BAWC Forums

[quote=""vr4""]Well it's a Chrysler product so not being well built should be expected[/quote]

This.


And I would buy one in a heartbeat. I will own one later in life.


Coop

frankly, pretty ridiculous.

He wanted to be talked down Frode, not encouraged.

[quote=""Mike""]Cool, you were right Steve, but let me ramble on about semantics until i bring in a silly analogy about our galaxy and its alignment that we all can laugh at.[/quote]

Fixed.

[quote=""Mike""]
To be fair, Chevy knew about the Z06 overheating issue, they just literally didn't give a fuck. They straight up said if you want to track a 7Z you should buy a manual, even though the Hero timeslips they provided were from the auto. The vast majority of owners will NEVER experience the issue even on 1st year Zs because it only appears when a certain set of criteria are met in so far as temperature and such. Like the valve drop issue on the 6Z it's blown out of proportion.[/quote]


Preaching your own version of the planets aligning?

I have a friend who had a 6Z that dropped that ever so blown out of proportion valve. Man, Venis, Mars and Ur-anus must have aligned.

On to more important news. This ad just came out last month from Dodge. No official response from Dodge, but guys within the company are substantiating it off the record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj16b4Lx49M

I might have to put my plans on hold until I see whats next.

[quote=""ChargerX3""]On to more important news. This ad just came out last month from Dodge. No official response from Dodge, but guys within the company are substantiating it off the record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj16b4Lx49M

I might have to put my plans on hold until I see whats next.[/quote]

Holy.....shit!



Coop

I'll bet that 426 is a track car only. Sort of like the COPO Camaro.

It is the reliability issue of FCA that scares me. All car companies have their issues. Cars are complicated things and can't all be perfect. But FCA and it's products always seem to be on the lower end of all reliability tests and reviews. That doesn't happen by chance. :d ontknow:

That is why I would never own one. Are they cool? Hell ya. But for the $ I would rather get something from a more reliable company. Or buy something older (hence my want for the Chevelle).

[quote=""Jeff V.""]I'll bet that 426 is a track car only. Sort of like the COPO Camaro.[/quote]

Well whats interesting is that they used the Hellcat, not the Demon to do the burnout in. Then it magically turned into the 426 Hemi. Will it be the new Hellcat.

I did some quick research last night and ran across this guy who went on...and on...about it. Hes under the impression that the 392 Challengers, Chargers, Durangos are on the way out and that they are putting the 392's in anything they can to get rid of the blocks. Its basically the 6.2 bored out to the max. Its so maxed out that they dont recommend supercharging them.

If that is the case we would be left with the 5.7L, maybe 6.2L, and the 7.0L. Hopefully they make the 7L stout enough to be supercharged.

[quote=""Duck Vader""]It is the reliability issue of FCA that scares me. All car companies have their issues. Cars are complicated things and can't all be perfect. But FCA and it's products always seem to be on the lower end of all reliability tests and reviews. That doesn't happen by chance. :d ontknow:

That is why I would never own one. Are they cool? Hell ya. But for the $ I would rather get something from a more reliable company. Or buy something older (hence my want for the Chevelle).[/quote]

You sure? I wouldn't be worried. Latest study from JD Power. Depending on what you buy from them (Ram being in top 5 overall) they are sprinkled over the top through mid section of this list. All of which are ranked higher in quality than Audi or Subaru.

Initial Quality...

Show me long term.

Steve wrote:Hes under the impression that the 392 Challengers, Chargers, Durangos are on the way out and that they are putting the 392's in anything they can to get rid of the blocks.

That's ridiculous.

First up, they wouldn't order more blocks than they knew they needed. It's not like there's some giant FCA warehouse with rows and rows of "extra" engine blocks.

Even if they did, they wouldn't engineer entire vehicle programs (emissions, crash testing, ordering all the other parts, impacts to their CAFE numbers, scheduling resources at the plants, and then building entire cars they might not be able to sell) just to "get rid of the blocks".

If they had extra blocks, they'd either wholesale them or just scrap them. It'd be cheaper.

If they're putting 392 engines in things, it's because they program was designed to use those engines long before the first car went down the assembly line.

[quote=""Jeff V.""]That's ridiculous.

First up, they wouldn't order more blocks than they knew they needed. It's not like there's some giant FCA warehouse with rows and rows of "extra" engine blocks.

Even if they did, they wouldn't engineer entire vehicle programs (emissions, crash testing, ordering all the other parts, impacts to their CAFE numbers, scheduling resources at the plants, and then building entire cars they might not be able to sell) just to "get rid of the blocks".

If they had extra blocks, they'd either wholesale them or just scrap them. It'd be cheaper.

If they're putting 392 engines in things, it's because they program was designed to use those engines long before the first car went down the assembly line.[/quote]

Yeah initial quality is pretty worthless. If somebody reports "I don't like the way the infotainment center works" or "This button should be over here" it becomes a hit on initial quality. Not to mention real quality issues is far more of a long term thing rather than short term imo.

[quote=""Jeff V.""]That's ridiculous.

First up, they wouldn't order more blocks than they knew they needed. It's not like there's some giant FCA warehouse with rows and rows of "extra" engine blocks.

Even if they did, they wouldn't engineer entire vehicle programs (emissions, crash testing, ordering all the other parts, impacts to their CAFE numbers, scheduling resources at the plants, and then building entire cars they might not be able to sell) just to "get rid of the blocks".

If they had extra blocks, they'd either wholesale them or just scrap them. It'd be cheaper.

If they're putting 392 engines in things, it's because they program was designed to use those engines long before the first car went down the assembly line.[/quote]

Im not saying he is right, but its possible plans changed mid stream for them. Either way the 426 is coming and Im excited for it. We will find out soon enough if they keep some of the other blocks or not.

In more important news.
You need 1 more post for 20,000.

[quote=""alienviking""]Yeah initial quality is pretty worthless. If somebody reports "I don't like the way the infotainment center works" or "This button should be over here" it becomes a hit on initial quality. Not to mention real quality issues is far more of a long term thing rather than short term imo.[/quote]

Im happy its been on the rise for going on 3 years now. That is a good sign.

http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/1176 ... power-says

Oh common guys, gonna poop on IQ reports? It's a measure of how well the fit and finish of the end product is, not just if you like or don't like where the placement of something is.

It should be impressive that they're working hard to increase their numbers.

[quote=""Chris95RT""]Oh common guys, gonna poop on IQ reports? It's a measure of how well the fit and finish of the end product is, not just if you like or don't like where the placement of something is.

It should be impressive that they're working hard to increase their numbers.[/quote]

Anyone can polish a turd and make it look pretty/work for 90 days...

VDS is more important.

Initial Quality Study (IQS)—provides manufacturers and suppliers with in-depth diagnostic information on new-vehicle quality after 90 days of ownership. The study uses problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) as a unit of measurement of owner reported problems. IQS also includes quality comparisons by make and model, as well as by assembly line. More than 230 problems are identified, and all problems are categorized as either defect/malfunction or design-related problems. IQS has been an industry benchmark since 1987.

Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS)—measures long-term quality after three years of ownership. Therefore, the 2014 VDS measures the dependability of 2011 model-year vehicles. The Vehicle Dependability Study is used extensively by manufacturers and suppliers worldwide to help them design and build better vehicles, which typically translates into higher resale values and customer loyalty. It also helps consumers make more-informed choices for both new- and used-vehicle purchases.

[quote=""Chris95RT""]Oh common guys, gonna poop on IQ reports? It's a measure of how well the fit and finish of the end product is, not just if you like or don't like where the placement of something is.

It should be impressive that they're working hard to increase their numbers.[/quote]

Yes I will poop on it because the fact that YES it also measures to some degree the fit and finish of the end product, it gets completely skewed by subjective opinions. I really don't care about the subjective opinions of the entertainment system or whether the seats are too narrow for the person's fat ass... I DO care about the actual quality issues.

This goes for all car companies. Not just Chrysler.

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/Dodge/Challenger/2017

Predicted reliability is a 2.

That is what keeps me away.


That and my hatred I have for FCA after all the shit I had to deal with when a problem I had escalated to corporate and they did nothing.