On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Scott Loveless <sdlovel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/3/09, Adam Maas <a...@mawz.ca> wrote: >> Daimler also seriously decontented the Chrysler cars interiors and was >> repsonsible for absolutely gutting the smaller FWD platforms. Sit in a >> 300M and a pre-2008 300C sometime. The interior of the 300M is >> significantly better than even the current 300C let alone the >> atrocious interiors in the pre-2008 models (the 300M and other 2nd >> generation LH cars were the last pre-Daimler Chysler designs). The >> real pity of the death of cab forward is that in most regards other >> than drivetrain the cab forward designs are flat out better cars than >> their successors. Even the LX cars (300, Charger, Magnum and >> Challenger), which are very nice cars for the ost part are in most >> ways inferior to the LH's which proceeded them. Especially when it >> comes to view. > > My 2003 Dakota (purchased new) was a complete POS. The engine was > nice, and that was it's only saving grace. The electronic shifter was > slow to respond, the AC failed at 3500 miles, the weather stripping > around the doors had to be replaced several times, the driver's seat > back was loose and wobbly, the parking brake release came off in my > hand one day and the cheap, plastic interior was a worst-in-class > IMHO. I owned that vehicle for 6 months and traded it in for an > American made 2003 Nissan Xterra which has served me relatively > trouble-free (a fuel injector replaced under warranty and the AC > stopped working last fall) for almost 100k miles.
That was right in the middle of the Daimler cuts. The new interior came in 2001 and is the main reason for at least half the complaints you list. Sounds like you had a serious lemon encounter as well. > > The problem Christie and I encountered with the "cab forward" design > was the wedge shape and the high rear dash. She's 5 feet tall and > once seated so that she could reach the controls, she couldn't see > anything other than a tail-gating Mack truck in the rear view mirror. > Which ruled out Chrysler sedans. GM was worse and she simply refused > to even test drive anything they offered due to low seating and a high > dash. Ford was a little better with their small cars, but we found > that the European and Japanese cars were just about all suitable. The > glaring exception at the time was Mitsubishi, who seemed to be > following American design trends. Being 6'3" Cab Forward was an absolute godsend to me, my 94 Eagle Vision is still one of the most comfortable cars I've ever sat in. The full-size LH's were not small-people cars though, no bones about it. The Japanese, designing for a fairly small home audience, do the best small-people cars. > > So with an abysmal Chrysler experience and a collection of sedans that > my wife can't (or at least couldn't) drive, it's going to be a very > long time before we even consider anything from the "big three". The > exception being Ford's other brands, specifically Mazda and Volvo, > which we tend to like very much. Now with the bail-out and gov't > involvement, I'm tempted to avoid them on principal even if they do > come out with something that doesn't suck. >> >> Chrysler should have gone to a 3rd generation LH platform as a upper >> midsize choice rather than the atrocious clunker that is the current >> Sebring/Avenger. And the less that is said about the Caliber the >> better. > > Agreed. That Caliber thing is horrid. Who ever thought it a good > idea to replace a popular, fuel efficient car with that piece of crap > needs to be made to drive one for the rest of eternity. > > -- > Scott Loveless The worst part is they stuck Jeep with the damned thing too. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
