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.