On 22 Jun 2005 16:57:26 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Well, it damn sure won't be Chrysler, after the way they responded when
I asked what they were going to do about the known failure mode that
caused my tranny to dump. Contrast this with Saab's response when I
lost third gear in my 900 Turbo years ago - at 97,000 miles, well well
out of warranty. Their response, unsolicited by me, was "We're really
sorry, it never should have done that, we'd like to replace that for you
so we can analyze the parts to see what went wrong".

And what did this gesture that Saab made get them? You bought a
Chrysler sometime after that and haven't mentioned Saab in either of
your postings about considerations for a new car.

Chrysler sells a vehicle with a warranty. Chrysler sells an extended
warranty that covers the vehicle outside of the standard warranty
period. If you choose not to buy the extended warranty and your
vehicle breaks outside of warranty why would the manufacturer help you
out? They are in the business of making money and obviously helping
with a failure out of warranty doesn't get them any added customer
loyalty.

Personally I agree with you that Chryslers transmissions still aren't
where they could be. I see this as more of a sign of the times
though. Manufacturers are forced to make things lighter and lighter
to meet EPA and public demand for better mileage. Honda and Toyota
have had recent transmission problems. The junk yard is full of Ford
Tauri with the "biodegradable transmission". GM's 4 speed
transmissions give out somewhere in the 150k range and have done so
since the mid 80's. On the other hand my '59 Imperial just got a
rebuilt cast iron torqueflite after 46 years and only got it now
because the rubber seals inside had finally deteriorated to the point
of no hope.