From: rvkl60@email.sps.mot.com (Tom Mathes)
Subject: Re: LH: Should I or Shouldn't I?
Organization: Motorola Inc, Austin, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:04:06 GMT

In article <1ihcc8INNjh@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 7740239@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM, tmw@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Tom Walley) writes:
>>I'm not an owner, but Click and Clack the Tappet brothers that have the PBS
>>show 'Car Talk' give this car high praise.
>>
>>Tom Walley
>
>I'm sure they're praising the design engineering.  But how well will the real
>engineering and manufacturing stand up down the road?  How many bugs will this
>model have for its first model year, and for the first few?  Once the sale is
>made, how good has Chrysler's reputation been in servicing and repairing its
>cars (answer: (^(&^(*&%&).

Any car company can be a headache to deal with.  Several of our fellow
netters have griped about several imports stonewalling over a lemon (Nissan
and Mitsubishi come to mind).  Co-workers of mine have had pretty decent
experience with Chryslers (Jeeps included), along with GM cars, Fords,
Toyotas, Hondas, etc.

From my experience, a car's service reputation is just more of a function
of the dealer than the maker.  I would never own a Pontiac here in Austin
again, just because the dealer stinks.  I would definitely buy a Pontiac in
my home town in North Carolina since they have a wonderful dealer there.

>Even the succesful Taurus had its share of problems the first few model years.
>What is Chrysler's recent experience in introducing new models?  (The minivans
>were built on already-available K-car chassis, right?  Most of Chrysler's fleet
>is).  The only other recent model that comes to mind is the Grand Cherokee, but
>I probably missed something.

Job 1 for the LH was about 8 months before public sale.  Chrysler has
really been shaking out the defects before anyone bought a car, according
to the press I've read.

One of my co-workers took an Intrepid on an extended test drive and
was impressed (that person currently owns a sporty Japanese car).
He didn't buy it mainly since it was just too big for his needs.

>The question I'd ask myself is, why should I invest 17-20K in something Chrysler
>only claims is good, when there are so many other models in the same category
>that are already established?  Guess my recommendation would be, wait a few years.

That same argument was used against the Saturn; look at the reputation
they established already.  I took somewhat of a gamble with my 92 SC.  I
was the first customer for a Saturn at the local dealer almost one year
ago.  I don't regret it one bit.

What is in the LH's class for the price?  Nothing.  Just think about it;
for $23K, you get a car that has lots of the goodies that others in
Europe charge $40K for, like a potent 24V V6, traction control, ABS,
great safety features, a great suspension, and killer looks.  Japan and
other Detroit makers charge lots more for the same thing too.  At
$23K, you can get a Camry that has boring looks and no where near as
much power as the LH.  Don't forget, the Camry is a "new" car also,
which means it's not proven either.

Several Americans gripe that American car companies don't produce the
cars they want.  The American company then produces a car that's right on
target (like the LH), then the same people say "well, it's not proven".
These folks never think an American car company can produce world class
product.  Seems that the term "America basher" is appropriate for 
this type of person.

If the LH appeals to you, by all means buy it.  They didn't call the
Dodge "Intrepid" for nothing ;-).

Tom
Newsgroups: rec.autos