Chrysler LH-platform, first and second generation differences?

[fyriskung]

Is there anyone who know about similarities and differences regarding the first (1993–1997) and second (1998–2004) generation LH platform? Are there body/chassis parts that fit directly between the fist and second platform, or are they very different?

I know this question doesn't concern a c-body car, anyway, I thought the question might fit in off-topic/anything goes section.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Not sure about differences, but plagued with transmission problems. If later and 2.7litre engine, RUN.

 

[patrick66]

I agree, the 2.7L is a world of hurt, all its own. IF, and I mean IF, a 2.7L has had documentable oil and filter changes every 3,000 miles, it's likely a good engine. It hates long oil change intervals, and the oil passages plug very easily, compared to most contemporary engine.

 

[saforwardlook]

I have owned the first generation LH series, in my case a 1997 Chrysler Concorde and a good friend of mine bought the second generation Concorde. Both had a 3.5L V6 engine but the first series was a completely different one than the second generation one that was all aluminum while the first generation one was iron block and aluminum heads.

I have had no significant problems with my first generation car but the second generation car did have a more robust 3.5L engine from all the input I have had over the years.

After having driven both platforms, all I can say is while I love the first generation cars (their chief engineer was Bob Lutz (and he was well known for getting things right) who indeed get everything really right with the first gen). They handled great, felt nimble, very comfortable and with at least the 1997 models like mine, they had additional sound deadening that made all the difference between a really quiet cabin vs the more noisy earlier models. They felt like "slot cars" to me they handled so well.

My friend's second generation Concorde was really a turn off to me. It was much bigger, more noisy, not very good visibility and just felt crude and cheap compared to the first generation cars - very cheap plastic interior parts. Their 3.5L engines were more robust than the first generation though and would easily go 200K miles but the transmissions seemed to need more service than the first generation ones. Also they had a fuel line with a plastic connector where the metal line from the tank was connected to the fuel injection rail, and that plastic tube connector was prone to failure and spraying gasoline all over the up front catalytic converter just below it and that part is pretty much unobtainable any more.

While the 300M versions of the second generation were much nicer than the full size Concordes, they still didn't impress me and I really didn't like the looks of the second generation cars either. Too bulbous looking to my eyes.

I haven't driven a newer car than my 97 Concorde that I liked as well as that model and I will keep it as long as I am around. No other car I have ever driven has impressed me more.

 

[patrick66]

^^^That is identical to my '96 LHS, which was a truly wonderful car.

 

[USSMOPAR]

I owned a pampered, ordered 96 Intrepid ES fully loaded with the GT pkge. V rated michelins, autostick, no speed limiter, different suspension pkge etc. 125 mph was no problem. Sold it with 210,000 needing the 100,000 mile service. Still had the orig rear rotors and calipers. Oil changes were typically 20,000+ mile intervals. That is not a misprint. Trans went 145,000 before rebuild. Great car, fast. Sold it to a friend for his son to drive. Still going strong now 300,000 miles