Haha...

I had an '02 Dodge Neon ES with a 2.0 Liter in it (132 HP) with a 5 Speed Manual and in the winter it only got 28MPG on average, sometimes it got 30 MPG and yes, it had a new air filter in it, proper air pressures in the tires, etc... In the warmer months, yes it did get up to 36 MPG on average, but most of the time it stayed right around 32 MPG.

I tell ya, one of the biggest things I didn't like about the Neon was not being able to haul stuff. The trunk opening was very small, so even though the trunk may be the near the size as the space in the Caliber, the Caliber is a much easier car to haul things in with the hatch and the flat folding seats (including the passenger seat). I could never get anything in the trunk and most of the time I ended up putting it in the front pass seat, which I hated to do since I had leather seats in it and didn't want to poke a hole in them.

 

I would never say the Caliber beats the Neon is MPG, but I do not believe that it is such a huge difference that it makes the Caliber bad. As you said yourself, the Caliber offers so much to offset any negatives to the loss of the Neon that it makes the MPG importance minimal at best.

If it wasnt for Dodge getting the Caliber, I would not be buying a Dodge either, so obviously it is bringing it new customers.

So Caliber 1 Neon 0

 

Anyone know exactly how fast those Civics have been selling? Those Civic coupes are ugly.



I'm hoping for the Hornet (www/dodge-hornet.com), awesome B-car!


edit: WTH, I can't get my post out of that quote box!???

 

VulnoX,
I've spoke with a few dealership's who have the Dodge Caliber on their lots, and they located the rear seat heating ducts on the floor, under the front seats. They are small heat ducts that face the rear of the vehicle.
Let me know if this helps.

Thanks

Kelly S

 

I knew it!

 

Thanks for the information!

I am leaving in about 40 minutes to drive down to Indiana to get the car. So by 2pm I should have it!

 

Sooooo.........? Do you own one yet Vulnox?

 

As it's already been showed to you. The Caliber's 0-60 is not as slow as you said. The Caliber will NOT fail to reach 60 on a highway/interstate ramp. You're just trying to make it seem that way.

The 00-05 Neon is by far a better looking looking car than any Civic. IMO

As for performance. Um, no... Don't no why you think that...

Last Neon vs recent Civic... Keep in mind, the Neon has a low end engine and a high end engine... nothing else. This is high end vs high end and low end vs low end...

2005 Dodge Neon SRT4: 0-60: 5.3, QM: 13.9 (WINNER)
2006 Honda Civic SI: 0-60: 7.2, QM: 15.1

(HP/LB ratio - Time hard to find. Weight divided by HP - LOWER EQUALS BETTER. Price range = same)
2005 Dodge Neon SE Sedan: HP/LB ratio: 19.553 (2,581 lbs/132 hp) (WINNER)
2005 Honda Civic DX Sedan: HP/LB raito: 21.295 (2,441 lbs/115 hp)


More comparisons (In even comparisons the Civic almost never beats the Neon)

Maybe you'd like to see early year coupes...
1995 Dodge Neon Sport Coupe: 0-60: 8.0, QM: 16.2
1996 Honda Civic Coupe: 0-60: 9.4, QM: 17.1

Maybe a mid existance sedan comparison...
2000 Dodge Neon ES: 0-60: 8.8, QM: 16.9
1999 Honda Civic LX Sedan: 0-60: 9.4, QM: 17.2

Maybe a sedan vs coupe...
2001 Dodge Neon R/T: 0-60: 7.6, QM: 16.1
2000 Honda Civic EX Coupe: 0-60: 8.4, QM 16.7

1996 Sedans...
1996 Dodge Neon Highline: 0-60: 9.1, QM: 16.8
1996 Honda Civic EX Sedan: 0-60: 10.5, QM: 17.6

Apparently you don't pay too much attention to sales... Because the best sellers aren't all performance models... For exmaple: Caravan leads in it's class.


You're just trying to make it seem the way you want it. When it fact, it's the opposite...

But you are right about one thing. The Civic sells and that's mostly because of MPG, nothing else. The Neon has a bad name for the 1st gen's problems and "cuteness". Was time to replace it...

 

Sorry, Midnight. The confusion is mine, in responding to so many messages.

I agree the Neon is a better looking car than many of the Honda machines. Actually, had the old Civic been available, I might have gone with it, though the new Hondas are so much more money. I might have even gone with the 2006 model (though it looks like a car my Mom would drive) had it been available, in a similar price point, and met my needs. (I haul dogs. The back of the Neon could be adapted nearly as well as my 94 Sidekick for hauling dogs and is a <lot> easier to load them up.)

For performance, one should look at the 40MPG 2006 Honda. That's better performance and 40MPG... or so the early specs show. I was sort of expecting the Neon replacement to show similar improvements after all the pre-press ads said the new tranny got 8% better mileage than the former automatic. The new engine was touted as being a huge improvement... but one can only assume that meant that it's cheaper to put into the car. (Reviews indicate that it sounds cheap and we see that it doesn't improve on performance over the former engine.)

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the car doesn't give better performance or better mileage, in a similar sized car. At very least, since it's a bit more upright of a design, I would expect better leg room, especially in the rear... or perhaps more cargo space. It's lost the trunk, so one would expect a considerable storage space, or leg room, as the case may be.

I guess I'm confused as to what the selling point is, other than <it's not pretty>, as the ads say. Most other Dodge products with this sort of styling (such as the station wagon) have high performance. Sorry... but if it's now going to go head-to-head with medium priced vehicles, I was trying to find why one would want to go with Dodge.

Perhaps advertising will carry the car through and make it kewel.