On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:24:40 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>>
>> I didn't break my transmission, the crappy engineering _caused_ my
>> transmission to break.
><eyeroll>
> Whatever.

Riiiiight, because no matter what, in your world, if a consumer's poorly
designed part breaks, it's their fault? Wow. Just...wow.

>> 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.

It didn't come from the people who screwed up, it came from the dealer
who agreed they were screwing me. Going to the same bad manufacturer
would be stupid - going to the same good dealer will be smart. You
don't seem to understand the distinction.

>>>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?

This was a counter-example to show that they, too, do and can screw up.
But subtle points are obviously beyond you, since you can't even get the
obvious ones like "chrysler=bad, dealer=good".

> 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.

Chastise? Go back and read my post again. I acknowledged the point,
and then discussed how it's probably not as relevant given that those
folks have proably all moved on - and responded with a 15-year newer
example about Caddy.

> Pot, kettle, black.

Go find a calendar and get back to me on that one, sparky. Compare
years to the typical length of an engineering career.

>> 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.

Well, the '88 Saab 900T I traded in for the 9-5 had 247,000 miles on the
clock and was going strong. I hope to hit 3 or 4 with the 9-5, just
because I live further from work than I did before. High mileage isn't
supposed to be surprising. The time to get rid of a car _should_ be
when you want to, not when a poorly designed part forces you to.

But, feel free to continue blaming consumers for buying crap
transmissions. It's a great way to make sure they avoid that maker in
the future.