DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,708 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Last week at school I was reading an article in the new Car & Driver that was a comparo of 8 sedans (BTW, the Intrepid got 5th with a Buick in 8th, Taurus(7), Impala (6) and 4 imports ahead of it... i guess thats what you get for reading foreign magazines......)

Anyway, it said that the Intrepid had a governor on it @ 106 mph. Is that something they changed for '02 or is it just a foriegn thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Did they say what model of Intrepid they used in this test(i.e Base, ES or R/T)? I'm not sure but I thought the ES was like 115 or 118 and the R/T didn't have one. I'm not sure if they changed it for 2002 though. I know my 2001 R/T doesn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
They used a base SE with no options, (tools). They could have used an ES and still kept it under their budget while kicking ass in the performance numbers.

CD is usually fair in their comparo's, this time they blew it with me.

Overall they liked the car for its size and handling. As I said above, an ES would have faired much better in performance with the de-tuned 3.5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,811 Posts
last i knew it was still governed at 110...hmmm shows what i know :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
What were the option levels on the other cars? I didn't read the article but it seems to me that perhaps they should compare apples to apple and oranges to oranges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
Originally posted by BK:
What were the option levels on the other cars? I didn't read the article but it seems to me that perhaps they should compare apples to apple and oranges to oranges.
They were pretty loaded from what I remember. I will try to put the link up to the artical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Thanks- that just confirmed what I thought. They didn't use the ES or a more optioned (equal to the others) SE for the test. I think if they had spent more time getting a car more in the others price range it would have crushed the pack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
I have a 97 ES. I can get mine at 116 but that is pushing it with everything I can get out of it.

As for the article I think it is a crock of ****. If they are going to do a comparison that should at least make it equal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
I have a 99 3.2.. it hits 120.. Ive had it cut out earlyer than that though, you have to work the car to get it up there without ditching you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,652 Posts
The thing that bothers me the most is that C&D loves the 'Trep - at least they did until this article came out - and made not mention of handling,looks etc. But what really bothers me is the performance - the 'Trep they tested did a 10.3 0-60 - ???
It seems every mag that tests the 'Trep with the 2.7 seem to get 1/2 a second slower each test - what gives - I have a vhs test of the 98 'Trep from Motorweek where the 2.7 ran 0-60 in less than 9 seconds - (high 8's) - how can they get progressively slower as they get older with virtually no changes ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Folks,

IMHO, C/D could not have been more on target with their review and the Intrepid’s 5th place ranking

Instead of being pissed at C/D, why not be pissed at Dodge for selling a model devoid of such needed items such as ABS brakes that they end up losing out to a Hyundai (We all seem to agree that the Intrepid would have feared better if optioned-up).

My solution is to do the following:
 All Intrepid’s should have anti-lock brakes and the de-tuned 3.5 as standard equipment (this should be able to be done with a min increase in cost to the consumer)
 Address the cause of the ‘Dolby-quality” road noise issue raised in the article….we all know it’s a problem.
 Get rid of either of the ES or SE model name (was it purposely meant to confuse us). Have a base model, SE and R/T.
 Only have fog lights in the R/T model.

C/D does in fact love the Intrepid, just the one with good brakes and adequate power (see the R/T review in FY2000)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Originally posted by moparman:
'Trep they tested did a 10.3 0-60 - ???
It seems every mag that tests the 'Trep with the 2.7 seem to get 1/2 a second slower each test - what gives - I have a vhs test of the 98 'Trep from Motorweek where the 2.7 ran 0-60 in less than 9 seconds
Maybe the test-driver was like 400 lbs.... :)
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top