If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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? > > >>And it >>****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!" > >> 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," for example. And that they were fixed long, long ago. >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? Maybe the dealer did screw you, I don't know. How hard did you persue a settlement DIRECTLY with Chrysler? Was it even still under 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. >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, but are hellishly ugly at the moment). |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
>Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler >product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and >refuse to take responsibility. Full stop. Ford had big problems with the pinto blowing up when re-ended. They knew about the problem but determined it was cheaper to pay the legal fees than fix the car. Would you buy a ford? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Jun 2005 20:42:15 GMT, Chuck Sherwood > wrote:
> >>Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler >>product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and >>refuse to take responsibility. Full stop. > > Ford had big problems with the pinto blowing up when re-ended. > They knew about the problem but determined it was cheaper to > pay the legal fees than fix the car. Would you buy a ford? Well, they're all schmucks, aren't they? But, that was the early '70s, this is present. So, who knows. I guess since they didn't **** me off personally, and all those engineers and managers are presumably ancient history, it's been long enough. It's not like they, you know, put switches in their vehicles which cause fires or something... (yes, I know) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Chuck Sherwood wrote:
> >Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler > >product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and > >refuse to take responsibility. Full stop. > > Ford had big problems with the pinto blowing up when re-ended. They knew > about the problem but determined it was cheaper to pay the legal fees > than fix the car. The Pinto's the one everyone knows about. The SN95 Mustang and Clown Victoria aren't talked about much; Ford spends a *great* deal of money to make sure it stays that way, because apparently paying people off is still less expensive than proper engineering. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Steve 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 to the point that the > CURRENT product has an industry-leading (or near it) > reliability rate. How can it have an industry-leading reliability rate when Consumer Reports' surveys show the following? Ave. Chrysler Honda Toyota 1998....B.......D........B....=AD..B 1999....B.......F........D....=AD..B 2000....B.......F........B....=AD..B 2001....B.......B........C....=AD..A 2002....B.......C........C....=AD..A 2003....A.......B........A....=AD..A 2004....A.......A........A....=AD..A If the problems had been solved ten years ago, how do you explain the low reliability rates for the 1999-2000 Chrysler automatic transmissions? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Don Stauffer wrote:
> > Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy" > that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the > description seems to indicate a laminate, plastic on steel. I am > assuming it is a single layer of each. He said it provides both > corrosion resistance and sound deadening. > > I have never heard of such a material, though I know that they have > been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels > for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now? I don't know about this configuration, but metal (aluminum) panels with a fiberglass honeycomb core have been used in the aircraft biz for quite some time. Are you sure the salesman said its a plastic layer over steel? How silly of me to even ask. Coming from a salesman, it could be cardboard for all they know. ;-) -- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a sentence with words in the proper order then why can't he? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do VW steel wheels or alloy wheels weigh more? | Fred Fartalot | VW water cooled | 27 | June 8th 18 03:18 PM |
alloy rims? | William R. Watt | Technology | 25 | April 2nd 05 08:16 PM |
Replacing Alloy Wheels on 97 accord - what to look for? | [email protected] | Honda | 3 | February 16th 05 03:40 PM |
Looking for a place to buy a 17in 3big bore 3 Hole Alloy wheel | Duffy | Alfa Romeo | 4 | September 7th 04 10:35 PM |