If they haven't changed the engine than all said changes don't matter.... I own one and while it's actually been very reliable, it's extremely under powered. I have to map out 30 seconds ahead of time before I pass someone. I think it does 0-60 in like 11 seconds. You step on the gas and all you get is a whole bunch of noise with very little result. No it's not a sports car, but you need to be able feel comfortable on the freeway on ramps getting up to speed without redlining.
@Jaebird82 I don't think it is the engine that is underpowered. IMHO it is the CVT they have it attached to. The same engine in the Avenger does great. But the 2.0 was upgraded to make more hp and more mpgs.
0-60 in 11? No way buddy. With the standard 2.0L you will get around early 8's to 60, and with the 2.4L World engine early 7's. The Caliber is definitely loud, that's for sure. If you seriously own one than you are really confused. The basic model has 158 HP. That's almost unheard of for the standrd model of a compact car.
@SecularTechnology Lol@ early 8's.No buddy, I think you're confused. Yes, I own a 2007. The problem lies in the CVT tranny, as an earlier poster noted. "TopSpeed.com" listed it as 11.9. Nevertheless, if you're ever in L.A., let me know and you can drive it. It seems to get slower as the months go by. I probably have a lemon and mine is worse than others, but if you do a little research, you'll see I'm not the only person complaining.
Bo buddy, YOU are confused. I've been to the SIR drag strip, and tested it myself. I have a 2010 Mainstream. I'm not sure about the 07, but mine has the 150 Hp and achieves 8.3. I know first hand, so don't tell me anything like you have some statistics. Or if you do LITERALLY have statistics on the 2010 model. Be sure to send me the link.
@SecularTechnology I don't care how many drag stripping shows you've been to. I"m talking about MY year, 2007.They do not run in the 8's. We're talking about two different years here,give it a rest.It's why I initially said that I hope they changed something because my year and specifically my car is incredibly slow..dangerously slow.Read Edmunds review of the 2010 caliber and how horrible it says it's power is comparatively to cars in it's class.I do like the car overall,but power is an issue.
So you have the 1.8? Even then: 11 seconds??? Come on now. Show me proof.
Yeah Edmunds Inside line stated the 2010 has poor acceleration, but keep in mind many compacts in their STANDARD form in the current generation (2008 onward) have 0-60 times in the 6 second range.
@SecularTechnology I can't believe you haven't done a simple Google search. Dude, are you really that hard headed? I have the 2.0. look it up.. I already gave you more than one resource. I read somewhere on Edmunds the 2008-2009 R/T (which I believe has the 2.4, I have the 2.0) listed the 0-60 in the 10 second range. I gave you another resource that has my year listed as 11.9.. that's not proof enough? Lol.I guess a well known car resource is lying.. and you're correct. What more do you want?
@Jaebird82 Man shut you damn mouth. I said send me your damn link. THE LINK. Don't quote the damn magazine idiot. Send me the link. Get that through your thick skull you moron.
No that isn't "proof enough" because you haven't sent me the link. Sure I can do a a Google search, but It is you who brought it up you smart ass.
This is for the bigger engined R/T: "It's hard to tell if the Caliber R/T's larger four-cylinder engine hit the target or not. It looks decent on paper, especially when compared to a Toyota Matrix or Mazda 3: 2.4 liters, 172 horsepower at 6,000 rpm, 165 pound-feet of torque at 4,400 rpm, DOHC, dual variable valve timing. But during testing, acceleration was more sluggish than the specs suggests.The Caliber's 10.1-second 0-60-mph time was unimpressive" I have the 2.0, so add a second or so.
You could have easily shut me up a long time ago, but I specifically asked for a link.
You never asked for a link, so I will just state that Autoweek tested the Caliber (2.4) R/T at 8.82 with unleaded. I couldn't find any links about the 2010, but from experience I have achieved 8.3 with Shell V-Power, and an my own additive.
@SecularTechnology God you're such a moron. We're talking about totally different years. I said my year and engine size does about 11 seconds, and you came on here like douche calling me "buddy", but the funny thing is that we're talking about different years.I don't need to give you a fucking link. "but It is you who brought it up you smart ass. " No, you brought it up you tard face, saying I was wrong. I can't believe I even let it get this far.. conversation over.
Developing a 5 sp automatic would have made more sense !!!
drguffey 1 year ago
hahahaha good car!!!
ultragato54 1 year ago
If they haven't changed the engine than all said changes don't matter.... I own one and while it's actually been very reliable, it's extremely under powered. I have to map out 30 seconds ahead of time before I pass someone. I think it does 0-60 in like 11 seconds. You step on the gas and all you get is a whole bunch of noise with very little result. No it's not a sports car, but you need to be able feel comfortable on the freeway on ramps getting up to speed without redlining.
Jaebird82 2 years ago
@Jaebird82 I don't think it is the engine that is underpowered. IMHO it is the CVT they have it attached to. The same engine in the Avenger does great. But the 2.0 was upgraded to make more hp and more mpgs.
MoparShowroom 1 year ago
@Jaebird82 i own a 3.4 2005 impala man is that sluggish, god help you if you are stopped in an uphill position
badgerattoadhall 1 year ago
@Jaebird82
0-60 in 11? No way buddy. With the standard 2.0L you will get around early 8's to 60, and with the 2.4L World engine early 7's. The Caliber is definitely loud, that's for sure. If you seriously own one than you are really confused. The basic model has 158 HP. That's almost unheard of for the standrd model of a compact car.
SecularTechnology 1 year ago
@SecularTechnology Lol@ early 8's.No buddy, I think you're confused. Yes, I own a 2007. The problem lies in the CVT tranny, as an earlier poster noted. "TopSpeed.com" listed it as 11.9. Nevertheless, if you're ever in L.A., let me know and you can drive it. It seems to get slower as the months go by. I probably have a lemon and mine is worse than others, but if you do a little research, you'll see I'm not the only person complaining.
Jaebird82 1 year ago
@Jaebird82
Bo buddy, YOU are confused. I've been to the SIR drag strip, and tested it myself. I have a 2010 Mainstream. I'm not sure about the 07, but mine has the 150 Hp and achieves 8.3. I know first hand, so don't tell me anything like you have some statistics. Or if you do LITERALLY have statistics on the 2010 model. Be sure to send me the link.
SecularTechnology 1 year ago
@SecularTechnology I don't care how many drag stripping shows you've been to. I"m talking about MY year, 2007.They do not run in the 8's. We're talking about two different years here,give it a rest.It's why I initially said that I hope they changed something because my year and specifically my car is incredibly slow..dangerously slow.Read Edmunds review of the 2010 caliber and how horrible it says it's power is comparatively to cars in it's class.I do like the car overall,but power is an issue.
Jaebird82 1 year ago
@Jaebird82
So you have the 1.8? Even then: 11 seconds??? Come on now. Show me proof.
Yeah Edmunds Inside line stated the 2010 has poor acceleration, but keep in mind many compacts in their STANDARD form in the current generation (2008 onward) have 0-60 times in the 6 second range.
SecularTechnology 1 year ago
@SecularTechnology I can't believe you haven't done a simple Google search. Dude, are you really that hard headed? I have the 2.0. look it up.. I already gave you more than one resource. I read somewhere on Edmunds the 2008-2009 R/T (which I believe has the 2.4, I have the 2.0) listed the 0-60 in the 10 second range. I gave you another resource that has my year listed as 11.9.. that's not proof enough? Lol.I guess a well known car resource is lying.. and you're correct. What more do you want?
Jaebird82 1 year ago
@Jaebird82 Man shut you damn mouth. I said send me your damn link. THE LINK. Don't quote the damn magazine idiot. Send me the link. Get that through your thick skull you moron.
No that isn't "proof enough" because you haven't sent me the link. Sure I can do a a Google search, but It is you who brought it up you smart ass.
SecularTechnology 1 year ago
This is for the bigger engined R/T: "It's hard to tell if the Caliber R/T's larger four-cylinder engine hit the target or not. It looks decent on paper, especially when compared to a Toyota Matrix or Mazda 3: 2.4 liters, 172 horsepower at 6,000 rpm, 165 pound-feet of torque at 4,400 rpm, DOHC, dual variable valve timing. But during testing, acceleration was more sluggish than the specs suggests.The Caliber's 10.1-second 0-60-mph time was unimpressive" I have the 2.0, so add a second or so.
Jaebird82 1 year ago
@Jaebird82
You could have easily shut me up a long time ago, but I specifically asked for a link.
You never asked for a link, so I will just state that Autoweek tested the Caliber (2.4) R/T at 8.82 with unleaded. I couldn't find any links about the 2010, but from experience I have achieved 8.3 with Shell V-Power, and an my own additive.
SecularTechnology 1 year ago
@SecularTechnology God you're such a moron. We're talking about totally different years. I said my year and engine size does about 11 seconds, and you came on here like douche calling me "buddy", but the funny thing is that we're talking about different years.I don't need to give you a fucking link. "but It is you who brought it up you smart ass. " No, you brought it up you tard face, saying I was wrong. I can't believe I even let it get this far.. conversation over.
Jaebird82 1 year ago
Comment removed
SecularTechnology 1 year ago
What Song Is That
Stapletube 2 years ago
@Stapletube welcome to the world
MoparShowroom 2 years ago
Thanks thats what I got will try to find it
Stapletube 2 years ago
Comment removed
Stapletube 2 years ago
love the color!
MasterSnowstorm 2 years ago
Its called Optic Green.
MoparShowroom 2 years ago
I know, but I still think it's cool
MasterSnowstorm 2 years ago
I also think its cool.
MoparShowroom 2 years ago