DOUBLE TAKE: Study Indicates That Chrysler's Cars Are Almost As Good As Those From Toyota

There is something in there.. Either Chrysler is getting to be that good, or Toyota is in decline.

You decide on that one.

After witnessing a Toyota minivan get its accelerator pedal stock and destroying 4 cars in front of an elementry school right before the start of class, my perception is a little bit of both.

Toyota is smart. They use the same 4 cyl. and V6 engines for years, same drivetrains, fuel pumps, alternators, engine hardware, etc. because it is tried and true. That V6 in the RX/ES/Camry is a proven engine and reliable. Very smart.

Same engines for years, tried and true? Very Smart? How about old, outdated, and they can't do any better? I'm sorry but if I wanted a car with a 10 year old engine design, I'd buy a 10 year old car. I wouldn't spend new car money on a car that has an old outdated engine. I guess that's why I'm not a Toyota fan. Enjoy

On the other side, mine is equipped with luxury interiors, 2.4 L DOHC Turbo 4 engine, Auto Stick tansmission, top audio system and the only things I had to remove and trash were the too soft springs and wimpy shocks, and cheap brake pads and rotors, replaced with Eibach Pro-Kit progressive springs (not to firm) and Bilstein Shocks; and slotted ATE front rotors and good ceramic pads (Posi-Quiet). At our very high elevation of more than 7350 ft. above sea level, my Stratus Turbo leaves behind most aspirated cars, and only exotics can pass me! After 11 years and 80,000 troublefree miles, I can attest to its good quality. But not every thing is nice: door locks stopped to work after 5 years because of a failed Body control module, and its repair is very costly. And maintaining it (a timing belt and watre pump replacement takes about FIVE times and is MORE THAN FIVE times more difficult to perform as compared to my good old 1991 Spirit R/T, so it is NOT as good as the car it replaced. My two cents. Amclaussen, Mexico City.

Sorry for the potentially dumb question but what is the vehicle in the photo please, it looks too curvy to be a Chrysler 300 and too stylish to be a 200. Any suggestions?

Congrats to Chrysler for the improvement in quality, now the challenge is to keep up the progress and convince the market of the changes. Jaguar is finding it tough to convince the general market that its quality has really improved. Negative perceptions can last a long time - GM diesel anyone?

I think it is a 200, the lighting and angle of the picture make it look a bit weird.

It's the Chrysler 200C EV Concept from 2009 which 'allegedly' serves as the basis from the upcoming 2014 (production) Chrysler 200.

We'll See...

@009 - thumbs up on your comment, that was funny.

I suspect that either the study was extremly biased or it reflect a sigificant deterioration in quality of Toyota vechicles. I've rented a number of Chrysler models over the years and I don't recall one driving experience where I said to myself, "I want to buy a car like this!". Sadly the effect was just the opposite.

Well, your suspicions are partly wrong and partly right:
Toyota's quality has had its issues. But Chrysler is probably the wrongest perceived brand in the whole world. Back in the early 90's, Chrysler had a very effective, high reliability plus maintenable line of cars. The Spirit and Acclaim were as reliable as Toyotas and Hondas of the same period. And those Chryslers were VERY easy to maintain and repair; having good design and correct assembly. If their top managers would have been a little less concerned in lowering the cost and quality of many components, Chryslers of that era could have been the absolute best deals, but they choose to use less than the best parts... still the results were fantastic for the price of those vehicles like the Spirit, Lebaron, Acclaim, New Yorker. The minivans were also good values, but lacked the high reliability of the cars. But in the second part of the 90's, they produced the much less desirable "Cloud cars" (Cirrus, Stratus; Intrepid etc.) and the legendary performance/price ratio went down. Under the disastrous (to say it politely) mis-management of Daimler (those inept, obtuse and unethical Germans), Chysler went down and it is a miracle the company still exists. It will be a matter of how well the Italians UNDERSTAND the true spirit of the Mopar philosophy that could return the company from disaster. The Dart promises to be a very good family car, but the management forgot to keep alive the sporty version, that could be even better than the legendary SRT-4 because they choose not to keep the good 2.4 L Trubo engine that would produce a very sporty, spirited car. Instead, they went to the absurdly smaller 1.6 L Turbo or the non-Turbo 2.0 or 2.4... So that means they DO NOT understand the legendary MOPAR performance sedans. What a shame and how pityful that the Dart will be a good chassis with a too little engine, instead of having a better than good Pocket-Rocket like the Neon SRT-4 with an improved chassis... just imagine what a good performing spirited sedan could it have been if they were better informed about the tradition of MOPAR.
Now, on your perception of Chrysler rentals: THE reason why those are among the WORST POSSIBLE vehycles is simply because NOTHING can come as cheap as a stripped down Chrysler in "for-rental" versions. Ican say that because I've rented several Stratus and Cirrus, all from the 2nd generation (2001 to 2005) for quite a few days and traveling many miles, just to find and corroborate how different those were to my own 2002 Stratus R/T Sedan Turbo!!! Everything is just a little different, from carpets, seats, dash finishes, fit and finish, tires and wheels, different engines and transmission and overall equipment.
RENTAL versions are intentionally detuned in order reduce accident rates and make them endure under the heavy foot of non-owners.
On the other side, mine is equipped with luxury interiors, 2.4 L DOHC Turbo 4 engine, Auto Stick tansmission, top audio syste