Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I ordered a PT Cruiser as soon as I got a chance to see one in person >(3/28).  Wanted to make sure there was plenty of head & leg room… there >is! >I called DC today and was told that my Cruiser was in "BG" status.  I asked >what this meant and was greeted with a few moments of silence and then some >nonsensical answer about being on hold for some unknown reason.  When I >pressed further I was told that my Cruiser probably wouldn’t be built until >after the mid-year 10 day plant shutdown in the middle of July. >My question is… what is BG status.  I read another message that mentioned >an order status of "D1".  He ordered on 4/4 and expects his Cruiser to ship >6/7. >I ordered a Taupe Limited w/antilock & automatic (and every other factory >option except the block heater).  I’m paying sticker price (no dealer >add-on).  Any speculation as to why my order is taking so long?  The dealer >won’t say.  Are people who are paying over sticker getting priority?  Are >certain options on backorder? >I’m trying to be patient, but when I ordered it, I was told I would have it >by mid June, and now it’s starting to sound more like mid August.

 Todd,   The restriction is on the leather seats and sometimes on the chrome wheels. I too have a Limited on order and I have bounced back and forth between BX and BG status. The plant will be shutting down for the first two weeks of July for re-tooling. If your order is not in D status at the moment, it will not be built before the shutdown. The one upside is that the vendors will have those two weeks to catch up on the leather seats,chrome wheels and manual trannys(another restricted item). I would guess that production of Limited models will be in full swing once the plant re-opens. Your dealers allocation also plays a large roll in when your Cruiser gets built. Larger dealers have a higher allocation and can get their orders quicker than a small dealer can. Its not fair but thats the way DC does it. There is some poor schmuck somewhere in Montana who may have ordered his in Feb. and wont see it until Dec.. Meanwhile, someone in Chicago who ordered theirs in April will have theirs in June. Some system huh?   Wes

Response:

>I ordered a PT Cruiser as soon as I got a chance to see one in person >(3/28).  Wanted to make sure there was plenty of head & leg room… there >is! >I called DC today and was told that my Cruiser was in "BG" status.  I asked >what this meant and was greeted with a few moments of silence and then some >nonsensical answer about being on hold for some unknown reason.  When I >pressed further I was told that my Cruiser probably wouldn’t be built until >after the mid-year 10 day plant shutdown in the middle of July. >My question is… what is BG status.  I read another message that mentioned >an order status of "D1".  He ordered on 4/4 and expects his Cruiser to ship >6/7.

That was me.   Go to this site for what the codes mean. http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/ptcodes.htm            _           (_)  Daniel Warren, RPh             | Rx |        

Response:

Most likely yours was delayed due to some part availability; there were delays for both Leather seats and manual transmissions that I know of. These worked in my favor, mine having neither, allowing my car to move way up on the schedule.  According to my dealer, I leap-frogged 40 others that he has ordered.  Mine was ordered 4-22 and just shipped from the plant this week; I had originally been told 4-5 months. The status codes are: BB – review by fleet department BD – special equipment processing BE – edit error BG – passed edit n/a for schedule BGL – edit ok parts unavailable BX – passed edit available for schedule – This means the order has been accepted by DC.  Until your dealer has an allocation your order is on hold. C – sub firm This means the dealer has an allocation for this order! D – firm schedule – dealer has allocation and all parts available. Waiting for spot in build rotation depending on model/transmission/color. D1 gateline schedule – scheduled to be built . Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) assigned and a build date assigned E – frame F – paint G – trim I – built not ok’d J – built ok’d JB – shipped to body vendor JE – emission check JS – shipped to storage KZ – released by plant , invoiced KZL – released – not shipped KZM – first rail departure KZN – first rail arrival KZO – delayed/recieved KZOA – plant holds KZOB – zone/distribution holds KZOC – carrier delays KZOD – carrier holds KZOE – mis-shipped vehicle KZOF – show/test vehicle KZOG – damaged vehicle KZOH – all other reasons KZT – second rail departure KZU – second rail arrival KZX – delivered to dealer ZA – canceled

Response:

Hi Todd, Sorry about the wait for your PT Cruiser. I retired from Chrysler (before the final take over) and would like one myself. A good friend, who is still working, said he just got his after a 2 month wait and the salesperson had to notify 50 or so other people that they will have to wait awhile longer. If you have not done so, check this Website out for the "BG" status info… http://www.allpar.com/ But I am sure someone will post a reply that will help you Good luck, Dan

Response:

I ordered a PT Cruiser as soon as I got a chance to see one in person (3/28).  Wanted to make sure there was plenty of head & leg room… there is! I called DC today and was told that my Cruiser was in "BG" status.  I asked what this meant and was greeted with a few moments of silence and then some nonsensical answer about being on hold for some unknown reason.  When I pressed further I was told that my Cruiser probably wouldn’t be built until after the mid-year 10 day plant shutdown in the middle of July. My question is… what is BG status.  I read another message that mentioned an order status of "D1".  He ordered on 4/4 and expects his Cruiser to ship 6/7. I ordered a Taupe Limited w/antilock & automatic (and every other factory option except the block heater).  I’m paying sticker price (no dealer add-on).  Any speculation as to why my order is taking so long?  The dealer won’t say.  Are people who are paying over sticker getting priority?  Are certain options on backorder? I’m trying to be patient, but when I ordered it, I was told I would have it by mid June, and now it’s starting to sound more like mid August. Todd O’Neill 96 Ford Explorer XLT (mocha) 01 PT Cruiser Limited (in my dreams)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I ordered a PT Cruiser as soon as I got a chance to see one in person >(3/28).  Wanted to make sure there was plenty of head & leg room… there >is! >I called DC today and was told that my Cruiser was in "BG" status.  I asked >what this meant and was greeted with a few moments of silence and then some >nonsensical answer about being on hold for some unknown reason.  When I >pressed further I was told that my Cruiser probably wouldn’t be built until >after the mid-year 10 day plant shutdown in the middle of July. >My question is… what is BG status.  I read another message that mentioned >an order status of "D1".  He ordered on 4/4 and expects his Cruiser to ship >6/7. >I ordered a Taupe Limited w/antilock & automatic (and every other factory >option except the block heater).  I’m paying sticker price (no dealer >add-on).  Any speculation as to why my order is taking so long?  The dealer >won’t say.  Are people who are paying over sticker getting priority?  Are >certain options on backorder? >I’m trying to be patient, but when I ordered it, I was told I would have it >by mid June, and now it’s starting to sound more like mid August.

 Todd,   The restriction is on the leather seats and sometimes on the chrome wheels. I too have a Limited on order and I have bounced back and forth between BX and BG status. The plant will be shutting down for the first two weeks of July for re-tooling. If your order is not in D status at the moment, it will not be built before the shutdown. The one upside is that the vendors will have those two weeks to catch up on the leather seats,chrome wheels and manual trannys(another restricted item). I would guess that production of Limited models will be in full swing once the plant re-opens. Your dealers allocation also plays a large roll in when your Cruiser gets built. Larger dealers have a higher allocation and can get their orders quicker than a small dealer can. Its not fair but thats the way DC does it. There is some poor schmuck somewhere in Montana who may have ordered his in Feb. and wont see it until Dec.. Meanwhile, someone in Chicago who ordered theirs in April will have theirs in June. Some system huh?   Wes

Response:

Hi Todd, Sorry about the wait for your PT Cruiser. I retired from Chrysler (before the final take over) and would like one myself. A good friend, who is still working, said he just got his after a 2 month wait and the salesperson had to notify 50 or so other people that they will have to wait awhile longer. If you have not done so, check this Website out for the "BG" status info… http://www.allpar.com/ But I am sure someone will post a reply that will help you Good luck, Dan

Response:

Most likely yours was delayed due to some part availability; there were delays for both Leather seats and manual transmissions that I know of. These worked in my favor, mine having neither, allowing my car to move way up on the schedule.  According to my dealer, I leap-frogged 40 others that he has ordered.  Mine was ordered 4-22 and just shipped from the plant this week; I had originally been told 4-5 months. The status codes are: BB – review by fleet department BD – special equipment processing BE – edit error BG – passed edit n/a for schedule BGL – edit ok parts unavailable BX – passed edit available for schedule – This means the order has been accepted by DC.  Until your dealer has an allocation your order is on hold. C – sub firm This means the dealer has an allocation for this order! D – firm schedule – dealer has allocation and all parts available. Waiting for spot in build rotation depending on model/transmission/color. D1 gateline schedule – scheduled to be built . Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) assigned and a build date assigned E – frame F – paint G – trim I – built not ok’d J – built ok’d JB – shipped to body vendor JE – emission check JS – shipped to storage KZ – released by plant , invoiced KZL – released – not shipped KZM – first rail departure KZN – first rail arrival KZO – delayed/recieved KZOA – plant holds KZOB – zone/distribution holds KZOC – carrier delays KZOD – carrier holds KZOE – mis-shipped vehicle KZOF – show/test vehicle KZOG – damaged vehicle KZOH – all other reasons KZT – second rail departure KZU – second rail arrival KZX – delivered to dealer ZA – canceled

Response:

>I ordered a PT Cruiser as soon as I got a chance to see one in person >(3/28).  Wanted to make sure there was plenty of head & leg room… there >is! >I called DC today and was told that my Cruiser was in "BG" status.  I asked >what this meant and was greeted with a few moments of silence and then some >nonsensical answer about being on hold for some unknown reason.  When I >pressed further I was told that my Cruiser probably wouldn’t be built until >after the mid-year 10 day plant shutdown in the middle of July. >My question is… what is BG status.  I read another message that mentioned >an order status of "D1".  He ordered on 4/4 and expects his Cruiser to ship >6/7.

That was me.   Go to this site for what the codes mean. http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/ptcodes.htm            _           (_)  Daniel Warren, RPh             | Rx |        

Response:

I ordered a PT Cruiser as soon as I got a chance to see one in person (3/28).  Wanted to make sure there was plenty of head & leg room… there is! I called DC today and was told that my Cruiser was in "BG" status.  I asked what this meant and was greeted with a few moments of silence and then some nonsensical answer about being on hold for some unknown reason.  When I pressed further I was told that my Cruiser probably wouldn’t be built until after the mid-year 10 day plant shutdown in the middle of July. My question is… what is BG status.  I read another message that mentioned an order status of "D1".  He ordered on 4/4 and expects his Cruiser to ship 6/7. I ordered a Taupe Limited w/antilock & automatic (and every other factory option except the block heater).  I’m paying sticker price (no dealer add-on).  Any speculation as to why my order is taking so long?  The dealer won’t say.  Are people who are paying over sticker getting priority?  Are certain options on backorder? I’m trying to be patient, but when I ordered it, I was told I would have it by mid June, and now it’s starting to sound more like mid August. Todd O’Neill 96 Ford Explorer XLT (mocha) 01 PT Cruiser Limited (in my dreams)

Response:

Question:

I am in great need of an owners manual for a 1986 325e.  If you can help please e-mail me. Thanks

Response:

Hi Sean! My family drive two 325e, one 5/86 and one 11/86. There are already some differences; AFAIK the model was slightly worked over in 9/86. What do you need to kow? If possible, I

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >> What about  decent headlights??? >HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a >late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> >Hey, glad I could add some mirth to your day! <g> >…. >I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control >of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  … >Don’t you think that those Mercedes lamps would do the trick >in the 2000 van?

For all the vaunted superiority of MB stuff, they still have to meet our good-enough-in-1934 standards. Kodiak Services Company Lighting Design – Lighting Energy Audits Concord California USA kodiak at value dot net

Response:

>But awd minivans are also assembled in the US.  And 4Matic is a VERY >expensive option on the E-class. >Isn’t the G-class a different 4wd?  I know the M-class uses basically the >4Matic system.

Yup.  Different system. >Are you sure?  I know Mercedes is now building M-classes at the same plant >as builds Jeeps, but there was a huge debate about this — some M-B folks >thought it would cheapen the brand to build it in the same plant as >another make, so they compromised on the same plant but a separate >assembly line.

I believe Mr.Schrempp said to the MB engineers, "If you don’t do this, you’re fired.". Excellent article in the latest issue of Euro Business on the DC merger. It shed a considerable amount of light on the status of the merger and on Mr.Schrempp.  I found it refreshing compared to most of the US articles I have read. — President of the Unofficial Luc Longley Internet Fan Club Site last updated – May 27, 1999. RSBP’s Who’s Who – http://members.tripod.com/~ericbin/rsbp.html

Response:

>Why not to be unveiled in Detroit?  (Or even Frankfurt…)

It could be unvieled in Detroit, but Miami is trying to be the big auto show. They are aldreay the fifth largest, and although 1999’s introductions were limited to the redesigned 1999 Acura RL, Isuzu VEHICross, Jaguar S-Type, Saab 9-5 wagon, Daewoo Leganza, Nubria, and Lanos, as well as some concept debuts from Daewoo and Mitsubishi, past introductions have included the 1995 Ford Explorer, 1999 Lexus RX300, 1998 Isuzu Amigo, 1995 Honda Passport, 1998 Isuzu Tropper, 1998 Toyota RAV4 Cabrio and a few others. By the year 2010, Miami hopes to overtake LA has #2. And it is very possible. After all, Miami is the nation’s fourth largest car market (after LA, Chicago and NYC). Mark Herzberg

Response:

Also, the next-generation Chrysler AWD mini-vans will use a modified version of the Mercedes-Benz 4Matic system. It so happens to be that even before the merger, Voyagers were assembled right next to E-Class 4Matics and G-Wagens in Austria. Mark Herzberg

Response:

>>Oh, boy.  I can hardly wait for Mercedes parts prices and over-complex >designs, too. >But at least they are reliable. As the owner of various Mercedes, including a >curren ‘99 Cabio, they have been the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned.

At those prices they should be nothing BUT/ Kodiak Services Company Lighting Design – Lighting Energy Audits Concord California USA kodiak at value dot net

Response:

>But at least they are reliable. As the owner of various Mercedes, including a >curren ‘99 Cabio, they have been the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned.

At those prices they had better be!

Response:

…o the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a >reliable one? >Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units.

And since we are asking… What about  decent headlights??? Tom

Response:

> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   > What about  decent headlights???

HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> I get people pleading for relief from the miserable excuses for headlamps on ‘93-up Chrysler products every single day.  I’ve driven behind the Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze and LH car lamps and they’re pretty bad, but I didn’t really realize how genuinely dangerous the ‘96-up Minivan lamps are until a few weeks ago when I had to drive a ‘98 Voyager from Detroit to Tulsa on a rotating-driver, round-the-clock rush schedule.   Dear GOD.  Anyone who really believes NHTSA and their cottage industry of circle-jerk "researchers" who insist that our headlamp laws are "superior" to those used in the rest of the world needs only drive behind these deadly–but LEGAL–lamps at night on an unlit road.  An old-style set of non-halogen 6V round sealed beams would have done a much better job than the (correctly aimed!) lamps on the Voyager. The ‘98-up Town and Country has quad-beam headlamp assemblies that are better, though still subpar, and these units cannot be fitted to earlier Town/Countries or Caravoyagers of any year, because there’s no inbuilt turn signal.  The turn signals on the late T/C are down in the bumper fascia. The European-spec headlamp units for late Chrysler products are just as cheaply built (and just as expensive!) as their US counterparts.  As *European-spec headlamps* go, they’re inferior to most other European headlamps.  As *headlamps* go, they’re better than the US junk, unless you’re a NHTSA staffer or associated "scientific" researcher (see above) who marvels at the fact that European motorways aren’t panoramas of death and destruction, what with those "inferior" headlamps the silly, "glare-o-phobic" Europeans use. (Yes, a US headlamp researcher/advisor actually derided European low-glare headlamps as being a ridiculous idea from "glare-o-phobic" Europeans…)  In other words, European-spec Chrysler headlamps may be better junk, but they’re still junk. I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  They will continue to give us the Mushroom Treatment (keep us in the dark–except for the extreme glare from oncoming traffic with US headlamps–and feed us shit) until enough people demand serious changes to US headlamp standards and/or a switch to the headlamp standard used everywhere else in the civilized world. Daniel TO WRITE TO ME:  Remove the "headlamp" from my return address.                      .___STERN LIGHTING CONSULTATION.____.                      |     http://lighting.mbz.org       | — dastern "at" vrx "dot" net Automotive Lighting and Signalling Consultation NBCS b5f+wg+rp

Response:

>> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   > What about  decent headlights??? >HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a >late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace>

Hey, glad I could add some mirth to your day! <g> … >I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control >of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  …

Don’t you think that those Mercedes lamps would do the trick in the 2000 van? Tom     Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?         Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store!                   http://www.cottageliving.com

Response:

: Also, the next-generation Chrysler AWD mini-vans will use a modified version of : the Mercedes-Benz 4Matic system. It so happens to be that even before the : merger, Voyagers were assembled right next to E-Class 4Matics and G-Wagens in : Austria. But awd minivans are also assembled in the US.  And 4Matic is a VERY expensive option on the E-class. Isn’t the G-class a different 4wd?  I know the M-class uses basically the 4Matic system. : Mark Herzberg : Are you sure?  I know Mercedes is now building M-classes at the same plant as builds Jeeps, but there was a huge debate about this — some M-B folks thought it would cheapen the brand to build it in the same plant as another make, so they compromised on the same plant but a separate assembly line.

Response:

: >Why not to be unveiled in Detroit?  (Or even Frankfurt…) : > : : It could be unvieled in Detroit, but Miami is trying to be the big auto show. : They are aldreay the fifth largest, and although 1999’s introductions were : limited to the redesigned 1999 Acura RL, Isuzu VEHICross, Jaguar S-Type, Saab : 9-5 wagon, Daewoo Leganza, Nubria, and Lanos, as well as some concept debuts : from Daewoo and Mitsubishi, past introductions have included the 1995 Ford : Explorer, 1999 Lexus RX300, 1998 Isuzu Amigo, 1995 Honda Passport, 1998 Isuzu : Tropper, 1998 Toyota RAV4 Cabrio and a few others. By the year 2010, Miami : hopes to overtake LA has #2. And it is very possible. After all, Miami is the : nation’s fourth largest car market (after LA, Chicago and NYC). : Mark Herzberg : One reason Miami is such a big car market is that it’s also one of the biggest stolen car sites — easy shipping to Latin America.

Response:

: : > Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   : > What about  decent headlights??? : : HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a : late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> : : I get people pleading for relief from the miserable excuses for : headlamps on ‘93-up Chrysler products every single day.  I’ve driven The 98-99 LH cars are quite good.

Response:

It has nothing to do with current US lamp specifications. (The latest US and European lighting standards are not all that different any longer). This is a Chrysler problem. My 90 Honda Accord has superb standard lights. My 92 Caravan’s lights were worthless; and when I popped in larger wattage bulbs, the wiring melted!!! My 96 Town and Country has better lights, and the standard fog units do help a bit, but it is still inferior to the standard Honda lights. Chrysler has the ability, under current US lighting standards, to equip all of its vehicles with superb lights. While they are at it, how about center rear shoulder belts and top firing passenger air bags?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model? >> What about  decent headlights??? >HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a >late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> > Hey, glad I could add some mirth to your day! <g> > … >I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control >of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  … > Don’t you think that those Mercedes lamps would do the trick > in the 2000 van? > Tom >     Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living? >         Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store! >                   http://www.cottageliving.com

Response:

The lease on my 97 GC SE is over at the end of this year and I’m starting to look around to see what is available to replace it. Any word on what changes will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   I’ve heard rumblings that the next major makeover will be in the 2001/2002 timeframe.  Is Chrysler planning any offering like the fold-away rear seat in the Honda Odyssey? Gord

Response:

I know the new model (2001) will be unveiled either in Frankfurt, Germany or Detroit either this September or January.

Response:

>Any word on what changes >will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?  

The 2001 Grand Caravan will be unvieled at the Miami Auto Show in November and go on sale in March 2000. It will be all-new and feature dual power sliding doors, a longer wheelbase and longer overall length. An all-new collection of engines will include a 2.7L 200HP V6. Caravan R/T and Town & Country Limited models, to be realsed later in 2000, will feature a power hungry 3.5L 253HP V6. AWD models will be realsed in late 2000. Look for Town & Country in LX, LXi, and Limited, the Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, R/T, Grand Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, ES, and R/T and both Voyagers in base, SE, and Expresso. Don’t look for a tumbiling third-row seat or sldiing captain chairs. Do look for an optional televison like Pontiac’s MontanaVision and side airbags. Also, on certain Town & Country models, you’ll be able to order three pairs of captain chairs. This option is currently avilable in Europe. For the first time, a sunroof will probably be offered. Mark Herzberg

Response:

: >Any word on what changes : >will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   : : The 2001 Grand Caravan will be unvieled at the Miami Auto Show in November and : go on sale in March 2000. It will be all-new and feature dual power sliding : doors, a longer wheelbase and longer overall length. An all-new collection of : engines will include a 2.7L 200HP V6. Caravan R/T and Town & Country Limited : models, to be realsed later in 2000, will feature a power hungry 3.5L 253HP V6. : AWD models will be realsed in late 2000. Look for Town & Country in LX, LXi, : and Limited, the Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, R/T, Grand Caravan in base, : SE, Sport, LE, ES, and R/T and both Voyagers in base, SE, and Expresso. Chrysler has apparently stopped making the T & C SX and Caravan LE.  Does this perhaps indicate no luxury short w/b minivans, or is this just for the rest of the 99 model year for some reason? : Don’t : look for a tumbiling third-row seat or sldiing captain chairs. Do look for an : optional televison like Pontiac’s MontanaVision and side airbags. Also, on : certain Town & Country models, you’ll be able to order three pairs of captain : chairs. This option is currently avilable in Europe. For the first time, a : sunroof will probably be offered. A sunroof was offered, several years ago, but just for one year, as I recall. : Mark Herzberg :

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Any word on what changes >will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >The 2001 Grand Caravan will be unvieled at the Miami Auto Show in November and >go on sale in March 2000. It will be all-new and feature dual power sliding >doors, a longer wheelbase and longer overall length. An all-new collection of >engines will include a 2.7L 200HP V6. Caravan R/T and Town & Country Limited >models, to be realsed later in 2000, will feature a power hungry 3.5L 253HP V6. >AWD models will be realsed in late 2000. Look for Town & Country in LX, LXi, >and Limited, the Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, R/T, Grand Caravan in base, >SE, Sport, LE, ES, and R/T and both Voyagers in base, SE, and Expresso. Don’t >look for a tumbiling third-row seat or sldiing captain chairs. Do look for an >optional televison like Pontiac’s MontanaVision and side airbags. Also, on >certain Town & Country models, you’ll be able to order three pairs of captain >chairs. This option is currently avilable in Europe. For the first time, a >sunroof will probably be offered.

Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a reliable one? Tom     Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?         Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store!                   http://www.cottageliving.com

Response:

    They were not assembled next to M-B’s; their AWD system was. A company in Austria supplies the minivan AWD systems as well as M-B’s systems. Aaron

Response:

>Oh, boy.  I can hardly wait for Mercedes parts prices and over-complex >designs, too.

But at least they are reliable. As the owner of various Mercedes, including a curren ‘99 Cabio, they have been the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned. Mark Herzberg

Response:

>Also, the next-generation Chrysler AWD mini-vans will use a modified version of >the Mercedes-Benz 4Matic system.

What is a "4Matic system"?  an automatic transmision…or an AWD system or what? >It so happens to be that even before the >merger, Voyagers were assembled right next to E-Class 4Matics and G-Wagens in >Austria.

Certainly not the ones sold in N. America.  They are made in Ontario, Canada and St. Louis, MO.

Response:

Just gimme the old 3.0L V6 & 3-speed auto combo–it worked great for those of us who don’t tow or frequently haul heavy loads.  But I have to admit that the 4-speed auto in our ‘99 behaves MUCH nicer than the one in our old ‘94–I’ve only had one harsh downshift in the 3000 miles we’ve driven the new van (a sudden WHAM into low when making a turn into a driveway last week); otherwise, it has performed flawlessly. Wonder if it might be possible to adapt the HO heads from the 3.5L V6 to the 3.8L block–it would be nice to have the extra torque at lower speeds.  An extra 0.3L of displacement would add just that much more torque.  Or maybe the 3.5L can be bored or stroked a bit to yield higher displacement… Drew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Any word on what changes >>>will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model? >Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a >reliable one? > Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units. > They’ve got a lot of fences to mend w/ dissatisfied customers who > are now lining up in the Odyssey wait lists. > I’m waiting to hear that they’re bringing in a Mercedes design (AT) or at > least they should bring back the old 5-speed manual – which was > VERY reliable – as an alternative.

Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

>>>Any word on what changes >>will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a >reliable one?

Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units. They’ve got a lot of fences to mend w/ dissatisfied customers who are now lining up in the Odyssey wait lists. I’m waiting to hear that they’re bringing in a Mercedes design (AT) or at least they should bring back the old 5-speed manual – which was VERY reliable – as an alternative.

Response:

>Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units. >They’ve got a lot of fences to mend w/ dissatisfied customers who >are now lining up in the Odyssey wait lists. >I’m waiting to hear that they’re bringing in a Mercedes design (AT) or at >least they should bring back the old 5-speed manual – which was >VERY reliable – as an alternative.

Oh, boy.  I can hardly wait for Mercedes parts prices and over-complex designs, too. Kodiak Services Company Lighting Design – Lighting Energy Audits Concord California USA kodiak at value dot net

Response:

Why not to be unveiled in Detroit?  (Or even Frankfurt…)   I’ve been at (nearly) every NAIAS and I know it could be a great place for it to be unveiled.

Response:

The lease on my 97 GC SE is over at the end of this year and I’m starting to look around to see what is available to replace it. Any word on what changes will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   I’ve heard rumblings that the next major makeover will be in the 2001/2002 timeframe.  Is Chrysler planning any offering like the fold-away rear seat in the Honda Odyssey? Gord

Response:

I know the new model (2001) will be unveiled either in Frankfurt, Germany or Detroit either this September or January.

Response:

>Any word on what changes >will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?  

The 2001 Grand Caravan will be unvieled at the Miami Auto Show in November and go on sale in March 2000. It will be all-new and feature dual power sliding doors, a longer wheelbase and longer overall length. An all-new collection of engines will include a 2.7L 200HP V6. Caravan R/T and Town & Country Limited models, to be realsed later in 2000, will feature a power hungry 3.5L 253HP V6. AWD models will be realsed in late 2000. Look for Town & Country in LX, LXi, and Limited, the Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, R/T, Grand Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, ES, and R/T and both Voyagers in base, SE, and Expresso. Don’t look for a tumbiling third-row seat or sldiing captain chairs. Do look for an optional televison like Pontiac’s MontanaVision and side airbags. Also, on certain Town & Country models, you’ll be able to order three pairs of captain chairs. This option is currently avilable in Europe. For the first time, a sunroof will probably be offered. Mark Herzberg

Response:

Why not to be unveiled in Detroit?  (Or even Frankfurt…)   I’ve been at (nearly) every NAIAS and I know it could be a great place for it to be unveiled.

Response:

: >Any word on what changes : >will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   : : The 2001 Grand Caravan will be unvieled at the Miami Auto Show in November and : go on sale in March 2000. It will be all-new and feature dual power sliding : doors, a longer wheelbase and longer overall length. An all-new collection of : engines will include a 2.7L 200HP V6. Caravan R/T and Town & Country Limited : models, to be realsed later in 2000, will feature a power hungry 3.5L 253HP V6. : AWD models will be realsed in late 2000. Look for Town & Country in LX, LXi, : and Limited, the Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, R/T, Grand Caravan in base, : SE, Sport, LE, ES, and R/T and both Voyagers in base, SE, and Expresso. Chrysler has apparently stopped making the T & C SX and Caravan LE.  Does this perhaps indicate no luxury short w/b minivans, or is this just for the rest of the 99 model year for some reason? : Don’t : look for a tumbiling third-row seat or sldiing captain chairs. Do look for an : optional televison like Pontiac’s MontanaVision and side airbags. Also, on : certain Town & Country models, you’ll be able to order three pairs of captain : chairs. This option is currently avilable in Europe. For the first time, a : sunroof will probably be offered. A sunroof was offered, several years ago, but just for one year, as I recall. : Mark Herzberg :

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Any word on what changes >will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >The 2001 Grand Caravan will be unvieled at the Miami Auto Show in November and >go on sale in March 2000. It will be all-new and feature dual power sliding >doors, a longer wheelbase and longer overall length. An all-new collection of >engines will include a 2.7L 200HP V6. Caravan R/T and Town & Country Limited >models, to be realsed later in 2000, will feature a power hungry 3.5L 253HP V6. >AWD models will be realsed in late 2000. Look for Town & Country in LX, LXi, >and Limited, the Caravan in base, SE, Sport, LE, R/T, Grand Caravan in base, >SE, Sport, LE, ES, and R/T and both Voyagers in base, SE, and Expresso. Don’t >look for a tumbiling third-row seat or sldiing captain chairs. Do look for an >optional televison like Pontiac’s MontanaVision and side airbags. Also, on >certain Town & Country models, you’ll be able to order three pairs of captain >chairs. This option is currently avilable in Europe. For the first time, a >sunroof will probably be offered.

Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a reliable one? Tom     Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?         Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store!                   http://www.cottageliving.com

Response:

>>>Any word on what changes >>will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a >reliable one?

Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units. They’ve got a lot of fences to mend w/ dissatisfied customers who are now lining up in the Odyssey wait lists. I’m waiting to hear that they’re bringing in a Mercedes design (AT) or at least they should bring back the old 5-speed manual – which was VERY reliable – as an alternative.

Response:

>Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units. >They’ve got a lot of fences to mend w/ dissatisfied customers who >are now lining up in the Odyssey wait lists. >I’m waiting to hear that they’re bringing in a Mercedes design (AT) or at >least they should bring back the old 5-speed manual – which was >VERY reliable – as an alternative.

Oh, boy.  I can hardly wait for Mercedes parts prices and over-complex designs, too. Kodiak Services Company Lighting Design – Lighting Energy Audits Concord California USA kodiak at value dot net

Response:

Just gimme the old 3.0L V6 & 3-speed auto combo–it worked great for those of us who don’t tow or frequently haul heavy loads.  But I have to admit that the 4-speed auto in our ‘99 behaves MUCH nicer than the one in our old ‘94–I’ve only had one harsh downshift in the 3000 miles we’ve driven the new van (a sudden WHAM into low when making a turn into a driveway last week); otherwise, it has performed flawlessly. Wonder if it might be possible to adapt the HO heads from the 3.5L V6 to the 3.8L block–it would be nice to have the extra torque at lower speeds.  An extra 0.3L of displacement would add just that much more torque.  Or maybe the 3.5L can be bored or stroked a bit to yield higher displacement… Drew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Any word on what changes >>>will be made to the 2000 model over the 1999 model? >Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a >reliable one? > Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units. > They’ve got a lot of fences to mend w/ dissatisfied customers who > are now lining up in the Odyssey wait lists. > I’m waiting to hear that they’re bringing in a Mercedes design (AT) or at > least they should bring back the old 5-speed manual – which was > VERY reliable – as an alternative.

Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

>Also, the next-generation Chrysler AWD mini-vans will use a modified version of >the Mercedes-Benz 4Matic system.

What is a "4Matic system"?  an automatic transmision…or an AWD system or what? >It so happens to be that even before the >merger, Voyagers were assembled right next to E-Class 4Matics and G-Wagens in >Austria.

Certainly not the ones sold in N. America.  They are made in Ontario, Canada and St. Louis, MO.

Response:

    They were not assembled next to M-B’s; their AWD system was. A company in Austria supplies the minivan AWD systems as well as M-B’s systems. Aaron

Response:

>Oh, boy.  I can hardly wait for Mercedes parts prices and over-complex >designs, too.

But at least they are reliable. As the owner of various Mercedes, including a curren ‘99 Cabio, they have been the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned. Mark Herzberg

Response:

>Why not to be unveiled in Detroit?  (Or even Frankfurt…)

It could be unvieled in Detroit, but Miami is trying to be the big auto show. They are aldreay the fifth largest, and although 1999’s introductions were limited to the redesigned 1999 Acura RL, Isuzu VEHICross, Jaguar S-Type, Saab 9-5 wagon, Daewoo Leganza, Nubria, and Lanos, as well as some concept debuts from Daewoo and Mitsubishi, past introductions have included the 1995 Ford Explorer, 1999 Lexus RX300, 1998 Isuzu Amigo, 1995 Honda Passport, 1998 Isuzu Tropper, 1998 Toyota RAV4 Cabrio and a few others. By the year 2010, Miami hopes to overtake LA has #2. And it is very possible. After all, Miami is the nation’s fourth largest car market (after LA, Chicago and NYC). Mark Herzberg

Response:

Also, the next-generation Chrysler AWD mini-vans will use a modified version of the Mercedes-Benz 4Matic system. It so happens to be that even before the merger, Voyagers were assembled right next to E-Class 4Matics and G-Wagens in Austria. Mark Herzberg

Response:

>>Oh, boy.  I can hardly wait for Mercedes parts prices and over-complex >designs, too. >But at least they are reliable. As the owner of various Mercedes, including a >curren ‘99 Cabio, they have been the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned.

At those prices they should be nothing BUT/ Kodiak Services Company Lighting Design – Lighting Energy Audits Concord California USA kodiak at value dot net

Response:

>But at least they are reliable. As the owner of various Mercedes, including a >curren ‘99 Cabio, they have been the most reliable cars I’ve ever owned.

At those prices they had better be!

Response:

…o the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >Are they going to replace the friggin’ transmission with a >reliable one? >Exactly.  That and the horrible AC units.

And since we are asking… What about  decent headlights??? Tom

Response:

> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   > What about  decent headlights???

HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> I get people pleading for relief from the miserable excuses for headlamps on ‘93-up Chrysler products every single day.  I’ve driven behind the Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze and LH car lamps and they’re pretty bad, but I didn’t really realize how genuinely dangerous the ‘96-up Minivan lamps are until a few weeks ago when I had to drive a ‘98 Voyager from Detroit to Tulsa on a rotating-driver, round-the-clock rush schedule.   Dear GOD.  Anyone who really believes NHTSA and their cottage industry of circle-jerk "researchers" who insist that our headlamp laws are "superior" to those used in the rest of the world needs only drive behind these deadly–but LEGAL–lamps at night on an unlit road.  An old-style set of non-halogen 6V round sealed beams would have done a much better job than the (correctly aimed!) lamps on the Voyager. The ‘98-up Town and Country has quad-beam headlamp assemblies that are better, though still subpar, and these units cannot be fitted to earlier Town/Countries or Caravoyagers of any year, because there’s no inbuilt turn signal.  The turn signals on the late T/C are down in the bumper fascia. The European-spec headlamp units for late Chrysler products are just as cheaply built (and just as expensive!) as their US counterparts.  As *European-spec headlamps* go, they’re inferior to most other European headlamps.  As *headlamps* go, they’re better than the US junk, unless you’re a NHTSA staffer or associated "scientific" researcher (see above) who marvels at the fact that European motorways aren’t panoramas of death and destruction, what with those "inferior" headlamps the silly, "glare-o-phobic" Europeans use. (Yes, a US headlamp researcher/advisor actually derided European low-glare headlamps as being a ridiculous idea from "glare-o-phobic" Europeans…)  In other words, European-spec Chrysler headlamps may be better junk, but they’re still junk. I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  They will continue to give us the Mushroom Treatment (keep us in the dark–except for the extreme glare from oncoming traffic with US headlamps–and feed us shit) until enough people demand serious changes to US headlamp standards and/or a switch to the headlamp standard used everywhere else in the civilized world. Daniel TO WRITE TO ME:  Remove the "headlamp" from my return address.                      .___STERN LIGHTING CONSULTATION.____.                      |     http://lighting.mbz.org       | — dastern "at" vrx "dot" net Automotive Lighting and Signalling Consultation NBCS b5f+wg+rp

Response:

>> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   > What about  decent headlights??? >HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a >late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace>

Hey, glad I could add some mirth to your day! <g> … >I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control >of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  …

Don’t you think that those Mercedes lamps would do the trick in the 2000 van? Tom     Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?         Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store!                   http://www.cottageliving.com

Response:

: Also, the next-generation Chrysler AWD mini-vans will use a modified version of : the Mercedes-Benz 4Matic system. It so happens to be that even before the : merger, Voyagers were assembled right next to E-Class 4Matics and G-Wagens in : Austria. But awd minivans are also assembled in the US.  And 4Matic is a VERY expensive option on the E-class. Isn’t the G-class a different 4wd?  I know the M-class uses basically the 4Matic system. : Mark Herzberg : Are you sure?  I know Mercedes is now building M-classes at the same plant as builds Jeeps, but there was a huge debate about this — some M-B folks thought it would cheapen the brand to build it in the same plant as another make, so they compromised on the same plant but a separate assembly line.

Response:

: >Why not to be unveiled in Detroit?  (Or even Frankfurt…) : > : : It could be unvieled in Detroit, but Miami is trying to be the big auto show. : They are aldreay the fifth largest, and although 1999’s introductions were : limited to the redesigned 1999 Acura RL, Isuzu VEHICross, Jaguar S-Type, Saab : 9-5 wagon, Daewoo Leganza, Nubria, and Lanos, as well as some concept debuts : from Daewoo and Mitsubishi, past introductions have included the 1995 Ford : Explorer, 1999 Lexus RX300, 1998 Isuzu Amigo, 1995 Honda Passport, 1998 Isuzu : Tropper, 1998 Toyota RAV4 Cabrio and a few others. By the year 2010, Miami : hopes to overtake LA has #2. And it is very possible. After all, Miami is the : nation’s fourth largest car market (after LA, Chicago and NYC). : Mark Herzberg : One reason Miami is such a big car market is that it’s also one of the biggest stolen car sites — easy shipping to Latin America.

Response:

: : > Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   : > What about  decent headlights??? : : HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a : late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> : : I get people pleading for relief from the miserable excuses for : headlamps on ‘93-up Chrysler products every single day.  I’ve driven The 98-99 LH cars are quite good.

Response:

It has nothing to do with current US lamp specifications. (The latest US and European lighting standards are not all that different any longer). This is a Chrysler problem. My 90 Honda Accord has superb standard lights. My 92 Caravan’s lights were worthless; and when I popped in larger wattage bulbs, the wiring melted!!! My 96 Town and Country has better lights, and the standard fog units do help a bit, but it is still inferior to the standard Honda lights. Chrysler has the ability, under current US lighting standards, to equip all of its vehicles with superb lights. While they are at it, how about center rear shoulder belts and top firing passenger air bags?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model? >> What about  decent headlights??? >HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a >late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> > Hey, glad I could add some mirth to your day! <g> > … >I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control >of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  … > Don’t you think that those Mercedes lamps would do the trick > in the 2000 van? > Tom >     Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living? >         Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store! >                   http://www.cottageliving.com

Response:

>But awd minivans are also assembled in the US.  And 4Matic is a VERY >expensive option on the E-class. >Isn’t the G-class a different 4wd?  I know the M-class uses basically the >4Matic system.

Yup.  Different system. >Are you sure?  I know Mercedes is now building M-classes at the same plant >as builds Jeeps, but there was a huge debate about this — some M-B folks >thought it would cheapen the brand to build it in the same plant as >another make, so they compromised on the same plant but a separate >assembly line.

I believe Mr.Schrempp said to the MB engineers, "If you don’t do this, you’re fired.". Excellent article in the latest issue of Euro Business on the DC merger. It shed a considerable amount of light on the status of the merger and on Mr.Schrempp.  I found it refreshing compared to most of the US articles I have read. — President of the Unofficial Luc Longley Internet Fan Club Site last updated – May 27, 1999. RSBP’s Who’s Who – http://members.tripod.com/~ericbin/rsbp.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Any changes to the 2000 model over the 1999 model?   >> What about  decent headlights??? >HAWhawhawhawhaw!  <slapping knee>  Good one, Tom!  Decent headlamps on a >late-model Chrysler…uh…ANYTHING!  <grimmace> >Hey, glad I could add some mirth to your day! <g> >…. >I don’t see any real solution any time soon, as long as those in control >of our vehicle lighting laws remain so.  … >Don’t you think that those Mercedes lamps would do the trick >in the 2000 van?

For all the vaunted superiority of MB stuff, they still have to meet our good-enough-in-1934 standards. Kodiak Services Company Lighting Design – Lighting Energy Audits Concord California USA kodiak at value dot net

Response:

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:

Question:

I use CC all the time.  Once you try it, the controls are so logical you will never need to look at them. — The capital letters in my email address are a spam filter >    If they are anything like our ‘96 Voyager’s cruise control they will be >intuitive and therefore after using them a few times in the day you should >easily be able to use them at night without illumination (ours do not light >up, but the on/off switch and indicator light do). >Aaron

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. >Bob

Response:

You are correct and I did say almost. When we picked up the wife’s Concorde while looking under the hood I realized I could not see the battery. I questioned the salesman ( a person I have known for years) as to where the battery was located, he went on to explain that the battery was placed there for safety reasons in that in the event of an accident and the windshield blew out and the battery exploded the front seat passengers would not be splashed with battery acid. I told him that sounded believable to maybe some of his customers, but why don’t you just tell them CC could not find any other place to put it. I have since convinced some of my gullible friends that a battery does not exist and CC developed a super computer chips that stores all of the required energy to start the car and once started does not need a battery. Those who spot the remote jumper terminals know that I am full of it, but the initial comment still gets them Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Actually, I think there IS an access panel in the right front wheel well. > For real. > tom >I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove > the >right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years. >Bob >> Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It >> took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight >> >None there either. >> >Bob >> >> ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the >> Concorde? >> >> Tom >> >> >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not > illuminated. >> >> >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel. > Does >> >> >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >> >> >>RandyB

Response:

Actually, I think there IS an access panel in the right front wheel well. For real. tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove the >right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years. >Bob > Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It > took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight > >None there either. > >Bob > >> ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the > Concorde? > >> Tom > >> >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. > >> >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel. Does > >> >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > >> >>RandyB

Response:

>I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove the >right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years.

Oh, so THAT’s where it is!!! RandyB

Response:

I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove the right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It > took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight >None there either. >Bob >> ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the > Concorde? >> Tom >> >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. >> >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >> >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >> >>RandyB

Response:

None there either. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the Concorde? > Tom >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >>RandyB

Response:

Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >None there either. >Bob > ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the Concorde? > Tom > >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. > >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does > >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > >>RandyB

Response:

Thanks to everyone for their 2 cents.  It’s hard to believe they don’t illuminate.  I agree with the "tacky tacky" comment.  My Ford Explorer has similar buttons and they are all illuminated on the steering wheel.  You’d think Chrysler would have included this little "nice-ity" on a car like the Concorde.  My wife will have to get used to the "intutive arrangement" I guess.  When I first drove the car at night, I glanced down and, being used to the Ford’s buttons, at first panicked thinking something had gone wrong. Minor detail I guess but I think they missed the boat on this one. Thanks again. RandyB

Response:

….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the Concorde? Tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. >The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >RandyB

Response:

> No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. > Bob > The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does > anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > RandyB

Neither are the switches on the 300M or LHS.  Tacky, tacky. — Delete either one of the 2’s from my address to reply Ciao,  Ray (Boomer) McNairy         "624" "So many fools, so few comets!"

Response:

Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >RandyB

Response:

    If they are anything like our ‘96 Voyager’s cruise control they will be intuitive and therefore after using them a few times in the day you should easily be able to use them at night without illumination (ours do not light up, but the on/off switch and indicator light do). Aaron – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. >Bob

Response:

The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? RandyB

Response:

No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does > anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > RandyB

Response:

The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? RandyB

Response:

No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does > anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > RandyB

Response:

> No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. > Bob > The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does > anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > RandyB

Neither are the switches on the 300M or LHS.  Tacky, tacky. — Delete either one of the 2’s from my address to reply Ciao,  Ray (Boomer) McNairy         "624" "So many fools, so few comets!"

Response:

Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >RandyB

Response:

    If they are anything like our ‘96 Voyager’s cruise control they will be intuitive and therefore after using them a few times in the day you should easily be able to use them at night without illumination (ours do not light up, but the on/off switch and indicator light do). Aaron – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. >Bob

Response:

Thanks to everyone for their 2 cents.  It’s hard to believe they don’t illuminate.  I agree with the "tacky tacky" comment.  My Ford Explorer has similar buttons and they are all illuminated on the steering wheel.  You’d think Chrysler would have included this little "nice-ity" on a car like the Concorde.  My wife will have to get used to the "intutive arrangement" I guess.  When I first drove the car at night, I glanced down and, being used to the Ford’s buttons, at first panicked thinking something had gone wrong. Minor detail I guess but I think they missed the boat on this one. Thanks again. RandyB

Response:

….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the Concorde? Tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. >The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >RandyB

Response:

None there either. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the Concorde? > Tom >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >>RandyB

Response:

Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >None there either. >Bob > ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the Concorde? > Tom > >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. > >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does > >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > >>RandyB

Response:

I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove the right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It > took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight >None there either. >Bob >> ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the > Concorde? >> Tom >> >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. >> >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel.  Does >> >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >> >>RandyB

Response:

>I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove the >right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years.

Oh, so THAT’s where it is!!! RandyB

Response:

Actually, I think there IS an access panel in the right front wheel well. For real. tom – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove the >right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years. >Bob > Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It > took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight > >None there either. > >Bob > >> ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the > Concorde? > >> Tom > >> >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not illuminated. > >> >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel. Does > >> >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? > >> >>RandyB

Response:

You are correct and I did say almost. When we picked up the wife’s Concorde while looking under the hood I realized I could not see the battery. I questioned the salesman ( a person I have known for years) as to where the battery was located, he went on to explain that the battery was placed there for safety reasons in that in the event of an accident and the windshield blew out and the battery exploded the front seat passengers would not be splashed with battery acid. I told him that sounded believable to maybe some of his customers, but why don’t you just tell them CC could not find any other place to put it. I have since convinced some of my gullible friends that a battery does not exist and CC developed a super computer chips that stores all of the required energy to start the car and once started does not need a battery. Those who spot the remote jumper terminals know that I am full of it, but the initial comment still gets them Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Actually, I think there IS an access panel in the right front wheel well. > For real. > tom >I agree, the battery is really in a ridiculous place, almost have to remove > the >right front wheel to change it, but at least it is warranted for 3 years. >Bob >> Right. As if we could repair anything under there ourselves anyway….It >> took me an hour to find the battery on my LHS…in broad daylight >> >None there either. >> >Bob >> >> ….and no underhood light on the LHS or 300M. Is there one on the >> Concorde? >> >> Tom >> >> >Probably not.  I have a 300M and the cruise buttons are not > illuminated. >> >> >>The 1999 Concorde has the cruise controls on the steering wheel. > Does >> >> >>anyone know if they are illuminated when the lights are on? >> >> >>RandyB

Response:

I use CC all the time.  Once you try it, the controls are so logical you will never need to look at them. — The capital letters in my email address are a spam filter >    If they are anything like our ‘96 Voyager’s cruise control they will be >intuitive and therefore after using them a few times in the day you should >easily be able to use them at night without illumination (ours do not light >up, but the on/off switch and indicator light do). >Aaron

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->No they are not and neither is the moon roof switches. >Bob

Response:

Question:

I agree with Jerry.  The language is not necessary in auto groups. Try to show some consideration for the thousands (millions?) of us that try to make the auto groups both useful and enjoyable. Regards… >Corey, cool the language…such words aren’t necessary.  But mainly, my >kids read these newsgroups and I don’t appreciate them finding such >language on an automotive newsgroup.  Thanks. >Jerry >– >Jerry Bransford >To send me email, remove the ‘nospam’ from my address. >PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY >The Zen hotdog… make me one with everything!

Regards, Ken 1996 Ford Explorer XLT V8 AWD

Response:

Yeah, Good one Scott!

Response:

>I also maybe got a little aggressive with my BLOW ME response but I >definitely get frustrated by all the off subject spam that gets posted to >groups. We all need to support legislation limiting unsolicited e-mail and >posting to newsgroups.  And I’ll avoid such comments that may offend some in >the future. But I do not believe it is fair for a couple of posters to >immediately get offensive and jump me for my posting that had the (nt) NO >TEXT designation. But I do agree with those who are offended by my "blow me" >comment that it was inappropriate. >Scott K >Phoenix AZ

just delete the spam and stop whining with your "im taking this shit to the supreme court" attitude

Response:

> Excuse me, but if you’ve spent any amount of time on these groups you > would note that the (nt) designation stands for NO TEXT! Whos the F-ing > idiot now?

If you spent any amount of time using your brain, you would understand people’s frustration with someone IDIOT reposting the ENTIRE text of SPAM, and then not say anything. Why in the *FUCK* would you do that anyway? WHY? WHY? WHY?  Why would you repost a full copy of an illegal chain letter MMF spam anyway??? Corey — Free DVD! Fight DIVX!—Make obvious change to address to send email. Given the choice between accomplishing something, and just lying around, I’d rather just lie around.  No contest.  –Eric Clapton

Response:

Corey, cool the language…such words aren’t necessary.  But mainly, my kids read these newsgroups and I don’t appreciate them finding such language on an automotive newsgroup.  Thanks. Jerry — Jerry Bransford To send me email, remove the ‘nospam’ from my address. PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY The Zen hotdog… make me one with everything!

Response:

maybe he did not know exactly what he was doing and wanted to voice his dislike for it and now that we have pretty much torched him he is afraid to comment ? Or maybe he is just an idiot ? I have no idea Chris http://www.nerys.com/myjeep/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Excuse me, but if you’ve spent any amount of time on these groups you > would note that the (nt) designation stands for NO TEXT! Whos the F-ing > idiot now? >If you spent any amount of time using your brain, you would understand >people’s frustration with someone IDIOT reposting the ENTIRE text of SPAM, >and then not say anything. Why in the *FUCK* would you do that anyway? >WHY? WHY? WHY?  Why would you repost a full copy of an illegal chain >letter MMF spam anyway??? >Corey >– >Free DVD! Fight DIVX!—Make obvious change to address to send email. >Given the choice between accomplishing something, and just lying around,

I’d rather just lie around.  No contest.  –Eric Clapton

Response:

Gee, thanks, Scott, for quoting the entire spam and not saying a word. What a fucking idiot. Call AOL, your account is ready.

Response:

I think WebTV has all of AOhell’s old accounts now, or at least their "maximum IQ permitted to hold account" restriction.  But then again, what do you expect from a system that advertizes on TV at 4:30 in the morning? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Gee, thanks, Scott, for quoting the entire spam and not saying a word. > What a fucking idiot. Call AOL, your account is ready.

Response:

    NICE!  NOT! This is not needed here, in my opinion. —      Rick Shannon                   o o o o o 1979 Tweaked  CJ-5            

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >

Question:

> any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Yes.  I think that is perhaps the stupidest, most ignorant post I have ever seen on Usenet.  Congratulations! Paul

Response:

Heeeyyy!  Muskie’s back.  The most entertaining posts ever!   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s >  are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist >  size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in > the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right > into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very > large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles > built into the side of the seat. > Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s > are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby > or chunky fingers and hands. > Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat > is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese > people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t > rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident. >  any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Response:

 I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s  are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist  size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles built into the side of the seat. Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby or chunky fingers and hands. Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident.  any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Response:

It seems like Muskie has some problems with more than the size of the vehicle… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s > are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist > size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in >the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right >into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very >large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles >built into the side of the seat. >Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s >are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby >or chunky fingers and hands. >Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat >is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese >people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t >rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident. > any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Response:

>  I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s >  are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist >  size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in > the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right > into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very > large buttocks,

huhuhuhuhuh, you said buttocks  and have a sort of "support" for love handles – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> built into the side of the seat. > Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s > are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby > or chunky fingers and hands.

Response:

Muskie: Geez, Muskie, the last I heard of you, you were hanging around the transvestite board trying to get one of them interested in taking a ride in your Toyota ice cream "truck"..  Why not go back there and continue buggering…..er, bugging the "girls".  I saw a message from you indicating you wanted to try on a few "silky soft things" and cruise around the Naperville/Wheaton area trolling for guys.  That might work, as a matter of fact.  A lot of those yuppy, TV perverts like those Japanese vehicles.  I gotta admit they are kind of cute, but the taste of most of us here runs a little differently. Most of the folks here probably know you are a little feminine twerp who just gets bored with crossdressing during the long winter nights.  Why not try one of those Chicago clubs for your type of entertainment instead of buggering …er, (darn) bugging us clean cut folks with your drivel. By the way, it’s spelled "AMERICAN"!  Bet you know how to spell Japan, don’t you? H. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s >  are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist >  size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in > the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right > into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very > large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles > built into the side of the seat. > Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s > are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby > or chunky fingers and hands. > Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat > is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese > people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t > rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident. >  any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Response:

> I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s > are very large… A person who is in shape slips around in >the seat… >Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s >are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby >or chunky fingers and hands…[and so on and so forth]

Nice spam-bait, Muskie!  Isn’t 7th grade study hall over now?  I think the remedial math teacher is calling you! Drew

Response:

They’re designed for hard-working Americans.  You see, it’s kinda hard to punch little buttons when wearing work gloves. -s — "Which dumbass plugged the TV into this typewriter ?"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         – Butthead

Response:

I find that Geos and japaneese small-cars seem to be made for skinney, annorexic people with short legs and arms.  With the seat all of the way back, any obese, love-handled person just cannot operate the vehicle! But when the small, ity-bity salesperson got in, he slid right in and stayed there! this IS about the stupidest post i’ve seen. — Andy Quaas

Response:

> I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s > are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist > size of 37 inches or larger.

Muskie, I just gotta know.  Where *do* you come up with this stuff? — P.J. Hartman            hartman{at}tconl{dot}com Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, GS450LX, and Sonata           http://www.tconl.com/~hartman

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s >  are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist >  size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in > the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right > into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very > large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles > built into the side of the seat. > Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s > are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby > or chunky fingers and hands. > Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat > is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese > people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t > rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident. >  any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Hello Muskie,         You know I have to agree with you 100%.  By the way I think that the same can be said for most "comfortable" furniture out there.  I recently found myself in a furniture store looking at what I thought was a small couch, turned out it was a chair.  The three cushion couch that went with the CHAIR could have fit 8 regular size people or three regular (that is to say fat) Americans.  Enjoy your Thanksgiving Turkey America. David

Response:

Paul, you must have missed any or all of "Muskies" posts, they’er nothing but "bait" and best not even acknowledged… > any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie > Yes.  I think that is perhaps the stupidest, most ignorant > post I have ever seen on Usenet.  Congratulations! > Paul

– -!! You Have Strayed Upon The Motorway To HELL !!-

Response:

Yes, American’s are pigs relatively.  Not knocking em, I’m one too, but geez we eat too much. Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s > are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist > size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in >the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right >into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very >large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles >built into the side of the seat. >Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s >are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby >or chunky fingers and hands. >Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat >is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese >people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t >rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident. > any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Response:

> I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s > are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist > size of 37 inches or larger.

<<snipped>> > any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

This guy is trolling for responses.  Very close to SPAM, IMHO. Don’t bother feeding his barrel-stirring ego.  Ignore the problem and it will eventually go away. dr bob

Response:

> Yes.  I think that is perhaps the stupidest, most ignorant post I have ever > seen on Usenet.  Congratulations!

        Nah, not even close. Quit stroking his need for    recognition. It is simply a typical Muskie posting – purile,    as usual. Pointless, as usual. Designed to provoke a    response, as usual. Yep, all around typical muskie    drivel.         For good stupid, ignorant posts, you need to drop    in to talk.origins. For insane ramblings (touched by    genius?) visit the rec.autos.[tech, misc, driving] and    look for stuff from Altavoz.                                                         Bruce — "I like bad!"         -Thuganlitha         The Power and the Prophet

Response:

Muskie’s parents must have been related! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s >  are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist >  size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in > the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right > into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very > large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles > built into the side of the seat. > Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s > are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby > or chunky fingers and hands. > Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat > is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese > people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t > rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident. >  any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

–

Response:

>Paul, you must have missed any or all of "Muskies" >posts, they’er nothing but "bait" and best not >even acknowledged…

I did miss them.  Darn. Setting appropriate filters now… and thanks for the heads-up. Paul —– Paul McAleer For email reply: change "anonymous" to "hijinx" – thanks!

Response:

> > I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s > are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist > size of 37 inches or larger. > Muskie, I just gotta know.  Where *do* you come up with this stuff? > — > P.J. Hartman            hartman{at}tconl{dot}com > Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, GS450LX, and Sonata >           http://www.tconl.com/~hartman

He thinks it up while sitting in detention at the Heywood Jablome Middle School – East Camden, New Jersey.

Response:

Well, we could get into debates about national averages and how one country’s "average" person may tend to be larger.  I’m sure that vehicle manufacturers pay attention to this and make their vehicles accordingly.         mm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I find that Geos and japaneese small-cars seem to be made for skinney, > annorexic people with short legs and arms.  With the seat all of the way > back, any obese, love-handled person just cannot operate the vehicle! > But when the small, ity-bity salesperson got in, he slid right in and > stayed there! > this IS about the stupidest post i’ve seen. > — > Andy Quaas

Response:

> > any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie > Yes.  I think that is perhaps the stupidest, most ignorant post I have ever > seen on Usenet.  Congratulations! > Paul

No way, this is his best one!  You haven’t seen some of his others, like the guy in the old rattletrap pickup who’s faded interior matched the green color of his teeth… Aardwolf.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  I noticed that the seats in mid-to large American Suv’s >  are very large, and would only be comfortable if you had a waist >  size of 37 inches or larger. A person who is in shape slips around in > the seat, while the obese dealer who showed me the vehicle slid right > into the seat and stayed there.  It seams the seats support very > large buttocks, and have a sort of "support" for love handles > built into the side of the seat. > Also, I noticed the interior controls on the American SUV’s > are large and fisher-price-like.  They seem to be made for chubby > or chunky fingers and hands. > Also, the steering wheel is very far from the driver when seat > is up all the way. I question wether this is designed for obese > people with very large bellies, so the fat of their bellies doesn’t > rub against the steering wheel and cause an accident. >  any opinions?  Thanks, ——-Muskie

Those of you who aren’t regulars may not know this, but: This is a troll.  This is only a troll.  Do not fall for this, it is only a troll. If this had been a real internet emergency (or a serious post), the system adminisrator would have posted instructions on how to deal with the situation in a calm orderly manner (or not).   OTOH, this is the best post I have seen from Muskie, there may well be more than a grain of truth to it. <g> Aardwolf.

Response:

> >Paul, you must have missed any or all of "Muskies" >posts, they’er nothing but "bait" and best not >even acknowledged… > I did miss them.  Darn. > Setting appropriate filters now… and thanks for the heads-up. > Paul

Hey, and be sure to look at the selection of groups this was cross-posted to. Aardwolf.

Response:

> Well, we could get into debates about national averages and how one > country’s "average" person may tend to be larger.  I’m sure that vehicle > manufacturers pay attention to this and make their vehicles accordingly. > I find that Geos and japaneese small-cars seem to be made for skinney, > annorexic people with short legs and arms.  With the seat all of the way > back, any obese, love-handled person just cannot operate the vehicle! > But when the small, ity-bity salesperson got in, he slid right in and > stayed there!

Or we could just say, I once saw a Ford Festiva on the highway that apppeared to have a suspension problem such that it was listing badly to one side, but (and this is true) when I went past, the problem was that the driver was so large he seemed to be _wearing_ the car! Aardwolf.

Response:

>snipped > this IS about the stupidest post i’ve seen. > — > Andy Quaas

No, this is not the stupidest post ever.  Actually, I find it to be very insightful, intelligent, and really quite articulate compared to what "Muskie" has posted over the last couple of years. For those of you who don’t know, "Muskie" has been traced, and he is just an idiot looking to start flame wars, then he runs away.  And he does use several alias’s, but they can all be seen by the way he posts. As an intelligent response, I am 6′4" tall, and weight 275.  Until just recently, the ONLY SUV that I could fit into was an ISUZU Trooper! So, take that Muskie, you moron.   Oops.  My mom taught me to take pity on the twits of the world, and don’t speak ill of them.  So, let me correct myself.  I’m sorry you are a moron, Muskie. Scott Stone

Response:

> (snip) Enjoy your Thanksgiving Turkey America.

Yes, it’s true that we Americans can afford food. Just think, someday you might be able to afford heat and running water too! Happy Thanksgiving. <G> Ed Cregger

Response:

Question:

What did you do with your van?  Are you the same Charlene Blake that tells eveyone else not to trade their vans?   Pretty simple question, Charlene!  Where is this van of yours that you constantly whine about???? — Mike Manning

Response:

MIKE     GIVE IT A REST

Response:

> MIKE     GIVE IT A REST

IM WITH YOU MIKE BUDDY!!!! Charlene has lost a lot of credibility cause of this. Made a "deal with her devil". I will answer any question you are just charlene’s cheerleader. So get her tit out of your mouth and maybe you can see more clearly. tony jones note: email address has

Response:

Wow, I think the bee hive has been hit again.

Response:

  >Pretty simple question, Charlene!  Where is this van of yours that you   >constantly whine about???? Pretty simple answer, Mike.  Go back a couple of years in DejaNews, and you’ll see why.  She may (or may not) be under a legal covenent to not divulge the disposition of her faulty van.  I suspect your goading to have her tell you will get you nothing. But the fact remains that even if Charlene NEVER had a minivan, after doing the investigation she has, she is certainly credible in offering the advice she does.  She’s saved a lot of people a lot of money.  The only people she has COST money is Chrysler’s stockholders.  Maybe THEY’LL put some pressure on a corporate management that tenders defective new products.  I still hear the phrase ringing: "Hell, get ‘em out the door, we’ll fix ‘em in the field".  And if the corporation stood behind that dictum, fine!  But they didn’t.  They tried to sweep it under the carpet in the name of "driver error".  EX-SCUUUUUZE ME! As my sig says, "It’s how you play the game".  Somewhere in there, there’s the message "Don’t cheat".   —     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *       For when the One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name,       He writes – not that you won or lost – but how you played the game.                                              Grantland Rice, 1941

Response:

:snip snip — :  >Pretty simple question, Charlene!  Where is this van of yours that you :  >constantly whine about???? : retty simple answer, Mike.  Go back a couple of years in DejaNews, and :you’ll see why.  She may (or may not) be under a legal covenent to not :divulge the disposition of her faulty van.  I suspect your goading to :have her tell you will get you nothing. : I think Marv, that you’re missing their point entirerly. They fully realize that she is probably under some sort of gag order not to divulge where her "problematic van" ended up. The reason they are riding her about it is due to her adamant attitude about trading in ther vehicle as a way of dealing with the problem. She stated in previous posts that this is NOT the way to deal with the problem and that it plays directly into CC hands. (paraphrase, no direct quote) Yet, she is guilty herself of doing just this. I think the defining term here is hypocracy and that’s not a real popular character trait I look for in someone who’s information I may or may not use. What these folks are trying to show is that Charlene has a definate slant/bias against CC and therefore COULD be allowing that slant/bias to affect her posting, beliefs, and credibility. . However, in her interest, I post to Tony and Mike that the reason she’s not answering you is due to the fact that numerous poster’s have told her that negative reply’s in any form are only damaging to her credibility and maybe, just maybe, she’s trying to improve her record. The information (what is factual in nature) that she digs up and puts out is helpful. At least respect her for her work in that area. Michael J. Wright     (Thwart inserted to tick off moronic robots) 1997 Ford Explorer (Still loving it) 1991 Mazda B2600i Truck (Still going strong) 1968 Dodge Dart GT (Soon to be 440 powered) 1982 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier (Presence, Horsepower and Firepower          still, a bitch to parallel park)

Response:

The bottom line is, information is power, and the info. we trade in this news groupe has saved consumers alot of there had earned cash. Through info. gathered in this news groupe somone just rec. a check from CC for about 3K, for ABS brake work. That is some serious cash. KEEP THE INFO. FLOWING.

Response:

> The bottom line is, information is power, and the info. we trade in this news > groupe has saved consumers alot of there had earned cash. Through info. > gathered in this news groupe somone just rec. a check from CC for about > 3K, for ABS brake work. That is some serious cash. KEEP THE INFO. > FLOWING.

No one has any problem whatsoever with keeping information flowing.  The information that Ms. Blake has provided has indeed benefitted many people. My problem with her is her attitude that a bunch a guys sat in a room conspiring on how to screw her over.  She is simply out to get her pound of flesh.  This is readily apparent in the tone of her posts, and her remarks. Numerous times I have seen someone post about a problem, only to see a response from Charlene about how her tranny failed.  "My 1958 Plymouth Fury just burnt out a taillight.  You would think these bulbs should last 30 years" and get a Charlene response of "It’s those execs in Detroit.  They want to hide the truth, BTW, let me tell you about my transmission that died at 12K miles". And her response to several people NOT to trade in their vehicle is extremely hypocritical, given she can not tell us what is the current status of her van. — Mike Manning 1989 Caravan 2.5L 5speed 1975 Dart Sport /6

Response:

As I said in an earlier post, if it looks like a cospiracy, it more than likely is. Otherwise CC  would recall thier mistakes, and be done with it.

Response:

:As I said in an earlier post, if it looks like a cospiracy, it more than likely :is. Otherwise CC  would recall thier mistakes, and be done with it. : Lets see then, if I use your logic, then if I think that your beliefs are unsound and that you are only here to champion charlene’s cause, then you more than likely are. After all, I’m not the only one to disagree with you. 1997 Ford Explorer XLT (Still Loving it) 1991 Mazda B2600i Truck (Hauls almost anything) 1968 Dodge Dart GT (Soon to be 440 powered) 1982 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier (Presence, Horsepower and Firepower – still a bitch to parallel park) Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time….

Response:

> As I said in an earlier post, if it looks like a cospiracy, it more than likely > is. Otherwise CC  would recall thier mistakes, and be done with it.

Look out behind you warren, they are all out to get you….. — Mike Manning

Response:

What did you do with your van?  Are you the same Charlene Blake that tells eveyone else not to trade their vans?   Pretty simple question, Charlene!  Where is this van of yours that you constantly whine about???? — Mike Manning

Response:

MIKE     GIVE IT A REST

Response:

> MIKE     GIVE IT A REST

IM WITH YOU MIKE BUDDY!!!! Charlene has lost a lot of credibility cause of this. Made a "deal with her devil". I will answer any question you are just charlene’s cheerleader. So get her tit out of your mouth and maybe you can see more clearly. tony jones note: email address has

Response:

Wow, I think the bee hive has been hit again.

Response:

  >Pretty simple question, Charlene!  Where is this van of yours that you   >constantly whine about???? Pretty simple answer, Mike.  Go back a couple of years in DejaNews, and you’ll see why.  She may (or may not) be under a legal covenent to not divulge the disposition of her faulty van.  I suspect your goading to have her tell you will get you nothing. But the fact remains that even if Charlene NEVER had a minivan, after doing the investigation she has, she is certainly credible in offering the advice she does.  She’s saved a lot of people a lot of money.  The only people she has COST money is Chrysler’s stockholders.  Maybe THEY’LL put some pressure on a corporate management that tenders defective new products.  I still hear the phrase ringing: "Hell, get ‘em out the door, we’ll fix ‘em in the field".  And if the corporation stood behind that dictum, fine!  But they didn’t.  They tried to sweep it under the carpet in the name of "driver error".  EX-SCUUUUUZE ME! As my sig says, "It’s how you play the game".  Somewhere in there, there’s the message "Don’t cheat".   —     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *       For when the One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name,       He writes – not that you won or lost – but how you played the game.                                              Grantland Rice, 1941

Response:

:snip snip — :  >Pretty simple question, Charlene!  Where is this van of yours that you :  >constantly whine about???? : retty simple answer, Mike.  Go back a couple of years in DejaNews, and :you’ll see why.  She may (or may not) be under a legal covenent to not :divulge the disposition of her faulty van.  I suspect your goading to :have her tell you will get you nothing. : I think Marv, that you’re missing their point entirerly. They fully realize that she is probably under some sort of gag order not to divulge where her "problematic van" ended up. The reason they are riding her about it is due to her adamant attitude about trading in ther vehicle as a way of dealing with the problem. She stated in previous posts that this is NOT the way to deal with the problem and that it plays directly into CC hands. (paraphrase, no direct quote) Yet, she is guilty herself of doing just this. I think the defining term here is hypocracy and that’s not a real popular character trait I look for in someone who’s information I may or may not use. What these folks are trying to show is that Charlene has a definate slant/bias against CC and therefore COULD be allowing that slant/bias to affect her posting, beliefs, and credibility. . However, in her interest, I post to Tony and Mike that the reason she’s not answering you is due to the fact that numerous poster’s have told her that negative reply’s in any form are only damaging to her credibility and maybe, just maybe, she’s trying to improve her record. The information (what is factual in nature) that she digs up and puts out is helpful. At least respect her for her work in that area. Michael J. Wright     (Thwart inserted to tick off moronic robots) 1997 Ford Explorer (Still loving it) 1991 Mazda B2600i Truck (Still going strong) 1968 Dodge Dart GT (Soon to be 440 powered) 1982 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier (Presence, Horsepower and Firepower          still, a bitch to parallel park)

Response:

The bottom line is, information is power, and the info. we trade in this news groupe has saved consumers alot of there had earned cash. Through info. gathered in this news groupe somone just rec. a check from CC for about 3K, for ABS brake work. That is some serious cash. KEEP THE INFO. FLOWING.

Response:

> The bottom line is, information is power, and the info. we trade in this news > groupe has saved consumers alot of there had earned cash. Through info. > gathered in this news groupe somone just rec. a check from CC for about > 3K, for ABS brake work. That is some serious cash. KEEP THE INFO. > FLOWING.

No one has any problem whatsoever with keeping information flowing.  The information that Ms. Blake has provided has indeed benefitted many people. My problem with her is her attitude that a bunch a guys sat in a room conspiring on how to screw her over.  She is simply out to get her pound of flesh.  This is readily apparent in the tone of her posts, and her remarks. Numerous times I have seen someone post about a problem, only to see a response from Charlene about how her tranny failed.  "My 1958 Plymouth Fury just burnt out a taillight.  You would think these bulbs should last 30 years" and get a Charlene response of "It’s those execs in Detroit.  They want to hide the truth, BTW, let me tell you about my transmission that died at 12K miles". And her response to several people NOT to trade in their vehicle is extremely hypocritical, given she can not tell us what is the current status of her van. — Mike Manning 1989 Caravan 2.5L 5speed 1975 Dart Sport /6

Response:

As I said in an earlier post, if it looks like a cospiracy, it more than likely is. Otherwise CC  would recall thier mistakes, and be done with it.

Response:

:As I said in an earlier post, if it looks like a cospiracy, it more than likely :is. Otherwise CC  would recall thier mistakes, and be done with it. : Lets see then, if I use your logic, then if I think that your beliefs are unsound and that you are only here to champion charlene’s cause, then you more than likely are. After all, I’m not the only one to disagree with you. 1997 Ford Explorer XLT (Still Loving it) 1991 Mazda B2600i Truck (Hauls almost anything) 1968 Dodge Dart GT (Soon to be 440 powered) 1982 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier (Presence, Horsepower and Firepower – still a bitch to parallel park) Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time….

Response:

> As I said in an earlier post, if it looks like a cospiracy, it more than likely > is. Otherwise CC  would recall thier mistakes, and be done with it.

Look out behind you warren, they are all out to get you….. — Mike Manning

Response:

Question:

> I am thinking of buying the awd 97 t&c minivan. Anyone have on the road > experience re: handling, service ,etc. Please reply.

Car & Driver magazine did in a review a couple of months ago. You might want to check out their web site at http://www.caranddriver.com/ or the local library. Jerry Whittle Belleville, Illinois, USA My minivan is a Voyager and bicycle is a Trek. October 29, 1996

Response:

I am thinking of buying the awd 97 t&c minivan. Anyone have on the road experience re: handling, service ,etc. Please reply.

Response:

According to my expert source, the AWD is a completely different Van in that it: -has a  different final drive ratio -4 wheel disk brakes -different steering ratios -handles better -accelerates a little slower (have seen no reports on what "a little" means) -will get less gas mileage due to drive ratio, drag of rear wheels,etc. -increased maint. costs later in life of vechicle (more primary moving parts) One thing it doesn’t get is more ground clearance, so it is not a Ford Explorer competitior.  What the changes make it is a all weather Van. It should get better mileage that a Explorer type vechicle, have lower insurance, more room, and lower maint. costs. When you go to buy, tryl AutoVantage: AutoVantage Ray Thompson, Factory Order Rep.         E-Mail: AOL Autovantage 800-243-9935    Ext: 3722 1500 City West Blvd, Suite 300 Houston,  TX 77042-2346 I ordered my LXi through them at $50 under dealer invoice.  Great deal and very nice to work with.  They deliver through your local dealer.

Response:

According to my expert source, the AWD is a completely different Van in that it: -has a  different final drive ratio -4 wheel disk brakes -different steering ratios -handles better -accelerates a little slower (have seen no reports on what "a little" means) -will get less gas mileage due to drive ratio, drag of rear wheels,etc. -increased maint. costs later in life of vechicle (more primary moving parts) One thing it doesn’t get is more ground clearance, so it is not a Ford Explorer competitior.  What the changes make it is a all weather Van. It should get better mileage that a Explorer type vechicle, have lower insurance, more room, and lower maint. costs. When you go to buy, tryl AutoVantage: AutoVantage Ray Thompson, Factory Order Rep.         E-Mail: AOL Autovantage 800-243-9935    Ext: 3722 1500 City West Blvd, Suite 300 Houston,  TX 77042-2346 I ordered my LXi through them at $50 under dealer invoice.  Great deal and very nice to work with.  They deliver through your local dealer.

Response:

> I am thinking of buying the awd 97 t&c minivan. Anyone have on the road > experience re: handling, service ,etc. Please reply.

Car & Driver magazine did in a review a couple of months ago. You might want to check out their web site at http://www.caranddriver.com/ or the local library. Jerry Whittle Belleville, Illinois, USA My minivan is a Voyager and bicycle is a Trek. October 29, 1996

Response:

I am thinking of buying the awd 97 t&c minivan. Anyone have on the road experience re: handling, service ,etc. Please reply.

Response: