars from most major manufacturers around the world, and worked on hundreds more. But I'm as tired of closed minded Eurosnobs as I am of closed minded ricers or domestic gearheads. It's apparent that in all your years on the planet, you haven't learned the basics of open minded automotive enthusiasm. I simply can't respect that.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.