The R/T they mentioned is not the R/T that we came to know. I think you can refer it as a RT, not a R/T. The article just referred RT is a higher line model from the RS.

If they come out with that 4.0 V6, I wonder if it will be offered as a future replacement of the 4.7 as the 4.0 has more HP but a little shy on torque. I like to see this 4.0 to replace some of the 3.5's offered in some of the bigger bulkier vehicles such as the Pacifica, magnum, etc.

 

I like the way it looks. It should do well in the design department. My question is why the fuel economy isn't slightly better with the fact that it will have a 6 speed transmission. If they offered another overdrive this could help the fuel economy a little. Maybe the larger displacement and double the number of valves uses up the difference. I hope that they will add the Dual-VVT technology to help the low end grunt stay strong and to help the fuel economy by 1 mpg (the Dual-VVT is reported to improve mpg by .05 times the normal mileage). The 3.8L has very good low-end grunt. The reliability shouldn't drop since it will be just a larger 3.5L which is based off the 3.3L/3.8L block. Even if this beats the Honda Odessey and Toyota Sienna in acceleration and is the only one to offer dual rows of Stow'N'Go, at a better price I'm sure the press will find something new and stupid to complain about like they have been for the last ten years. They probably won't even make a big deal about the fact that it offers a six-speed after they have made a big deal over the Japanese models offering five-speeds for all these years.

I think they are going to offer the 4.0L in the LX cars, the Pacifica, and possibly some Jeeps and other SUVs. I would like to see either the 3.5L or the 4.0L offered in up coming Stratus/Sebring update.

 

leave it to consumers report to drag its name through the mud, when it is clearly the best model out there.

 

No kidding. I like how they can't decide on whether the 3.5L or the HEMI is more reliable. With the 300 series they say the HEMI is less reliable and with the Magnum they say the 3.5L is less reliable. Their review on the Jeep Liberty CRD is just plain amusing. The fuel mileage ratings and acceleration numbers they were getting were way below what everyother automotive press outlet was getting. They always have only one sometime two pros listed and about five or six cons for every Chrysler product. Consumer Reports is really a worthless source in my mind. I'll go to Edmunds to hear directly from the consumers what about the car they liked and disliked so then I can ignore the morons who state that they hate the whole car and that it is so unreliable because their is a squeak when you touch the arm rest and gives the lowest rating possible on each category because of one minor problem. CR rates some of the best vehicles in terms of reliability poorly and some of the most unreliable vehicles highly.

 

i was looking at it yesterday. there is this one section which they list every car in a category and bolded the ones they suggested. almost every Toyota, Honda, and Nissan where bolded. ford and gm maybe had 2 vehicles each, and i think the only Chrysler group vehicle was the crossfire(rebadged Mercedes).

 

The thing that strikes me as false also is that they rate Hybrid models as being more reliable than the conventional models. That is full of it. Most Hybrids use CVTs which have a reputation for breaking prematurely and electronic things tend to have all kinds of glitches all the time. I also refuse to believe that a engine that is constantly starting and shutting off isn't going to have reliability issues. It isn't good for an engine to be turn on and off that often.

I think they still recommend the PT Crusier or did they change their mind on that one too. The turbo model they rate as being more reliable than the non-turbo model which doesn't make sense to me since the turbo adds extra stress to the engine as well as the transmission. Your right about them sucking up to Toyota, Honda, and Nissan though. The thing they don't tell you is that the Japanese manufactures have you replace anything and everything that could go wrong and call it maintenance. A friend of mine has a '99 Carmy 2.2L I4 (an engine which is known for sludging problems) at her 90,000 mile maintenance spend $1,200 on the "scheduled maintenance." All types of gaskets, sensors, valves, and other parts that are redicilous to replace like that. I don't think my car has half the listed recommended things to replace at 90,000 miles that she had done. That is how they trick the consumer. Oh, and when CR finally reported about Toyota's sludge problem which covered two of their engines, did this affect Toyota's ratings? No. Niether did Honda admitting to their transmission problems. This is why I dislike CR.

 

RT ... R/T ... same difference...

 

Well the difference is the RT does not stand for a R/T (Road and Track) model trim. It is simply the name of the platform which the previous name was the RS platform and this is simply the next letter.

 

Same difference... they are both sport/performance models... same difference

 

What does it matter what they call the platform? They are not calling it a performance plaform it just happened to be the next letter in the line. I think your reading a little too deep into this.