Ownership Cost for 2007 Chrysler Pacifica Touring
Estimated: $40679 over the next 5 years
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depreciation | $2079 | $998 | $873 | $790 | $707 | $5447 |
| Insurance | $1607 | $1663 | $1721 | $1781 | $1844 | $8616 |
| Fuel | $1950 | $2009 | $2079 | $2162 | $2259 | $10459 |
| Maintenance | $2763 | $1854 | $1029 | $878 | $2291 | $8815 |
| Repairs | $977 | $1138 | $1298 | $1417 | $1627 | $6457 |
| Taxes & Fees | $597 | $597 | $597 | $597 | $597 | $885 |
| Total Ownership Costs | $9973 | $7730 | $7087 | $7084 | $8805 | $40679 |
| Model year | COMPONENT | Complaint |
| 2007 | TIRES | WARRANT OF MERCHANTABILITY- IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT STATES A VEHICLE WILL RUN LIKE ITїS SUPPOSED TO RUN, APPLYING TO THE BASIC FUNCTIONS OF THE CAR. THE BUYER MUST PROVE A DEFECT WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. їCAR DID NOT START X2 AT DEALER AND REQUIRED A JUMP START- I WAS INFORMED IT WAS A RESULT OF BEING LOW ON GAS AND HAVING SAT OUT IN THE HOT SUN. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE- DEALER DISCLAIMED A WARRANT OF MECHANIC ABILITY, GIVING THE CONSUMER THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DISCLAIMER USING THE FEDERAL UNIFORM COMMERCIAL (UCC). THE UCC CAN BE USED TO CANCEL THE SALE OF A USED CAR. UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES (UDAP LAW) - THESE LAWS CAN BE USED EVEN IF THE CAR IS SOLD AS IS, AS LONG AS THE DEALER IS GUILTY OF A VERBAL DECEPTION OR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VEHICLE. ї2007 CHRYSLER PACIFICA їI PURCHASED THE CAR LESS THAN 1 MONTH AGO AND HAVE DRIVEN LESS THAN 2000 MILES. I AM EXTREMELY UPSET BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT HERITAGE KNOWINGLY SOLD ME AN UNSOUND CAR. THE DEALER IS GUILTY OF VERBAL DECEPTION AND FAILURE TO VERBALLY DISCLOSE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VEHICLE. їTHIS CAR WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT AND I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENT OR THE ISSUES THE CAR HAD AS A RESULT. ї I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO GET THE CAR SERVICED AND REPAIRED TO LITTLE AVAIL. THE CAR CONTINUES TO HAVE SERIOUS MECHANICAL ISSUES( INDICATING A FRAME ISSUE OR DRIVE TRAIN ISSUE) ї I BELIEVE THE DEALER KNOWINGLY SOLD THE CAR TO ME AND PURPOSELY WITHHELD THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE THE CAR HAD IN THE PRIOR ACCIDENT, AS WELL AS THE CARїS IMPROPER BASIC FUNCTIONING. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES: FALSELY REPRESENTED THE CAR AS A SAFE, CAR WITHOUT MAJOR DEFECTS, AND NO PROBLEMS WITH ANY PARTS OF THE CAR- PRESENTED THE CAR AS BEING SOUND AND ABLE TO ADHERE TO BASIC FUNCTIONING (BATTERY ISSUES, ELECTRICAL ISSUES, BRAKE ISSUES, DRIVE TRAIN ISSUES, INVOLVED A MVC) AND DID NOT DISCLOSE HISTORY OF PART. *TR |
| 2007 | PARKING BRAKE | WARRANT OF MERCHANTABILITY- IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT STATES A VEHICLE WILL RUN LIKE ITїS SUPPOSED TO RUN, APPLYING TO THE BASIC FUNCTIONS OF THE CAR. THE BUYER MUST PROVE A DEFECT WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. їCAR DID NOT START X2 AT DEALER AND REQUIRED A JUMP START- I WAS INFORMED IT WAS A RESULT OF BEING LOW ON GAS AND HAVING SAT OUT IN THE HOT SUN. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE- DEALER DISCLAIMED A WARRANT OF MECHANIC ABILITY, GIVING THE CONSUMER THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DISCLAIMER USING THE FEDERAL UNIFORM COMMERCIAL (UCC). THE UCC CAN BE USED TO CANCEL THE SALE OF A USED CAR. UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES (UDAP LAW) - THESE LAWS CAN BE USED EVEN IF THE CAR IS SOLD AS IS, AS LONG AS THE DEALER IS GUILTY OF A VERBAL DECEPTION OR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VEHICLE. ї2007 CHRYSLER PACIFICA їI PURCHASED THE CAR LESS THAN 1 MONTH AGO AND HAVE DRIVEN LESS THAN 2000 MILES. I AM EXTREMELY UPSET BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT HERITAGE KNOWINGLY SOLD ME AN UNSOUND CAR. THE DEALER IS GUILTY OF VERBAL DECEPTION AND FAILURE TO VERBALLY DISCLOSE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VEHICLE. їTHIS CAR WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT AND I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENT OR THE ISSUES THE CAR HAD AS A RESULT. ї I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO GET THE CAR SERVICED AND REPAIRED TO LITTLE AVAIL. THE CAR CONTINUES TO HAVE SERIOUS MECHANICAL ISSUES( INDICATING A FRAME ISSUE OR DRIVE TRAIN ISSUE) ї I BELIEVE THE DEALER KNOWINGLY SOLD THE CAR TO ME AND PURPOSELY WITHHELD THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE THE CAR HAD IN THE PRIOR ACCIDENT, AS WELL AS THE CARїS IMPROPER BASIC FUNCTIONING. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES: FALSELY REPRESENTED THE CAR AS A SAFE, CAR WITHOUT MAJOR DEFECTS, AND NO PROBLEMS WITH ANY PARTS OF THE CAR- PRESENTED THE CAR AS BEING SOUND AND ABLE TO ADHERE TO BASIC FUNCTIONING (BATTERY ISSUES, ELECTRICAL ISSUES, BRAKE ISSUES, DRIVE TRAIN ISSUES, INVOLVED A MVC) AND DID NOT DISCLOSE HISTORY OF PART. *TR |
Vehicle identification numbers: