Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
If Chrysler (oops..DCX) decides to invest in this loss-leader for increasing exposure it would be a financial mis-step. There are several indicators that, in a business sense, would, on the surface anyway, validate my assumption.
#1. DCX has already established themselves as a market player with a very good and alternate array of product.
#2. This very good array of product has been initially recieved with enthusiasm from the press, and more importantly, the purchasers.
#3. This very good array of product sill does NOT exhibit the class of durability and expected "world class" standards in several areas of materials, build, reliability, etc.
#4. Go back to my #1,2 and 3. WHEN the corporation melds their shit in an acceptable way, THEN they can invest in a world-player supercar. Take care of the bread-and-butter before you invest in filet.
Over the years there have been seemingly countless excursions into fantasy by various automakers that have (irrespective of glowing press releases and auto mag/fag writers on the under-the-table dole) promised what we all have expected but never have even seen, let alone had in our garages. The new DCX Supercar is another fantasy that, if ever built, will result in just another pretty POS like the GM Turbine cars, or any other "I'll build one for you if you have a couple million bucks" cars.
Dl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1058 times:
There was a time when I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you about that. I own a 97 Grand Caravan ES. The tranny went south at 35K, 47K, and 62K. It was replaced under warranty each time. What a pain in the butt. I was going to get rid of it but I liked it in every other respect. I decided to give it one more chance because the service manager at the dealer said that the tranny they installed at 62K was a model that finally they had fixed the problems with. I now have 210K on it and have done little else than service engine and tranny oil and filters and put tires and brakes on it. Other than the tranny the biggest thing that I've had to fix is the tensioner pulley and a cracked radiator that I plastic welded. It even has the original spark plugs!
Anyways, it's been a great vehicle and I'd buy another.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8516 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1030 times:
There was a time when I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you about that. I own a 97 Grand Caravan ES. The tranny went south at 35K, 47K, and 62K.
Thank God we've had a better experience than that. I'm currently driving our family's 97 Grand Caravan ES, and it required a new transmission at 135,000 miles. $2000 for a rebuilt Jasper. But it was designed well, and in Candy Apple Red it's the most beautiful minivan ever produced.
Forget the vans, look at the dealerships! There isn't a Chrysler dealership in the States that has the credentials to sell a car like that.