Dave Hinz wrote:

>
> I didn't break my transmission, the crappy engineering _caused_ my
> transmission to break.

<eyeroll>

Whatever.


> 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.


So you GOT a new transmission? Quitchyerbitchen.



>
>>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?
>

Yes. It means "hasn't been produced in 20 years," and is therefore about
as relevant as the phrase "Model T engine" would be to today's Cadillac
vehicles. Does the phrase "Northstar V8" ring a bell with YOU?

Funny how you can chastise another poster for mentioning the Pinto by
retorting with, and I quote, "that was the early '70s, this is present,"
and yet you dredge up the HT4100 from 20 years back without batting an
eyelash.

Pot, kettle, black.



>
>>but are
>>hellishly ugly at the moment).
>
>
> Oh yes, by all means, let's make our carbuying decisions based merely on
> apearance (/rolls eyes).

I'd rather buy an ugly well-made car than a pretty junker. But since I
don't have to do either, why should I?

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

I currently own 5 going back to a 1949 Plymouth coupe, and have been
quite happy with all. Including the '73 with 429,000 miles which I still
drive every day. And the newest one (my wife's 93) which has 220,000
miles. Let's see YOUR next car match that.