"Dave Hinz" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

Dave and Steve,

This is a really silly discussion. All one has to do is buy a
transmission
book from Chrysler titled "41TE/AE Transaxle
Service/Diagnostics/Refinements"
this is the manual that you use to rebuild your trans with. In it is all of
the
factory recommendations for this trans, and the older the trans the more
modifications you have to do. Hell for transes manufactured from something
like around 1994 and earlier the computer in the trans had a firmware bug
that would kill it prematurely, and you could NOT flash it with updated
firmware, you had to replace it. Later computers you could flash.

And it is also common knowledge that the cooling on this trans was
inadequte, many people put external trans coolers on them which saved
the trans.

Chrysler knew all about these problems and published them in their
manuals that they sold to the dealerships, and to the general public
(if you knew what to ask for) Yet if you review news articles and such
during the late 80's and through the mid 90's, every time some
automotive reporter went to Chrysler for a quote on the reliability
of these transes they got an official denial that there were problems.

So to argue that this trans of that vintage WASN'T a crap transmission
is absolutely rediculous. By Chrysler's own service manuals it was.

However, Steve, another thing that is true is that if you **** around with
a poor design for a long enough time, eventually you will get it to work.
The 41TE that rolls off the assembly line today is so modified from the
original that it is hard to even call it a 41TE. It is still a weak
design -
but it is an exhaustively debugged one. In the real world that is a far
better thing to have than a theoretically strong design that has little
debugging on it.

Ted