2011 Dodge Journey (muscle car, Japanese, van, fuel)

[Gnutella]

Originally Posted by MustangEater82

LOL, I didnt know the details, but its the vibe I got. Rush to build before you have your engineering right.

But that's the thing; Chrysler had the engineering right, but was ordered by Daimler to change their engineering software right in the middle of the development process, and then given too short of a timeline to reengineer the cars from scratch. Many people simply don't realize just how antagonistic and counterproductive Daimler's relationship with Chrysler was.

[PokerMunkee]

Similar car to compare is a 2011+ KIA Sorento. Same HP in the V6 and has a longer warranty at 5yr/60k miles for second owner. Looks like used 2011 base Durangos are still around 25k. I'd love a new Rango.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

But that's the thing; Chrysler had the engineering right, but was ordered by Daimler to change their engineering software right in the middle of the development process, and then given too short of a timeline to reengineer the cars from scratch. Many people simply don't realize just how antagonistic and counterproductive Daimler's relationship with Chrysler was.

So what? It explains many things. But the end result is all that matters. For a long time, beginning long before Daimler, Chrysler Corp. vehicles were uniformly bad.

On the specific topic of this thread, I rented a 2011 Journey for one week in Denver this year. My vehicle did not have the Pentastar. I'd say it was OK. Not awful, but certainly would not have made a list of vehicles I'd consider buying. What I found interesting was its mediocre handling. It seemed to have relatively flat cornering, but it had very poor grip. Interior quality is better than Chrysler of a few years ago.

[Gnutella]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

So what? It explains many things. But the end result is all that matters.

It explains virtually everything, actually. Furthermore, how the end result was achieved matter too, so the method can be discarded and never used again.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

For a long time, beginning long before Daimler, Chrysler Corp. vehicles were uniformly bad.

"Uniformly bad" my ass. They weren't the most profitable automaker in the world per vehicle sold during the 1990's by being uniformly bad. In an interview in 1997, the CEO of Toyota felt most threatened not by GM, not by Ford, not by Honda and not by Volkswagen, but by Chrysler.

And any problems the cars had then were a) the result of Robert Eaton siding with the bean-counters over the engineers a few too many times, and b) corrected once the engineers got the cars built they way they wanted them. There's a reason why you won't find any 1995- or 1996-model Neons, but you'll still see some 1997- and 1998-model Neons running around. The former had Eaton's head gaskets and other parts; the latter had the engineers' parts.

There's a reason why Lee Iacocca said that appointing Eaton to be his successor at CEO was the biggest mistake he'd ever made in his career. Eaton was an outsider, and Chrysler's synergy existed in spire of him. It was the engineers' efforts that helped Chrysler achieve its highest-ever market share in 1996; it was Eaton who counted beans and gave first-model-year Chrysler vehicles a bad name, and then sent the company up der Scheißenbach in 1998.

[MustangEater82]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

So what? It explains many things. But the end result is all that matters. For a long time, beginning long before Daimler, Chrysler Corp. vehicles were uniformly bad.

On the specific topic of this thread, I rented a 2011 Journey for one week in Denver this year. My vehicle did not have the Pentastar. I'd say it was OK. Not awful, but certainly would not have made a list of vehicles I'd consider buying. What I found interesting was its mediocre handling. It seemed to have relatively flat cornering, but it had very poor grip. Interior quality is better than Chrysler of a few years ago.

So the crossover suv handled like a crossover suv, and the interior quality was better?

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

I'd rather get a Mazda 5 in the small seven passenger segment.

[tstone]

Well, the 4 cylinder model has 70 series passenger (truck) tires. Think that might have something to do with having somewhat lazy handling? That's geared more towards economy and comfort above all else. But I've actually never slid around in this thing before, and on a wet road it feels pretty confident... for now anyway. We'll see if these off-brand Hankook OE tires stay that way for the long haul.

BTW the Mazda5 is a 6 passenger and quite a bit smaller than the Journey, something like 20-25 cu ft smaller on the inside.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

It explains virtually everything, actually. Furthermore, how the end result was achieved matter too, so the method can be discarded and never used again.




"Uniformly bad" my ass. They weren't the most profitable automaker in the world per vehicle sold during the 1990's by being uniformly bad. In an interview in 1997, the CEO of Toyota felt most threatened not by GM, not by Ford, not by Honda and not by Volkswagen, but by Chrysler.

And any problems the cars had then were a) the result of Robert Eaton siding with the bean-counters over the engineers a few too many times, and b) corrected once the engineers got the cars built they way they wanted them. There's a reason why you won't find any 1995- or 1996-model Neons, but you'll still see some 1997- and 1998-model Neons running around. The former had Eaton's head gaskets and other parts; the latter had the engineers' parts.

There's a reason why Lee Iacocca said that appointing Eaton to be his successor at CEO was the biggest mistake he'd ever made in his career. Eaton was an outsider, and Chrysler's synergy existed in spire of him. It was the engineers' efforts that helped Chrysler achieve its highest-ever market share in 1996; it was Eaton who counted beans and gave first-model-year Chrysler vehicles a bad name, and then sent the company up der Scheißenbach in 1998.

Once again - I really don't think a car buyer needs to be concerned about how Chrysler became crappy. I think almost everything Chrysler built after its first bailout was at best mediocre. The K-car DNA infused into so many products was difficult to remove. The one innovation - the minivan, was hopelessly downgraded due to poor transmissions, engines, and rapid improvements by Honda and Toyota. The Grand Cherokee has never been reliable. Every Chrysler small car was crude and terrible. Jeeps are popular, but have had terrible quality for most of their history.

Things are looking up for Chrysler. But they were bad for a long long time.

[RandyWatson13]

Its a nice size with a lot of cool trick bins and the updated interior is much better.

[robrobrob]

So, a year old cross over with a 3rd row for about 20,000. I think your only other choice would be a Kia Sorento. Cars are expensive these days.