On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:05:29 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>>>It ****ES me off
>>>to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring
>>>continue to verbally smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years
>>>after the problems have been resolved
>>
>> Odd then that I asked several times if the problem had been resolved
>> yet, and you kept snipping that part.
>
> How many ways do I have to say "yes" before you finally get it?

That was the first time you answered it without evading, being abusive,
and snipping critical points. Thanks for finally answering; please
don't get all ****y that I called you on not doing so before.

>>>****ES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the
>>>ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs)
>>>are always better.
>
>> I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort. (shrug?) maybe you're
>> transferring your frustration with someone else onto me or something?

> Paraphrasing, "I hear that the new Chryslers have Mercedes
> transmissions, but I think its a 5-speed." The clear implication being,
> "OH, well SURELY a Mercedes transmission will cure world hunger!"

That's how you read that? That's amazing. I also don't seem to recall
making the statement about the 5-speed Mercedes tranny. I certainly
didn't imply that it'd be a cure to world hunger, but if I did mention
it it would have been in the context of "so, even Chrysler has stopped
using this POS...that's one way to fix their failures, I suppose",
rather than some sort of "And the wonderful Germans came to the rescue"
or whatever you think my point is.

Maybe you could use google to find the post where you think I said that,
and re-read it. Because I don't think I said what I think you think I
said.

>>> Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for
>>>a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed
>>>Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any
>>>complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the
>>>41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown.

>> You just contradicted yourself, by the way.

> Not at all. I never said that it debuted in perfect form, all I said was
> that the flaws were far less "fatal" than you implied. There were never
> "5 fatal flaws, 2 name changes, and 3 fluid changes,"

I also never said anything about fluid changes. If you're going to
argue with me, could you confine your disagreement to the things that
I've actually said? I mean, don't ask me to defend points others have
made, because that's up to them, y'see.

The fact that a gearbox is rebuildable doesn't change the fact that the
customer had to pay to have it replaced. If someone has to pay for a
new tranny because the Chrysler dealer diagnoses it as failed, that's a
_fatal flaw_ in that transmission. The fact that it's really just a bad
sensor rather than the actual gearbox turning into gravel is even more
of a problem - they charged for a new tranny, when you only needed
sensors? That's borderline fraud, rather than something you should be
trying to defend as "not a real fatal failure so it's OK". To the guy
paying for the new gearbox, it's the same thing.

> for example. And
> that they were fixed long, long ago.

If you say so. Maybe the Mercedes influence has changed their culture
so they don't just blatantly ignore engineernig defects for years and
years, and blame the customer for being ignorant of that defect when
soemthing brakes. Maybe not.

> >Whatever. I really don't care. Fixed or not, after the way Chrysler
> >basically said "yeah, we know it's ****, but tough luck on you" rather
> >than doing the right thing

> What is "the right thing?" Giving every yahoo that breaks a transmission
> a new one?

I didn't break my transmission, the crappy engineering _caused_ my
transmission to break. The vehicle had been dealer-serviced up to the
time of the failure, which undoubtedly is why the dealer, who wants to
sell me another vehicle, did the right thing despite Chrysler's failure
to do the same.

> Maybe the dealer did screw you, I don't know. How hard did
> you persue a settlement DIRECTLY with Chrysler?

How did he screw me? He bought a new gearbox. I'm pretty sure that I
mentioned that previously, at least twice.

> Was it even still under
> warranty?

You don't actually read the posts you respond to, do you. I mentioned
it was 3K miles out of warranty.

> Did you abuse the van? I'm not sitting in judgement, just
> pointing out that your whole interpretation comes from a SINGLE
> experience. Hardly statistically valid.

You don't read the posts you respond to. I've also mentioned the number
of minivans with this tranny owned by the people in my office area, and
the total number of transmissions between them. Also, if you're going
to imply that my transmission failure is somehow unique, well, you're
delusional. Kindly google for chrysler transmission failure and you'll
see - although you already know, and you just want to argue for some
reason.

> >Poor engineering (I didn't say bad engineers) shouldn't be rewarded by
> >repeat business.

> And on that, I HEARTILY agree. Which is why I'll never again touch a
> Mazda or a GM (probably- the cars coming out of the Cadillac division
> are demonstrably better than any of the other divisions,

Does the phrase "4.1 Liter aluminum block engine" mean anything to you?

> but are
> hellishly ugly at the moment).

Oh yes, by all means, let's make our carbuying decisions based merely on
apearance (/rolls eyes). Good to know you have your priorities
straight.

Enjoy your next Chrysler. The two of you deserve each other.