What's hot? Cars that last

My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs
and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are
actually not all that bad. Even the Previa and Van LE were easier to
work on than the 3800 TransSport or a 2.5 Liter Mystique.

 

My daughter's 1990 pickup (with 3.0 litre engine) has the most
mind-numbingly stupid unmaintainable issues of any vehicle I've ever
owned. Of course, every other vehicle has been a Chrysler, so perhaps
I'm just spoiled.

 

I've had a few Chrysler products that raised my ire too. Dad's 78
Horizon was a service mess. The two 80s M-bodies that drifted through
the family were annoying in that most things were typically Chrysler
straightforward, and others were mind-numbingly annoying- like anything
related to the accessory brackets seemed to have been needlessly
goobered-up compared to 70s Mopars. And then the whole "isolated
transverse suspension" concept that created a pretty-much impenetrable
bucket of steel right below the engine and limited access from below
severely.

But I never quit being amazed at how nice it was to work on the '93 LH.
Some things *looked* horrific- like the first glance at changing a
timing belt. UNTIL you read the service manual and discovered that 4
bolts would get the whole radiator upper cross-brace out of the way,
then 4 more plus a wire and 4 clips would get the electric fans out and
open up plenty of room in front of the engine. Same with access to the
steering rack- it looked *buried* at the back of the engine compartment,
but a few bolts to remove the windshield wiper motor and linkage "tray"
as an assembly, then popping off the air intake "Y" pipe (this was a
3.5) opened up plenty of room back there too. Someone had obviously put
some time into deliberately grouping things into easily-removed modules
to allow access to deeper bits and pieces. And that car lasted over 250k
miles, too. No complaints there.


Just skimming the FSM for wife's 05 PT revealed one thing that made my
hair hurt.... to replace the right motor mount, the 4th or 5th step is
"remove engine assembly." <sigh> I sure hope it lasts a *long* time. I
can almost forgive it, the PT is something of a special case when it
comes to packing components in. Its very obvious that a lot of the
layout was dictated by the car's oddball styling.

And to get back to Cadillacs- don't even get me started on the HT4100
that drifted through the family. OK, too late, I'm started. Just one
example: to change the water pump, you had to remove the PS pump. OK, I
can buy that. To remove the PS pump, you have to get at a bolt that's
blocked by the PS pulley. Been there before, no problem... IF they had
used a spoked PS pulley like my '69 Coronet has so that you could remove
the bolt through the gap between pulley spokes. But no- Cadillac used a
solid disk pulley. Gotta squeeze a puller into the limited space and
extract the pulley off the PS pump nose, all just to get at *one*
stinking bolt.

 

You've missed my point. What JD Power is saying is that the IQS numbers
predict very well what the Vehicle Durability Study numbers three years down
the road will look like. That is not worthless.

Derek

 

True, JD Power aren't in it for charity, but I've been tracking their
numbers against Consumer Reports and internal automaker data, and overall it
does track pretty well against it. I only wish they would track the
vehicles for longer than three years (like they used to). At that point,
they are only just being nicely broken in...

Derek

 

You've never owned a PT Cruiser!! Thankfully mine is NOT the Turbo -
this one is tight enough (the early 2.4, not the "world engine)

 

True -- though that same daughter did have a '95 Neon for a while
(similar though not the same, in spite of some who make the claim,
platform) and it was the single easiest vehicle to work on I've ever
owned, including my '66 Charger.

Unfortunately, part of her disenchantment with it stemmed from the
fact that it was as easy for stereo thieves to work on as it was for
us...

 

Did the PT ever get switched over to the World Engine? I've never been
clear on that. If so, it must have been in the last 3 years, the 06 we
looked at before buying the 05 still had the 2.4. Interesting, I just
did some googling around and I can only find references to the TURBO
motor being switched to the "world engine" platform in 07, but I have to
assume that the NA version was also switched.

 

My daughter had a '89 Neon - was broken into 3 times and stolen once -
But working on it - even being a twin cam was a veritable CINCH
compared to the PR. There isn't room for a flee to move under the
confines of a PT hood - those big fenders, narrow grill, oldfashioned
look really puts a damper on things. Would be easier with the engine
in lengthwize!!!!

 

All '07 and I believe the last of the 06 production are 2.4 "world
engine" - AKA Hyundai/Kia/ ? /? /?

 

Chrysler/Hyundai/Mitsubishi. Hopefully the Chrysler participation
prevented too much oil burning and head cracking from the Mitsu side of
things :-/


Hyundai and Kia are the same parent company now, I think.

 

The problem with ranking anything on a 'list' is, the fact that it is
misleading. Any list of the finest of the finest, or even the worst of the
worst, will have one on the top and another on the bottom, which means
nothing. Those surveys should be presented as the statistical PERCENTAGE,
which is what they are, that would be more meaningful.

As a statistic list would show that ALL manufactured vehicle fall within the
2% average failure rate for ALL manufactured products, with one being at an
insignificant small percentage above the one below.

Does it really matter if the failure rate is 1.8% or 1.9 or even 1.1% when
the 3,000,000 copies of that vehicle were sold? Your chance that you
bought one of the 98% that did NOT have a failure is far greater and even
you did get one of the 2% the failure would have been covered by the
warranty, that is why all manufacturers offer a warranty, even on a $500,000
Rolls Royce

Durability studies that are not quantified are meaningless to the average
person as well, because unless one spends big buck to subscribe to the group
providing the survey, there is not way to know how the person surveyed used
or abused the product or if they provide the proper preventive maintenance
or not.

 

Nope.

No PT Cruiser had the world engine.

 

Amen. The second generation is just as good, but, again, you *really*
need the FSM to find that out.

Ummm.... on Becca's Neon, replacing the timing belt required removing
one of the motor mounts. My recollection is it was the right side...
I sure hope I'm remembering wrong.

 

You are wrong. 2007 and up have the world engine.

 

Neon engine mount needs to come out to do the timing belt, but
removing the neon engine mount is a relatively simple job - done with
the engine in place with the help of a jack and a piece of wood.

 

Afraid not.

Ever seen one? Can you tell the difference?

09 PT Cruiser 2.4L SMPI & 2.4L turbo:
http://www.chrysler.com/en/2009/pt_cruiser/performance/powertrain/

Specs from Chrysler service information:
Displacement 2.4 Liters 148 cu. in.
Bore 87.5 mm 3.445 in.
Stroke 101.0 mm 3.976 in.



09 Sebring/Avenger/Caliber/Patriot/Compass/Journey 2.4L dVVT "World
Engine":
http://www.chrysler.com/en/2009/sebring/performance/powertrain/

Specs from Chrysler service information:
Displacement 2.4 Liters 146.5 cu. in.
Bore 88 mm 3.465 in.
Stroke 97 mm 3.819 in.

 

Right (I did it; unfortunately, after the belt had broken...
compression check showed the valves were not damaged, but my oh my it
went through oil after that) -- but does the PT also require removing
the motor mount to do the timing belt? And given (per Steve's quote
above) that replacing the motor mount requires removing the engine...

 

Mea Culpa.
I was wrong. The PT Cruiser appears to be the one holdout for the old
Neon 2.0 based 2.4

I've been wrong before - and likely will be sometime again!!

There was RUMOR that the PT was to get the World Engine, but
apparently it did not happen.

Mine is a 2002

 

The mount needs to come out but it is possible to do IN the car.