Question:

: > THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand : this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. : : –MS_Mac_OE_3006457869_8239693_MIME_Part : Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" : Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit : : By the by, both engines in the ‘97 were larger than either that are offered : in the ‘99. But didn’t produces as much hp (214 for the 3.5; 225 for the 3.2 now). And the 3.3 made about 160 hp compared to 200 for the 2.7 now.

Response:

me awaken from my chaotic existance when they did announce: >I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when >fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph.

The difference in speeds is due to tire selections. The 99 has low rated tires so there’s a limiter at 110 OO —

Response:

I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then its a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced it. Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, it easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, and I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens of boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom out as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light into this? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when >fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. > Depends on the tires; that determines the speed limiter that is set. > And who cares? The most important figure to me is somewhere around > 50-80. When I exit the onramp at 50/55 I want to know how fast I’ll > get to 80 and match the rest of the traffic. Top speeds and 0-60 times > measured by the tenth are great for bench racing and magazine > articles, but I’m more interested in the real world; and there the > freeway merge and hole shot into an opening are more important. > 1995 Plymouth Neon Highline Coupe > http://home.earthlink.net/~richhutch

– Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

The 300m engine recommends mid-grade.  It recommends against hi-test.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My 96 has no distributor–it’s coil ignited. The reduction in emissions is > undoubtedly due to the better efficiency–which is easily seen since the > smaller engine burns less gas and produces more power. Otherwise, from what > I’ve read, they were few changes made to the engines other than the alum. > block. > I didn’t know that about the 93-97 engines.  Another item that is different, > however, is fuel grade.  The 98-99+ engines were designed for regular fuel > while the 93-97 LH’s were designed for mid grade.  I suspect a lower > compression ratio but I’m sure there are other factors as well.  You can learn > more about these engines at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/v6.html

Response:

| | I’ve had 4 adults + luggage in the car on a few occasions and can’t | remmeber that infamous feeling of supension-on-jounce-bumpers.  I wonder | how many overweight armchair quarterbacks they had in the thing when | they got it to bottom. | | > | > I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when | > fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the | > biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with | > a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. | > I agree; no bottom-out problem with my ‘99 Base 2.7L 16" Tires. I’ve had it loaded with 5 passengers and luggage and no problems. One incident I did notice was when I exited a steep-down-grade driveway onto a level road and I heard a mild scraping sound from the front end. Upon inspection, the whole front-end bumper/spoiler (for lack of the proper term) was unharmed and untouched, and a 2" or so black-plastic guard/flare that hangs below was scuffed slightly. It seemed to be a non-cosmetic piece that was more of a warning device; it worked. I should add that the angle from the parking lot to the road was fairly extreme and still there was no significant damage or concern. I continue to be very satisfied with my car.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Having just spent well over six months researching the new car market, and > buying a 1999 dodge intrepid ES, I understand your dilemna. I can assure you > that I’ve been nothing but pleased with my purchase.  As far as any problems > in either suspension, or power, so far, in 3months, well over 3 thousand > miles, an oil change, and several bad snow storms, I haven’t been let down > once. To the bottomming out, I don’t know if my car can haul shingles, > siding, and the like, but I do know that not only does it have the power to > do so, but it definetly has the room to do so. The only thing that makes me > uncertain, is that I wouldn’t want to haul those things in my car.  The only > suggestion that I’d make to you is to be certain to buy and ES model, not > only do you want the extra horse power(225 of them to be exact,) but the > 40/60 split fold down trunk is a real nice feature, especially if you’re > going to use your car to haul things designed to be hauled in a truck.

I am looking to buy a ‘99 Intrepid ES, probably w/o leather, but with the 24M package, which I believe is the larger engine and a few other goodies, plus maybe the Infinity cass/CD system. Can anyone tell me what kind of a deal they’ve worked on a car like this? I know about dealer holdback (3% of invoice I believe) but I’m not aware of any incentives or rebates at the time. Anyone have any comments or experience they would like to share please post or respond to rrokit at fltg dot net. Thanks Time is the most valuable thing that people can spend.

Response:

> One incident I did notice was when I exited a steep-down-grade driveway onto > a level road and I heard a mild scraping sound from the front end. Upon > inspection, the whole front-end bumper/spoiler (for lack of the proper term) > was unharmed and untouched, and a 2" or so black-plastic guard/flare that > hangs below was scuffed slightly. It seemed to be a non-cosmetic piece that > was more of a warning device; it worked. I should add that the angle from > the parking lot to the road was fairly extreme and still there was no > significant damage or concern.

That "non-cosmetic piece" is probably there to help with airflow through the radiator/condenser and over the engine.  I wouldn’t disregard it if you have totally removed it, but light damage is expected over time due to driving. This sentence is my signature…isn’t it creative?

Response:

    This "scraping" is common on Chryslers due to the agressive styling of the vehicles. However, all of Chrysler’s cars have that black strip so no damage is done. Our Talon scrapes once in awhile, and even our ‘96 Voyager has scraped once or twice (getting on/off a particular ferry as far as I remember). Aaron – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The 99 is a lot better than the previous generation in this respect.  The >black air dam scraped a lot on steep drivers, or going into parking lots >where’s there’s a little depression at the entrance (such as the rain >gully at the side of the street).  My 99 has yet to scrape.

Response:

: | : | I’ve had 4 adults + luggage in the car on a few occasions and can’t : | remmeber that infamous feeling of supension-on-jounce-bumpers.  I wonder : | how many overweight armchair quarterbacks they had in the thing when : | they got it to bottom. : | : | > : | > I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when : | > fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the : | > biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with : | > a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. : | > : : I agree; no bottom-out problem with my ‘99 Base 2.7L 16" Tires. I’ve had it : loaded with 5 passengers and luggage and no problems. : : One incident I did notice was when I exited a steep-down-grade driveway onto : a level road and I heard a mild scraping sound from the front end. Upon : inspection, the whole front-end bumper/spoiler (for lack of the proper term) : was unharmed and untouched, and a 2" or so black-plastic guard/flare that : hangs below was scuffed slightly. It seemed to be a non-cosmetic piece that : was more of a warning device; it worked. I should add that the angle from : the parking lot to the road was fairly extreme and still there was no : significant damage or concern. : : I continue to be very satisfied with my car. : The 99 is a lot better than the previous generation in this respect.  The black air dam scraped a lot on steep drivers, or going into parking lots where’s there’s a little depression at the entrance (such as the rain gully at the side of the street).  My 99 has yet to scrape.

Response:

: I am looking to buy a ‘99 Intrepid ES, probably w/o leather, but with : the 24M package, which I believe is the larger engine and a few other : goodies, plus maybe the Infinity cass/CD system. Can anyone tell me what The larger engine comes on the ES; the Infinity is an option.  Pkg M includes traction control, overhead console with trip computer, thermometer, compass, and Homelink; CD player (but NOT Infinity), Sentry Key and theft alarm, automatic climate control, etc. : kind of a deal they’ve worked on a car like this? I know about dealer : holdback (3% of invoice I believe) but I’m not aware of any incentives : or rebates at the time. Got mine for $200 over invoice in December, at a local dealer that sells them that way.

Response:

|> I am looking to buy a ‘99 Intrepid ES, probably w/o leather, but with |> the 24M package, which I believe is the larger engine and a few other |> goodies, plus maybe the Infinity cass/CD system. Sounds exactly like the one I’ve just ordered.  ES, 24M, Infinity system. |> Can anyone tell me what |> kind of a deal they’ve worked on a car like this? I know about dealer |> holdback (3% of invoice I believe) I think Edmunds said it was 3% of MSRP |> but I’m not aware of any incentives or rebates at the time. They just started a $1000 rebate on Intrepids. — Brad Garcia    ___/  __ /  __ /  ___/   Save the whales.   __/   /  /  / _/  __/     Feed the hungry. _/    ____/ _/ _| ____/     Free the mallocs.

Response:

> My 96 has no distributor–it’s coil ignited. The reduction in emissions is > undoubtedly due to the better efficiency–which is easily seen since the > smaller engine burns less gas and produces more power. Otherwise, from what > I’ve read, they were few changes made to the engines other than the alum. > block.

I didn’t know that about the 93-97 engines.  Another item that is different, however, is fuel grade.  The 98-99+ engines were designed for regular fuel while the 93-97 LH’s were designed for mid grade.  I suspect a lower compression ratio but I’m sure there are other factors as well.  You can learn more about these engines at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/v6.html

Response:

My 96 has no distributor–it’s coil ignited. The reduction in emissions is undoubtedly due to the better efficiency–which is easily seen since the smaller engine burns less gas and produces more power. Otherwise, from what I’ve read, they were few changes made to the engines other than the alum. block. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s because of the steel block in the old engines versus the > aluminum in the new ones–that’s why the 3.5l now makes 253 in the > 300m. > It’s due to a lot more than that!  Check the design and specs again. > Also note that the new engines have no distributor and no (secondary) > spark plug wires.  In addition there is a 30% reduction in emissions and > the new engines already meet the next round of specs (in 2001 or 3)

Response:

> That’s because of the steel block in the old engines versus the > aluminum in the new ones–that’s why the 3.5l now makes 253 in the > 300m.

It’s due to a lot more than that!  Check the design and specs again. Also note that the new engines have no distributor and no (secondary) spark plug wires.  In addition there is a 30% reduction in emissions and the new engines already meet the next round of specs (in 2001 or 3)

Response:

See the thing is, if there’s a chance the Intrepid will bottom out, then what would happen if you hit a steep pothole or such? Other than that, the Intrepid definitely looks like a choice over the Ford Explorer, but Im not sure that the Intrepid has more hauling power than the Durango, and at the same price too. A Fully Loaded(option wise) Intrepid ES costs around $24-$27k US whereas a nicely equipped Durango goes for $30-$33k US. But I will take your comments into consideration. Thanks – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 98 Intrepid… Fully loaded with 5 passengers it WILL bottom out on > speed bumps or going up steep drive way entrances…. > > I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then > its > > a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced > it. > > Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, > it > > easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not > > going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt > > bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, > and > > I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens > of > > boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t > > even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom > out > > as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. > > So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light > > into this? > Having just spent well over six months researching the new car market, and > buying a 1999 dodge intrepid ES, I understand your dilemna. I can assure you > that I’ve been nothing but pleased with my purchase.  As far as any problems > in either suspension, or power, so far, in 3months, well over 3 thousand > miles, an oil change, and several bad snow storms, I haven’t been let down > once. To the bottomming out, I don’t know if my car can haul shingles, > siding, and the like, but I do know that not only does it have the power to > do so, but it definetly has the room to do so. The only thing that makes me > uncertain, is that I wouldn’t want to haul those things in my car.  The only > suggestion that I’d make to you is to be certain to buy and ES model, not > only do you want the extra horse power(225 of them to be exact,) but the > 40/60 split fold down trunk is a real nice feature, especially if you’re > going to use your car to haul things designed to be hauled in a truck.

– Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

: I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when : fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the : biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with : a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. : : : — : Charlie B. Han : http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser : : If you got the handling package on the 93-97 Intrepids, it included V-rated tires and the speed governor was removed (or modified).  Those year Intrepids without the V tires were governed like the 98-99s are. Chrysler has elected to make the V tires available only on the 300M for 98-99.

Response:

Ok. Re-read my post. Now, what part of YOUR post do you think I was responding to? See anything about bottoming out? No. I was responding to the speed limiter comment.. I agree bottoming out is not a good thing… > I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then its > a real problem.

 Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with > >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. > Depends on the tires; that determines the speed limiter that is set. > And who cares? The most important figure to me is somewhere around > 50-80. When I exit the onramp at 50/55 I want to know how fast I’ll > get to 80 and match the rest of the traffic. Top speeds and 0-60 times > measured by the tenth are great for bench racing and magazine > articles, but I’m more interested in the real world; and there the > freeway merge and hole shot into an opening are more important. > 1995 Plymouth Neon Highline Coupe > http://home.earthlink.net/~richhutch

Response:

I can’t comment on the top speed issue, but I can shed some light here on the bottoming issue: I’ve had 4 adults + luggage in the car on a few occasions and can’t remmeber that infamous feeling of supension-on-jounce-bumpers.  I wonder how many overweight armchair quarterbacks they had in the thing when they got it to bottom. Jeff Falkiner ‘99 Intrepid 2.7 l P.S. – My ‘99 Intrepid is WAAAAY smoother and more confident at 80 mph than my father’s 96 LHS ever was. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when > fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the > biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with > a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. > — > Charlie B. Han > http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

I have a 98 Intrepid… Fully loaded with 5 passengers it WILL bottom out on speed bumps or going up steep drive way entrances…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then its > a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced it. > Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, it > easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not > going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt > bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, and > I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens of > boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t > even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom out > as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. > So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light > into this?

Response:

That’s because of the steel block in the old engines versus the aluminum in the new ones–that’s why the 3.5l now makes 253 in the 300m.

: > THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand : this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. : : –MS_Mac_OE_3006457869_8239693_MIME_Part : Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" : Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit : : By the by, both engines in the ‘97 were larger than either that are offered : in the ‘99. But didn’t produces as much hp (214 for the 3.5; 225 for the 3.2 now). And the 3.3 made about 160 hp compared to 200 for the 2.7 now.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 98 Intrepid… Fully loaded with 5 passengers it WILL bottom out on > speed bumps or going up steep drive way entrances…. > I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then > its > a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced > it. > Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, > it > easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not > going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt > bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, > and > I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens > of > boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t > even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom > out > as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. > So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light > into this?

Having just spent well over six months researching the new car market, and buying a 1999 dodge intrepid ES, I understand your dilemna. I can assure you that I’ve been nothing but pleased with my purchase.  As far as any problems in either suspension, or power, so far, in 3months, well over 3 thousand miles, an oil change, and several bad snow storms, I haven’t been let down once. To the bottomming out, I don’t know if my car can haul shingles, siding, and the like, but I do know that not only does it have the power to do so, but it definetly has the room to do so. The only thing that makes me uncertain, is that I wouldn’t want to haul those things in my car.  The only suggestion that I’d make to you is to be certain to buy and ES model, not only do you want the extra horse power(225 of them to be exact,) but the 40/60 split fold down trunk is a real nice feature, especially if you’re going to use your car to haul things designed to be hauled in a truck.

Response:

I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. — Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

By the by, both engines in the ‘97 were larger than either that are offered in the ‘99.

I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. — Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

>I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when >fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph.

Depends on the tires; that determines the speed limiter that is set. And who cares? The most important figure to me is somewhere around 50-80. When I exit the onramp at 50/55 I want to know how fast I’ll get to 80 and match the rest of the traffic. Top speeds and 0-60 times measured by the tenth are great for bench racing and magazine articles, but I’m more interested in the real world; and there the freeway merge and hole shot into an opening are more important. 1995 Plymouth Neon Highline Coupe http://home.earthlink.net/~richhutch

Response:

I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. — Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

By the by, both engines in the ‘97 were larger than either that are offered in the ‘99.

I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. — Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

>I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when >fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph.

Depends on the tires; that determines the speed limiter that is set. And who cares? The most important figure to me is somewhere around 50-80. When I exit the onramp at 50/55 I want to know how fast I’ll get to 80 and match the rest of the traffic. Top speeds and 0-60 times measured by the tenth are great for bench racing and magazine articles, but I’m more interested in the real world; and there the freeway merge and hole shot into an opening are more important. 1995 Plymouth Neon Highline Coupe http://home.earthlink.net/~richhutch

Response:

me awaken from my chaotic existance when they did announce: >I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when >fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph.

The difference in speeds is due to tire selections. The 99 has low rated tires so there’s a limiter at 110 OO —

Response:

I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then its a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced it. Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, it easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, and I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens of boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom out as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light into this? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when >fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. > Depends on the tires; that determines the speed limiter that is set. > And who cares? The most important figure to me is somewhere around > 50-80. When I exit the onramp at 50/55 I want to know how fast I’ll > get to 80 and match the rest of the traffic. Top speeds and 0-60 times > measured by the tenth are great for bench racing and magazine > articles, but I’m more interested in the real world; and there the > freeway merge and hole shot into an opening are more important. > 1995 Plymouth Neon Highline Coupe > http://home.earthlink.net/~richhutch

– Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

: > THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand : this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. : : –MS_Mac_OE_3006457869_8239693_MIME_Part : Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" : Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit : : By the by, both engines in the ‘97 were larger than either that are offered : in the ‘99. But didn’t produces as much hp (214 for the 3.5; 225 for the 3.2 now). And the 3.3 made about 160 hp compared to 200 for the 2.7 now.

Response:

: I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when : fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the : biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with : a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. : : : — : Charlie B. Han : http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser : : If you got the handling package on the 93-97 Intrepids, it included V-rated tires and the speed governor was removed (or modified).  Those year Intrepids without the V tires were governed like the 98-99s are. Chrysler has elected to make the V tires available only on the 300M for 98-99.

Response:

Ok. Re-read my post. Now, what part of YOUR post do you think I was responding to? See anything about bottoming out? No. I was responding to the speed limiter comment.. I agree bottoming out is not a good thing… > I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then its > a real problem.

 Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with > >a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. > Depends on the tires; that determines the speed limiter that is set. > And who cares? The most important figure to me is somewhere around > 50-80. When I exit the onramp at 50/55 I want to know how fast I’ll > get to 80 and match the rest of the traffic. Top speeds and 0-60 times > measured by the tenth are great for bench racing and magazine > articles, but I’m more interested in the real world; and there the > freeway merge and hole shot into an opening are more important. > 1995 Plymouth Neon Highline Coupe > http://home.earthlink.net/~richhutch

Response:

I can’t comment on the top speed issue, but I can shed some light here on the bottoming issue: I’ve had 4 adults + luggage in the car on a few occasions and can’t remmeber that infamous feeling of supension-on-jounce-bumpers.  I wonder how many overweight armchair quarterbacks they had in the thing when they got it to bottom. Jeff Falkiner ‘99 Intrepid 2.7 l P.S. – My ‘99 Intrepid is WAAAAY smoother and more confident at 80 mph than my father’s 96 LHS ever was. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when > fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the > biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with > a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. > — > Charlie B. Han > http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

I have a 98 Intrepid… Fully loaded with 5 passengers it WILL bottom out on speed bumps or going up steep drive way entrances…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then its > a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced it. > Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, it > easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not > going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt > bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, and > I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens of > boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t > even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom out > as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. > So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light > into this?

Response:

That’s because of the steel block in the old engines versus the aluminum in the new ones–that’s why the 3.5l now makes 253 in the 300m.

: > THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand : this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. : : –MS_Mac_OE_3006457869_8239693_MIME_Part : Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" : Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit : : By the by, both engines in the ‘97 were larger than either that are offered : in the ‘99. But didn’t produces as much hp (214 for the 3.5; 225 for the 3.2 now). And the 3.3 made about 160 hp compared to 200 for the 2.7 now.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 98 Intrepid… Fully loaded with 5 passengers it WILL bottom out on > speed bumps or going up steep drive way entrances…. > I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then > its > a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced > it. > Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, > it > easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not > going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt > bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, > and > I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens > of > boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t > even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom > out > as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. > So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light > into this?

Having just spent well over six months researching the new car market, and buying a 1999 dodge intrepid ES, I understand your dilemna. I can assure you that I’ve been nothing but pleased with my purchase.  As far as any problems in either suspension, or power, so far, in 3months, well over 3 thousand miles, an oil change, and several bad snow storms, I haven’t been let down once. To the bottomming out, I don’t know if my car can haul shingles, siding, and the like, but I do know that not only does it have the power to do so, but it definetly has the room to do so. The only thing that makes me uncertain, is that I wouldn’t want to haul those things in my car.  The only suggestion that I’d make to you is to be certain to buy and ES model, not only do you want the extra horse power(225 of them to be exact,) but the 40/60 split fold down trunk is a real nice feature, especially if you’re going to use your car to haul things designed to be hauled in a truck.

Response:

See the thing is, if there’s a chance the Intrepid will bottom out, then what would happen if you hit a steep pothole or such? Other than that, the Intrepid definitely looks like a choice over the Ford Explorer, but Im not sure that the Intrepid has more hauling power than the Durango, and at the same price too. A Fully Loaded(option wise) Intrepid ES costs around $24-$27k US whereas a nicely equipped Durango goes for $30-$33k US. But I will take your comments into consideration. Thanks – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 98 Intrepid… Fully loaded with 5 passengers it WILL bottom out on > speed bumps or going up steep drive way entrances…. > > I would think in the real world that if your car easily bottoms out then > its > > a real problem. So that’s why Im asking the NG if anyone has experienced > it. > > Im thinking about buying a 99 Intrepid, but according to several reviews, > it > > easily bottoms out when loaded with 5 passengers. I know Im probably not > > going to take 5 people, but I want to be assured that the car shouldnt > > bottom out when its not even loaded to the max. I have an old 81 T-bird, > and > > I used to haul roofing shingles in it, along with aluminum siding (dozens > of > > boxes weighing at least 350 lbs) and loaded with 4 ppl, and the car wasn’t > > even close to bottoming out. But if this 99 Intrepid does easily bottom > out > > as the carpoint review said, then I would say its a risky gamble. > > So, does anyone own a 99 Intrepid or driven one that can shed some light > > into this? > Having just spent well over six months researching the new car market, and > buying a 1999 dodge intrepid ES, I understand your dilemna. I can assure you > that I’ve been nothing but pleased with my purchase.  As far as any problems > in either suspension, or power, so far, in 3months, well over 3 thousand > miles, an oil change, and several bad snow storms, I haven’t been let down > once. To the bottomming out, I don’t know if my car can haul shingles, > siding, and the like, but I do know that not only does it have the power to > do so, but it definetly has the room to do so. The only thing that makes me > uncertain, is that I wouldn’t want to haul those things in my car.  The only > suggestion that I’d make to you is to be certain to buy and ES model, not > only do you want the extra horse power(225 of them to be exact,) but the > 40/60 split fold down trunk is a real nice feature, especially if you’re > going to use your car to haul things designed to be hauled in a truck.

– Charlie B. Han http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Having just spent well over six months researching the new car market, and > buying a 1999 dodge intrepid ES, I understand your dilemna. I can assure you > that I’ve been nothing but pleased with my purchase.  As far as any problems > in either suspension, or power, so far, in 3months, well over 3 thousand > miles, an oil change, and several bad snow storms, I haven’t been let down > once. To the bottomming out, I don’t know if my car can haul shingles, > siding, and the like, but I do know that not only does it have the power to > do so, but it definetly has the room to do so. The only thing that makes me > uncertain, is that I wouldn’t want to haul those things in my car.  The only > suggestion that I’d make to you is to be certain to buy and ES model, not > only do you want the extra horse power(225 of them to be exact,) but the > 40/60 split fold down trunk is a real nice feature, especially if you’re > going to use your car to haul things designed to be hauled in a truck.

I am looking to buy a ‘99 Intrepid ES, probably w/o leather, but with the 24M package, which I believe is the larger engine and a few other goodies, plus maybe the Infinity cass/CD system. Can anyone tell me what kind of a deal they’ve worked on a car like this? I know about dealer holdback (3% of invoice I believe) but I’m not aware of any incentives or rebates at the time. Anyone have any comments or experience they would like to share please post or respond to rrokit at fltg dot net. Thanks Time is the most valuable thing that people can spend.

Response:

> That’s because of the steel block in the old engines versus the > aluminum in the new ones–that’s why the 3.5l now makes 253 in the > 300m.

It’s due to a lot more than that!  Check the design and specs again. Also note that the new engines have no distributor and no (secondary) spark plug wires.  In addition there is a 30% reduction in emissions and the new engines already meet the next round of specs (in 2001 or 3)

Response:

| | I’ve had 4 adults + luggage in the car on a few occasions and can’t | remmeber that infamous feeling of supension-on-jounce-bumpers.  I wonder | how many overweight armchair quarterbacks they had in the thing when | they got it to bottom. | | > | > I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when | > fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the | > biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with | > a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. | > I agree; no bottom-out problem with my ‘99 Base 2.7L 16" Tires. I’ve had it loaded with 5 passengers and luggage and no problems. One incident I did notice was when I exited a steep-down-grade driveway onto a level road and I heard a mild scraping sound from the front end. Upon inspection, the whole front-end bumper/spoiler (for lack of the proper term) was unharmed and untouched, and a 2" or so black-plastic guard/flare that hangs below was scuffed slightly. It seemed to be a non-cosmetic piece that was more of a warning device; it worked. I should add that the angle from the parking lot to the road was fairly extreme and still there was no significant damage or concern. I continue to be very satisfied with my car.

Response:

My 96 has no distributor–it’s coil ignited. The reduction in emissions is undoubtedly due to the better efficiency–which is easily seen since the smaller engine burns less gas and produces more power. Otherwise, from what I’ve read, they were few changes made to the engines other than the alum. block. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s because of the steel block in the old engines versus the > aluminum in the new ones–that’s why the 3.5l now makes 253 in the > 300m. > It’s due to a lot more than that!  Check the design and specs again. > Also note that the new engines have no distributor and no (secondary) > spark plug wires.  In addition there is a 30% reduction in emissions and > the new engines already meet the next round of specs (in 2001 or 3)

Response:

> My 96 has no distributor–it’s coil ignited. The reduction in emissions is > undoubtedly due to the better efficiency–which is easily seen since the > smaller engine burns less gas and produces more power. Otherwise, from what > I’ve read, they were few changes made to the engines other than the alum. > block.

I didn’t know that about the 93-97 engines.  Another item that is different, however, is fuel grade.  The 98-99+ engines were designed for regular fuel while the 93-97 LH’s were designed for mid grade.  I suspect a lower compression ratio but I’m sure there are other factors as well.  You can learn more about these engines at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/v6.html

Response:

|> I am looking to buy a ‘99 Intrepid ES, probably w/o leather, but with |> the 24M package, which I believe is the larger engine and a few other |> goodies, plus maybe the Infinity cass/CD system. Sounds exactly like the one I’ve just ordered.  ES, 24M, Infinity system. |> Can anyone tell me what |> kind of a deal they’ve worked on a car like this? I know about dealer |> holdback (3% of invoice I believe) I think Edmunds said it was 3% of MSRP |> but I’m not aware of any incentives or rebates at the time. They just started a $1000 rebate on Intrepids. — Brad Garcia    ___/  __ /  __ /  ___/   Save the whales.   __/   /  /  / _/  __/     Feed the hungry. _/    ____/ _/ _| ____/     Free the mallocs.

Response:

: I am looking to buy a ‘99 Intrepid ES, probably w/o leather, but with : the 24M package, which I believe is the larger engine and a few other : goodies, plus maybe the Infinity cass/CD system. Can anyone tell me what The larger engine comes on the ES; the Infinity is an option.  Pkg M includes traction control, overhead console with trip computer, thermometer, compass, and Homelink; CD player (but NOT Infinity), Sentry Key and theft alarm, automatic climate control, etc. : kind of a deal they’ve worked on a car like this? I know about dealer : holdback (3% of invoice I believe) but I’m not aware of any incentives : or rebates at the time. Got mine for $200 over invoice in December, at a local dealer that sells them that way.

Response:

: | : | I’ve had 4 adults + luggage in the car on a few occasions and can’t : | remmeber that infamous feeling of supension-on-jounce-bumpers.  I wonder : | how many overweight armchair quarterbacks they had in the thing when : | they got it to bottom. : | : | > : | > I read from a Carpoint review that the 99 Intrepid bottoms out when : | > fully loaded. Is that true? Also, I saw that the 99 intrepid with the : | > biggest engine only tops out at around 109-110 while a 97 Intrepid with : | > a smaller engine (same # of cylinders tho)  tops out at 137 Mph. : | > : : I agree; no bottom-out problem with my ‘99 Base 2.7L 16" Tires. I’ve had it : loaded with 5 passengers and luggage and no problems. : : One incident I did notice was when I exited a steep-down-grade driveway onto : a level road and I heard a mild scraping sound from the front end. Upon : inspection, the whole front-end bumper/spoiler (for lack of the proper term) : was unharmed and untouched, and a 2" or so black-plastic guard/flare that : hangs below was scuffed slightly. It seemed to be a non-cosmetic piece that : was more of a warning device; it worked. I should add that the angle from : the parking lot to the road was fairly extreme and still there was no : significant damage or concern. : : I continue to be very satisfied with my car. : The 99 is a lot better than the previous generation in this respect.  The black air dam scraped a lot on steep drivers, or going into parking lots where’s there’s a little depression at the entrance (such as the rain gully at the side of the street).  My 99 has yet to scrape.

Response:

    This "scraping" is common on Chryslers due to the agressive styling of the vehicles. However, all of Chrysler’s cars have that black strip so no damage is done. Our Talon scrapes once in awhile, and even our ‘96 Voyager has scraped once or twice (getting on/off a particular ferry as far as I remember). Aaron – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The 99 is a lot better than the previous generation in this respect.  The >black air dam scraped a lot on steep drivers, or going into parking lots >where’s there’s a little depression at the entrance (such as the rain >gully at the side of the street).  My 99 has yet to scrape.

Response:

> One incident I did notice was when I exited a steep-down-grade driveway onto > a level road and I heard a mild scraping sound from the front end. Upon > inspection, the whole front-end bumper/spoiler (for lack of the proper term) > was unharmed and untouched, and a 2" or so black-plastic guard/flare that > hangs below was scuffed slightly. It seemed to be a non-cosmetic piece that > was more of a warning device; it worked. I should add that the angle from > the parking lot to the road was fairly extreme and still there was no > significant damage or concern.

That "non-cosmetic piece" is probably there to help with airflow through the radiator/condenser and over the engine.  I wouldn’t disregard it if you have totally removed it, but light damage is expected over time due to driving. This sentence is my signature…isn’t it creative?

Response:

The 300m engine recommends mid-grade.  It recommends against hi-test.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My 96 has no distributor–it’s coil ignited. The reduction in emissions is > undoubtedly due to the better efficiency–which is easily seen since the > smaller engine burns less gas and produces more power. Otherwise, from what > I’ve read, they were few changes made to the engines other than the alum. > block. > I didn’t know that about the 93-97 engines.  Another item that is different, > however, is fuel grade.  The 98-99+ engines were designed for regular fuel > while the 93-97 LH’s were designed for mid grade.  I suspect a lower > compression ratio but I’m sure there are other factors as well.  You can learn > more about these engines at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/v6.html

Response: