Talk:Chrysler Neon

Hey, anyone looking over, please fix the immature edits someone made throughout the article, such as "Sales of the second generation model started with model year 200 and production ended with the 2005 model year. The second generation Neon was only available as a one-door sedan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.171.241 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing redirect

Since the car was designed in the USA, I am going to change the title to the American name for the car. I will make it to Chrysler Neon redirects to Dodge Neon. It doesn't make sense that "Chrysler Neon" be the official title, when it wasn't sold in it's country of origin under that namebadge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.42.143 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Previously unsectioned comments

The Dodge and Plymouth Neon were introduced in 1994 as 1995 models. They replaced the Dodge Shadow and Plymouth Sundance which were last produced as 1993 model year vehicles.

The last year for the Shadow/Sundance was 1994, not 1993. --ApolloBoy 04:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

The text is "wrapped" around the small square Table of Context box in order to avoid ugly gaping holes of blank space. Try alternatives yourself and see the effect . There is currently an editor going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda. --Wetman 21:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not obscure or personal, it was the overwhelming feeling of the VfD discussion for this template. The whitespace generated by a four item Table of Contents is is no way a problem for the layout of any article, let alone this one. There is a reason for the default TOC being as it is, if most people found it ugly it certainly wouldn't be the default. There is no way TOCright or TOCleft are justified for a four item TOC. Saying "every sensible adult" would support its use on these pages is certainly not the case, most sensible adults were and are against its use except as a last resort for long TOCs, and the majority of sensible adults continue using the default TOC in their articles. If you wish to go on abusing this template by using it where it is not remotely neccesary, you may be turning those who voted to keep it as a last resort off it altogether. Joe D (t) 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

SRT4

Shouldn't the SRT4 have its own article, even if it's a distinctive Neon? I mean because it is technically recognized as a different vehicle? The Helper S

Yes it should, since DaimlerChrysler sells the SRT-4 as a separate model from the Neon. --ApolloBoy 02:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak suprelatives... almost too NPOV for NPOV

"Better than average", "moderately poorly". This article really reeks of design-by-committee and feels like a lame compromise between two extremes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.113.46 (talk • contribs)

I agree, but this sort of thing is endemic to Wikipedia automotive articles, especially cars that certain segments of the enthusiast community love to hate (this car, the S2000, the Skyline GT-R, etc). Just stating a car's specs, history, and commendations isn't enough for these people, hence the articles get polluted with weak backhanded praise and POV-magnet "Criticism" sections. — AKADriver ☎ 14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PT Cruiser - not a replacement

User:Bavaria and others are intent on pushing this into the article, but it's obviously false - the PT Cruiser was sold concurrently with the second-generation Neon from 2000 on. While production continues, it occupies a different market segment as a crossover utility vehicle. It's not a replacement, it's not a successor, it's only somewhat related. — AKADriver ☎ 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to Chrysler Neon?

It seems most appropriate, since it was promoted equally as a Dodge and Plymouth here in the US, and sold as a Chrysler abroad. All the various names fall under the "Chrysler" umbrella. — AKADriver ☎ 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather split all three up, as all three have different histories and in the case of the Chrysler Neon, have some significant mechanical differences. If this was moved to "Chrysler Neon", I think it would cause some confusion.--ApolloBoy 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That just seems excessive.. there weren't any significant differences between Dodges and Plymouths except for special editions like the R/T and Style, and the mechanical differences of the Chrysler amount to an available 1.8L engine and different strut valving. Eight generations and hundreds of different country-specific variants of Honda Civic all fit into one article. — AKADriver ☎ 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just recently 8 June 2008), a user moved the article to Chrysler Neon? This is something that should be undone, sicne as discussed at Wikipedia:CAR, the original home market name should be used for article title. That's why Astra article is called Opel Astra and not GM Astra. For some reason I cannot undo that edit, so can someone move tha page back? Netrat (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an unusual case because the car was simultaneously launched in the United States as both the Dodge Neon and Plymouth Neon, which the American press sometimes collectively referred to as the Chrysler Neon (because both Dodge and Plymouth were owned by the Chrysler Corporation). —David Levy 12:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be called "Dodge Neon", and respect where the car was built. This was an American car that happened to be sold in other areas. It was NEVER sold as a Chrysler Neon in the United States.2600:8804:400:9E50:6443:9676:2ED8:860B (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Images

What is wrong with Image:1997Plymouth-Neon.jpg? There is a proper source and tagging. Plus the free image is of poorer quality. Bavaria 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If the free image is of decent quality, then it must replace the fair use image. Besides, it's generally considered better to upload free images rather than fair use images; in fact I've stopped uploading fair use images in favor of free images. I suggest you do what me and SteveBaker do, go on eBay auctions for a car and ask the seller if it's alright to use under the public domain. It works... --ApolloBoy 21:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Model years

Remember before editing that under US law, a model year may begin as early as January 2 of the previous year. The Neon is one such example of a car introduced very early in 1994 as a 1995 - all the sales literature, as well as the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin and subsequent titles describe these models as 1995s.

However, subsequent model years of the Neon began in the fall (starting in the fall of 1995 for 1996 models), and the last model year was 2005, concluding in September of that year.

You will find no Neons titled in North America as 1994 or 2006 models. — AKADriver ☎ 19:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good fix on the article. There was a user awhile back whose name I don't recall at the moment who went around changing a bunch of vehicle articles to calendar years, rather than model years. Cleaning up his mess has been a protracted effort...thanks for your help. --Scheinwerfermann 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That user was me (My user number was 71.62.244.59 at the time, and was changed to 71.63.42.172 in August 2007 for unknown reasons). What he means is that I tried to put in both calendar years and model years. For example: 1989-1994
1989-1995 (model years). Model years seem kind of hard to follow, because they don't align perfectly with calendar years.-71.63.42.172 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Neon Confusion

I took the big step and removed the "2006" section, replacing it with one dubbed "Final year". I thought among all this speculation, it would be best to take it out, until a final solution is made. I looked through my old personal Chrysler Fleet files and found that it shows a very limited amount of cars selling under the 2006 model designation (and registered as 2006s) in select areas of Canada (as SX 2.0s). These would have more than likely been sold as fleet, (to customers such as governmental branches).This was probably only limited to these few areas. I realize if you google "2006 Neon", you get nothing and if you google "2006 2.0" you still get not very much. I have combed the far ends of the internet, along with other resources, and have found onezies and twozies in terms of examples. However, I've seen this before with a vehicle back in the 1980s, being sold as a 90, despite all commonly known documentation stating otherwise, much like this case. Even the owners manual said otherwise... So there is some evidence in regards to this. Any thoughts?...should a brief inclusion about the possibility of these 2006s made, with some form of reference or link to back it up or course? I'll leave it at that. Solid article otherwise! Jon the dodgeboy 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

....another edit...this time about the Caliber

I made a quick edit that claimed the srt-4 neon's replacement, the Calibre srt, would make around 300hp. Current power claims now rate is at between 280-285 (with Chrysler's updated pre-release info putting it at 283hp). It wasn't a major or absolutely needed edit, but I thought I would save someone else the trouble. Jon the dodgeboy 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

alright people....

I think it would be helpful (and in good manners) if when somebody contributes a major edit...or tags this article as being...good, bad..whatever, that they mention something about it here. This is just what I think Jon the dodgeboy (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms

Where are these peacock terms?? how do we deal with this here?? --Solumeiras (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to edit out the opinions of the writer, and cite statements. Unreferenced statements should be deleted. peacock terms: "merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article."

Its too much

This article has become so cluttered with "citations needed" and "peacock terms" notes that it has become difficult to read. Quit adding these and do something about it! Mike

Safety issues

The safety issues are currently presented in a somewhat biased fashion IMHO. A car in its last year, engineered at a time when people generally did not care much about auto safety ratings, was compared to vehicles engineered later. The first generation was not compared to its peers, while the second generation was only compared in 2005, its final year. The language seems harsh as well.Davert (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Quoting an expert (as the article does) can never be "biased". If you cand find another expert saying that the Neon was not so bad after all, please add that POV 2. The "harsh" language are the words uttered by the same expert. 3. If the second generation was compared in 2005, that´s because Chrysler choose to manufacture and sell such an old design in 2005. Could you please be more specific about what are you complining at?.Randroide (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, among other things, renaming the section Safety, as it sits in Corolla and other cars, would help. Comparisons to Civic, Corolla, and Cavalier would also be handy though I realize I'd have to do that myself. Davert (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I renamed the section. If you want to provide context just mentioning briefly the results of other contemporary cars it´s good for me. Just take a look at Mini#Safety. I created the section just presenting the ghastly facts about how bad the passive safety of the Mini is (a true deathtrap, the Neon is a Experimental Safety Vehicle compared to the Mini). Mini lovers after me added the "context". You know: "The Mini is bad, but lots of other cars are as bad or worse". Please make it brief. Randroide (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Neon Engine

All Neons used Chrysler engines. Mitsubishi used the Chrysler 2.0 in its cars. No Neon used a Mitsubishi engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyNeon (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That is true but the Chrysler 2.0 was later used by Mitsubishi (they used their own engine for turbos and Chrysler for non-turbos.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davert (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Neon engine - relation with Tritec engines

"The 1.6 L unit is a variation of the 2.0 L SOHC engine designed by Chrysler and built by Tritec." From what I read, it seems the 2.0 L/1.8 L engine used by Neon has no relationship with Tritec engines. Anyone has more info.? North wiki (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a smaller version of the same engine. See http://www.allpar.com/mopar/rover.html -- and I referenced. Davert (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob Lutz - Chairman of Chrysler?

"At the Neon's release, then chairman of Chrysler Corporation Bob Lutz said". I think Bob was then the President of Chrysler.North wiki (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Davert (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Known manufacturing defects

I drove a North American market Dodge Neon Mk.1 from 1996 to 2007 when the engine died, and as such am aware of certain, in my opinion notable, manufacturing defects common to early Neons.

First would be the issue of the engine block's head gasket, which was noted among the Neon owner community (aided by the growth of internet access) to frequently suffer serious leakage after about a year of normal operation, greatly reducing engine performance and requiring costly repairs (covered partially by Chrysler, if I recall).

Second, a cost cutting measure and quirky design aspect of the Neon was that the driver airbag unit and the car horn unit were integrated into the same module in the steering wheel. As a result, very cold weather caused the airbag unit to contract, consequentially pushing together the contacts of the horn unit, causing a sustained honk that could only be stopped by disconnecting the horn unit (i.e. by removing the fuse). I frequently drove without a horn for a couple of years (a.k.a. illegally) until I had a third party horn installed.

Lastly, a purely cosmetic concern was that all early first generation Neons in Lapis Blue experienced problems with the paint peeling prematurely. I believe that the explanation was that the Lapis color paint was subject to an experimental formula and mixing procedure aimed at reducing environmental impact (reducing the toxicity, increasing biodegradability...), which had the unintended effect of causing cracking and peeling when exposed to sunlight for long periods (i.e. living in California). Chrysler acknowledged the existence of this defect but only offered to pay half of the price of a new paint job, causing many owners like me to forgo this option.

Personally, apart from these rather costly problems, I still found the Neon to be a comfortable, high-performing, and reasonably reliable car. I don't know if I would call it a lemon--it certainly wasn't spectacular--but I look back on it fondly. In any case I think that its mixed reputation for the reliability of its parts and design deserves a mention. I realize this is completely anecdotal but hopefully an experienced wikipedian can run a search on these issues, which I believe are fairly well documented online, and incorporate them into the article.

All the best, spokmage 77.209.122.30 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

2601:C:3D80:5B:447F:C1AE:881F:1D18 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Tutelary (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The author of these empty requests is the same person who's been vandalizing this and other related pages for months, which is why it's semi-protected in the first place. DES (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chrysler Neon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081128144548/http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=382 to http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=382
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081127130958/http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_news_030605.pdf to http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_news_030605.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090730001644/http://www.iihs.org:80/ratings/head_restraints/headrestraints.aspx?dodge to http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/headrestraints.aspx?dodge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)