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?

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?


hell, lamiplate was on Lotus Sevens in 1960. Dashboards and inner side
panels.

"Don Stauffer" wrote: (clip) Is there something really new now?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New? Certainly not the ability of carsalesmen.

Don Stauffer writes:

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.

Sounds like ... paint.

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
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?

If it's a laminate, plastic/steel laminates of various kinds have been used
as sound-deadening materials for decades. The first time I encountered it
was when I had to write an article about a (then) new Swedish three-layer,
steel-and-viscoelastic plastic material called "Antifon." That was in 1978.

--
Ed Huntress

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'm unfamiliar with it, but plastics have long been mixed with powdered
metal for extra hardness or density, an example being the body of the
original Polaroid SX-70 cameras from the early 1970s.

One rule to remember about Chrysler and American cars: They tend to be
deficient in the areas touted most by the marketing department.

Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler 4-speed
automatic, which still remains one of the least reliable transmissions
made, despite all the extensive changes, including 3-4 upgrades to the
fluid. Some Chrysler vehicles have a much more reliable
Damlier-designed automatic, but I believe it's a 5-speed.

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Don Stauffer writes:

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.

Sounds like ... paint.



Sounds like the Galactic Prophylactic.

wrote:


One rule to remember about Chrysler and American cars: They tend to be
deficient in the areas touted most by the marketing department.

eyeroll. This level of cluelessness pretty much goes with the rest of
the post, though, so I shouldn't be surprised.


Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler 4-speed
automatic, which still remains one of the least reliable transmissions
made, despite all the extensive changes,

Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably better than
Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these days, thanks to years of
development.

including 3-4 upgrades to the
fluid.

ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3. And its
backward-compatible.

Some Chrysler vehicles have a much more reliable
Damlier-designed automatic, but I believe it's a 5-speed.

The Charger, Magnum, and 300 have a modified Daimler design
transmission, built at Chrysler's Kokomo transmission plant- but ONLY
behind the 5.7L Hemi. The v6 versions of those cars get a rear-drive
version of the Chrysler 42LE that was used in the 300M, Intrepid, and
LHS. The jury is still out on whether the 5-speed piece of Teutonic
over-complication will even MATCH the Chrysler 4-speed in reliability,
let alone exceed it. I wish you could get the Hemi with the same
transmission the Ram trucks use.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:23:47 -0500, Steve wrote:
wrote:

Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler 4-speed
automatic, which still remains one of the least reliable transmissions
made, despite all the extensive changes,

Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably better than
Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these days, thanks to years of
development.

When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the,
what, 5 fatal flaws causing distinct failure modes. When mine failed,
3000 miles out of warranty, it was leaking at the fittings _and_
preparing to grenade the differential pin. Have they actually fixed or
replaced the design, or do they keep adding band-aids to the existing
flawed transmission?

The jury is still out on whether the 5-speed piece of Teutonic
over-complication will even MATCH the Chrysler 4-speed in reliability,
let alone exceed it.

That's a scary statement. Maybe a Ford next time. After Chrysler
stiffed us for the barely-out-of-warranty repair bill (but the dealer
made it good), I'll buy from that dealer, but not another Chrysler.
Good thing he sells other brands...

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
changing the name of the transmission twice,

All automakers revised their transmission designations in the mid '90s to
conform to the new SAE nomenclature. This occurred ONCE, not twice.

Maybe a Ford next time.

Right. Good luck getting increased reliability out of a Ford. For that
matter, good luck getting out alive when it catches fire.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:26:30 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
changing the name of the transmission twice,

All automakers revised their transmission designations in the mid '90s to
conform to the new SAE nomenclature. This occurred ONCE, not twice.

OK, if you say so. Question and statement still stands, but I notice
you snipped the part where I asked if they've actually fixed those
widely known failure modes?

Maybe a Ford next time.

Right. Good luck getting increased reliability out of a Ford. For that
matter, good luck getting out alive when it catches fire.

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".

Too bad GM screwed _their_ engineering, or the next choice would be
obvious. So, who doesn't suck these days?

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.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:32:31 GMT, Steve B wrote:
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.

That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5.
What was your point exactly?

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?

If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would
have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the
mileage.

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.

On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get
a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a
chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the
failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he
did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give
him consideration.

You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny.
Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do
they just keep adding bandaids?

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.

Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep
the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds
probably two dollars to the cost, so I'm guessing that's the real
reason. As long as it holds long enough to pass the warranty, they have
a _negative_ incentive to perform proper engineering to fix the problem.
Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid
makers who do stupid stuff like that.

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.

150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure
modes for _years_.

On 22 Jun 2005 18:40:29 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:



That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5.
What was your point exactly?

The point is you bought a Chrysler in the meantime and are now
considering another car and haven't mentioned Saab as one of your
cosiderations. If their free fix was such a wonderful thing to do for
you as a customer and earned your loyalty why would you be buying
other makers cars?


If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would
have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the
mileage.

If fixing a problem for free gets one person to buy one car every 11
years I think they would be better off putting that money in savings
bond and waiting.If you didn't want to take the risk of the car
breaking at 33k miles you could have bought an extended warranty. If
you choose not to insure the car and a tree falls on it should the
manufacturer fix that for free as well? After all they could have
made it with thicker metal and then it might not have dented.


On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get
a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a
chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the
failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he
did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give
him consideration.

That was a nice gesture by the dealer. Hopefully you will follow
through and buy more vehicles from them. I sure hope he sells Saab
motor cars.


You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny.
Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do
they just keep adding bandaids?

How can I "keep not answering" when the last post was my only post to
this thread? I purposely didn't answer that because I have no idea if
they fixed any real or imagined flaws in the product.

Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep
the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds
probably two dollars to the cost, so I'm guessing that's the real
reason. As long as it holds long enough to pass the warranty, they have
a _negative_ incentive to perform proper engineering to fix the problem.
Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid
makers who do stupid stuff like that.



I almost agree. If it's a real problem then they ought to fix it.
Other side would be what piece of the car could you not make better
for an additional $2? If that $2 part caused a high number of trans
failures during the warranty period (exteneded or regular) they would
fix it.



150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure
modes for _years_.


True but very few Chrysler transmissions fail at 33k. A bunch of GM
transmissions (and many other manufacturers as well) are gone by 150k.

Steve B.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:46:02 GMT, Steve B wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 18:40:29 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:



That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5.
What was your point exactly?

The point is you bought a Chrysler in the meantime and are now
considering another car and haven't mentioned Saab as one of your
cosiderations.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership
history and potential future considerations in order to justify my
statements. I am married. The wife likes having a minivan. Do you
need a census of the household, or can we stipulate that there are
children?

If their free fix was such a wonderful thing to do for
you as a customer and earned your loyalty why would you be buying
other makers cars?

Because Saab, in 1998, doesn't sell a minivan. Thanks for asking.
Different driver, different basic needs. When the 9-5 needs
replacement, if Saab hasn't been too ****ed up by GM, I'll consider
replacing it with a Saab.

If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would
have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the
mileage.

If fixing a problem for free gets one person to buy one car every 11
years I think they would be better off putting that money in savings
bond and waiting.If you didn't want to take the risk of the car
breaking at 33k miles you could have bought an extended warranty.

You sound just like the Chrysler customer-disservice person, who
basically said "Hey, if you knew our design sucked, you shouldn't have
bought the vehicle without the coverage". See, I come from an
engineering background, and I have this funny concept that if you know
your design sucks, you should _FIX_ the design. I'm funny that way.
"Screw you, you should have done more research (and not bought our
product)" only gets a "You're right, I won't buy it next time" from me.

If
you choose not to insure the car and a tree falls on it should the
manufacturer fix that for free as well? After all they could have
made it with thicker metal and then it might not have dented.

Hardly the same thing as having a known engineering defect and chosing
not to resolve it.

On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get
a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a
chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the
failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he
did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give
him consideration.

That was a nice gesture by the dealer. Hopefully you will follow
through and buy more vehicles from them.

Like I said, I'll go to him first and if he has what we want, we'll buy
it. He doesn't play bull**** games with pricing (let me check with my
sales manager, "what can I do to get you to drive out of here in this
car today" and all that crap, his service techs are good, and he's an
active participant in the community.

I sure hope he sells Saab
motor cars.

Why would that enter into it? When the van gets replaced, I'll go to
him. When the Saab gets replaced, I'll consider a Saab first. This
isn't complicated to understand.

You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny.
Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do
they just keep adding bandaids?

How can I "keep not answering" when the last post was my only post to
this thread? I purposely didn't answer that because I have no idea if
they fixed any real or imagined flaws in the product.

So do you have anything to contribute to the conversation then?

Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep
the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds
probably two dollars to the cost, so I'm guessing that's the real
reason. As long as it holds long enough to pass the warranty, they have
a _negative_ incentive to perform proper engineering to fix the problem.
Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid
makers who do stupid stuff like that.

I almost agree. If it's a real problem then they ought to fix it.

But, ten years of a known failure isn't a "real problem" in your world?
Wow. Just...wow.

Other side would be what piece of the car could you not make better
for an additional $2? If that $2 part caused a high number of trans
failures during the warranty period (exteneded or regular) they would
fix it.

Riiiiiiiiight, the 4-speed Chrysler auto trans failures are few and far
between, that's it. In my immediate work area, there are 6 vehicles
with that tranny, with a total of 14 transmissions between them. Maybe
we're all unlucky, yeah, that's probably it.

150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure
modes for _years_.

True but very few Chrysler transmissions fail at 33k. A bunch of GM
transmissions (and many other manufacturers as well) are gone by 150k.

And you think that's acceptable? (boggle)

Dave Hinz wrote:


When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the,
what, 5 fatal flaws causing distinct failure modes.

"Ultradrive" was a short-lived marketing term, intended to be like
"Torqueflite" but it never caught on. The transmission was called the
A-604 from the start, but that was a Chrysler internal designation like
A-727 or A-518. When the SAE adopted a naming convention, all the
carmakers switched to conform. The GM 700R4 derivatives became the
4L80E, the Chrysler A-518 became the 47RH, and the A-604 became the 41TE
(transverse applications) and its cousin the 43LE (longitudinal engine
front-drive cars- the LH family) appeared.

As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated the hardware and
software changes over the years. But most of them really weren't
necessary- my first-flight (1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles
because I a) kept the right fluid in it, and b) didn't let anyone
rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause of 99% of the the
alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family).

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership
history and potential future considerations in order to justify my
statements.

You're right; you needn't. You do, however, need to refrain from asserting
grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked engineering facts.
Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself look like an ass.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:07:56 -0500, Steve wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the,
what, 5 fatal flaws causing distinct failure modes.

"Ultradrive" was a short-lived marketing term,
A-604 from the start,
, and the A-604 became the 41TE

OK, I see that as 3 names, which I thought was my original point, but
whatever.

As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated the hardware and
software changes over the years. But most of them really weren't
necessary-

Riiiiight, because, dammit, differential pins _should_ be expected to
grenade. It's a _feature_, not a problem. I see.

my first-flight (1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles
because I a) kept the right fluid in it,

The dealer did all the upkeep on it. So, one would expect that this was
the case with mine - and the failed ones of my coworkers.

and b) didn't let anyone
rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause of 99% of the the
alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family).

Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be,
what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your ass". A breakdown of the
failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever
so welcome.

Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination, or why
are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please?

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:30:43 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership
history and potential future considerations in order to justify my
statements.

You're right; you needn't. You do, however, need to refrain from asserting
grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked engineering facts.
Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself look like an ass.

Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?

Steve B. wrote:

wrote:

Get a different van so you won't end up with the
Chrysler 4-speed automatic, which still remains one
of the least reliable transmissions made,

Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably
better than Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these
days, thanks to years of development.

including 3-4 upgrades to the fluid.

ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3.

How can the switch from Dexron to ATF+ to ATF+3 (was there an AT+2?) to
ATF+4 be considered just one change?

Regarding the reliability of Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda transmissions,
here's how Consumer Reports says they've stacked up in 2WD minivans,
along with the track record for transmissions in general:

Ave. Chrysler Honda Toyota

1998....B.......D........B......B
1999....B.......F........D......B
2000....B.......F........B......B
2001....B.......B........C......A
2002....B.......C........C......A
2003....A.......B........A......A
2004....A.......A........A......A

Steve wrote:

As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated
the hardware and software changes over the years. But
most of them really weren't necessary- my first-flight
(1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles because I
a) kept the right fluid in it, and b) didn't let anyone
rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause
of 99% of the the alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family).

Why do other transmissions seem to work more reliably than that
Chrysler even when the fluid in them isn't changed often -- or at all?

Steve B. wrote:

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.

Wow, they sure aren't doing a good job of making them lighter. I think
our old '94 van weighs in at around 3500 pounds. We ARE buying the new
one- pick it up tomorrow- and it weighs 3900 pounds! Heaviest car I
ever will have owned. And this is still the short wheelbase version- we
are not moving up to long wheelbase. Handling didn't seem bad- I always
liked the way the Mopar minivans handled- but was a bit disappointed to
see the wieght increase. I assume much of that is that it now has four
doors instead of the three on our old van.

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
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?

Screen wire reinforced polyester?

Dave Hinz wrote:


Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be,
what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your ass". A breakdown of the
failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever
so welcome.

Yeah, I did pull it out of my ass, but a number on the high side of 80%
is just about right. No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose
the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either
one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got
swapped because of that.

And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became
the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the
biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame, and most of them
never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades
through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read
about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup-
unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission
problems, mostly in minivans.


Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination,

No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer
and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be
dealer mechanics (at an exceptional dealership in terms of technical
expertise) who have explained the whole sequence of events, what was
really wrong, and what "common practice" was. I've also participated in
re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and
I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand.

or why
are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please?


Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of ****." And in the second
place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative
systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production
fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like
the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the
engineers to get it in production before it was ready. 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. 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. 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.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership
history and potential future considerations in order to justify my
statements.

You're right; you needn't. You do, however, need to refrain from
asserting grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked
engineering facts. Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself
look like an ass.

Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?

Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the
Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:18:31 -0500, Steve wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:


Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be,
what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your ass". A breakdown of the
failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever
so welcome.

Yeah, I did pull it out of my ass, but a number on the high side of 80%
is just about right.

Great, I'd love to see those stats if I could then?

No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose
the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either
one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got
swapped because of that.

So in addition to poor design for the mechanical failures, there are
documentation and/or training problems? It just gets better & better.

And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became
the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the
biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame,

Well, my '98 had the two I mentioned. Simultaneously.

and most of them
never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades
through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read
about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup-

Well, sure, all those have died already.

unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission
problems, mostly in minivans.

....which to me, indicates a widespread problem (shrug)

Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination,

No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer
and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be
dealer mechanics (at an exceptional dealership in terms of technical
expertise) who have explained the whole sequence of events, what was
really wrong, and what "common practice" was. I've also participated in
re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and
I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand.

Well, I don't think a sensor problem caused my fluid loss at the
connectors to the cooler, or caused the chunks of aluminum that the
differential pin was happily chewing from the case, but I could be
wrong.

or why
are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please?

Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of ****."

I call 'em like I see 'em, and from here, it sounds like it is.

And in the second
place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative
systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production
fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like
the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the
engineers to get it in production before it was ready.

I'm not specifically blaming the engineers. I've also been the guy
being pushed to release something not ready. Had a LONG talk with the
boss once after asking "How bad do you want it? Because right now, it's
pretty bad..." when being pushed to release something before it was
done. He didn't like that. I still didn't sign off on it.

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. Now, you're ****ed off that I
didn't know if it was resolved, even though I asked several times and
you kept not answering it? Interesting rhetorical technique. Not
particularly effective, mind you, but interesting to watch.

to the point that the CURRENT
product has an industry-leading (or near it) reliability rate.

Thanks for finally answering my question.

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?

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.

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, excluded them from future consideration. I
know two guys who are Chrysler mechanics, and the transmission (and
serpantine belt tensioner cluster****) on these vehicles is pretty much
a running joke from what they tell me.

Poor engineering (I didn't say bad engineers) shouldn't be rewarded by
repeat business.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:44:14 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?

Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the
Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing.

Well, Steve posted the 3 names, so if you want to argue that something
with 3 different names hasn't had two name changes, well, go ahead but
you're on your own.

So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws, or what's the
game there? If the training and/or documentation problems caused
trannies to be replaced when it was just a sensor problem, well,
that may not be a fatal failure in your mind, but the effect to the
guy paying for a new gearbox is the same.

To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it,
but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:44:14 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?

Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the
Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing.

Well, Steve posted the 3 names,

No, Steve posted the same thing I posted: "Ultradrive" was never an
official name of the transmission, it was just a bit of hype used in car
brochures. The transmission was known as A604 until all automakers changed
their transmissions' designations in the mid '90s to conform to SAE
nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek
of yours is a complete red herring.

So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws

Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other.

To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it,
but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable.

Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:04:00 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

Well, Steve posted the 3 names,

No, Steve posted the same thing I posted: "Ultradrive" was never an
official name of the transmission, it was just a bit of hype used in car
brochures. The transmission was known as A604 until all automakers changed
their transmissions' designations in the mid '90s to conform to SAE
nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek
of yours is a complete red herring.

First of all, you're using quotation marks. I challenge you to post a
google link showing I wrote specifically what you're claiming I wrote.
I mentioned two name changes, but it's hardly the central point of my
posts. That you have fixated on that, rather than the meat of the
problem, is rather telling. For instance:

So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws

Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other.


Interesting that you snipped the context showing that this was a
question of what you're saying, rather than me telling you what you're
saying. I'll bite: how many fatal flaws do you feel that that
transmission has suffered from in it's ignoble history?

To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it,
but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable.

Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing.

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.

Steve wrote:
wrote:

One rule to remember about Chrysler and American cars:
They tend to be deficient in the areas touted most by
the marketing department.

eyeroll. This level of cluelessness pretty much goes with
the rest of the post, though, so I shouldn't be surprised.

A check will reveal I'm correct. Or do you really believe the original
Olds Quad 4 was smooth-running compared to German and Japanese 4s?

Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler
4-speed automatic, which still remains one of the least
reliable transmissions made, despite all the extensive changes,

Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably better
than Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these days,
thanks to years of development.

The space shuttle has had even more years of development, but neither
has become highly reliable yet. I know of Honda's recent transmission
problems but haven't heard of Toyota's, so do you have any proof to
back up your claim? A TSB itself is not proof; show something like
longer-term numbers from Gelco Leasing, Consumers Union, or J.D.
Powers.

including 3-4 upgrades to the fluid.

ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3.
And its backward-compatible.

If there had been just 1 fluid upgrade, then Chrysler would still be at
ATF+2 (7176d), not at ATF+3 (7176e), +4, or +5.

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).

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

"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