Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC)
Every generation
Power
0–62 mph (0–100 km/h)
Top speed (238 km/h)
Combined, EPA 2005
What owners say
Our take, from owner reports
Overwhelmingly negative sentiment regarding long-term reliability, build quality, and overall ownership experience.
8 problems reported (4 very frequent, 2 recurrent, 2 isolated) · high confidence
Problems owners report
- Very frequentCatastrophic mechanical failures (thrown rods, broken control arms, major transmission failure)
- Very frequentPoor build quality and cheap interior materials (mirrors break
Door handles snap, seats unsupportive, hard plastics)
- Very frequentCooling system problems (overheating
Water pump failure, heater core issues, coolant leaks leading to head gasket failure)
+ 5 more issuesShow fewer
- Very frequentElectrical and sensor issues (faulty throttle position sensor
Speed sensor failures, erratic idle, check engine lights)
- RecurrentAutomatic transmission problems (failure to shift
Erratic RPM behavior, fluid leaks, general unreliability)
- RecurrentUnreliable starting and charging system (bad alternators, faulty starters, battery issues)
- IsolatedExcessive body lift and instability at high speeds (noted specifically for SRT-4 models on drag strips)
- IsolatedHead gasket failures (noted on first-generation SOHC engines due to a manufacturing flaw with head bolt holes)
The version owners recommend
First-generation Neon (1994-1999). Isolated feedback suggests this generation, particularly with the manual transmission, offered the best combination of performance for its time and relative simplicity. The DOHC engine variant (producing 155 hp) is mentioned as having decent power. No specific trim level receives consistent recommendation.
Competitors to consider
Owners compare it most often with the Honda Civic, Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Escort, Nissan Sentra and Saturn SL.
Is the Neon right for you?
Get an answer for your year, mileage and budget.
Full owner reportHide full owner report
Overall sentiment
Overwhelmingly negative sentiment regarding long-term reliability, build quality, and overall ownership experience. The vehicle is frequently characterized as poorly built, unreliable, and prone to catastrophic failures, with numerous reports of major mechanical breakdowns, electrical issues, and subpar interior materials. A recurring theme is the car being a "throwaway piece of shit eco box" that does not last. A small, isolated counter-narrative exists praising the first-generation Neon (1994-1999) for its decent power for the era, good handling with independent rear suspension, and ease of repair, with one owner reporting 350,000 miles from a 1998 model. The high-performance SRT-4 variant is acknowledged but also described as poorly built and obnoxious, occupying a niche "so shit it's kinda cool" status. The consensus is that the Neon is a vehicle to be avoided unless purchased for near-scrap value with minimal expectations.
Positioning vs competitors
Positioned as an inexpensive, basic compact car. When new, the first-generation Neon was considered fast for its time and class, with its 2.0L engine offering better performance than many contemporary subcompacts from the early 1990s. However, it is consistently positioned as inferior to competitors from Honda and Toyota in terms of long-term reliability, build quality, and resale value. It is described as sharing a platform and many characteristics with the Chrysler PT Cruiser, which is also negatively reviewed. The SRT-4 is positioned as an overlooked, less aspirational alternative to more popular import tuner cars of its era.
Recommended configurations
Insufficient owner data available. A single mention suggests a manual transmission, but no consensus on trim, engine, or options exists.
General recommendations
NOT recommended as a primary vehicle, especially for long trips or reliable daily transportation. Only consider if purchased for a very low price ($800-$1,200 range) with the explicit understanding it is a temporary, high-risk purchase that may suffer a catastrophic failure at any time. Suitable only for buyers with mechanical aptitude and willingness to perform frequent, inexpensive repairs. Strongly advise obtaining a pre-purchase inspection from a qualified mechanic, checking for coolant leaks, transmission issues, and electrical faults. Expect significant ongoing maintenance and repair costs relative to the vehicle's value. Avoid vehicles with known modifications, such as transmission swaps, due to resulting electrical gremlins.
Remarks
Owner discussions heavily focus on the second-generation Neon (2000-2005), which appears to be the source of the most severe reliability criticisms. The vehicle's reputation for being disposable and unreliable is a dominant, repeated theme across multiple independent reports spanning over a decade. The positive remarks regarding the first-generation car's driving dynamics are vastly outweighed by negative reliability feedback for all generations. The data suggests a vehicle that has not aged well, with surviving examples likely presenting multiple, compounding issues. Analysis based on approximately 30 substantive owner discussions and mentions.
Generation by generation
Owner insights per generation and US complaint/recall records (NHTSA).
Complaints and recalls by model yearWorst year: 2000. Years to avoid: 2000Source: NHTSA (US)Show table
Each year graded against the model's other years: Year Score. See all Dodge Neon years to avoid
| Year | Complaints | Recalls | Most-reported area |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 95 | 4 | vehicle speed control |
| 2004 | 94 | 5 | power train |
| 2003 | 202 | 5 | electrical system |
| 2002 | 186 | 6 | power train |
| 2001 | 160 | 11 | air bags |
| 2000 | 381 | 11 | service brakes |
| 1999 | 166 | 4 | engine and engine cooling |
| 1998 | 364 | 6 | engine and engine cooling |
| 1997 | 419 | 6 | engine and engine cooling |
| 1996 | 681 | 7 | engine and engine cooling |
Complaint counts come from owner reports filed with the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Higher-selling years naturally accumulate more complaints.
Recall notices65 on record · Source: NHTSA (US)Show recalls
2005 · exterior lightingcampaign 09E012000
SABERSPORT IS RECALLING 16,270 COMBINATION CORNER AND BUMPER LAMP ASSEMBLIES OF VARIOUS PART NUMBERS SOLD FOR USE AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THESE LAMPS DO NOT CONTAIN THE REQUIRED AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS.
2005 · exterior lightingcampaign 06E049000
CERTAIN CK MOTORSPORTS COMBINATION HEADLIGHTS, CLEAR CORNER, BUMPER, AND SIDE MARKER LIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
2005 · suspensioncampaign 08E033000
FEDERAL MOGUL IS RECALLING 6,903 AFTERMARKET BALL JOINT ASSEMBLIES SHIPPED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 9, 2007 AND MARCH 26, 2008, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PACKAGED WITH INCORRECT NUTS. THE PART NUMBERS PACKAGED WITH INCORRECT NUTS ARE: K7147, K7329, K8683, AND 104353. THESE PARTS WERE MADE FOR USE ON THE VARIOUS VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE.
2005 · exterior lightingcampaign 06E026000
CERTAIN PRO-A MOTORS CORNER LAMPS, TURN SIGNALS, AND HEADLIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
2004 · exterior lightingcampaign 09E012000
SABERSPORT IS RECALLING 16,270 COMBINATION CORNER AND BUMPER LAMP ASSEMBLIES OF VARIOUS PART NUMBERS SOLD FOR USE AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THESE LAMPS DO NOT CONTAIN THE REQUIRED AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS.
2004 · exterior lighting:headlightscampaign 08E050000
K2 MOTOR IS RECALLING 1,921 AFTERMARKET HEADLAMPS OF VARIOUS MODELS SOLD FOR USE ON THE ABOVE LISTED VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS ARE MISSING THE AMBER SIDE REFLEX REFLECTOR WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT."
2004 · exterior lightingcampaign 06E049000
CERTAIN CK MOTORSPORTS COMBINATION HEADLIGHTS, CLEAR CORNER, BUMPER, AND SIDE MARKER LIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
2004 · exterior lightingcampaign 06E026000
CERTAIN PRO-A MOTORS CORNER LAMPS, TURN SIGNALS, AND HEADLIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
2004 · suspensioncampaign 08E033000
FEDERAL MOGUL IS RECALLING 6,903 AFTERMARKET BALL JOINT ASSEMBLIES SHIPPED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 9, 2007 AND MARCH 26, 2008, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PACKAGED WITH INCORRECT NUTS. THE PART NUMBERS PACKAGED WITH INCORRECT NUTS ARE: K7147, K7329, K8683, AND 104353. THESE PARTS WERE MADE FOR USE ON THE VARIOUS VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE.
2003 · exterior lightingcampaign 09E012000
SABERSPORT IS RECALLING 16,270 COMBINATION CORNER AND BUMPER LAMP ASSEMBLIES OF VARIOUS PART NUMBERS SOLD FOR USE AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THESE LAMPS DO NOT CONTAIN THE REQUIRED AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS.
2003 · exterior lighting:headlightscampaign 08E050000
K2 MOTOR IS RECALLING 1,921 AFTERMARKET HEADLAMPS OF VARIOUS MODELS SOLD FOR USE ON THE ABOVE LISTED VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS ARE MISSING THE AMBER SIDE REFLEX REFLECTOR WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT."
2003 · exterior lightingcampaign 06E049000
CERTAIN CK MOTORSPORTS COMBINATION HEADLIGHTS, CLEAR CORNER, BUMPER, AND SIDE MARKER LIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
2003 · exterior lightingcampaign 06E026000
CERTAIN PRO-A MOTORS CORNER LAMPS, TURN SIGNALS, AND HEADLIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
2003 · suspensioncampaign 08E033000
FEDERAL MOGUL IS RECALLING 6,903 AFTERMARKET BALL JOINT ASSEMBLIES SHIPPED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 9, 2007 AND MARCH 26, 2008, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PACKAGED WITH INCORRECT NUTS. THE PART NUMBERS PACKAGED WITH INCORRECT NUTS ARE: K7147, K7329, K8683, AND 104353. THESE PARTS WERE MADE FOR USE ON THE VARIOUS VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE.
2002 · exterior lightingcampaign 09E012000
SABERSPORT IS RECALLING 16,270 COMBINATION CORNER AND BUMPER LAMP ASSEMBLIES OF VARIOUS PART NUMBERS SOLD FOR USE AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THESE LAMPS DO NOT CONTAIN THE REQUIRED AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS.
50 older recalls not shown. Check nhtsa.gov with your VIN for the full history.
Specifications
2.4 i 16V SRT-4
2.4L 4-cylinder · 234 hp · FWD · manual
Built 2004–2005