By the time the Neon was launched in 1994, it was one more episode in Detroit’s unintended saga: “How Hard Can It Be To Make a Compact?”
Detroit wasn’t making it easy for the US automotive press, who had to cover these cars and try not to ruffle too many -advertising- feathers while doing so. And the May 1994 review of the Neon Sport pretty much states the Neon’s letdown from the get go, in so many words. After all, the Neon’s launch was filled with constant glitches, and how to keep your hard-earned readership without warning them so? Advertisers or readers?
Like all good sagas, the last chapters tend to be the most compelling, and in the case of Detroit’s compacts, the launch of the Saturn and Neon were the best up to then. Inching ever closer. Could they finally build a real world class compact? Would they improve on the foundation they had just built?
The foundation may have been alright, but as it was Chrysler’s wont when ‘design’ came into the picture, the Neon’s launch was botched with multiple recalls: Electrical shorts, failing ABS systems, not the kind of thing that happened with the trouble-free Civics and Corollas my California pals owned. At least lessons had been learned since the Pinto/Corvair days, and the company made much effort to accomodate ‘affected’ customers. Then again, regardless of efforts such matters probably didn’t create much good will in the long run.
Not that the Neon was without merit. It seemed an entertaining idea for those who followed cars (and hyped as such by Chrysler), and against the anonymous jelly-belly compacts of the period it stood out with a spunky and attention grabbing design. It also wasn’t unnoticed that after all the hoopla and many billions GM had thrown on the Saturn, the Neon appeared fully formed at a fraction of the cost thanks to Chrysler’s “platform team” development approach. In close inspection the Neon didn’t hold against the refinement of a Honda or Toyota, but it carried a lower price and that alone could seal the deal for many.
In spite of the Neon’s assembly woes, Chrysler did have a compelling group of engineers that knew how to put a fun car together. In regards of the Neon’s driving dynamics, most reviewers spoke nicely on its performance. And in sporty guise, doubts about interior noise and lack of refinement were easier to overlook in exchange for some spunk.
Don’t get me wrong, I liked the Neon since day one. The package and concept -finally- seemed right; it was a matter of sticking to the plot and reach the end of the saga. Without further errors.
Well, we know how the saga ended. Which in hindsight, seems to have been more of a comedy of errors.
Hi.
I remember being intrigued by the original Neon concept from 1991, and a bit let down by the exterior design of the production model, in 1994. Today, I find the concept still looks modern, cheerful, and futuristic, unlike either generation of the production versions. Other than the nose, I didn’t find the first gen Neon especially cute. The similarly styled Cavalier and Sunfire both looked more substantial. And more masculine. Though, the Neons did have well-designed, and spacious, interiors.
Smart marketing, and having more personality than the competition, giving these a sales edge for a few years. I knew a couple coworkers who carefully maintained their Neons, and loved them. In some ways, the Dodge Shadow’s more neutral styling, has aged better. Hype generating baggage for the Neon.
The 2.0 liter Neon engine was noted for head gasket failures. I had a ’97 Plymouth Breeze with that engine and the 5-speed manual. Blew a head gasket at 43,000 miles. Dealer fixed it for $200, then I found out that Chrysler had instructed them to fix it for $100. I mentioned it to the dealer and they said, “Well, you agreed to $200.”
Head gasket blew again at 44,000 miles, so I traded it in on a 2000 Impala. Too bad, as I loved the Breeze and got the advertised 37 mpg on the highway.
I had a same-year, same spec Stratus. I got 43 once on a trip- without ‘trying’. Dealer replaced my gasket also, can’t remember how much for. It was a car that I really liked, handling, A/C, MPG, room, but I got scared it was going to cost money over time, so I traded it for my first new car, 02 Mazda Protege5.
I remember driving one of these when they were new. Didn’t like it at all. Felt so cheap. Interior full of hard grey plastic, including the weirdly sloped armrests with an annoying sharp-edged trim piece right where your hand wanted to be. Even the Sundance and Shadow these replaced felt more refined, with some versions with the Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 and a 4 speed automatic that drove smoothly and quietly. What’s this, they’ve regressed to a buzzy 2L four with a 3 speed autobox? This had to have been one of the last cars sold in the US with a 3 speed transmission. I also missed the hatchback the Sundance had.
Besides the start-up glitches, there were some other self-inflicted wounds that made the Neon a less-than-stellar subcompact choice.
For starters, there was the lack of a 4-speed automatic which, by then, had pretty much become the standard for small cars. The Neon had to make do with a 3-speed TorqueFlite.
OTOH, this might have been a blessing in disguise since Chrysler’s early FWD 4-speed automatic efforts had teething problems that quickly earned them a bad reputation. Although not as efficient, the 3-speed was way more reliable.
And then there were the power windows. In what can only be described as a cost-cutting move, when ordered on the 4-door, the front windows were powered but the rear ones were ‘not’. A truly strange thing but I guess it kept the option price down, which was the real key to the Neon’s success.
IOW, it might not have as good as the best competition (i.e., Corolla and Civic) but the low cost of admission (and an effective marketing campaign) kept it competitive enough to be Iacocca’s swan song as he walked out the door. Between it and, say, the new-for-1995 Chevy Cavalier, the Neon was most definitely ‘good enough’ (at least for domestic makes).
This was a weirdly common thing on British cars. A lot of British-market Ford cars of the ’80s and ’90s offered only power front windows. I could see offering a choice, but not offering power rear windows seems odd. I have no explanation other than to note that it was more common than one might think.
My 98 Citroen Xsara was like that pwr front doors manual rear.
As Bryce says, also a habit seen in many other European cars. Power windows were very much a luxury item in the 90s here.
I can only think that the reason for not having rear power windows as well was that it cost more?
Always a full size upscale fan, the Neon (or any small car) never had any attraction for me. My 83 and 85 RWD Fifth Avenues were one of Chryslers best attempts at creating the legendary silk purse from a sows ear! 😉. A friend bought a 90 something FWD LeBaron which was plush, good looking, and comfortable. BUT it had the larger motor. Chrysler screwed up again. That motor was too much for the transmission. He had transmission repaired once and after having to replace it, he traded for an Olds FWD 88, which also became problematic. But that is another sad example of the downward spiral of the auto industry 😕!
Personality can go a long way and in the Neon’s case it surely did. It had a distinctive and approachable face (nobody would be confusing it with anything else in the class), when equipped correctly handled and performed quite well, and was available in a multitude of bright, happy colors. It’s actually surprising that Iacocca had anything to do with it as there isn’t a wanna-be medieval crest or a curb feeler anywhere in sight, yet apparently he was the one that urged the usage of the roundish lights as on the show/concept car instead of a more mundane design that was being ushered through the development process.
Don’t know about the accuracy of the often repeated story about Iacocca’s insistance on the Neon’s round headlights but, if true, it goes a long way to proving that, even at the end of his career, Iacocca still had among the best instincts in auto history.
No doubt, these were disposable and many ended up in rental car los to offset pick up truck CAFE numbers. And in typical Detroit mindset, corrects and enhancements were made as time progressed.
However, not everyone in 1995 could afford a new car with $350 monthly notes (approximately $750 today??), so lets give credit were credit is due.
Also, let’s consider the Caliper and Dart replacements. I would consider the Neon superior, especially a two door with the double overhead cam and 5 speed. Plenty enough grunt to get your young ass in trouble.
At the time of the Neon introduction I was frequently renting cars for just me to travel for one or two day periods in one city only. So these were cheap and small cars. I never got a Neon and I have never been in one. I don’t remember these in the Hertz or Avis fleets.
The generally bad were the Shadow/Sundance and the Cavalier. The acceptable was the Focus/Tracer. The good was the Corolla and the Colt/Mirage iterations. I would have enjoyed trying a Neon once but never got one. They looked interesting.
The Tracer was never related to the Focus, but rather the earlier Escort (or the Mazda 323 by way of the (Australian) Ford Laser for the earliest ones.
The Focus was a cleansheet design and it took the hot hatch handling crown from the Citroen Xsara Im told,
A Xsara will corner at any speed you are game to try it simply doesnt have a limit with the turbo diesel I had you cant go fast enough so the Focus is pretty good
My family obtained possession of a ‘96 white highline, just like all the ones seen in the early marketing materials and commercials, for a company car. It was the only vehicle that broke a consistent run of Prizms (that eventually became Corollas) since their 1990 debut, for entirely predictable reasons. Ours had the leaky rank-smelling AC condenser from almost day one. Sigh.
Part of me thinks if it weren’t for that cheeky, rambunctious nature these cars played up, the initial praise wouldn’t have been nearly as audible; that big-eyes face was apparently not in the cards until the final hour, and I don’t see the rough engine and loud interior being nearly as endearing as it was in something that looked more generic and invisible, or wasn’t as fast as it was. That said, if there were any positive lasting marks the Neon left upon consumers, I’d argue very much so that it showed a small car not only didn’t have to be cramped, it could even be spacious. Upon debut the Neon absolutely trounced everything else in class in this regard and most following subcompacts made a point to follow suit. Another factor that probably helped Neon at the time was the extremely underwhelming “redesign” of GM’s J-body twins that did little to impress and continued to sell primarily on price, and price alone.
Ironically (or not?) enough, the next domestic that combined all the big positives the Neon had into one package duplicated the major reliability and recall flaws along with it – the Ford Focus. I personally got to experience that blunder firsthand with a new ‘01 ZX3…
I recall an a campaign communicating that a large percentage of the Neon was recyclable. Who really wants to know that your expensive new car is acceptable at the dump? Maybe it was a last ditch effort to make you feel better when it crapped out 3 years later. No matter, it must have worked out in the end at the crusher.
To be fair, recyclability was being touted by a number of other auto makers too.
I had a Neon as a loaner while my Dodge was in the dealer for some work on the front end that needed parts (to make camber/caster adjustable). It was a disappointment for its noise and lack of refinement. On the plus side, it was peppy even with the base engine, and handling was pleasantly agile. If I were in the market, I probably would have stretched the budget for a Dodge Stratus.
Bungled marketing contributed to a bad sales start from which the Neon never recovered. As I recall the penalty-box stripper models started at under $10,000, but there was an appealing ad campaign that claimed you could buy a new Neon for “$13,000 nicely equipped,” which was a decent price at the time. Theoretically this was true, but the reality was that there were very few, if any, nicely equipped $13,000 models at dealerships. Dealerships were full of heavily-optioned models that cost $15,000-$16,000. Many potential customers felt they’d been misled by a bait-and-switch ad campaign and bought something else.
That’s possible later in the production run, but not at initial release. The “early” 1995 cars like this well optioned (it even has the “flash” cloth) tester didn’t have much more available to add. The three omissions on this car are cruise control, the roof rack, and integrated child safety seat. Factory CD, alloy wheels, the front power windows, rear spoiler, and sunroof weren’t even offered until the Coupe’s debut.
Wow. I thought Neons came from the factory “turded out” with primer spots and a fart can exhaust.
When introducing an all-new car, manufacturers don’t often retain high profile elements that define style and looks, from earlier discontinued models.
I was genuinely surprised Chrysler retained this wheel cover style (bottom) that was popularly used on the ’94 Dodge Shadow, when launching the Neon. Especially given Chrysler was consistently making such a strong design break from early products, at the time.
I thought the wheels covers on the ’91 Neon design concept, would have looked great on a production car.
Thanks for this brochure scan, I remember it fondly for one thing: notice the red car’s wheel covers are different front to rear? It’s a Photoshop job gone wrong! Haha.
I believe a post went to the spam/trash folder. Thank you!
Ah, the overzealous spam filter at work. Your comment is back up now.
Lower price may have helped sales but when these landed down under they were priced similar to the top selling Corolla which they did not compare very well with slower used more fuel not as nice fit and finish they were more in the Hyundai excel class of car but 8k more expensive, similar issues the new Cherokee had, nice car but the warranty didnt include the entire country so if you had problems in the outback tough titties,
Neons are very rarely seen now in NZ though having said that Ill see my first for years this week I said the same about PT Cruisers and spotted one with grass doorhandle high a few days later.
Ex-wife #1 and I ordered a Flash Red 1995 Neon Sport (5-speed equipped) in February 1994. After many weeks of anxious waiting, our Neon arrived at the dealership in April. Since ours was an early-production Sport, it did not come with the ‘Tango’ confetti upholstery. Instead, it had a gray corduroy-with-speckles cloth that turned out to be more comfortable and grippier than the ‘Tango’ cloth turned out to be.
It was a fun car. I had a blast driving it. I do remember it being somewhat louder than a typical subcompact of the time. It didn’t faze me because:
1-I knew the design was basically sound. $5 per car of missing sound-deadening mastic pad wasn’t going to bother me.
and…
2-I’m Gen-X. I’m used to loud music a couple of extra decibels won’t bother me (as I type this, the extra tinnitus I developed from that era is ringing away in my right ear)
Reliability? In the three years we had it (had to trade it in because of impending family expansion…triplets), there were no head gasket issues, no structural issues, or paint issues. It did, however, have the Sticky Turn Signal Switch Syndrome, where the turn signal switch would occasionally slip and stick just enough to illuminate the left or right turn signal lamp. Definitely an example of Componentry-By-the-Low-Bid method.
I miss that car. Even though my ex-wife had a tradition of denting up all of her cars, I thought it was a great-looking and fun-to-drive car. We put over 50,000 miles on it in the 3 years we owned it. Since I am really particular about maintenance, it gave us no problems. The Neon does not respond well to the typical American “Aw, hell! Let’s dump some mud puddle water in the radiator-it’s cheaper than antifreeze” school of maintenance and upkeep. I eventually did buy a used 1998 Highline a few years later. Sadly-it had already been neglected in the first 2 years of its life. once I chased down and fixed the glitches, it provided 8 years of trouble -free service.
Regarding the ‘Hi” ad campaign.–We were stopped in heavy traffic on I-5 in Seattle. A car drove by in the next lane and the kid in the back seat yelled to his parents in the front seat “Hey! It’s one of those ‘Hi’ cars!”
Loud on the highway, “ok ” for a local driver, tended to burn through oil as I recall. Had one as a rental too; was toward/at the end of the “Neon’s run”.
Front windows were “electric”; noticed as I was returning car..back windows were “rollers”!
That was just weird!
Power front/manual rear windows was very common in Europe for many years, and probably other markets, to.
The horrible truth about the Neon was all it could have been. With even decent quality it could have taken the market by storm. Consumers wanted to stick with the brand, except there was no competitor for the Corolla or Civic. This is where the Neon came in. It was a compelling package that drove very well. Problem was it was cheapened out in places that made it very unreliable, places like head gaskets. Typically, they sold well in the first couple of years, when the word of their reliability became known.
The replacement in 2000 was in fact a decent car but by that time it was too late to salvage the Neon brand.
I wonder why a car company would release a design that is obviously half baked. The warranty claims of the Neon helped sink Chrysler and send it to the arms of Daimler-Benz.
When I worked for Chrysler in 2004, I didn’t see a single gen 1 Neon come in. They were all dead by then.
Pretty sure the classic SAAB 900 sedan had the option of power front windows/crank rears. The later GM parts bin 900 had power on all 4.
Cheap and plentiful, I’m sure many used Neons become a kid’s first car. I sure saw plenty of “customized” Neons and their young drivers..
I remember the excited buzz around the Neon. This was the American compact that was finally gonna meet and beat the Japanese. This was the one that had the Japanese sweating; why, Honda and Toyota bought and dissected Neons to figure out where the magic was.* This was the one!
The actuality was disappointing. Not without a merit here and there, but overall a not-very-durable shortcomer with too many dumb problems. Water leaks into the trunk via the taillights…water and wind leaks into the cabin via the frameless door glass…early-and-ugly paint failure…early-and-often head gasket failure, et way too much cetera.
*Uhhhh…hey, yeah…where’s the magic?
Well the sad truth is that it COULD have been – sort of. I remember those here in Austria and also in Israel (when I visited my family there) and they seemed to be selling alright for what they were. Not like Toyotas or even assorted Europeans but still. Chrysler and more so M-B missed an opportunity to create a budget brand to sell below the more luxurious models. This is exactly what VW did with Skoda/SEAT and Renault with Dacia. Methodically sort out the reliability/build quality issues, offer a diesel for the (then) EU market and it would have sold. But then GM, too, messed up in the same way with Daewoo – just when the brand was becoming accepted in the EU (as Chevrolet) they withdrew it because “it was taking away sales from Opel”. And then they sold Opel to Peugeot. Great.
Was the head gasket issue with the 2.0 engine ever resolved? My recollection is that it continued to be a problem for a frustratingly long time, which was off-putting for what might have been a decent cheap-and-cheerful transportation choice.
Well…you know’t they say!
Back in the day, I remember reading that Chrysler reduced its costs on the Neon by reducing the number of fasteners holding the car together. What could possibly go wrong?!
So many comments online about how “Chrysler made great cars in the 90’s”. But, really they had so many quality issues, so looks aren’t everything.
Lots of Cloud cars, LH, and Neons in BHPH/junk pile after 5-10 years. And junked to extinction by 2010.
May have been better off just keeping K-car based products to avoid the bugs.
Well the sad truth is that it COULD have been – sort of. I remember those here in Austria and also in Israel (when I visited my family there) and they seemed to be selling alright for what they were. Not like Toyotas or even assorted Europeans but still. Chrysler and more so M-B missed an opportunity to create a budget brand to sell below the more luxurious models. This is exactly what VW did with Skoda/SEAT and Renault with Dacia. Methodically sort out the reliability/build quality issues, offer a diesel for the (then) EU market and it would have sold. But then GM, too, messed up in the same way with Daewoo – just when the brand was becoming accepted in the EU (as Chevrolet) they withdrew it because “it was taking away sales from Opel”. And then they sold Opel to Peugeot. Great.