A604 (41TE) Ultradrive Transmission Inquiries
Christopher Jones
transmission, and specifically, the problematic one in my '95 Dodge Avenger
ES (six-cylinder), I am hoping to gain some tips, links, references, or any
important information about pursuing recourse from Chrysler upon excessive
repairs.
I have been to several sites already (one that brought me here), but still
need further detailing regarding my particular matter.
Specifically, I have had to have the transmission rebuilt twice within
fifteen (15) months. The issue this time is a broken overdrive shaft
assembly, which defines as the gear shaft actually breaking apart from the
base of the overdrive drum (hub) piece.
With some of my local dealerships abusing their positioning toward my
business in the past with suspect tendencies, I opted to go to a
transmission specialist; AAMCO Transmissions, USA. The first rebuild was in
January of 2000. The second was mere days ago; just over their one (1) year
warranty. They gave me fair courtesy though and did the work less parts and
minor labor, but said I should certainly pursue reimbursement from Chrysler
as this is a known problem and this should certainly have not had happened
with 70,000 miles, especially with a recent rebuild.
Might there be any details upon any given cases contested in the past, or
presently (etc.) within this forum? Any assistance is humbly appreciated.
Genuinely,
Christopher Jones
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> With some of my local dealerships abusing their positioning toward my
> business in the past with suspect tendencies, I opted to go to a
> transmission specialist;
I wholeheartedly agree with your motivation to a specialist. It is an
unfortunate fact that dealer "rebuilt transmissions" are actually done by a
third party on an exchange basis, and are generally HORRIBLE excuses for a
rebuild...
> AAMCO Transmissions, USA.
Ouch. The only place that might have a worse reputation than the dealer's
third-party rebuild-o-matic shop is AAMCO. I wouldn't trust them any further
than I could throw a fully built and fluid-filled Ford C6 (hey, it was the
heaviest tranny I could think of ;-)
> The first rebuild was in
> January of 2000. The second was mere days ago; just over their one (1) year
> warranty. They gave me fair courtesy though and did the work less parts and
> minor labor, but said I should certainly pursue reimbursement from Chrysler
> as this is a known problem and this should certainly have not had happened
> with 70,000 miles, especially with a recent rebuild.
One of the responsibilities that you assume when you go to a third-party is
that Chrysler can no longer really be held responsible for failures you have
after its been rebuilt by someone not under contract to them. Thats why when
my wife's 42LE needed work at 147,000 miles, I took it to an independent shop
that does their own rebuilding in-house. I know that I cannot hold Chrysler
responsible (they weren't anyway, the thing made it to twice the powertrain
warranty mileage) so I wanted a shop that picked and chose the BEST available
parts to use in the rebuild and would apply the BEST methods, without being
constrained by a cost-cutting mass-production approach. That gave me the best
odds at having a transmission that would last 200,000+ more miles.
My personal hunch is that scAAMCO is using the "known problem" excuse to try
to cover their butt. As far as I know, O/D shaft separation is NOT a "known
problem" area in these transmissions. Depending on year of manufacture, there
may be software problems, sensor problems, snap-ring problems, seal problems,
and differential gear problems, but I've NEVER heard of shaft breaking as a
common problem. In fact, the shop that did my work considers the 41TE/42LE
family to be a basically very sound mechanical design that gives almost no
trouble when built correctly with up-to-date parts and with up-to-date
software in place.
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:3ADF2041...@spam.thanks...
>
>
> Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> >
> > With some of my local dealerships abusing their positioning toward my
> > business in the past with suspect tendencies, I opted to go to a
> > transmission specialist;
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with your motivation to a specialist. It is an
> unfortunate fact that dealer "rebuilt transmissions" are actually done by
a
> third party on an exchange basis, and are generally HORRIBLE excuses for a
> rebuild...
I have had simple woeful experiences with some of my local dealerships. They
are as credulous as they come. This "Five Star" thing is completely
over-trumped. You should get a sample of what other forums are saying.
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?1...@65.8asfaTs9a2F^0@.ee6b280!Z=/NdoW
jcd526N2YYNcTrmviLW/EsDWAmWCOYvHU1WgafVs45udOhsGIqdZ2YW6xRXFDCEWxZoMXr472cmf
pN/t+vTVGCmTXDupfCdXXiC0RWdSTSIvP4F+A==
> > AAMCO Transmissions, USA.
>
> Ouch. The only place that might have a worse reputation than the dealer's
> third-party rebuild-o-matic shop is AAMCO. I wouldn't trust them any
further
> than I could throw a fully built and fluid-filled Ford C6 (hey, it was the
> heaviest tranny I could think of ;-)
Hmm. I had no idea that AAMCO had a service black-eye. This is most
troubling to learn. I can just hear Chrysler using the purported poor
"reputation" factor regarding AAMCO to offset their manufacturing
shortcomings; a real case of the pot calling the kettle black!
> One of the responsibilities that you assume when you go to a third-party
is
> that Chrysler can no longer really be held responsible for failures you
have
> after its been rebuilt by someone not under contract to them.
This isn't entirely so. Did you know that hundreds of such cases have been
settled by Chrysler (even post warranty) upon using third-party service
shops. [See the attached links below.]
> I know that I cannot hold Chrysler responsible
> (they weren't anyway, the thing made it to twice the powertrain
> warranty mileage)
Again, I think you'd be surprised at the degree of claimant victories across
the board; some with your exact same situation.
> My personal hunch is that scAAMCO is using the "known problem" excuse to
try
> to cover their butt.
I wondered about this too and, you may be right. However, many issues with
the 41TE have been established which are similar enough to this to attempt
recourse. [Again, see the attached links.]
> As far as I know, O/D shaft separation is NOT a "known
> problem" area in these transmissions. Depending on year of manufacture,
there
> may be software problems, sensor problems, snap-ring problems, seal
problems,
> and differential gear problems, but I've NEVER heard of shaft breaking as
a
> common problem. In fact, the shop that did my work considers the 41TE/42LE
> family to be a basically very sound mechanical design that gives almost no
> trouble when built correctly with up-to-date parts and with up-to-date
> software in place.
Allow me to furnish you with some additional links per this (Chrysler)
matter:
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/home.htm
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id6.htm
http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html
http://www.lemonaidcars.com/chrysler.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/ - form
http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/litigation/automobile-disputes.html
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@181.4oYlaXPNaeh^5@.ee93e7a/0
I have much more upon this topic. Stay tuned.
Genuinely,
Christopher Jones
Art Begun
than the one in my 2001 Avalon. I will be very
dissappointed in it if it doesn't hold up.
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:I0ID6.3489$7T.1...@news2.atl...
Christopher Jones
"Art Begun" <beg...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9bo33v$eg6$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> THe AT in my 99 300M is incredibly smooth. Much smoother
> than the one in my 2001 Avalon. I will be very
> dissappointed in it if it doesn't hold up.
Brace yourself. Many 300M customers have been "disappointed," thus far,
unfortunately. There are many mixed reviews, however. Perhaps you'll have
better luck. Hope so.
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?1...@185.p8GNa3TbaSe^2@.eea34f8/0
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> > One of the responsibilities that you assume when you go to a third-party
> is
> > that Chrysler can no longer really be held responsible for failures you
> have
> > after its been rebuilt by someone not under contract to them.
>
> This isn't entirely so.
Morally and ethically, it is so and therefore I assume the responsibility. I
will not hold the OEM responsible for someone else's rebuild, even if today's
litigation-happy kangaroo courts would do so.
> Did you know that hundreds of such cases have been
> settled by Chrysler (even post warranty) upon using third-party service
> shops. [See the attached links below.]
I'm not really surprised. Just horrified that unwarranted litigation has that
much power today :-( The fact that it has happened doesn't make it right.
I will hold Chrysler's (or any other OEM's) feet to the fire for things that
are done wrong under their control, such as at manufacture or during a rebuild
at their dealerships. I won't be party to trying to squeeze them unfairly for
work done by me or any other third party. I chose do *do* third party work
because I am confident that the actual work will be done right. But in the
unlikely event that the third party work goes awry, I recognize that morally
and ethically, I can no longer blame the OEM... just myself or the third-party
repair facility I selected.
That is the only coruse of action that doesn't ultimately destroy a
manufacturer's ability to operate. Manufacturers are obligated to design good
products and support them, but at some point as the product ages,
responsibility has to go to the owner. A good working approximation to this
transition time is the warranty period. If the product makes it through its
warranty, the OEM has done their job (admittedly, it would be poor ethics on
the part of the OEM if a disproportionate number of products failed shortly
after the warranty expired!). Otherwise, people could still be going after
Studebaker and Hudson for problems they're having with their Golden Hawk or
Hornet.
Dave Gower
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:3ADF2041...@spam.thanks...
> family to be a basically very sound mechanical design that gives almost no
> trouble when built correctly with up-to-date parts and with up-to-date
> software in place.
Not long ago I met a friend for lunch and a buddy of his joined us. My
friend introduced him as a good tranny guy (my friend builds custom cars for
a living and sends this guy all his tranny business so I guess it's true).
Anyway it was interesting what this guy said about these trannies. Exactly
the same thing. They're the best basic design on the market, simple, rugged
and very well engineered. It's all in the details, just like your shop says.
He loves doing them because they have the fewest parts and he feels most
confident in guaranteeing his work.
Another bit of trivia. On this newsgroup we hear so much criticism of these
trannies. I was at the corner store recently and a women was talking to the
clerk about getting a new car. She said she'd "never get another Sunfire
because the transmissions keep breaking".
Steve
> Another bit of trivia. On this newsgroup we hear so much criticism of these
> trannies. I was at the corner store recently and a women was talking to the
> clerk about getting a new car. She said she'd "never get another Sunfire
> because the transmissions keep breaking".
Its a front-drive thing. ;-/ Given how much more delicate the overall structure
of an FWD drivetrain is than an old rear-drive solid-axle design, I'm amazed
that they last as long as they do. We've got cars with 200+ horsepower feeding
through planetary gearsets limited to 4" total diameter, then through a
differential half the size of an old 8-3/4, then through 1" diameter hollow
shafts, CV joints that have to go through 60 degrees of angular travel, and
wheel bearings that are "sealed" instead of lubricated from an oil reservoir.
If you ask me, thats just plain NUTS.
D J Mann
>Another bit of trivia. On this newsgroup we hear so much criticism of these
>trannies. I was at the corner store recently and a women was talking to the
>clerk about getting a new car. She said she'd "never get another Sunfire
>because the transmissions keep breaking".
It makes one wonder if her Sunfire has ever had a REAL rebuild, or if she is
getting remanufactured junk from the dealer?
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> Morally and ethically, it is so and therefore I assume the responsibility.
I
> will not hold the OEM responsible for someone else's rebuild, even if
today's
> litigation-happy kangaroo courts would do so.
So, I and the thousands of others (including Chrysler hierarchy themselves)
are all immoral in our aspirations? Violins aside, does it really matter
just who rebuilt the transmission when overdrive shafts are breaking apart
from it's drum? The quality of the rebuild would be irrelevant, for the most
part. Are you suggesting improper lubrication, seals, fittings, etc? These
things could be jointly established upon review and, Chrysler has not
contested such findings. The issue here is of a structural integrity of
essential parts; something that falls in line with manufacturing
responsibility over defects. This has been universally accepted by all the
players involved, including Chrysler. Even they wouldn't suggest that
rebuilding variations by given service shops would account for matters (like
above, for example) that so many others validly refute... the preponderance,
in fact.
> > Did you know that hundreds of such cases have been
> > settled by Chrysler (even post warranty) upon using third-party service
> > shops. [See the attached links below.]
>
> I'm not really surprised. Just horrified that unwarranted litigation has
that
> much power today :-( The fact that it has happened doesn't make it right.
This is all just a matter of one's translation. Simply because you see it
differently does not validate your claim of "unwarranted litigation,"
whatsoever. Overall, and for far too long, the "power" factor has been on
the side of corporate conglomerates, including Chrysler. They have readily
used this power to trample the rights of the financially challenged consumer
again and again.
Now, with the force of allied consumers and specially formed protective
agencies, the trend has come a little closer to being fair, yet still far
from such equality, most unfortunately. However, with bleeding hearts from
the Chrysler loyalists who feel that their sentimentally favored parade is
being rained on, perhaps the big guns will get support from the most
unlikely places... the consumer. What a tragic irony.
> I will hold Chrysler's (or any other OEM's) feet to the fire for things
that
> are done wrong under their control, such as at manufacture or during a
rebuild
> at their dealerships.
You don't say? This is exactly what this discussion should be about. Perhaps
it would also surprise you that in most of the many thousands of cases in
which Chrysler has paid for these said repairs, that they did so upon their
own (via jointly federally pleaded) "good will" standards? Chrysler
themselves felt the due cause to provide the means to make good on such
repairs as a matter of staying consistent with their aspiring new image
protocol. If they felt such claims were at all "unwarranted," they would
have certainly challenged them right until the end in the courts.
> I won't be party to trying to squeeze them unfairly for
> work done by me or any other third party. I chose do *do* third party work
> because I am confident that the actual work will be done right. But in the
> unlikely event that the third party work goes awry, I recognize that
morally
> and ethically, I can no longer blame the OEM... just myself or the
third-party
> repair facility I selected.
There are times when the dealerships simply overly abuse the trust of the
customer, their integrity is anything but solid and repeated episodes to
their unruly realms is not "fair" play, but plain stupidity. In the cases
that made their way to the courts, this was especially evident. Many judges
have scorned subjects who made a habit of going back time and time again to
such dealership service shops where the likelihood of 'damage control,' thus
dishonest reporting was to be expected. Such subjects were titled "gluttons
for punishment" and many lost their cases because of such.
Your adamancy for "moral and ethical" standards presents as unduly lopsided
toward the consumer, while woefully indifferent to the horrendously immoral
and unethical standards of the body of dealerships across the nation. Do you
suppose that morally and ethically these dealerships "can no longer blame"
the customer when the matters at hand are clear manufacturing defects or
dealer serviced shortcomings? I've got news for you, you're kidding
yourself. Often it takes the corporate office to override the said
dealerships. Please!
Remember, also, as The Center for Auto Safety and the Federal Lemon Law
declared:
"Chrysler has shipped defective transmissions (and/or its parts) as was
established by joint evaluations. This would include non-dealership service
facilities toward rebuilds." Consumer Reports elaborated further upon this
history. [October, 1999]
Defective parts shipped to "third-party repair facilities" from Chrysler
(that have been demonstrated) should not offset Chrysler's "responsibility."
If the consumer feels they have a case toward this notion, they should by
all means pursue it. This is "moral and ethical." Sorry!
> That is the only coruse of action that doesn't ultimately destroy a
> manufacturer's ability to operate. Manufacturers are obligated to design
good
> products and support them,
Yes they are, we are holding them to this.
> but at some point as the product ages,
> responsibility has to go to the owner.
Oh, is that right? Of course the owner factor and age of the vehicle is
considered! Again, we *should be* referring to aspects apart from normal
wear and tear. Universally agreed upon defects is the subject here. Once
again, Chrysler has paid a myriad of such cases from their own "good will"
provision, as they well should.
> A good working approximation to this transition time is the
> warranty period. If the product makes it through its warranty,
> the OEM has done their job (admittedly, it would be poor ethics
> on the part of the OEM if a disproportionate number of products
> failed shortly after the warranty expired!).
Whew! One hardly knows where to begin in countering this utterance; is it
worthy of such?
This discounts all manufacturing defects and dealership service mishaps to
say they very least. Being that even Chrysler would disagree with you here,
I'm not sure this merits further explanation.
However, for your benefit, I'll provide you with some of the unison
standards upon a separate, but instance posting. Stay tuned.
> Otherwise, people could still be going after
> Studebaker and Hudson for problems they're
> having with their Golden Hawk or Hornet.
I'm glad to see you do in fact have a sense of humor!
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> A good working approximation to this transition time is
> the warranty period. If the product makes it through its warranty,
> the OEM has done their job (admittedly, it would be poor ethics on
> the part of the OEM if a disproportionate number of products failed
> shortly after the warranty expired!).
Well, your latter notion is a sign of a realistic vision, after all.
Let's address the former notion, however: (Some food for thought for you)
[Promised con't response: with extras included]
Regarding the Secret Warranties Act Advice (The Federal Lemon Law
Association, etc.), please review the following:
"In addition to claiming a warranty, or a "goodwill" refund from the
automaker, use the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to your advantage
claiming that a secret or goodwill warranty substantially modifies the
vehicle's original warranty and confers additional benefits to you that were
never disclosed. This failure to disclose puts the automaker in
contravention of the federal Act as well as some state acts."
"A product must be reasonably durable ("Estimated Part Durability" chart in
Part Two) and this failure occurred long before it should have.
Finally, you should not be penalized for going to an independent garage if
the "goodwill" warranty wasn't disclosed to you by the dealer or automaker.
To rule otherwise would be against the public interest and would encourage
dealers and automakers to keep these programs secret for as long as
possible."
"A defect that was once subject to a special "goodwill" program establishes
a benchmark for owners of similar vehicles not covered by that special
program. For example, you have already read that Chrysler has a 7-year
"goodwill" warranty for AC evaporators on its 1993-97 Jeep Grand Cherokees
and LH cars (Concorde, Intrepid, LHS, New Yorker, and Vision), and your
Caravan, Cherokee, or truck has the same problem. It stands to reason that
you can argue under consumer protection statutes that Chrysler's own program
maintains that an evaporator should last a minimum of seven years."
"Every manufacturer's "special program" or "goodwill" warranty extension
clearly states that there is no exclusion of subsequent owners. This is only
logical since the original warranty follows the vehicle, not the owner. Most
consumer protection statues reinforce this principle that the original
warranty and subsequent warranty rights aren't lost when ownership is
transferred. Owners should notify the automaker of a change of ownership,
however, to speed up future claims."
"Secret warranties go through four stages:
1st Stage-Service advisories are posted on an automaker's internal computer
network. They offer troubleshooting tips and allow the dealer to bill the
manufacturer for the repair. This info is never shared with the customer.
2nd Stage-If the defect grows in scope and a more involved solution,
requiring upgraded parts, is needed, automakers then draw up a formal
service bulletin (called a TSB or DSB) and distribute the bulletin to
dealers and US and Canadian government agencies. The service bulletin is
only issued after the manufacturer has, what it thinks, is the solution for
the defect. TSBs issued by Chrysler, Ford, and GM will usually spell out
clearly which base warranty will cover the repair (emissions warranty,
bumper-to-bumper, etc.). Interestingly, Asian and European automakers are
vague in their description of their warranty obligations. Honda, for
example, uses the term "goodwill" as a euphemism to describe its warranty
extensions.
3rd Stage-As more and more customers hear through Lemon-Aid, Alldata, etc.
that some TSBs recognize that a common factory-related defect exists, and
find that the base warranty is clearly inadequate to deal with the scope of
the problem, pressure is exerted by dealers and customers for additional
after-warranty-assistance. This, in turn, results in a second TSB, sent only
to dealers, extending the warranty coverage for the defect's correction and
leaving to the dealer's discretion the amount of the customer's refund.
Now, customer dissatisfaction is building into a crescendo, since the
dealers and automakers keep the extended guidelines to themselves and
customers get widely divergent refunds, which only angers the owners more,
brings in the media, and leads to a proliferation of Internet gripe sites
and lawsuits (small claims and class actions).
4th Stage-Finally, the aggravation is too great and the automaker decides to
make a press release followed by an owner notification letter (sent to first
owners only, at their last known address) which clearly spells out what all
owners will get and which vehicles are involved. A special bulletin or
letter is also sent out to dealers to ensure they follow the guidelines
100%.
Ford calls these Owner Notification Policies, GM calls them Special
Policies, and Chrysler calls them Owner Satisfaction Notifications. No
matter the euphemism, they are an extension of the original warranty,
applied to vehicles that may have been bought new or used.
The defects listed below are only a few of the hundreds of free repairs
available to vehicle owners. The secret warranties have gone through the
various stages enumerated above, so some may be less a secret than others.
Remember, second owners and repairs done by independent garages are included
in these programs and you should consult the Lemon-Aid guides for the proper
way to make your claim and, as well, what other secret warranties, parts
upgrades, recalls, or special programs may apply to your vehicle."
"History and problems with the transmission: [From Lemon-Aid Reporting
Group]
"The Ultradrive four-speed automatic transaxle, also known as the A604
Ultradrive between 1989 and 1992 then the 41TE/ 42LE thereafter, debuted in
1989 equipped in the Caravan, Voyager, New Yorker, Spirit, Acclaim, Le Baron
and a few others. This transmission was touted by Chrysler as a world wide
industry first; a transmission using "fully-adaptive electronic transaxle
controls." This essentially means that a computer performs functions based
on feedback from sensors built into the transmission.
In 1992 Chrysler quietly renamed the A604 Ultradrive as the 41TE. This
probably was done as an effort to escape bad publicity due to the February
1991 Consumer Reports article that declared the Ultradrive a lemon and
warned consumers not to purchase any vehicles equipped with that
transmission. Technical service bulletins after this date refer to the A604
as a 41TE, even though the TSB might cover 1989-1992 vehicles. See for
yourself on a TSB for a 1989 Chrysler New Yorker. Before 1992: A604; after
1992: 41TE.
Chrysler also began offering a standard 3/36 warranty as an alternative to
the 7/70 warranty, which was costing them a bundle in repairs. Needless to
say, scores of people got the shaft on this one, as Chrysler neglected to
mention that the transmission in their vehicle would more than likely fail
after the shorter warranty period had expired.
To this day the 41TE/ 42LE is still being manufactured by Chrysler and is
equipped in minivans and quite a few other vehicles. This transmission is
still causing headaches for thousands of consumers as shown by complaints
filed with the Center for Auto Safety and the NHTSA. This is the statement
the Center For Auto Safety released.
Affected models (not a complete listing):
1989-1995 (AA) Spirit/ Acclaim/ LeBaron Sedan
1989-1993 (AC) Dynasty/ New Yorker/ New Yorker Salon
1990-1993 (AG) Daytona
1990-1995 (AJ) LeBaron Coupe/ LeBaron Convertible
1992-1994 (AP) Shadow/ Shadow Convertible/ Sundance
1990-1991 (AQ) Chrysler Maserati TC
1989-1995 (AS) Town & Country/ Caravan/ Voyager
1990-1993 (AY) Imperial/ New Yorker Fifth Avenue
1993-1995 (ES) Chrysler Voyager (European market)
1995-1998 (FJ) Sebring/ Avenger/ Talon
1996-1998 (GS) Chrysler Voyager (European market)
1995-1998 (JA) Cirrus/ Stratus/ Breeze
1996-1998 (JX) Sebring Convertible
1993-1998 (LH) Concorde/ Intrepid/ LHS/ New Yorker/ Vision
1996-1998 (NS) Town & Country/ Caravan/ Voyager
1997 (PR) Prowler
The first and foremost design problem with the transmission is with the
piston retainer for the 2-4 clutch and the L-R clutch. The original design
called for the retainer to be machined directly in the transmission case.
This would make the retainer extremely strong and withstand the thousands of
shift cycles and pressures that a transmission goes through. This design is
being used by almost every other competitor on the market.
Unfortunately as a last minute cost saving measure, Chrysler decided to use
stamped-steel retainers which were then bolted into the transmission case.
This made the transmission prone to internal piston seal failure as a
stamped-steel retainer was substantially weaker than a retainer machined
directly into the transmission case using reinforced steel or aluminum.
These transmissions also have many problems with the computerized transaxle
controller.
This transmission is also very sensitive to the type of fluid that is used.
ONLY use Mopar Type 7176 (also known as ATF +2 or ATF +3). Dexron II, III,
or Mercon transmission fluid can cause shifting problems and in the worst
case internal damage could occur.
The most common problems with the transmission are poor shifting qualities
and sudden locks into second gear, the "limp-home" mode. If the computer in
the transmission senses something wrong, the transmission will shift into
second gear so that the vehicle can be driven to a repair shop instead of
being stuck on the side of a road.
While this sounds like a good idea, a second gear lockup will not activate
any warning lights on the dash or give any other indication that a failure
has occurred. Thus the transmission and possibly the engine could sustain
more damage if the problem is not identified and promptly attended to. The
lockup into second can be extremely dangerous if occurred during highway
operation. Many accidents resulted due to sudden second gear lockups.
Between January 1989 and July 1991, Chrysler tried about 28 different
changes to deal with the problems with this transmission.
Nine design changes were made in an attempt to cure clutch failures and four
were aimed at correcting shift busyness and gear hunting. The last time I
looked up TSB's (technical service bulletin) for my 1990 Spirit from Alldata
I counted over 40 transmission related bulletins. An excellent summary of
the factory related defects are listed in TSB #18-24-95. TSB #21-09-90A
shows the low/reverse clutch piston retainer defect. And TSB #21-06-95 Rev.
A also states that the seals used for the low/reverse and 2/4 clutch piston
have been changed from the failure-prone lip type seal to a newer D-ring
seal. TSB # 21-24-90 shows the undersized input clutch hub and the
defective reaction shaft support journal. It looks like the newer models
(97-99) are beginning to show problems.
Copies of technical service bulletins can be mailed to you by contacting the
NHTSA's Technical Information Services.
This is what happened to my transmission; it locked into second gear and
stayed there. The electronic scan at the shop I took it to showed a code
#53 (3rd gear ratio error) and a code #36 (fault after shift).
Here's what the technicians found after they tore it apart:
The differential case was scored,
The differential pin was seized to the spider gear, (here's a pic of the
pin)
The thrust washers were scored,
Snap ring blown off of the overdrive drum,
Reverse, overdrive, and input retainer were destroyed,
The 2-4 retainer was also blown,
The pump assembly was scored,
And of course the whole transmission itself was full of little metal pieces.
Remember, this transmission only had around 23,800 miles on it after the
last Dodge dealer attempted to repair it.
In December 1989 Chrysler issued a limited recall in seven states stating
that the transmission may fail in cold weather. This recall entitled
minivan owners to have an oil-cooler bypass valve installed so the
transmission meets cold-weather requirements. This program is outlined in
Customer Satisfaction Notification #281T. I wonder why all vehicles weren't
included. The only information I have on this is an article on page 209 in
the April 1991 issue of Consumer Reports. Chrysler also promised to contact
over a million customers to see if any problems existed with their vehicle.
I was never contacted, and it seems that scores of others were never
contacted either.
Dealers were seeing so many vehicles come back with failed transmissions
that they had a tough time keeping up with repairs. In fact, since so many
transmissions had to be fixed, Chrysler had Aaron's Automotive Products in
Springfield, Missouri do a lot of the work. If dealers were unable to
perform repairs within a specified budget they shipped the transmissions to
Springfield in exchange for a remanufactured unit. Either Chrysler didn't
trust their own mechanics to do the work or this was just another attempt to
cut corners
WHERE TO GO FOR NON-SAFETY DEFECT PROBLEMS?
o Our Hotline concentrates on safety problems. If your problem is not safety
related, we'll help you by directing you to the right government agency that
can help.
o The Federal Trade Commission handles inquiries on automobile warranties
and problems with dealers. The FTC number is (202) 326-2222.
o The Consumer Product Safety Commission will assist you with consumer
products other than vehicle and vehicle equipment. The CPSC telephone number
is (800)-638-2772.
o The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for emission control
systems. If you have an emission problem, call the EPA at (202) 260-7645.
o For a brochure on fuel economy ratings, which is handled by the EPA and
the Department of Energy, call (202) 260-2080.
AUTO SAFETY LITERATURE AVAILABLE ON-LINE
You can also download or request a variety of safety literature from the
Auto Safety Hotline. Just click on the following links, or call the Hotline
to order the information via mail or fax.
§ Vehicle Owner's Questionnaire to report a problem.
§ Search the Consumer Complaints Database for a specific make, model and
range of years.
§ Search the Recalls Database for a specific make, model and year.
§ Search the Technical Service Bulletins Database for a specific make, model
and year.
§ Download the Various Databases
§ Download Defect and Noncompliance Report Forms
§ Air Bags: Questions and Answers
§ Important Information About School Bus Recalls
§ New Car Crash Test Results
§ News & Public Affairs
§ Published Auto Recalls
§ Campaign Safe & Sober
§ Anti-lock Brake Systems Information Sheet (anti-br.pdf, 158K)
§ Child Safety Seat Registration Form (csregform.pdf, 6K)
§ Odometer Fraud (odometer.pdf, 168K)
TIS READING ROOMS
The collections described in this guide are located in the TIS Reference
Reading Room (Room 5110) or the Docket Reading Room (Room 5111). Both rooms
are open to the public during the hours of 9:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Eastern
time). Users may visit either Reading Room to perform their own research.
TIS staff members are on duty to assist users.
Customers unable to visit TIS in person but requiring extensive searches of
the collections are requested to put the details of their requirements in
writing, authorizing a fee search for which they agree to make payment.
Customers should also provide a daytime telephone number where they may be
contacted. This request can be made by mail to the address shown below, or
by e-mail to: t...@nhtsa.dot.gov, however the material will be mailed as
indicated below.
The address is:
Technical Information Services (NAD-40)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 - 7th Street, SW, Room 5110
Washington, DC 20590
The telephone number is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between
1:00-3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS Staff in order to provide
general assistance, however reference requests must be made in writing. The
FAX number (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however
TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense).
Information on safety defect recalls and current defect investigations may
be ordered through the Auto Safety Hotline at number (800-424-9393). The
Auto Safety Hotline also has a variety of motor vehicle safety publications
which they make available to customers."
Christopher Jones
"Dave Gower" <dav...@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:WG0E6.10020$f5.684508@news...
>
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:3ADF2041...@spam.thanks...
>
> ...the shop that did my work considers the 41TE/42LE
> > family to be a basically very sound mechanical design that gives almost
no
> > trouble when built correctly with up-to-date parts and with up-to-date
> > software in place.
>
> Not long ago I met a friend for lunch and a buddy of his joined us. My
> friend introduced him as a good tranny guy (my friend builds custom cars
for
> a living and sends this guy all his tranny business so I guess it's true).
> Anyway it was interesting what this guy said about these trannies. Exactly
> the same thing. They're the best basic design on the market, simple,
rugged
> and very well engineered. It's all in the details, just like your shop
says.
> He loves doing them because they have the fewest parts and he feels most
> confident in guaranteeing his work.
Talk about being in the dark! The 41TE/42LE was a travesty.
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id4.htm
An article published by Consumer Reports in February 1991 stated that the
Ultradrive transmission was a lemon and warned consumers to avoid any
vehicle that had it.
The second to last paragraph states:
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id6.htm
"Our advice: Do not buy any Chrysler product equipped with the four-speed
Ultradrive transmission. The risk of transmission failure has been
unacceptably high. A transmission failure is a major headache and, in many
common driving situations, a hazard."
A followup article appears in the April 1991 issue of Consumer Reports on
page 209. This gives information on the cold weather recall and Chrysler's
attempt to contact over a million customers with vehicles equipped with the
A604.
Consumer Reports recently published an excellent article on hidden
warranties in their October 1999 issue. It also has a story about a couple
who suffered multiple transmission failures in their 1990 Caravan and how
they were able to get a new transmission by only paying labor charges.
The Center for Auto Safety also has a good packet that gives a history of
the Ultradrive transmission and what to do if you experience problems.
Click the link on the left to view the report online, or you can view the
scanned copy here. I wish I knew about this information before I took my
car to an independent shop, as DaimlerChrysler might have covered most or
the entire cost of the transmission repair.
The CAS states:
"For vehicles which lock into second gear, you should not pay for any
repairs or replacements, your dealer should bill Chrysler. Contact Chrysler
Customer Relations or the zone office if your dealer refuses to perform
repairs for free."
I also found a story in the New York Times on January 25, 1991 which also
restates the lemon allegation by the 1991 Consumer Reports article.
The Detroit News also put out an article on October 3, 1995 about poor
quality and the huge warranty claims that Chrysler rang up while replacing
the A604 transmissions. A more recent article on August 14, 1998 basically
states the same thing.
Phil Edmonston's Lemon-Aid Car Guides has a wealth of information, not only
for Chrysler defects, but many other problem vehicles. This book is worth
buying. His website also has a lot of great information, and should be one
of the first places to check out before buying another vehicle.
Here's some interesting reading: Chrysler allegedly dumped so many lemons
in California during 1994 that they were banned from shipping cars to that
state for 45 days. This story ran in the Detroit News on October 18, 1996.
July 18, 1997 follow up story. August 21, 1997 follow up story. December 20,
1997 follow up story. June 27, 1998 final decision.
Another Detroit News article from September 29, 1996 about lemon vehicles
being passed on to unsuspecting consumers. Could this happen to you?
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:3ADF2041...@spam.thanks...
> My personal hunch is that scAAMCO is using the "known problem" excuse to
try
> to cover their butt.
No, it certainly is a known problem.
http://www.alldata.com/consumer/TSB/16/951663C7.html
http://autosafety.org/autodefects.html
> As far as I know, O/D shaft separation is NOT a "known
> problem" area in these transmissions. Depending on year of manufacture,
there
> may be software problems, sensor problems, snap-ring problems, seal
problems,
> and differential gear problems, but I've NEVER heard of shaft breaking as
a
> common problem.
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id4.htm
> In fact, the shop that did my work considers the 41TE/42LE
> family to be a basically very sound mechanical design that gives almost no
> trouble when built correctly with up-to-date parts and with up-to-date
> software in place.
This is simply outrageous!
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id6.htm
"Thank you for contacting the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) about problems
with the "Ultradrive" electronic automatic transmission in your Chrysler.
When this transmission was first introduced in 1989, it was such a huge
lemon that former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca had to personally direct its
rescue. In February 1991, Consumer Reports advised against purchasing
vehicles equipped with the Ultradrive transmission. In 1992, Consumer
Reports declared that "though still troublesome last year, the transmission
seems to be improving." CAS continues to receive complaints on later models.
"CAS launched a major effort in late 1990 to get Chrysler to take
responsibility for the Ultradrive woes by redesigning it to get rid of the
bugs and to help consumers who had already bought one of these lemons. Our
sustained efforts over the next year resulted in specific, public promises
from Chrysler to repair all Ultradrive transmissions, waive the $100
deductible in the warranty, provide loaners, buy back any 1989-91 models
with Ultradrives that could not be fixed and to improve the quality of the
Ultradrive in future models. Chrysler ran an unprecedented campaign in 1991
to contact all owners of vehicles with Ultradrives in order to find and fix
any vehicles with transmission problems."
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id39.htm
Is this the head in the sand Chrysler groupie forum?
To think that I came here for additional information...
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> That is the only coruse of action that doesn't ultimately destroy a
> manufacturer's ability to operate. Manufacturers are obligated to design
good
> products and support them, but at some point as the product ages,
> responsibility has to go to the owner. A good working approximation to
this
> transition time is the warranty period. If the product makes it through
its
> warranty, the OEM has done their...
Here, Steve, try this on for size.
http://www.consumerreports.org/Special/ConsumerInterest/Reports/9910war0.htm
Dave Gower
> An article published by Consumer Reports in February 1991 stated that the
> Ultradrive transmission was a lemon and warned consumers to avoid any
> vehicle that had it.
We are now in 2001, not 1991, and the current transmission is very
different. But there is another problem with your post.
There are many people here who consider that Consumer Reports is also a
defective product and should be avoided as a source of automotive
information. I am one of them. There have been lengthily threads on this
issue on this and other NGs in recent months, so I will decline to get into
another one.
Oh yeah and Edmonston is worse.
Christopher Jones
"Bob Meyer" <robert...@ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE02B2D...@ncsu.edu...
> x-no-archive: yes
?
> I have to agree with Art and Steve. I've had absolutely no problems with
> any A604 or 41TE I've owned (previously an 89 Acclaim, 8 yrs and 92K
> trouble-free miles; currently a 95 Stratus with 50K and no problems, and
> a 97 Stratus with 45K and no problems).
So, because you have "had no problems," such problems cannot be accurate?
The official book of Chrysler transmissions according to you; is this what
we're dealing with here? The preponderance of cases differentiating from
your "trouble-free" status is most overwhelming. Therefore, logically,
exceptions should never establish the rule; the percentages should.
"Agreeing with Art and Steve" is no skin off my back; whatever floats your
boat. But you do so with the same degree of blind erroneousness. What I
sought here was further information, not commonplace indifferences.
> Can you provide some real information on this matter that isn't second
> or third party hearsay posted anonymously on the web? Something with
> real names, real individuals, real statistics? Like maybe Carpoint?
> Otherwise, it's just a lot of unsubstantiated opinion and rather useless
> noise.
You seem to have something of a reading comprehension disorder. Said
postings were hardly "anonymous, unsubstantiated, of third-party hearsay,"
or lacking in "real names, individuals or statistics."
Perhaps you should reevaluate your visual mishaps...
The Center for Auto Safety, FTC, ALLDATA (AutoZone) and the NHTSA etc., etc.
are as credible as any; they all have their own perspectives. Companies like
"Carpoint" (and others) obtain their information from a pool of sources of
which the former is amongst.
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id39.htm
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/chryslerwhat.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/servicemmy1.cfm
http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html
For the record, Carpoint is certainly no place to gain an extensive review
on automobiles, especially used models, much less detailed reports on
transmission woes, etc. They are a glorified bells & whistles new car sales
promotion device which takes its advertising dollars every bit as eagerly as
Consumer Reports, in fact, far more so!
"We utilize links and sponsorships in the areas of our Web Properties that
most closely align with your target audience's interests. We can also place
your message at a point in which they are most likely to act upon your
advertising message." MSN CarPoint Advertising.
I searched exhaustively for any information on my Avenger, and all I came up
with was:
"No reliability information available for a used Dodge Avenger."
This was similar for many used models. [New car reviews are hardly reviews
at all; they are merely sales devices toward 'kick-backs.'] Simple graphs
and consumer reviews are mixed. What would make theirs anymore credible than
any other user forum?
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@181.4oYlaXPNaeh^5@.ee93e7a/0
Regarding Carpoint on Chrysler:
"Chrysler's web site has little about their contracts. There's a FAQ, but it
reveals little about covered parts. They have $0, $50. and $100 deductible
plans. There are no plans with $0 deductible. This will be a problem for
you when you have a car with several problems and are stuck paying $100
every time you have to bring it in for something."
Hmm, is this indicative of anything?
What's more, if one can settle for little tidbits of someone's personal
review (Carpoint), you can grapple with items like this:
"2000 Plymouth Voyager
Cons
1. AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
"The 4-speed electronically controlled transmission offers practically no
braking effect in lower gears and gear changes are sometimes iffy."
Will this tingle your toes?
I can think of other sources of "rather useless noise," as well.
Christopher Jones
> "Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:t6cE6.7200$rk3.2...@news1.atl...
>
> > An article published by Consumer Reports in February 1991 stated that
the
> > Ultradrive transmission was a lemon and warned consumers to avoid any
> > vehicle that had it.
>
> We are now in 2001, not 1991, and the current transmission
> is very different.
It is not "very different," whatsoever and, what would describe "current?"
The mechanism is the same, past and present.
The issues with the Ultradrive are hardly limited to "1991," by any means.
Factory Callbacks and Technical service bulletins were active as late as
1998 (with some even afterward):
[21-03-98] "MIL illumination in cold weather; long 3-2 shifts. Reprogram TCM
module," among other examples. And, mind you, these pages are not even
inclusive of all the most recent trembling on the matter. Besides, what real
difference would it make to you anyway; your mindset is channeled dissimilar
to this.
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/CHRYSLER-ultradrive.htm
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id4.htm
This guy here (link below) is waywardly rambling, but claims his woes are
typical...
http://members.nbci.com/plumpissed/
The new Dodge Stratus for instance, which replaces the Avenger, still has
the exact same transmission as its predecessor. Additioanlly, ask your local
dealer about the minivan transmission model number, comparatively. [Amongst
a list of many examples.]
The prescribed oil type is another indication:
"Chrysler TSB# 21-16-99 lists the current vehicles that only use ATF+4 type
9602, part 05013457AA (for quart bottles). The vehicles that use this fluid
include:
(Model Year Car Built After)
1999 and later Prowler 7-20-98
2000 and later Neon 4-24-99
2000 and later Minivans (11th letter of VIN=R) 10-10-99
2000 and later Minivans (11th letter of VIN=B) 10-18-99
1999 and later Concorde, Intrepid, LHS, 300M 7-20-98
2000 and later Sebring convertible 5-21-99
1999 and later Cirrus, Stratus, Breeze 9-7-98
"Robert Alderson, a Chrysler transmission tech with gold certification,
noted that 2000 and newer vehicles use 9606 fluid." ALLPAR USA.
Seems the same infamous device to me.
> But there is another problem with your post.
> There are many people here who consider that Consumer Reports is also a
> defective product and should be avoided as a source of automotive
> information. I am one of them. There have been lengthily threads on this
> issue on this and other NGs in recent months, so I will decline to get
into
> another one.
The stated aspect about "many people here who consider Consumers Reports a
defective product" hardly relegates my post as "problematic." You may choose
your own fancy of believability, especially as such news may tend to
unfavorably suit your sentimentalisms. But, this by no means is evidence
that Consumer Reports is less than reliable, even if the latter were in fact
accurate. As many others say that Microsoft is "defective," yet they'll
trust their automotive databases (Carpoint) as trustworthy. By-and-large,
popularity contests are unproductive informational sources. Moreover, your
"declination" toward the issue is irrelevant to me, respectfully.
Besides, like some others here, you are also seemingly oblivious to the
myriad of other sources given apart from Consumer Reports. If your were
really interested in what the consensus is on this product, as there is an
abundance of such information available to you, it would be no secret. Of
course, conversely and fittingly, this would be a strong conflict of
interest in fact, to you, right?
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id39.htm
Moparmaniac
My tranny went out at 133K about a year and a half ago.
There had been so many changes since the original, that they had to get a
new computer controller as well.
So far, this tranny has been "tough as nails", If i may use that expression
and with 23K already on the rebuild, I see no immediate problems in the
future.
One thing I have noticed is that my old tranny would shift into OD around
40-45mph...
The new one will shift at 50 and above and nothing less.
Could it be that the OD's were shifting in too soon and putting greater
strain on these transmissions and their internal gearing?
When mine went, there was no warning...I was driving along and suddenly hear
a whirling sound and then my rpm's went up...Lost OD, so luckily I made it
home and parked it, of course after that, it wouldn't budge....
So I have to agree that a lot of the problems could be your shop mechanics.
Time constraints might play a key in getting remans instead of true
rebuilds, plus..if they do too good of a job, where where all his work go??
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VocE6.7204$rk3.2...@news1.atl...
Christopher Jones
"Moparmaniac" <mopar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wwWE6.6700$Qi1.9...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com...
> My tranny went out at 133K about a year and a half ago.
That's respectable for Chrysler. The Dodge I referenced was my first (and my
last); I have owned Toyotas that never suffered transmission failures
through 400,000 miles in tough, snowy, mountainous conditions. Ever see a
Chrysler product serving as one of those jungle or desert safari vehicles?
This is the domain of Toyota and Nissan.
> There had been so many changes since the original, that they had to get a
> new computer controller as well.
Too little; too late. Besides, all transmissions have to be computer
retrained.
> Could it be that the OD's were shifting in too soon and putting greater
> strain on these transmissions and their internal gearing?
http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html
> When mine went, there was no warning...I was driving along and suddenly
hear
> a whirling sound and then my rpm's went up...Lost OD, so luckily I made it
> home and parked it, of course after that, it wouldn't budge....
The infamous "limp-home" mode.
> So I have to agree that a lot of the problems could be your shop
mechanics.
> Time constraints might play a key in getting remans instead of true
> rebuilds, plus..if they do too good of a job, where where all his work
go??
Like you said, your ".02 in too..."
Christopher Jones
"Moparmaniac" <mopar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wwWE6.6700$Qi1.9...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com...
> Could it be that the OD's were shifting in too soon and putting greater
> strain on these transmissions and their internal gearing?
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/CHRYSLER-Sebring.htm
Moparmaniac
>
> "Moparmaniac" <mopar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wwWE6.6700$Qi1.9...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com...
>
> > My tranny went out at 133K about a year and a half ago.
>
> That's respectable for Chrysler. The Dodge I referenced was my first (and
my
> last); I have owned Toyotas that never suffered transmission failures
> through 400,000 miles in tough, snowy, mountainous conditions. Ever see a
> Chrysler product serving as one of those jungle or desert safari vehicles?
> This is the domain of Toyota and Nissan.
My Mom and Dad's G. Caravan's tranny went out at 133K for the first time as
well.
>
> > When mine went, there was no warning...I was driving along and suddenly
> hear
> > a whirling sound and then my rpm's went up...Lost OD, so luckily I made
it
> > home and parked it, of course after that, it wouldn't budge....
>
> The infamous "limp-home" mode.
Nope....No Limp mode...was able to drive to the house at the speed I was
already traveling. (RPM's went up about 3-400 so I assume OD was only thing
that went) I was going to....Luckily I didn't have to stop any or slow down
enough for it to totally stop functioning. But like I said...Once I
stopped...It was dead.
Never got to see what all was broken, wish I did.
art
at 93K miles - donated to charity
1996 Dodge Grand Caravan ES - currently 96K miles - 1st transmission DOA at
74K miles, 2nd transmission DOA, 94K miles..third transmission OK so far.
No hearsay - Real Individual, Real Statistic
Art Almeida
"Bob Meyer" <robert...@ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE02B2D...@ncsu.edu...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I have to agree with Art and Steve. I've had absolutely no problems with
> any A604 or 41TE I've owned (previously an 89 Acclaim, 8 yrs and 92K
> trouble-free miles; currently a 95 Stratus with 50K and no problems, and
> a 97 Stratus with 45K and no problems).
>
> Can you provide some real information on this matter that isn't second
> or third party hearsay posted anonymously on the web? Something with
> real names, real individuals, real statistics? Like maybe Carpoint?
> Otherwise, it's just a lot of unsubstantiated opinion and rather useless
> noise.
>
> Bob
Christopher Jones
> Never got to see what all was broken, wish I did.
Take your pick...
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/CHRYSLER-ultradrive.htm
"CAS launched a major effort in late 1990 to get Chrysler to take
responsibility for the Ultradrive woes by redesigning it to get rid of the
bugs and to help consumers who had already bought one of these lemons. Our
sustained efforts over the next year resulted in specific, public promises
from Chrysler to repair all Ultradrive transmissions, waive the $100
deductible in the warranty, provide loaners, buy back any 1989-91 models
with Ultradrives that could not be fixed and to improve the quality of the
Ultradrive in future models. Chrysler ran an unprecedented campaign in 1991
to contact all owners of vehicles with Ultradrives in order to find and fix
any vehicles with transmission problems.
"The most common problems with Ultradrive transmissions are poor shifting
quality and sudden locks into second gear ("limp-home" mode), even during
highway driving. Between January 1989 and July 1991, Chrysler tried 28
different changes to deal with Ultradrive problems according to Chrysler's
reference guide, "History of the A-604 Transaxle." Nine design changes were
made in an attempt to fix clutch failure, and four were directed to "shift
busyness" -- e.g., excessive shifting on hills.
"In 1992, Chrysler renamed the A604 Ultradrive as the 41TE transmission.
Technical service bulletins (TSBs) after this date refer to the Ultradrive
as a 41TE transmission even though the bulletin might cover 1989 models when
the Ultradrive was known only as the A604. Much like the Jeep CJ became the
Jeep Wrangler and the Firestone 500 became the 721, the A604 became the 41TE
to escape bad publicity."
Art Begun
problem and it was something dumb like an electronic sensor
gone bad one day out from the factory. I looked at several
pages including the one you linked too and could only find
the typical 300M problems that I have had... bad window
motors/regulators and bad goodyear tires. Didn't see any AT
problems at all and some people are driving them way over
the speed limit. Like I said, I'll be pretty surprised if
the AT becomes problems in this car.
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bpPD6.3789$7T.1...@news2.atl...
Christopher Jones
> I read the Edmunds group for months. Only remember one AT
> problem and it was something dumb like an electronic sensor
> gone bad one day out from the factory. I looked at several
> pages including the one you linked too and could only find
> the typical 300M problems that I have had... bad window
> motors/regulators and bad goodyear tires. Didn't see any AT
> problems at all and some people are driving them way over
> the speed limit. Like I said, I'll be pretty surprised if
> the AT becomes problems in this car.
For the life of me, Art, I must say one can only wonder about actual status
and comprehension of your reading with this. You seem to have overlooked
quite a lot, especially for someone who states he has been reading "for
months." In all honesty, how extensively have you looked; did you really
read all the other links within this thread about these transmission woes?
Evidently not very thoroughly, respectfully.
Let's have another look, shall we?
The minivans use the same transmission:
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.ee93e7a/41
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.ee93d94/0
As does the Avenger:
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?1...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^13@.ee921d4/0
"I just traded in my '97 Avenger for those reasons and more. The
transmission was starting to slip and the brakes were done. This after
24,000 miles that were mostly highway to and from work."
"I own a 96 Avenger ES with/42k, have had nothing but problems since new.
The transmission..."
"I have a '98 Avenger Sport. I was extremely happy with my car, until last
Tuesday evening, when my transmission went out on me, without warning, at
21,000 miles!!! I was completely disgusted. No trans should go at this
amount of miles. I have taken very good care of this car and was very
dismayed with this misfortune. To top it off, I was not given a rental car
by the dealership for my trouble, and was treated extremely poorly from
start to finish. When I picked my car up from the shop, I asked the mechanic
how it was running. He said, "ok, for now." ???? FOR NOW??? Then he
sarcastically laughed and said, "good luck to you." UGH!!! I'm keeping this
car until my warranty is up, and then I am dumping it. It's too bad. It's a
nice looking car, but, from what I've read and heard, I'm going back to GM."
Now, take an earnest look here:
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/CHRYSLER-LH.htm
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/CHRYSLER-ultradrive.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/servicemmy.cfm
Service Bulletin Number: 181700
Bulletin Sequence Number: 609
Date of Bulletin: 0009
NHTSA Item Number: SB6092271
Make: CHRYSLER
Model: 300M
Year: 1999
Component: POWER TRAIN: TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC TORQUE CONVERTER (8/82)
Summary: SOME VEHICLES MAY EXHIBIT TORQUE CONVERTER CLUTCH CONTROL BUMP
BETWEEN 72 AND 96 KPH (45 AND 60 MPH).
21-07-99 APR 99 Transmission Output Speed Sensor Wires Fatiguing /
09-02-98 APR 98 Engine to Transmission Dowel Service
http://www.alldata.com/consumer/TSB/12/991239EO.html
"The most common problems with the transmission are poor shifting qualities
and sudden locks into second gear, the "limp-home" mode. If the computer in
the transmission senses something wrong, the transmission will shift into
second gear so that the vehicle can be driven to a repair shop instead of
being stuck on the side of a road. While this sounds like a good idea, a
second gear lockup will not activate any warning lights on the dash or give
any other indication that a failure has occurred. Thus the transmission and
possibly the engine could sustain more damage if the problem is not
identified and promptly attended to. The lockup into second can be
extremely dangerous if occurred during highway operation. Many accidents
resulted due to sudden second gear lockups.
"Between January 1989 and July 1991, Chrysler tried about 28 different
changes to deal with the problems with this transmission. Nine design
changes were made in an attempt to cure clutch failures and four were aimed
at correcting shift busyness and gear hunting. The last time I looked up
TSB's (technical service bulletin) for my 1990 Spirit from Alldata I counted
over 40 transmission related bulletins. An excellent summary of the factory
related defects are listed in TSB #18-24-95. TSB #21-09-90A shows the
low/reverse clutch piston retainer defect. And TSB #21-06-95 Rev. A also
states that the seals used for the low/reverse and 2/4 clutch piston have
been changed from the failure-prone lip type seal to a newer D-ring seal.
TSB # 21-24-90 shows the undersized input clutch hub and the defective
reaction shaft support journal.
It looks like the newer models (97-99) are beginning to show problems."
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id4.htm
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id6.htm
"In 1992, Chrysler renamed the A604 Ultradrive as the 41TE transmission.
Technical service bulletins (TSBs) after this date refer to the Ultradrive
as a 41TE transmission even though the bulletin might cover 1989 models when
the Ultradrive was known only as the A604. Much like the Jeep CJ became the
Jeep Wrangler and the Firestone 500 became the 721, the A604 became the 41TE
to escape bad publicity."
Perhaps you should absorb the details of such items into memory:
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tjk/id39.htm
And, finally, Art, a great many drivers with a great many types of cars have
driven them "way over the speed limit." This should not cause an epidemic of
transmission mishaps. I have owned two Toyota Turbo Supras (and have friends
with Vettes, Porsches and many non-sportscars as well) and frequently drove
it over the speed limit. I never as much as even once suffered any
transmission woes of any kind, ever. I am unaware of any such problems with
the other vehicles just mentioned either.
Christopher Jones
> I have 18 collective years of driving A604/41TE equipped vehicles with
> NO TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS. Unless you or someone else can provide a
> documented failure incidence rate (e.g. number of failures/total at-risk
> vehicles) compared with other manufacturers documented transmission
> failure incidence rates, I'm going with my experience.
I have provided plenty of "documented failures" for you aboard; it is quite
clear your are either unable or unwilling to grasp as much. If you sought
straight and genuine information, you would acquire this accordingly. It
speaks volumes on your predisposition here that you haven't.
Furthermore, with "18 collective years" of possession of the so equipped
vehicles, it is rather obvious that you are a dedicated to a fault,
unwavering loyalist who would never absorb details which rained on your
sentimental parade.
Reminds me of the adage:
"Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my own beliefs."
Either case, this is neither her nor there; you're going with your
"experience."
I would recommend you do that. Good luck.
Art Begun
message but the only thing I saw relevant to the 300M in
your message and in the mostly irrelevant links posted in it
was the minor electronic problem someone had in their 300M
AT early on which I previously mentioned. Like I said, I
followed Edmunds townhall daily for many months after
getting my 300M. There was only one minor AT issue, some
Goodyear tire problems, window problems, a couple of idling
problems, and a few drifts to the left complaints. You can
insult people and post irrelevant links as much as you want
but that doesn't make something true. I remain optomistic
that Chrysler has worked out the bugs in their AT.
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:lCwF6.1972$NH5.1...@news2.atl...
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
> "Bob Meyer" <robert...@ncsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AE5AA39...@ncsu.edu...
>
> > I have 18 collective years of driving A604/41TE equipped vehicles with
> > NO TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS. Unless you or someone else can provide a
> > documented failure incidence rate (e.g. number of failures/total at-risk
> > vehicles) compared with other manufacturers documented transmission
> > failure incidence rates, I'm going with my experience.
>
> I have provided plenty of "documented failures" for you aboard;
Yes, what you failed to produce is a failure INCIDENCE RATE. Ie, number of
failures compared to the TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT RISK. A large number of
failures means nothing. Heck, a "large number" of early Torqueflites and GM
hydramatics have failed. But they both had very low mortaility rates as a
function of the fleet size.
In addition, you've provided NO comparative failure rates against other
manufacturers who have been forced to used under-sized transmissions in
over-sized vehicles in order to meet CAFE requirements.
In short: you've said NOTHING of substance.
> it is quite
> clear your are either unable or unwilling to grasp as much.
Its clear you have no grasp of statistics.
>
>
> "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my own beliefs."
We're still waiting for the facts, buddy. Step up to the plate, or sit down
and shaddup.
Christopher Jones
> You certainly proved that you know how to post links in a
> message but the only thing I saw relevant to the 300M in
> your message
You must be kidding, right? Have you had your eyes checked recently?
> Like I said, I followed Edmunds townhall daily for many months after
> getting my 300M. There was only one minor AT issue, I remain optomistic
> that Chrysler has worked out the bugs in their AT.
Tell me, do you even know what transmission you have? I not only gave you
links, but also included actually quotes from automotive sources as well as
several individuals themselves. I even listed factors that directly pertain
to your "1999 300M" itself.
You need to take another look. You're out in left field there guy. Sorry.
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > I have provided plenty of "documented failures" for you aboard;
>
> Yes, what you failed to produce is a failure INCIDENCE RATE. Ie, number of
> failures compared to the TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT RISK. A large number
of
> failures means nothing. Heck, a "large number" of early Torqueflites and
GM
> hydramatics have failed. But they both had very low mortaility rates as a
> function of the fleet size.
You're splitting hairs while doing an escape route dance of surplus
detailing. If such numbers are available to the public on any vehicle (or
its parts), they would be tough to come by and are only a belaboring effect.
You seem emotionally attached to this make and, providing any amount of
"facts" would still fall short of your acceptance. Still, if I can allocate
such overkill strict specifics to satisfy your emotional limitations, you'll
see such posted here. One can only imagine your next waltz through the
realms of denial.
> In addition, you've provided NO comparative failure rates against other
> manufacturers who have been forced to used under-sized transmissions in
> over-sized vehicles in order to meet CAFE requirements.
Again, more denial of the obvious. "Undersized, oversized;" you should hear
yourself. You missed your calling; you could have been a trial lawyer for
Chrysler. For that matter, you could defend anything (anything!) with this
logic.
> In short: you've said NOTHING of substance.
It takes rational mental patterns to realize substance when its presented.
The jury is still out...
Besides, nothing is stopping you from buffering this angle with your own
provided counter statistics of such extremes.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/#TIS
I won't hold my breath.
> Its clear you have no grasp of statistics.
If only the people from these said reporting databases could read your
words... Some would laugh, some would feel sorry for you. But most, would
tell me to stop wasting my time with sentimental diehards. I think I'll post
your responses to such sources, nevertheless. Everyone should be able to
witness this for themselves, at least once in a lifetime.
> > "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my own beliefs."
>
> We're still waiting for the facts, buddy. Step up to the plate, or sit
down
> and shaddup.
What is factual to one may somehow not be to the next. And, as a retort to
the last little comment; I'd kiss your ass, but your nose is in the way.
Okay?
As far as I'm informed, these are the facts:
"Thank you for contacting the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) about problems
with the "Ultradrive" electronic automatic transmission in your Chrysler.
When this transmission was first introduced in 1989, it was such a huge
lemon that former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca had to personally direct its
rescue. In February 1991, Consumer Reports advised against purchasing
vehicles equipped with the Ultradrive transmission. In 1992, Consumer
Reports declared that "though still troublesome last year, the transmission
seems to be improving." CAS continues to receive complaints on later
models."
"In 1992, Chrysler renamed the A604 Ultradrive as the 41TE transmission.
Technical service bulletins (TSBs) after this date refer to the Ultradrive
as a 41TE transmission even though the bulletin might cover 1989 models when
the Ultradrive was known only as the A604. Much like the Jeep CJ became the
Jeep Wrangler and the Firestone 500 became the 721, the A604 became the 41TE
to escape bad publicity."
Can you effectively dispute such. I didn't think so.
Again, I am dealing with several law firms toward all additional details
here. Some are even part of http://www.nhtsa.org/ and I feel confident that
this is only the tip of the iceberg.
You know what the strangest element here is? The link that actually brought
me to this newsgroup is evidently misinformed as to the educational merit of
such newsgroup participants on these matters.
The Chrysler Products' Problem Web Page mistakenly thinks that this forum is
a benefit for mechanical mishap wisdom; wow, will they be in for a surprise!
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~gluckman/Chrysler/
They'll get a real kick out of some of the utterances here.
Art Begun
the 300M AT, except the one TSB on the screwed up wires that
I already mentioned, right here. I'll also accept specific
links on 98 and later Concords and Intrepids as evidence of
a problem:
PLEASE POST ABOVE-------PLEASE POST ABOVE-----PLEASE POST
ABOVE
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:s2HF6.2507$NH5.1...@news2.atl...
>
> "Art Begun" <beg...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:9c78je$jus$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > You certainly proved that you know how to post links in
a
> > message but the only thing I saw relevant to the 300M in
> > your message
>
> You must be kidding, right? Have you had your eyes checked
recently?
>
> > Like I said, I followed Edmunds townhall daily for many
months after
> > getting my 300M. There was only one minor AT issue, I
remain optomistic
> > that Chrysler has worked out the bugs in their AT.
>
> Tell me, do you even know what transmission you have? I
not only gave you
> links, but also included actually quotes from automotive
sources as well as
> several individuals themselves. I even listed factors that
directly pertain
> to your "1999 300M" itself.
>
> You need to take another look. You're out in left field
there guy. Sorry.
>
> > > Let's have another look, shall we?
> > >
> > > The minivans use the same transmission:
>
>
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.
ee93e7a/41
>
>
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.
ee93d94/0
>
Timothy Smith
problems wouldn't be searching online for them! However, i do know that when
i went in to get my tranny fixed on mine, there were 2 other cars with the
same tranny, a sebfing jx and cirrus that were also from 96/97. You may
think it is just a coincidence if it makes you feel better...but i think
common sense tells otherwise. Furhtermore....i've scanned the internet to
see if i can find this type of dicsussion about any other automotive
companies transmission, and THIS is the only one i can find that has so many
people interested in it. That tells me that other motor companies haven't
had this type of problem in such large amounts. Common Sense
people....Common Sense!news:3AE6E590...@ncsu.edu...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> The failure incidence rates, please. Anything else is hot air.
>
> Bob
Art Begun
in my 300M is superior to older models (and it certainly
seems to be much better), but one reason people may be
having more troubles with the Chrysler AT is the use of
improper AT fluid. Of course that's partly Chrysler's fault
because of their ambiguity about the use of other fluids.
"Timothy Smith" <Tim_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c9c6b$gpc$1...@faatcrl.tc.faa.gov...
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:3AE73021...@spam.thanks...
>
> > > I have provided plenty of "documented failures" for you aboard;
> >
> > Yes, what you failed to produce is a failure INCIDENCE RATE. Ie, number of
> > failures compared to the TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES AT RISK. A large number
> of
> > failures means nothing. Heck, a "large number" of early Torqueflites and
> GM
> > hydramatics have failed. But they both had very low mortaility rates as a
> > function of the fleet size.
>
> You're splitting hairs while doing an escape route dance of surplus
> detailing.
And you're assembling vague, rambling, contorted sentences with no inherent
meaning in order to obscure the fact that YOU GOT NOTHIN! You've no facts.
You're devoid of data.
> If such numbers are available to the public on any vehicle (or
> its parts), they would be tough to come by and are only a belaboring effect.
"Belaboring effect?" No, those numbers are the ONLY way to know if the
transmission is "better" or "worse" than any other make. The fact that you can
walk into a shop and find 10 of them under repair means nothing by itself.
Maybe there are 30 Hondas under repair across town. Maybe its a coincidence.
Maybe there's a real defect.
>
> You seem emotionally attached to this make
Emotion? Hardly. I'm an engineer. I'm more often accused of having NO feelings
than having too many. Rather than be swayed by emotion, I am swayed by the fact
that I've logged nearly a million miles on Chrysler products, and guess what?
I've needed a tow truck once. That was when my '66 Dodge cracked a transmission
seal at 240,000 miles and 31 years of age. Yep, those transmissions really
stink, don't they? My '93 42LE equipped Vision TSi drove into the transmission
shop, under its own power with a fully-functional transmission, at 150,000
miles because of a leak. No failure, just a leak. Upon disassembly (had it out
anyway, why not check?) it was found to be in excellent condition with minimal
wear. There was a crack in one snap ring (one of the know defects of the
early-production 42LE) but it had not slipped out of place. Having inhabited
this newsgoup for many years already, I had a lengthy discussion with the owner
of the transmission shop about these transmissions. His exact words were,
"There's nothing wrong with them unless you put them together wrong. I like
them because when I fix one, it almost *NEVER* comes back for a warranty claim,
unlike a lot of other FWD transmissions. I can't build some of them well enough
to keep them out of here."
> Still, if I can allocate
> such overkill strict specifics to satisfy your emotional limitations, you'll
> see such posted here.
Can you construct a more obtuse assemblage of flowery prose to mask a complete
absence of content? I'm starting to find your (ab)use of the language quite
amusing. Useless, but amusing. Do you have some hormonal block against simply
saying, "I think you're wrong, but if I can find the factual data you asked for
I'll post it." Sheesh... "Allocate such overkill strict specifics..." Hee hee,
what a HOOT! More please! More!
>
>
> > In addition, you've provided NO comparative failure rates against other
> > manufacturers who have been forced to used under-sized transmissions in
> > over-sized vehicles in order to meet CAFE requirements.
>
> Again, more denial of the obvious. "Undersized, oversized;" you should hear
> yourself. You missed your calling; you could have been a trial lawyer for
> Chrysler. For that matter, you could defend anything (anything!) with this
> logic.
>
Do you deny that modern 4-speed front-drive automatics fail more often than
3-speed rear-drives of the 60's and 70s? If you do, you're wrong. If you
don't, then you are unjustified in saying I could "defend anything" with the
argument. The truth is that front-drive lightweight modern 4-speed automaitcs
are fragile. All of them. From Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Toyoshondazdai or
whatever conglomeration of far-eastern brands you pick. Every last one is
fragile compared to the overbuilt transmissions of old. So that leaves the
buyer with one real question: which of the new (admittedly weak) designs is the
best or worst? I seriously doubt that Chrysler could be worse than Ford or
Honda in this regard. In fact, they're probably right in the middle of the
distribution.
>
> > In short: you've said NOTHING of substance.
>
> It takes rational mental patterns to realize substance when its presented.
Obviously. And it takes the same mental processes to recognize when substance
is present. I'm still looking for the substance. Well, I've actually *found* a
substance here, but its pretty common material often found in big piles on
farms and ranches....
Christopher Jones
> Now bob...if incident rates were THAT easy to come by people with tranny
> problems wouldn't be searching online for them! However, i do know that
when
> i went in to get my tranny fixed on mine, there were 2 other cars with the
> same tranny, a sebfing jx and cirrus that were also from 96/97. You may
> think it is just a coincidence if it makes you feel better...but i think
> common sense tells otherwise. Furhtermore....i've scanned the internet to
> see if i can find this type of dicsussion about any other automotive
> companies transmission, and THIS is the only one i can find that has so
many
> people interested in it. That tells me that other motor companies haven't
> had this type of problem in such large amounts. Common Sense
> people....Common Sense!
Yes, Tim. I hear you. "Common sense" is in short supply here, sadly.
There have been more than enough links and quotes supplied within this
thread to offer due reflection and insight, but some members here are either
blind, unwilling to actually read what they save they have (forcing
redundancy of said links) or just plain indifferent and overly loyal to
their sentimental machinery.
I'm convinced if Chrysler themselves actually sat these people down with
full explanatory admittance of the aforementioned content, they would only
respond by telling Chrysler that they have had a bad day and don't clearly
understand what they're saying; suggesting they should sit down, gather
themselves and rethink their position!
Meaning, they are emotionally incapable of accepting this, somehow. I've
heard of rose-colored glasses, but this takes the cake.
Christopher Jones
> I'm not defending the AT,
Hogwash! This is exactly what you're doing.
> though I'm hoping that the version
> in my 300M is superior to older models (and it certainly
> seems to be much better),
I have provided actual 1999 300M (which you own!) transmission mishaps
reported my the NHTSA directly! You are revealing being as in the clouds as
some of these others.
For the third time:
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/CHRYSLER-LH.htm
Service Bulletin Number: 181700
Bulletin Sequence Number: 609
Date of Bulletin: 0009
NHTSA Item Number: SB6092271
Make: CHRYSLER
Model: 300M
Year: 1999
Component: POWER TRAIN: TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC TORQUE CONVERTER (8/82)
Summary: SOME VEHICLES MAY EXHIBIT TORQUE CONVERTER CLUTCH CONTROL BUMP
BETWEEN 72 AND 96 KPH (45 AND 60 MPH).
21-07-99 APR 99 Transmission Output Speed Sensor Wires Fatiguing
http://www.alldata.com/consumer/TSB/12/991239EO.html
> but one reason people may be
> having more troubles with the Chrysler AT is the use of
> improper AT fluid.
Again, many of these vehicles suffered problems well within their warranty
periods. Meaning, they still had the factory installed 7176 (also known as
ATF +2 or ATF +3) fluid which is the optimum for these transmissions.
Moreover, many vehicles which suffered problems out of warranty, had
documented support for the exclusive use of the 7176 fluid throughout the
life of the car.
> Of course that's partly Chrysler's fault
> because of their ambiguity about the use of other fluids.
This is saying the very least, inasmuch as many Chrysler dealerships
directly led to the prompt settlement (amongst thousands) of transmission
repairs by their own use of non-recommend fluids (Dexron II, III, or Mercon)
per these cases.
[I have a 200 page Class Action Law Suit file copy in front of me upon the
41TE which reflects details even far worse than just stated.]
Christopher Jones
> x-no-archive:
>
> Art: If you are using Netscape, go to Edit, click on message filters,
> new, change message to sender, contains "Christopher Jones", then
> delete, save.
>
> Buh-bye Chris!
Yeah, you here that Art? Bob wants some company in the cowardice club.
Misery loves company.
Bob, do you really think it is any skin off my back that you wish to retreat
from inclusion?
Don't kid yourself any further than you customarily have. Good riddance to
you too, even more so.
Dave Gower
> If your were
> really interested in what the consensus is on this product, as there is an
> abundance of such information available to you, it would be no secret. Of
> course, conversely and fittingly, this would be a strong conflict of
> interest in fact, to you, right?
Wrong Mr CR absolutely wrong. Sigh - I swore I would drop this thread but
this accusation is just too unfair to ignore.
Just saunter on over to Google/Deja News and look up my posts for the past
year on the alt.ford.focus newsgroup. You will see from this that in fact I
am not a devoted Chrysler fan but last year traded my Shadow (which I liked)
for a Focus (which I love). Further I have never owned a vehicle with one of
those transmissions. My Voyager van is one of those rare ones with a
5-speed. So I am a neutral observer.
My information comes from a much wider variety of sources than does yours.
And it tells me that while the Chrysler 4-speed did have teething problems,
that it has been given an unfair rap by frothing self-pity consumerists ever
since. My God we even have some on this newsgroup claiming "victim" status
for themselves. This in a world where there are starving orphans in the
Sudanese civil war and Ukrainian teenagers dying of cancer because they were
downwind of Chernobyl 15 years ago. Gimme a break. Get a life.
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> And you're assembling vague, rambling, contorted sentences with no
inherent
> meaning in order to obscure the fact that YOU GOT NOTHIN! You've no facts.
> You're devoid of data.
Which translates that you don't accept (or are indifferent to) the *very
detailed* reports from:
NHTSA
Consumer Reports
The Center for Auto Safety
ALLPAR
FTC
ALLDATA
Chrysler's own Technical Service Bulletins
One's view of "nothin" is quite opposed to another's. Certainly to mine.
> > If such numbers are available to the public on any vehicle (or
> > its parts), they would be tough to come by and are only a belaboring
effect.
>
> "Belaboring effect?" No, those numbers are the ONLY way to know if the
> transmission is "better" or "worse" than any other make. The fact that you
can
> walk into a shop and find 10 of them under repair means nothing by itself.
> Maybe there are 30 Hondas under repair across town. Maybe its a
coincidence.
> Maybe there's a real defect.
There are not class action law suits against a particular transmission
without due cause. "Hondas" haven't had even nearly the amount of documented
woes as Chrysler, especially in the transmission department.
I gave you the links to the NHTSA database (not that this is good enough for
astute minds like yours...) for you to see for yourself. But, you would
rather demand unreasonable statistics which would be extremely difficult to
allocate and post here. Part of your ploy? Or is this just your nature?
Likely both.
More sentimental dribble? Fine Steve. These seemingly iron-clad cases and
testimonials are really touching, but they have done little to curb the
thousands of dollars that Chrysler has been ordered to pay to account for
the very extensive track record of these transmissions and their woeful
service shortcomings brought on to its customer base. I once knew a guy
(with support of his mechanic) who just loved his Yugo to death, almost
literally. His brakes failed one day and he suffered a rather bad accident.
He resides in a wheel chair today. Despite the fact that the preponderance
of the evidence against the safety characteristic of his car were most
pronounced, his sentimental value took front and center, especially in that
he knew a mechanic who happened to also love the car. [Neither could afford
much more so they persuaded themselves the car was gold.]
Now, does this demonstrate reason and ration, or clouded emotional judgment?
All makes find owners that have their select "million miles" stories, but
this does in no way change the overall picture for all consumers overall.
Should it?
> > Still, if I can allocate
> > such overkill strict specifics to satisfy your emotional limitations,
you'll
> > see such posted here.
>
> Can you construct a more obtuse assemblage of flowery prose to mask a
complete
> absence of content? I'm starting to find your (ab)use of the language
quite
> amusing. Useless, but amusing. Do you have some hormonal block against
simply
> saying, "I think you're wrong, but if I can find the factual data you
asked for
> I'll post it." Sheesh... "Allocate such overkill strict specifics..." Hee
hee,
> what a HOOT! More please! More!
I call it as I see it. That's just what it is... overkill strict specifics!
And, this is not "abuse of language," whatsoever, just because you would
prefer a more simplistic "assemblage" of words does not suggest abuse. Sorry
to trip up there.
> > > In addition, you've provided NO comparative failure rates against
other
> > > manufacturers who have been forced to used under-sized transmissions
in
> > > over-sized vehicles in order to meet CAFE requirements.
> >
> > Again, more denial of the obvious. "Undersized, oversized;" you should
hear
> > yourself. You missed your calling; you could have been a trial lawyer
for
> > Chrysler. For that matter, you could defend anything (anything!) with
this
> > logic.
> >
>
> Do you deny that modern 4-speed front-drive automatics fail more often
than
> 3-speed rear-drives of the 60's and 70s?
No. But who proposed this angle? The fact is, the A06 Ultradrive (41TE) has
been a bomb, regardless of any disclaimer notations being insistently
applied. If the manufacture does not trust that their transmission can
maintain structural integrity per the use with "front-drive" equipped
vehicles, then they need to option themselves elsewhere. The consumer takes
delivery of a product that it trusts has been deemed trustworthy; the public
should not be the guinea pigs for Chrysler's experimental process. Bottom
line, if you offer for sale a product that is tilted ready for use, then it
should be just that.
> If you do, you're wrong. If you
> don't, then you are unjustified in saying I could "defend anything" with
the
> argument.
This assessment stands; there is plenty of supportive quotes from you to
sustain as much, even without the above abstract reference.
> I seriously doubt that Chrysler could be worse than Ford or
> Honda in this regard. In fact, they're probably right in the middle of the
> distribution.
Again, the national automotive database strongly disagree with you. Chrysler
has an extensive ongoing record of being ordered to pay for transmission
mishaps; no other make has had anything to such degree today. I would bet
that there are no class action law suits against Honda or Toyota upon the
transmission arena, much less several from many directions, like Chrysler.
> > > In short: you've said NOTHING of substance.
> >
> > It takes rational mental patterns to realize substance when its
presented.
>
> Obviously. And it takes the same mental processes to recognize when
substance
> is present. I'm still looking for the substance. Well, I've actually
*found* a
> substance here, but its pretty common material often found in big piles on
> farms and ranches....
And the wind was blowing from your direction, right? It becomes quite easy
to get drift of one's own hole here, especially in that one does not know
how to measure substance when it sees it; it barely identifies with as much
toward differentiation, most unfortunately.
Well, at least you're not a coward.
Christopher Jones
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> The failure incidence rates, please. Anything else is hot air.
>
> Bob
Right...
Christopher Jones
> Would you please post any links that specifically relate to
> the 300M AT, except the one TSB on the screwed up wires that
> I already mentioned, right here. I'll also accept specific
> links on 98 and later Concords and Intrepids as evidence of
> a problem:
Hmm. Here we go again.
Sure Art, that's easy; I'll simply cut and paste the link from *this very*
posting...
http://autosafety.org/autodefects/CHRYSLER-LH.htm
http://www.alldata.com/consumer/TSB/12/991239EO.html
Service Bulletin Number: 181700
Bulletin Sequence Number: 609
Date of Bulletin: 0009
NHTSA Item Number: SB6092271
Make: CHRYSLER
Model: 300M
Year: 1999
Component: POWER TRAIN: TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC TORQUE CONVERTER (8/82)
Summary: SOME VEHICLES MAY EXHIBIT TORQUE CONVERTER CLUTCH CONTROL BUMP
BETWEEN 72 AND 96 KPH (45 AND 60 MPH).
21-07-99 APR 99 Transmission Output Speed Sensor Wires Fatiguing /
09-02-98 APR 98 Engine to Transmission Dowel Service
Only one reference was inclusive of the "screwed up wires," the balance
isn't.
"... 98 and later Concords and Intrepids..."
http://www.alldata.com/consumer/TSB/12/991217EA.html
What's the difference? The 41TE is the 41TE. Later models are still
reporting trouble.
Thus, the Edmunds links:
The minivans use the same transmission:
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.ee93e7a/41
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.ee93d94/0
As does the Avenger:
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?1...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^13@.ee921d4/0
"I just traded in my '97 Avenger for those reasons and more. The
transmission was starting to slip and the brakes were done. This after
24,000 miles that were mostly highway to and from work."
"I own a 96 Avenger ES with/42k, have had nothing but problems since new.
The transmission..."
"I have a '98 Avenger Sport. I was extremely happy with my car, until last
Tuesday evening, when my transmission went out on me, without warning, at
21,000 miles!!! I was completely disgusted. No trans should go at this
amount of miles. I have taken very good care of this car and was very
dismayed with this misfortune. To top it off, I was not given a rental car
by the dealership for my trouble, and was treated extremely poorly from
start to finish. When I picked my car up from the shop, I asked the mechanic
how it was running. He said, "ok, for now." ???? FOR NOW??? Then he
sarcastically laughed and said, "good luck to you." UGH!!! I'm keeping this
car until my warranty is up, and then I am dumping it. It's too bad. It's a
nice looking car, but, from what I've read and heard, I'm going back to GM."
The part is the same; the issues are the same. If this isn't "specific"
enough for you, then you'll never benefit from this.
You never did answer my question:
"Do you even know what transmission you have in your car?" If you did, this
would be fairly easy to translate.
Good luck.
Christopher Jones
> "Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:MHQE6.472$5b1....@news1.atl...
> > If your were
> > really interested in what the consensus is on this product, as there is
an
> > abundance of such information available to you, it would be no secret.
Of
> > course, conversely and fittingly, this would be a strong conflict of
> > interest in fact, to you, right?
> Wrong Mr CR absolutely wrong. Sigh - I swore I would drop this thread but
> this accusation is just too unfair to ignore.
So I should applaud your lack of cowardice? Do whatever turns you on Dave.
Besides, you'll notice the question mark attached to the statement? I posed
an inquiry, not an "unfair accusation."
Moreover, the abundant degree of overlooked information is still seemingly
unaccounted for. The issue here is, you would rather oppose NHTSA, Consumer
Reports, The Center for Auto Safety, ALLPAR, FTC, ALLDATA, etc., even
Chrysler's own Technical Service Bulletins or anyone else who presents
unbecoming details about this transmission because you would rather
personally hold that there has been vast improvement to the troubled
mechanism. Is this not the case with you? Have you not opted to resist these
extensive and numerous reports based upon your own thinking? How is this an
"unfair" assessment?
Are you not of the position that Consumer Reports, etc., is defective and
therefore, anything they state is mere 'bad rap' injustices? This is a
personal choice, it is not? This siad, it is not in concert with the
preponderance of the ongoing details. Would you not agree?
> So I am a neutral observer.
This (just below) is a position; it is not "neutral."
> We are now in 2001, not 1991, and the current transmission is very
different.
This (below) is also a position; it is also not "neutral."
"...there are many people here who consider that Consumer Reports is also a
defective product and should be avoided as a source of automotive
information. I am one of them."
Again, statement stands:
"If your were really interested in what the consensus is on this product, as
there is an abundance of such information available to you, it would be no
secret."
You appear very aware of this consensus as you label such (below) as
"teething problems" and "unfair bad rap."
> My information comes from a much wider variety of sources than does yours.
Yeah, I have seen droves of evidence for this... "Wide variety" like yours
is worth the ticket!
> And it tells me that while the Chrysler 4-speed did have teething
problems,
> that it has been given an unfair rap by frothing self-pity consumerists
ever
> since.
I see. So literally thousands of consumers who have had to repair two and
three transmissions within their vehicle's lifetime and fight for
reimbursement are all just "frothing self-pity consumerists." The multiple
class action suits, checkered service history, complaints by federal
automotive safety organizations, etc., are all made up of mere self-pity
basket cases looking to get rewards or return of funds on items which they
all should have anticipated as due transmission failures?
You really are something else.
> My God we even have some on this newsgroup claiming "victim" status
> for themselves.
And we have those "claiming victim status" for Chrysler, like yourself. Is
one degree better than another? When you step up to pay for the service woes
experienced by the "consumerist's" and the loss their hard-earned dollars
and time, then all such parties will be glad to turn their attention away
from Chrysler. Who elected you arbitrator of the lost funds of others?
> This in a world where there are starving orphans in the
> Sudanese civil war and Ukrainian teenagers dying of cancer
> because they were downwind of Chernobyl 15 years ago.
Oh, please. Spare me the bleeding heart. WE cannot assist these issues
within this forum; this is apart from the function of said forum.
Besides, I wager that I donate far more funds per fiscal year to such causes
than you do. My tax statement demonstrates as much.
> Gimme a break. Get a life.
"A break?" Take all the break you need; no one is holding your hands to the
keyboard.
Not seeing things in concert with you denotes one not having "a life?"
I see. I'll be glad to be amongst the walking dead then, thank you.
Christopher Jones
> Yeah, you here that Art?
Self-correction:
"...you *hear* that..."
Pardon the typo.
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:3AE85539...@spam.thanks...
>
> > And you're assembling vague, rambling, contorted sentences with no
> inherent
> > meaning in order to obscure the fact that YOU GOT NOTHIN! You've no facts.
> > You're devoid of data.
>
> Which translates that you don't accept (or are indifferent to) the *very
> detailed* reports from:
>
> NHTSA
Some of their statistics are valid. Their regulatory branch is horrible. In
short, it kinda depends on where in NHTSA the data originates.
>
> Consumer Reports
Nothing but bird cage liner.
> The Center for Auto Safety
>
> One's view of "nothin" is quite opposed to another's. Certainly to mine.
I'm a researcher. What are you? What are your qualifications? Data is only
good if measured against a standard or a benchmark of some sort. Where's your
benchmark?
>
> There are not class action law suits against a particular transmission
> without due cause.
ROFLMAO and BOLSCOM! The idea that the presence of litigation implies cause
is ABSURD. Let me guess... you're a lawyer...
> More sentimental dribble?
Where is the sentiment? What I quoted was FACT. The source of the information
is a person not affiliated wiith Chrysler who makes his LIVING by rebuilding
transmissions and counting on his customers NOT coming back with repeat
failures. Aside from that, I'm an engineer and a car hobbyist/restorer myself.
I've been in the guts of lots of transmissions, and I've seen the good and bad.
The 42LE is no Torqueflite 727, but its not a Ford AOD either. I'll bet you've
never even dropped the pan on one of these transmissions. I ask again: what are
your qualifications?
> I call it as I see it. That's just what it is... overkill strict specifics!
Not to scientists, engineers, and researchers. We depend on precision. Maybe
you can get away with using confusing language to snow-job your audience. I
can't.
> >
> > Do you deny that modern 4-speed front-drive automatics fail more often
> than
> > 3-speed rear-drives of the 60's and 70s?
>
> No. But who proposed this angle?
It is necessary to your claim to prove that the 42LE/41TE has a higher failure
rate than *COMPARABLE* transmissions. You can't compare it to the bulletproof,
but energy hungry, boxes of 1970.
> The fact is, the A06 Ultradrive (41TE) has
> been a bomb,
How so? It has remained in production, uninterrupted, for 12 model years. It is
found in something like 60-70% of all minivans of all makes on the road!
Hardly a bomb. The Vega was a bomb. The Edsel was a bomb. The GM TH200 was a
bomb. The 41TE and 42LE are middle of the road at WORST.
> regardless of any disclaimer notations being insistently
> applied. If the manufacture does not trust that their transmission can
> maintain structural integrity per the use with "front-drive"
Why put front-drive in quotations? Do you not understand what front-drive
means? Its a factual description of a drivetrain configuration, not a
subjective assessment.
> > I seriously doubt that Chrysler could be worse than Ford or
> > Honda in this regard. In fact, they're probably right in the middle of the
> > distribution.
>
> Again, the national automotive database strongly disagree with you. Chrysler
> has an extensive ongoing record of being ordered to pay for transmission
> mishaps; no other make has had anything to such degree today.
You have provided ZERO evidence to support this claim. Presence of complaints
in newsgroups is not evidence. Griping on Allpar is not evidence. Consumer
Reports is a waste of paper. What would prove your argument is concrete numbers
that say Chrysler transmissions suffer more failures per vehicle miles
travelled than Ford or Honda. You say its true, its incumbent on you to PROVE
IT or SHUT UP.
> I would bet
> that there are no class action law suits against Honda or Toyota upon the
> transmission arena, much less several from many directions, like Chrysler.
Presence or absence of lawsuits proves NOTHING. People can sue each other for
body odor these days, and someone will take it to court. And win. No rational
educated person would think that what happens in a lawsuit necessarily and
abolutely reflects reality.
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> This (just below) is a position; it is not "neutral."
>
> > We are now in 2001, not 1991, and the current transmission is very
> different.
You need to go back to first grade and do your "fact or opinion?" worksheets
again. My 7-year-old daughter knows that it is now 2001. The fact that the
transmission has been revised is also a concrete, undeniable fact. Where is
ANY statement in the above sentence that is a "position" and not a simple,
undisputable fact?
>
>
> This (below) is also a position; it is also not "neutral."
>
> "...there are many people here who consider that Consumer Reports is also a
> defective product and should be avoided as a source of automotive
> information. I am one of them."
Personally, I think that this is also a fact. I admit its not as clear-cut as
your first case, but CR is certainly very bad science at the very best. Anyone
with a background in probability theory and statistics can tell you that their
methods are completely invalid. Whether that makes it "defective" depends on
whether you read it for entertainment value (to laugh at it) or actually are
foolish enough to try to depend on it to help you make important decisions.
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > This (just below) is a position; it is not "neutral."
> >
> > > We are now in 2001, not 1991, and the current transmission is very
> > different.
>
> You need to go back to first grade and do your "fact or opinion?"
worksheets
> again. My 7-year-old daughter knows that it is now 2001. The fact that the
> transmission has been revised is also a concrete, undeniable fact. Where
is
> ANY statement in the above sentence that is a "position" and not a simple,
> undisputable fact?
Ah, I knew it. You're not as sharp as you attempt to present. Yes, even a
stray cat knows the difference between the two years of date, but that's not
what is deemed your position, is it?
So, let's play stupid, shall we? The obvious position I was referring to is
that "the current transmission is very different," of course. One can update
defective transmission parts until they're blue in the face, by-and-large,
the unit is still the same unit and is still generating complaints to
automotive sources abroad.
Thus, it is not an "undisputable fact" that "the current transmission is
very different."
Whether you appreciate the content (below), it cannot be completely
dismissed, if at all:
"Chrysler also began offering a standard 3/36 warranty as an alternative to
the 7/70 warranty, which was costing them a bundle in repairs. Needless to
say, scores of people got the shaft on this one, as Chrysler neglected to
mention that the transmission in their vehicle would more than likely fail
after the shorter warranty period had expired.
"To this day the 41TE/ 42LE is still being manufactured by Chrysler and is
equipped in minivans and quite a few other vehicles. This transmission is
still causing headaches for thousands of consumers as shown by complaints
filed with the Center for Auto Safety and the NHTSA. This is the statement
the Center For Auto Safety released.
"Affected models (not a complete listing):
1989-1995 (AA) Spirit/ Acclaim/ LeBaron Sedan
1989-1993 (AC) Dynasty/ New Yorker/ New Yorker Salon
1990-1993 (AG) Daytona
1990-1995 (AJ) LeBaron Coupe/ LeBaron Convertible
1992-1994 (AP) Shadow/ Shadow Convertible/ Sundance
1990-1991 (AQ) Chrysler Maserati TC
1989-1995 (AS) Town & Country/ Caravan/ Voyager
1990-1993 (AY) Imperial/ New Yorker Fifth Avenue
1993-1995 (ES) Chrysler Voyager (European market)
1995-1998 (FJ) Sebring/ Avenger/ Talon
1996-1998 (GS) Chrysler Voyager (European market)
1995-1998 (JA) Cirrus/ Stratus/ Breeze
1996-1998 (JX) Sebring Convertible
1993-1998 (LH) Concorde/ Intrepid/ LHS/ New Yorker/ Vision
1996-1998 (NS) Town & Country/ Caravan/ Voyager
1997 (PR) Prowler
"The first and foremost design problem with the transmission is with the
piston retainer for the 2-4 clutch and the L-R clutch. The original design
called for the retainer to be machined directly in the transmission case.
This would make the retainer extremely strong and withstand the thousands of
shift cycles and pressures that a transmission goes through. This design is
being used by almost every other competitor on the market.
"Unfortunately as a last minute cost saving measure, Chrysler decided to use
stamped-steel retainers which were then bolted into the transmission case.
This made the transmission prone to internal piston seal failure as a
stamped-steel retainer was substantially weaker than a retainer machined
directly into the transmission case using reinforced steel or aluminum.
These transmissions also have many problems with the computerized transaxle
controller.
The most common problems with the transmission are poor shifting qualities
and sudden locks into second gear, the "limp-home" mode. If the computer in
the transmission senses something wrong, the transmission will shift into
second gear so that the vehicle can be driven to a repair shop instead of
being stuck on the side of a road. While this sounds like a good idea, a
second gear lockup will not activate any warning lights on the dash or give
any other indication that a failure has occurred. Thus the transmission and
possibly the engine could sustain more damage if the problem is not
identified and promptly attended to. The lockup into second can be
extremely dangerous if occurred during highway operation. Many accidents
resulted due to sudden second gear lockups. Between January 1989 and July
1991, Chrysler tried about 28 different changes to deal with the problems
with this transmission. Nine design changes were made in an attempt to cure
clutch failures and four were aimed at correcting shift busyness and gear
hunting. The last time I looked up TSB's (technical service bulletin) for
my 1990 Spirit from Alldata I counted over 40 transmission related
bulletins. An excellent summary of the factory related defects are listed
in TSB #18-24-95. TSB #21-09-90A shows the low/reverse clutch piston
retainer defect. And TSB #21-06-95 Rev. A also states that the seals used
for the low/reverse and 2/4 clutch piston have been changed from the
failure-prone lip type seal to a newer D-ring seal. TSB # 21-24-90 shows
the undersized input clutch hub and the defective reaction shaft support
journal. It looks like the newer models (97-99) are beginning to show
problems.
Copies of technical service bulletins can be mailed to you by contacting the
NHTSA's Technical Information Services:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/#TIS
> > This (below) is also a position; it is also not "neutral."
> >
> > "...there are many people here who consider that Consumer Reports is
also a
> > defective product and should be avoided as a source of automotive
> > information. I am one of them."
> Personally, I think that this is also a fact. I admit its not as clear-cut
as
> your first case, but CR is certainly very bad science at the very best.
Anyone
> with a background in probability theory and statistics can tell you that
their
> methods are completely invalid. Whether that makes it "defective" depends
on
> whether you read it for entertainment value (to laugh at it) or actually
are
> foolish enough to try to depend on it to help you make important
decisions.
Here again, more personal assessment over fact. There are sources in the
world today that present as gospel to some, while complete rubbish to
another. And, while either one of these assessments may be completely
accurate, proving this as a universal standard for all to follow would be
out of the question, again, even if correct.
I am not an advocate for Consumer Reports or anyone else within this camp.
But, again, we are not at all talking about isolated cases, conversely, we
are referring to several independent sources who have a unison perspective
on this. The issues with the 41TE are well-documented on a national scale;
denial of this is hardly scientific, whatsoever, but again, within the
realms of sentiment.
Still, we need not agree on this matter. It benefits neither of us to hash
out whose standards of specifics is more credible. The fact is, you hold and
trust that the mechanism is sound; I, and large-scale numbers of others
wholeheartedly disagree. I feel I have years of documented precedence; you
offer your own experiences combined with a select mechanic who feels as you
do. We obviously do not universally concur with just which "scientific"
formula is more valid. I would hold your view as "bad science," for
instance, respectfully.
What's more, you can do nothing for the needs of those who seek recovery of
said funds. Many come to this forum looking for helpful tips; something
expected from the linked source that brought us here. Instead, we find
droves of the defenders of the faith; looking for extensive failure rates
compared to the next in detailed form, most of which is simply unreasonable.
If such files were available, I don't have ready access to them (at least as
of yet-but I am searching) toward posting here.
Besides, people of your fabric would only dance around the details
challenging the credence of said sources anyway. My impression is that your
mind is fully made up on this matter; and as such, via science or otherwise,
you will not vacate this mental premises. For instance, as sound as science
is (and I subscribe to many scientific journals and support various
programming agendum on the theme), it will not convince those predisposed to
believe otherwise (like creationism, etc.) now or likely ever.
So, we resolve nothing by maintaining strict allegiances to anything,
especially despite information to the contrary. Again, we need not agree.
David J. Allen
awhile but I'd like to throw my $.02 in.
I suppose proving scientifically that this transmission has more problems
than average would be interesting and useful, but it's been obvious to me
for years that the A604/41TE transmission has been a real dog. Having
your ear to the ground is as good or better than statistical analysis.
I also think it's obvious that it's become more reliable over the years.
Not reliable enough though. Chrysler may have improved it's design and
manufacturing process, but I think the design is still on the fringes of
reliability.
I've paid attention to this tranny for years (through this ng and through
numerous friends who're owners) and it's HAD and continues to HAVE
problems. I flat don't believe those who suggest that if you properly
maintain it that it'll give you years of trouble free service. And just
because you haven't had any troubles doesn't mean that those who have did
something to bring it on.
To me, arguing about this seems absurd just because it's so obvious.
In article <somG6.3715$5b1.2...@news1.atl>, "Christopher Jones"
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > Which translates that you don't accept (or are indifferent to) the *very
> > detailed* reports from:
> >
> > NHTSA
>
> Some of their statistics are valid. Their regulatory branch is horrible.
In
> short, it kinda depends on where in NHTSA the data originates.
Which, in other words, if the data is welcomed, it is reliable; not until?
> > Consumer Reports
>
> Nothing but bird cage liner.
>
> > The Center for Auto Safety
> > One's view of "nothin" is quite opposed to another's. Certainly to mine.
>
> I'm a researcher. What are you? What are your qualifications? Data is
only
> good if measured against a standard or a benchmark of some sort. Where's
your
> benchmark?
You are? I have researched plenty and brought such here. Whether you feel it
is unsubstantiated or not, it is far more than you have brought, mister! You
speak of your own experiences with the device, the said comments from a
mechanic you once spoke with, and your "7-year-old daughter," respectfully.
I will gladly consider you counter-data... if it ever materializes. My
"benchmark" is in the fact that I will explore for information apart from my
own experiences toward getting a collective database outside my own little
world, for one. Are you questioning my credentials, maybe? My office walls
sport as much and more decorations as yours, I'm sure.
But, if you mean standards, the actual definition of the term, my standards
are as high as any. I have considered and brought-forth eight to ten
independent sources, which is far more than you have. Again, simply because
you don't recognize such sources as credible, does not mean they are
completely null and void whatsoever. All you can do is grade and ridicule
the sources of others while offering none of your own; all the while
labeling yourself one of strong benchmarks, scientific and well-researched
status. I should have expected as much.
> > There are not class action law suits against a particular transmission
> > without due cause.
>
> ROFLMAO and BOLSCOM! The idea that the presence of litigation implies
cause
> is ABSURD. Let me guess... you're a lawyer...
Something like that, yes. I'm in the legal business. And, you're missing the
point altogether. It is not the mere "presence of litigation" that is the
notable factor here. What it takes to bring a class action suit requires far
more than your "research" has informed you of. For instance, I have a copy
of just one in front of me upon the 41TE transmission and The Chrysler
Corporation specifically. It has over 200 pages of supportive data from
sources all of the country in staggering numbers. Only the best, most solid
cases make their way into said suits. There is not one of those cases that
could not easily prevail on their own, in circuit or district court in an
overwhelming fashion.
Such cases might even disgust you (well, maybe not you) to actually read
them. Their cases are what is "undisputable." All these cases together is
why Chrysler has repeatedly settled out of court to avoid national attention
upon the matter. One could easily lure 20/20 or Dateline into the spectrum;
they would see the evidence of the case and gladly take it; they plead for
such cases now.
The preponderance of strikingly similar, clear-cut cases in the heavy
percentages that have been recorded universally is what "implies cause."
Nobody takes on big conglomerates unless they have overwhelming evidence to
bring with them. It is simply not cost-effective.
While many cases are a simple matter of rolling the dice toward sympathetic
jurors, technical matters like transmission failure would not be amongst
such degrees.
> > More sentimental dribble?
>
> Where is the sentiment? What I quoted was FACT. The source of the
information
> is a person not affiliated wiith Chrysler who makes his LIVING by
rebuilding
> transmissions and counting on his customers NOT coming back with repeat
> failures.
It is isolated, hear-say, subjective and pertaining to your own experiences.
This is hardly worthy of factual input. It would be laughed out of court
(worse even than your pun toward CR) as unsubstantiated and expressive of
one's sentiment, yes!
> Aside from that, I'm an engineer and a car hobbyist/restorer myself.
This and ten dollars will get you a haircut and a handshake.
> I've been in the guts of lots of transmissions, and I've seen the good and
bad.
> The 42LE is no Torqueflite 727, but its not a Ford AOD either.
Whether there are others that are purported to be worse, does not offset the
matter at hand. Is Ted Bundy not so bad because Attila was worse? Please.
> I'll bet you've
> never even dropped the pan on one of these
> transmissions. I ask again: what are your qualifications?
You'd probably be surprised at what I've taken close, scrutinizing
evaluations of. I've studied this transmission, especially at the main
points of documented failure extensively. I have the same access to the ATSG
manuals as you may have, for instance. Now, if you are inquiry on whether I
am local town grease-monkey-certainly not! I am white-collar and do not get
oil spilled in my face for a living, no. But, I am again, very studied in
the parts/assembly of this particular unit and am in the company of several
certified transmission specialists which are supportive of the said cases
mentioned. I'll tell them about you; they would love to pick your brain (and
a few other things) upon what you think you know about this matter.
> > I call it as I see it. That's just what it is... overkill strict
specifics!
> Not to scientists, engineers, and researchers. We depend on precision.
Maybe
> you can get away with using confusing language to snow-job your audience.
I
> can't.
If its confusing, then you're not scientist. And, you are about as precise
as a three-dollar bill. Again, all you do is buffer others; nothing of
"research" originates from you. If second-hand hear-say is your means of
benchmarks and precise, scientific research, then this is an outrageous
undermining of the scientific community. Wouldn't you agree? And, I have
"snowed" no one. It is people like you the with attitudes like yours
("consumerists, victims,"etc.) that ones should take heed from.
> It is necessary to your claim to prove that the 42LE/41TE has a higher
failure
> rate than *COMPARABLE* transmissions. You can't compare it to the
bulletproof,
> but energy hungry, boxes of 1970.
Did Chrysler make the transmission available for sale with their vehicles or
didn't they? This is all that matters, Steve. Everything else is not
relevant. I detailed this angle for you previously. The trust of the
consumer goes toward the manufacture's finished product; not the list of
disclaimers that may credulously apply latterly. You have evidently never
been shafted (or were not bright enough to know when you were) within the
realms of such cases. You would really get taken to the cleaners with your
undue loyalty or whatever you define it as.
> > regardless of any disclaimer notations being insistently
> > applied. If the manufacture does not trust that their transmission can
> > maintain structural integrity per the use with "front-drive"
>
> Why put front-drive in quotations? Do you not understand what front-drive
> means? Its a factual description of a drivetrain configuration, not a
> subjective assessment.
Because that is how you stated it (as opposed to FWD, for instance.) No one
implies that it is a "subjective assessment." There you go again with trying
to present as clever, but are only unnecessarily splitting hairs.
> > > I seriously doubt that Chrysler could be worse than Ford or
> > > Honda in this regard. In fact, they're probably right in the middle of
the
> > > distribution.
> >
> > Again, the national automotive database strongly disagree with you.
Chrysler
> > has an extensive ongoing record of being ordered to pay for transmission
> > mishaps; no other make has had anything to such degree today.
>
> You have provided ZERO evidence to support this claim. Presence of
complaints
> in newsgroups is not evidence. Griping on Allpar is not evidence. Consumer
> Reports is a waste of paper.
Here again, you pick out a couple of your least favorites and chastise them
and feel this is an adequate buffering of the point.
There are several sources (up to eight, including Chrysler's own technical
bulletins) to consider, yet you once again forget this and blow your trumpet
over more irrational utterances. In another post you said it "depended when
the data was generated" toward one of the sources. Just more and more
denial, lack of comprehension and woefully inept counter statings, chock
full of your own babbling, again. If I have "ZERO," you have a lot less than
this.
The list of Successful Claims Awards upon select websites has already been
offered via its respective linked sources. You just have an inability to
adequately measure as much. Yeah, you're quite a researching wonder you are!
I have access to court records and can see this unequivocally. I will assure
you, these websites do reference specific cases. Yet, what difference would
this make to you? You would only challenge the details and form your own,
sustaining, unwavering and thus, non-scientific conclusions.
> What would prove your argument is concrete numbers
> that say Chrysler transmissions suffer more failures per vehicle miles
> travelled than Ford or Honda. You say its true, its incumbent on you to
PROVE
> IT or SHUT UP.
You and those failures ratings. You said the "Vega," for instance was a
bomb. Now, if I were to say "you have ZERO evidence to support this claim"
and, furthermore, I would need to see "concrete numbers that say Vegas
suffer more failures per vehicle miles than Ford or Honda." Can you "PROVE
IT?" Well, how about it mister upper case, can you show me these failure
rates, or can't you? Then you have no business saying that the Vega was a
bomb then, right?
After all, if we are going to ignore the large-scale reports abroad and only
measure failures rates per make and model that can be posted in this
newsgroup, then every car ever built was an absolute gem then. You real are
something of a new breed.
And, another thing... kiss my a_ _! (Re: "SHUT UP.") Who left you moderator
of who should say what here or who doesn't?
Can you maintain a civil conversation or not? Another less than composed
pretender.
> > I would bet
> > that there are no class action law suits against Honda or Toyota upon
the
> > transmission arena, much less several from many directions, like
Chrysler.
>
> Presence or absence of lawsuits proves NOTHING.
You are quite wrong here, again. If there were never any lawsuits upon a
matter, then there was evidently not enough solid evidence to bring it to
litigation at one point or another, even over a long period of time.
However, if there were several suits coming from several different sources
upon a duration of several years, then it is relatively fair to say that
there was at least enough evidence to bring suit, as was regarded by the
preliminary proceedings of the court process.
Stick to engineering; you have all you can do to master it, much less law.
> People can sue each other for
> body odor these days, and someone will take it to court. And win.
Not class action suits in federal court they won't, silly. Again, it takes
preponderances of evidence even to have the upper court hear, much less
grant your case; this says nothing of actually winning said case. Legal
precedence must be greatly established. Go do some of your infamous
"research" upon the matter.
> No rational
> educated person would think that what happens in a
> lawsuit necessarily and abolutely reflects reality.
It does reflect reality; that's why people hate it! It may not be fair; the
lady of justice for 'equal justice for all" might be all but a myth now, but
it definitely is reality, rest assured. You can have all the justice you can
afford, and no more. O.J. Simpson bought plenty of justice, which included
an easily persuasive jury, an incompetent judge and a prosecution team that
was heavily overmatched by the "dream-team" defense. But, it is reality. Sad
but true.
Chrysler, for instance, can also afford lots of 'justice,' at the expense of
those "victim consumerists" it often prevails against simply because the
latter lacks the adequate resources to effective counter with as much
technical loopholes.
But, with plenty of collective efforts and networking the little guy
actually wins a couple here and there, and yet, you'll deny them even this.
All to protect the sentimental value of a beloved automotive part. And, I
could assemble far more in the academia that would vouch for my degree of
"rationality and education" than you ever could. I suppose you could score
some points for having "been in the guts of lots of transmissions," of
course... You weren't labeling me irrational, were you?
There is an old expression:
"You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem." I can't see
how people like yourselves can possible help toward a solution.
Christopher Jones
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > Which translates that you don't accept (or are indifferent to) the *very
> > detailed* reports from:
> >
> > NHTSA
>
> Some of their statistics are valid. Their regulatory branch is horrible.
In
> short, it kinda depends on where in NHTSA the data originates.
Which, in other words, if the data is welcomed, it is reliable; not until?
> I'm a researcher. What are you? What are your qualifications? Data is
only
> good if measured against a standard or a benchmark of some sort. Where's
your
> benchmark?
You are? I have researched plenty and brought such here. Whether you feel it
is unsubstantiated or not, it is far more than you have brought, mister! You
speak of your own experiences with the device, the said comments from a
mechanic you once spoke with, and your "7-year-old daughter," respectfully.
I will gladly consider you counter-data... if it ever materializes. My
"benchmark" is in the fact that I will explore for information apart from my
own experiences toward getting a collective database outside my own little
world, for one. Are you questioning my credentials, maybe? My office walls
sport as much and more decorations as yours, I'm sure.
But, if you mean standards, the actual definition of the term, my standards
are as high as any. I have considered and brought-forth eight to ten
independent sources, which is far more than you have. Again, simply because
you don't recognize such sources as credible, does not mean they are
completely null and void whatsoever. All you can do is grade and ridicule
the sources of others while offering none of your own; all the while
labeling yourself one of strong benchmarks, scientific and well-researched
status. I should have expected as much.
> The idea that the presence of litigation implies cause
> is ABSURD. Let me guess... you're a lawyer...
Something like that, yes. I'm in the legal business. And, you're missing the
point altogether. It is not the mere "presence of litigation" that is the
notable factor here. What it takes to bring a class action suit requires far
more than your "research" has informed you of. For instance, I have a copy
of just one in front of me upon the 41TE transmission and The Chrysler
Corporation specifically. It has over 200 pages of supportive data from
sources all of the country in staggering numbers. Only the best, most solid
cases make their way into said suits. There is not one of those cases that
could not easily prevail on their own, in circuit or district court in an
overwhelming fashion.
Such cases might even disgust you (well, maybe not you) to actually read
them. Their cases are what is "undisputable." All these cases together is
why Chrysler has repeatedly settled out of court to avoid national attention
upon the matter. One could easily lure 20/20 or Dateline into the spectrum;
they would see the evidence of the case and gladly take it; they plead for
such cases now.
The preponderance of strikingly similar, clear-cut cases in the heavy
percentages that have been recorded universally is what "implies cause."
Nobody takes on big conglomerates unless they have overwhelming evidence to
bring with them. It is simply not cost-effective.
While many cases are a simple matter of rolling the dice toward sympathetic
jurors, technical matters like transmission failure would not be amongst
such degrees.
> > More sentimental dribble?
>
> Where is the sentiment? What I quoted was FACT. The source of the
information
> is a person not affiliated wiith Chrysler who makes his LIVING by
rebuilding
> transmissions and counting on his customers NOT coming back with repeat
> failures.
It is isolated, hear-say, subjective and pertaining to your own experiences.
This is hardly worthy of factual input. It would be laughed out of court
(worse even than your pun toward CR) as unsubstantiated and expressive of
one's sentiment, yes!
> Aside from that, I'm an engineer and a car hobbyist/restorer myself.
This and ten dollars will get you a haircut and a handshake.
> I've been in the guts of lots of transmissions, and I've seen the good and
bad.
> The 42LE is no Torqueflite 727, but its not a Ford AOD either.
Whether there are others that are purported to be worse, does not offset the
matter at hand. Is Ted Bundy not so bad because Attila was worse? Please.
> I'll bet you've
> never even dropped the pan on one of these transmissions.
> I ask again: what are your qualifications?
You'd probably be surprised at what I've taken close, scrutinizing
evaluations of. I've studied this transmission, especially at the main
points of documented failure extensively. I have the same access to the ATSG
manuals as you may have, for instance. Now, if you are inquiry on whether I
am local town grease-monkey-certainly not! I am white-collar and do not get
oil spilled in my face for a living, no. But, I am again, very studied in
the parts/assembly of this particular unit and am in the company of several
certified transmission specialists which are supportive of the said cases
mentioned.
I'll tell them about you; they would love to pick your brain (and a few
other things) upon what you think you know about this matter.
> Not to scientists, engineers, and researchers. We depend on precision.
Maybe
> you can get away with using confusing language to snow-job your audience.
I
> can't.
If its confusing, then you're not scientist. And, you are about as precise
as a three-dollar bill. Again, all you do is buffer others; nothing of
"research" originates from you. If second-hand hear-say is your means of
benchmarks and precise, scientific research, then this is an outrageous
undermining of the scientific community. Wouldn't you agree? And, I have
"snowed" no one. It is people like you the with attitudes like yours
("consumerists, victims,"etc.) that ones should take heed from.
> It is necessary to your claim to prove that the 42LE/41TE has a higher
failure
> rate than *COMPARABLE* transmissions. You can't compare it to the bulletpr
oof,
> but energy hungry, boxes of 1970.
Did Chrysler make the transmission available for sale with their vehicles or
didn't they? This is all that matters, Steve. Everything else is irrelevant.
I detailed this angle for you previously. The trust of the consumer goes
toward the manufacture's finished product; not the list of disclaimers that
may credulously apply latterly.
You have evidently never been shafted (or were not bright enough to know
when you were) within the realms of such cases. You would really get taken
to the cleaners with your undue loyalty or whatever you define it as.
> Why put front-drive in quotations? Do you not understand what front-drive
> means? Its a factual description of a drivetrain configuration, not a
> subjective assessment.
Because that is how you stated it (as opposed to FWD, for instance.) No one
implies that it is a "subjective assessment." There you go again with trying
to present as clever, but are only unnecessarily splitting hairs.
> You have provided ZERO evidence to support this claim. Presence of
complaints
> in newsgroups is not evidence. Griping on Allpar is not evidence. Consumer
> Reports is a waste of paper.
Here again, you pick out a couple of your least favorites and chastise them
and feel this is an adequate buffering of the point.
There are several sources (up to eight, including Chrysler's own technical
bulletins) to consider, yet you once again forget this and blow your trumpet
over more irrational utterances. In another post you said it "depended when
the data was generated" toward one of the sources. Just more and more
denial, lack of comprehension and woefully inept counter statings, chock
full of your own babbling, again. If I have "ZERO," you have a lot less than
this.
The list of Successful Claims Awards upon select websites have already been
offered via its respective linked sources. You just have an inability to
adequately measure as much. Yeah, you're quite a researching wonder you are!
I have access to court records and can see this unequivocally. I will assure
you, these websites do reference specific cases.
Yet, what difference would this make to you? You would only challenge the
details and form your own, sustaining, unwavering and thus, non-scientific
conclusions.
> What would prove your argument is concrete numbers
> that say Chrysler transmissions suffer more failures per vehicle miles
> travelled than Ford or Honda.
You and those failures ratings. You said the "Vega," for instance was a
bomb. Now, if I were to say "you have ZERO evidence to support this claim"
and, furthermore, I would need to see "concrete numbers that say Vegas
suffer more failures per vehicle miles than Ford or Honda." Can you "PROVE
IT?" Well, how about it mister upper case, can you show me these failure
rates, or can't you? Then you have no business saying that the Vega was a
bomb then, right?
After all, if we are going to ignore the large-scale reports abroad and only
measure failures rates per make and model that can be posted in this
newsgroup, then every car ever built was an absolute gem then. You really
are something of a new breed.
> You say its true, its incumbent on you to PROVE
> IT or SHUT UP.
And, another thing... kiss my a_ _! (Re: "SHUT UP.") Who left you moderator
of who should say what here or who doesn't?
Can you maintain a civil conversation or not? Another less than composed
pretender.
> Presence or absence of lawsuits proves NOTHING.
You are quite wrong here, again. If there were never any lawsuits upon a
matter, then there was evidently not enough solid evidence to bring it to
litigation at one point or another, even over a long period of time.
However, if there were several suits coming from several different sources
upon a duration of several years, then it is relatively fair to say that
there was at least enough evidence to bring suit, as was regarded by the
preliminary proceedings of the court process.
Stick to engineering; you have all you can do to master it, much less law.
> People can sue each other for
> body odor these days, and someone will take it to court.
> And win.
Not class action suits in federal court they won't, silly. Again, it takes
enormous and solid preponderances of evidence even to have the upper court
hear, much less grant your case; this says nothing of actually winning said
case. Legal precedence must be greatly established. Some advice... go do
some of your infamous "research" upon the matter before uttering such
things.
> No rational
> educated person would think that what happens in a
> lawsuit necessarily and abolutely reflects reality.
It does reflect reality; that's why people hate it! It may not be fair; the
lady of justice for 'equal justice for all" might be all but a myth now, but
it definitely is reality, rest assured. You can have all the justice you can
afford, and no more. O.J. Simpson bought plenty of justice, which included
an easily persuasive jury, an incompetent judge and a prosecution team that
was heavily overmatched by the "dream-team" defense. But, it is reality. Sad
but true.
Chrysler, for instance, can also afford lots of 'justice,' at the expense of
those "victim consumerists" it often prevails against simply because the
latter lacks the adequate resources to effective counter with as much
technical loopholes.
But, with plenty of collective efforts and networking the little guy
actually wins a couple here and there, and yet, you'll deny them even this.
All to protect the sentimental value of a beloved automotive part. And, I
could assemble far more in the academia that would vouch for my degree of
"rationality and education" than you ever could. I suppose you could score
some points for having "been in the guts of lots of transmissions," of
course... You weren't labeling me irrational, were you?
There is an old expression:
"You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem." I can't see
how people like yourself can possibly help toward a solution.
Dave Gower
> For instance, as sound as science
> is (and I subscribe to many scientific journals and support various
> programming agendum on the theme), it will not convince those predisposed
to
> believe otherwise (like creationism, etc.) now or likely ever.
I likewise do a lot of scientific and technical reading, and it is
completely ingenuous of you to insinuate that those who differ from you do
not. It is also outrageous to lump them in with blind-faith believers in
unsupported fringe positions such as creationism.
Why would so many of us not be joining your crusade? Do we hold management
positions in Chrysler? Have we invested all our pension funds in company
stock? This certainly doesn't apply to me, and I doubt to many of the
others. Yes you can find quotes pointing out problems in these devices. This
also applies to many other consumer products. It doesn't justify all this
whining. Oh yeah but getting money from class-action suits might though.
Hmmm.
Dave Gower
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> In addition, you've provided NO comparative failure rates against other
> manufacturers who have been forced to used under-sized transmissions in
> over-sized vehicles in order to meet CAFE requirements.
Agreed and would add one thing. Chrysler products often underprice their
competitor's equivalent vehicles by a substantial amount. In terms of
ownership return over the life of the vehicle, I suspect that Chrysler
products stack up very well even when the owner has to pay for a tranny
rebuild. In fact It's easy to support that - just look at the ongoing sales
record of 4-speed Chrysler vans.
Art Begun
times. I acknowledged it. It was a trivial issue to fix
and happened on very few cars. Get a life.
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gAhG6.3442$NH5.2...@news2.atl...
Art Begun
along. And it was trivial. Now if anyone wants to start a
class action on 300M power windows I'll be happy to join in.
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MIiG6.3475$NH5.2...@news2.atl...
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.
ee93e7a/41
>
>
http://townhall-talk2.edmunds.com/WebX?5...@56.cYzDaNQHb1L^2@.
ee93d94/0
>
Jeffrey J. Potoff
That was exactly the calculation I made. For the money I saved buying a
Chrysler, which I like better than the Toyota, GM, or Honda minivans,
over a Honda or Toyota, I could replace a couple transmissions out of my
own pocket and still come out ahead.
Jeff
Jeffrey J. Potoff
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> I'll take chance by jumping into the fray here. I've been lurking for
> awhile but I'd like to throw my $.02 in.
>
> I suppose proving scientifically that this transmission has more problems
> than average would be interesting and useful, but it's been obvious to me
> for years that the A604/41TE transmission has been a real dog. Having
> your ear to the ground is as good or better than statistical analysis.
>
> I also think it's obvious that it's become more reliable over the years.
> Not reliable enough though. Chrysler may have improved it's design and
> manufacturing process, but I think the design is still on the fringes of
> reliability.
>
> I've paid attention to this tranny for years (through this ng and through
> numerous friends who're owners) and it's HAD and continues to HAVE
> problems. I flat don't believe those who suggest that if you properly
> maintain it that it'll give you years of trouble free service. And just
> because you haven't had any troubles doesn't mean that those who have did
> something to bring it on.
>
> To me, arguing about this seems absurd just because it's so obvious.
The arguing is absurd because no one really knows what the failure rate
of these transmissions is. Unfortunately, some people think that
posting links to TSBs and web pages (and we all know that everything on
the internet must be true) somehow is an acceptable replacement. It
isn't.
Jeff
David J. Allen
opinion derives both from this ng and from my own and friends
experiences. To a person, everyone I've asked concerning their early 90's
Caravan 4 speed transmission has complained about it. Many look at me and
exclaim... how did you know??? Yeah, I'm only talking about a dozen
people, but gee whiz.... all of them had tranny problems!
Frankly, the same can be said about the Ford Taurus automatic transmission
from the same time period.
Now, I know lots of people with late model Caravans and I'd say most have
not had any trouble with their transmission. But I've seen enough posts
and my own '96 failed last fall that I believe progress has been made, but
not enough.
Sorry, but I think statistics is often used to prove the obvious. Long
time Caravan owners who frequent this ng know many of the standard
problems, head gasket & valve guide problems on the early 3.0L, starter
solenoid contact problems, belt tensioners, peeling paint, Bendix-10
anti-lock brakes, A604/41TE!!!!!! etc., etc., yawn, yawn.
The newer Caravans: warped gas tanks, bad fan relays, broken clocksprings,
phantom wiper sweeps, and more. Who needs statistics for these things!!??
The existence of kooky web sites by disgruntled owners notwithstanding.
In article <3AECDF57...@earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey J. Potoff"
Christopher Jones
> The 300M issue you cited is the same one I cited several
> times. I acknowledged it. It was a trivial issue to fix
> and happened on very few cars. Get a life.
You said:
> "Would you please post any links that specifically relate to the 300M AT,
except the one TSB on the screwed up wires..."
I gave you *again* the "speciffically related" transmission items which were
*not* "on the crewed up wires."
"Component: POWER TRAIN: TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC TORQUE CONVERTER (8/82)
Summary: SOME VEHICLES MAY EXHIBIT TORQUE CONVERTER CLUTCH CONTROL BUMP
BETWEEN 72 AND 96 KPH (45 AND 60 MPH).
> "I'll also accept specific links on 98 and later..."
09-02-98 APR 98 Engine to Transmission Dowel Service
Again, you need a reading comprehension course desperately.
If stooping to your lowly world is having a life, then I don't wish it. I am
comfortable with my own.
Christopher Jones
>
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:3AE73021...@spam.thanks...
> Chrysler products often underprice their
> competitor's equivalent vehicles by a substantial amount.
They couldn't sell such risk factors otherwise.
> In terms of
> ownership return over the life of the vehicle, I suspect that Chrysler
> products stack up very well even when the owner has to pay for a tranny
> rebuild.
You "suspect?"
Rather than speculating, feel free to read the links; they suggest
otherwise. [NHTSA, Consumer Reports, The Center for Auto Safety, ALLPAR
FTC, ALLDATA, Chrysler's own Technical Service Bulletins.]
> In fact It's easy to support that - just look at the ongoing sales
> record of 4-speed Chrysler vans.
You mean the one with the many recalls? Chrysler has had to practically pay
the consumer to own this van. Recalls and reimbursements of defective parts
have been the norm, especially with that infamous transmission.
Again, you'd better take another look at the linked pages.
Christopher Jones
"Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AECDD60...@earthlink.net...
> That was exactly the calculation I made. For the money I saved buying a
> Chrysler, I could replace a couple transmissions out of my
> own pocket and still come out ahead.
Only fools come rushing in. If you have to replace parts "out of pocket,"
then you're not necessarily "saving" money, especially if you have to
replace such parts (like transmission rebuilds at $1500) more than once in
it's lifetime. The price of the competition does not offset as much.
You are trying to justify your own preferences and styling cues, as is
evident with the statement just below, and scrambling with preposterous
statements in doing so.
> ...which I like better than the Toyota, GM, or Honda minivans, over a
Honda or Toyota,...
Can you "calculate" some proper English skills?
Christopher Jones
> Sorry guy there is only 1 300M AT issue like I've said all
> along. And it was trivial.
You said besides "the screwed up wires."
This, Art, is other than the screwed up wires!
Component: POWER TRAIN: TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC TORQUE CONVERTER (8/82)
Summary: SOME VEHICLES MAY EXHIBIT TORQUE CONVERTER CLUTCH CONTROL BUMP
BETWEEN 72 AND 96 KPH (45 AND 60 MPH).
09-02-98 APR 98 Engine to Transmission Dowel Service
I'm sorry too, in that you are so desperately in need of some adequate
reading skills. What's with you?
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
> "
>
> > > One's view of "nothin" is quite opposed to another's. Certainly to mine.
> >
> > I'm a researcher. What are you? What are your qualifications? Data is
> only
> > good if measured against a standard or a benchmark of some sort. Where's
> your
> > benchmark?
>
> You are? I have researched plenty and brought such here.
Sitting at a computer compiling gripes on message boards is not research. See
this is the problem- kids aren't taught the correct meanings of words like
"research" anymore. Nor are they taught the basics of scientific method.
Research is the task of performing controlled experiments, not compiling
newsgroup posts.
> Whether you feel it
> is unsubstantiated or not, it is far more than you have brought, mister!
I haven't brought anything except a voice of reason. If you expect people to
believe what you say, you need to make sure that you quote reputable sources
and that you provide substantiated information that proves a point. Collecting
hundereds of examples of pooped-out transmissions may raise questions, but it
answers none. To ANSWER the fundamental question, "is the A-604 and its
derivatives inferior to comparable transmissions?" you must quote failure
RATES. The fact that I don't have the rates either is irrelevant... I'd like
the answer too, but you've not provided it. If you don't like having your feet
held to the fire, "mister," then I'd suggest that you either do the job
sufficiently to be convincing, or go away and quit annoying people.
> . I have considered and brought-forth eight to ten
> independent sources, which is far more than you have.
10 sources that don't supply the one essential piece of information that
answers the question at hand. Quote a thousand, if you want, but until you
answer the question it doesn't matter.
> Again, simply because
> you don't recognize such sources as credible, does not mean they are
> completely null and void whatsoever.
Never said they all were. I said they are insufficient. I belive "neccessary
vs. sufficient" comes in about the 7th grade, whereas "fact or opinion" came in
first grade.
> All you can do is grade and ridicule
Pointing out an insufficiency in your argument is "derision?" OK, I derided
consumer reports, but I always do :-)
>
>
> > > There are not class action law suits against a particular transmission
> > > without due cause.
> >
> > ROFLMAO and BOLSCOM! The idea that the presence of litigation implies
> cause
> > is ABSURD. Let me guess... you're a lawyer...
>
> Something like that, yes. I'm in the legal business.
Then I'd suggest you leave engineering to engineers. I don't practice law, you
don't practice engineering. Deal?
> The preponderance of strikingly similar, clear-cut cases in the heavy
> percentages that have been recorded universally is what "implies cause."
> Nobody takes on big conglomerates unless they have overwhelming evidence to
> bring with them. It is simply not cost-effective.
Unmitigated baloney. Its common practice to take on "the big conglomerates"
without a shred of real evidence, on the very assumption that the "big
conglomerate" would rather settle than fight because its considrered bad
publicity to fight. Its happened to Honda (the Ignitor incident) to Ford
(dozens of times) to GE, to Chrysler, to Murray (lawn equipment) and just about
every other manufacturer you care to name.
>
> > > More sentimental dribble?
> >
> > Where is the sentiment? What I quoted was FACT. The source of the
> information
> > is a person not affiliated wiith Chrysler who makes his LIVING by
> rebuilding
> > transmissions and counting on his customers NOT coming back with repeat
> > failures.
>
> It is isolated, hear-say, subjective and pertaining to your own experiences.
Which is all you really have- COLLECTED hear-say. Lots of it, but not
normalized by any study of how many other people had no problems at all with
their tranny. You've provided HALF of the necessary evidence.
>
> > Aside from that, I'm an engineer and a car hobbyist/restorer myself.
>
> This and ten dollars will get you a haircut and a handshake.
Hmm.... by profession I fully understand engineering design, production
practice, product life cycles, and by hobby I've learned how to rebuild a
transmission or engine. Seems like all of the above are pretty darned relevant
to this debate.
> Now, if you are inquiry on whether I
> am local town grease-monkey-certainly not! I am white-collar and do not get
> oil spilled in my face for a living, no.
Oh, I see. You're BETTER than that. I see. I'm white-collar too, but my
experience is that "grease monkeys" tend to know a lot more about transmissions
than lilly-white palmed pencil-pushers that don't know a bellville washer from
a clutch plate.
>
> > It is necessary to your claim to prove that the 42LE/41TE has a higher
> failure
> > rate than *COMPARABLE* transmissions. You can't compare it to the
> bulletproof,
> > but energy hungry, boxes of 1970.
>
> Did Chrysler make the transmission available for sale with their vehicles or
> didn't they? This is all that matters, Steve. Everything else is not
> relevant.
False. If that were true, then we could sue two dozen car companies because
they offered engines that were "inferior" to the Lamborghini V-12. "Hey,
Mitsubishi offered the 2.6L 'head breaker' for sale to the public. Honda
offered their 'head-gasket blower' for sale." Never mind that these engines
were cheaper by orders of magnitude, and served their intended purposes
reasonably well. The merits of any device MUST be measured relative to its
niche in the market and its intended application. This study of the 604 vs its
market competitors is what you are missing.
> I detailed this angle for you previously.
That may be your "angle," but reality is what counts. Not the way you want to
spin it, but what actually IS.
>
> Here again, you pick out a couple of your least favorites and chastise them
> and feel this is an adequate buffering of the point.
>
> There are several sources (up to eight, including Chrysler's own technical
> bulletins) to consider,
OK.... Chrysler's technical bulletins. Fix the snap rings. Upgrade the
software. What do you perceive them as "proving" other than what we all
acknowledge- that the unit needed (and received) improvements over its long
production life? (well in another post you DON'T acknowlege that, claiming
instead that the 300M transmission is 'the same' as an early A-604)
> yet you once again forget this and blow your trumpet
I'm not blowing anything except your credibility here. I've got nothing to
gain, nor do I have much interest. I certainly don't defend the 604 as a
bulletproof wonderful design... but its hardly a screaming failure either. It
certainly doesn't warrant spending my tax dollars on court time for frivolous
lawsuits.
> You and those failures ratings. You said the "Vega," for instance was a
> bomb. Now, if I were to say "you have ZERO evidence to support this claim"
> and, furthermore, I would need to see "concrete numbers that say Vegas
> suffer more failures per vehicle miles than Ford or Honda." Can you "PROVE
> IT?" Well, how about it mister upper case, can you show me these failure
> rates, or can't you? Then you have no business saying that the Vega was a
> bomb then, right?
How about the fact that it was only produce for 1/3 the number of model years
that the 604 has been? If the 604 is such a "bomb" then why is it still being
built? Why is it installed in well over half the minivans on the road?
> After all, if we are going to ignore the large-scale reports abroad and only
> measure failures rates per make and model that can be posted in this
> newsgroup, then every car ever built was an absolute gem then. You real are
> something of a new breed.
You're baroque grammar slips a bit when you're spinning out of control, doesn't
it?
> And, another thing... kiss my a_ _! (Re: "SHUT UP.") Who left you moderator
> of who should say what here or who doesn't?
"Put up or shut up" is a common enough expression. I'm not assuming th role of
moderator in any way shape or form. I'm challenging you to produce credible
evidence, that is all. And I'm still trying to see what is causing such a
vested interest in it for you. As always, the pocketbook probably motivates
all. Somehow, I suspect that you stand to gain a lot of money from class
action suits or other silliness. My taxes will pay for it one way or another,
and I want no part of it.
>
>
> Can you maintain a civil conversation or not? Another less than composed
> pretender.
"Pot, kettle, black" comes to mind. I haven't asked YOU to "kiss my a__" nor
have I talked down on "grease monkeys." I've mocked you where you left wide
openings (pretty much everywhere) but that is about as "uncivil" as I've
gotten. You aint seen nothin.... go try your lawswuit-begging on
alt.hipo.mopars if you want to see "uncivil."
> "You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem." I can't see
> how people like yourselves can possible help toward a solution.
And exactly how are you being "part of a solution" by presenting half-arguments
in an automotive discussion newsgroup? Go get some of that icky grease on your
hands and find out what you're talking about if you wnt to be part of a
solution.
As for me being "part of a solution," your original post solicited "tips,
references, or other pertinent information" regarding repairing your
transmission in your 95 Avenger. I told you how to get it fixed and make it
STAY fixed. Explicitly. In no uncertain terms. I OFFERED you a solution.
Several others chimed in to back up said solution.
But it is now quite clear, especially from reading your original post again,
that all you want to do is try to milk some dough out of a big corporation
(good luck, Daimler has already sucked the marrow out of what was once
Chrysler). You don't want a "solution" to your transmission problem, because
you're unwilling to accept the proven solution offered. Why don't you just come
out and sing the old Spinal Tap standard "Gimme Some Money" and quit accusing
me of not offering a solution?
Christopher Jones
>
> "Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:somG6.3715$5b1.2...@news1.atl...
> I likewise do a lot of scientific and technical reading, and it is
> completely ingenuous of you to insinuate that those who differ from you do
> not.
I didn't do this whatsoever; you begged for my credentials. Right? You were
looking for differentiation.
> It is also outrageous to lump them in with blind-faith believers in
> unsupported fringe positions such as creationism.
I didn't "lump you" Dave with such parties or belief-systems at all. I
merely made the point of people being predisposed to accept whatever
sentimentalisms they hold as fact. This was not specific to anyone; merely,
this was a generalization, of course.
> Why would so many of us not be joining your crusade?
Again, I could care less at this point. I never summoned support for any
"crusade." As originally stated, there were associated links upon the
research of this matter that suggested one come to this forum for further
details, not support. Most of the players (not to discredit the few sensible
ones) I have found here are not only less than helpful, they are flowing
over in blind allegiances and woeful responses to details directly in front
of them. Some even have what appears to be reading comprehension disorders,
forcing redundancy of already stated information.
> Do we hold management
> positions in Chrysler? Have we invested all our pension funds in company
> stock? This certainly doesn't apply to me, and I doubt to many of the
> others.
Again, I have already given my perspectives on this. Namely, blind
allegiances. One does not need to hold managerial positions or stock
shareholder accounts to justify their choice of vehicle. Offering credence
toward our own expenditures is part of human nature; one can witness such
here in clear detail.
I did it myself the last two years; I had to make excuses for all the
service woes of my beloved Avenger (only the Chrysler parts failed) to all
my associates (who owned far more expensive cars) all because I could not
get over my love-affair with the car's styling and crisp visual cues.
I'm finally past this now, fortunately. Yet, I see the same type of
psychology within this forum to a fault.
> Yes you can find quotes pointing out problems in these devices. This
> also applies to many other consumer products. It doesn't justify all this
> whining.
Again, the preponderances of Chrysler transmissions is the only issue at
hand here. And, what "whining? I posted what bulletins I had found and in
return, droves of sentimental loyalists attempted to come to the credulous
rescue of the said item(s). Everything after this was mere countering the
countering of others. Some saying this isn't so, some saying there is no
support for my positions, etc., all of which I had given several credible
(and different-non-connected) sources to state otherwise.
Too many are just not willing (or able) to comprehend as much. One has to
cut and paste and restate the companies who have outlined the specifics,
altogether too often while they insist upon justifying the purchase and
possession of cherished make they own. Simply ridiculous.
> Oh yeah but getting money from class-action suits might though. Hmmm.
I will not receive one red dime of funds to the good. In fact, I will only
loose resources per any legal matter with this theme. The consumer is the
only party that is accounted for here; it is my goal to have them reimbursed
for excessive and premature expenditures of their own. Many class action
suits are about principle only; all too often they chalk up as financial
losses for the participating law firm involved. It serves only a passion
toward justice still entrenched in many within the legal industry which, is
all too often forgotten by the public.
Everyone merely focuses on the charismatic, ambulance-chaser like attorneys
that look for easy dollars at the sake of ethics and morality. And, most
unfortunately, there are too many of such creatures around. But, not all are
like this whatsoever. In the matter with Chrysler, only the consumers will
stand to gain any return of there expended funds, and probably only a
portion of such. The active law firm will undoubtedly lose in the profit
scope, usually quite substantially.
To think that I actually came to help many of you... while most are cutting
off their noses to spite their face. I'll grant you this; I have really
learned a further lesson upon an almost cult-like allegiance that takes aim
against the hands that are trying them to feed them. Of course, one could
not have swayed the members of the Jim Jones ordeal either, sorry. For the
few that had pertinent issues that could have been legitimately aided by
supportive counsel with this matter, they have members like you to thank for
discouraging any further interest here.
You in particular have spoken adamantly against the consumer while you
chastise the legal system in the same breath.
Upon both notions, you are most certainly incorrect, sadly.
Anything else?
Christopher Jones
"David J. Allen" <no_spam_...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:no_spam_dallen03...@192.168.1.100...
> Perhaps. I still believe the transmission deserves its bad reputation. My
> opinion derives both from this ng and from my own and friends
> experiences. To a person, everyone I've asked concerning their early 90's
> Caravan 4 speed transmission has complained about it. Many look at me and
> exclaim... how did you know??? Yeah, I'm only talking about a dozen
> people, but gee whiz.... all of them had tranny problems!
Precisely. Yes, isn't this the truth? A lone voice of reason on this forum;
I don't believe it!
> Frankly, the same can be said about the Ford Taurus automatic transmission
> from the same time period.
Correct again. As stated to others here, simply because others makes suffer
from services woes as well, this by no means offsets the woes of the one in
question.
> Now, I know lots of people with late model Caravans and I'd say most have
> not had any trouble with their transmission. But I've seen enough posts
> and my own '96 failed last fall that I believe progress has been made, but
> not enough.
Exactly. And the recalls and bulletins about this unit in particular are as
clear as day.
> Sorry, but I think statistics is often used to prove the obvious. Long
> time Caravan owners who frequent this ng know many of the standard
> problems, head gasket & valve guide problems on the early 3.0L, starter
> solenoid contact problems, belt tensioners, peeling paint, Bendix-10
> anti-lock brakes, A604/41TE!!!!!! etc., etc., yawn, yawn.
Moreover, while some dispute what is "on the internet" as untrue, they fail
to realize that many credible sources are also on the internet (Time,
Fortune, Newsweek, USA Today, etc.) and that the sources that are on record
against Chrysler are amongst them. [NHTSA, Consumer Reports, The Center for
Auto Safety, ALLPAR, FTC, ALLDATA, Chrysler's own Technical Service
Bulletins.]
All of these sources have reported exactly the items you've stated right to
the detail.
> The newer Caravans: warped gas tanks, bad fan relays, broken clocksprings,
> phantom wiper sweeps, and more. Who needs statistics for these things!!??
True. And, even if one could allocate such "statistics," which would be very
hard to come by, especially in the demanded format that some of these
groupies desire (compared failure rates to other makes and models
accordingly), who would trust such sources? The same mentality that disputes
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Washington, DC, would
likewise dispute any statistics given as well.
Truth is, some will hear nothing that rains on their sentimental parade.
> The existence of kooky web sites by disgruntled owners notwithstanding.
The ones listed above are far from this category. But, again, what
difference would it make to predisposed minds?
My accolades to you David; again, a lone voice of reason amongst the masses!
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3AECDD60...@earthlink.net...
>
> > That was exactly the calculation I made. For the money I saved buying a
> > Chrysler, I could replace a couple transmissions out of my
> > own pocket and still come out ahead.
>
> Only fools come rushing in. If you have to replace parts "out of pocket,"
Big if. If I don't then I save a huge amount.
> then you're not necessarily "saving" money, especially if you have to
> replace such parts (like transmission rebuilds at $1500)
Not if I rebuild it and install it myself.
> more than once in it's lifetime.
Unlikely.
> The price of the competition does not offset as much.
It does. I saved $5,500 buying a Chrysler T+C LX instead of a Honda
Odyseey.
>
> You are trying to justify your own preferences and styling cues, as is
> evident with the statement just below, and scrambling with preposterous
> statements in doing so.
>
> > ...which I like better than the Toyota, GM, or Honda minivans, over a
> Honda or Toyota,...
>
> Can you "calculate" some proper English skills?
No. But I'm sure with help from your special ed teacher you will be
able to understand sentences with more than 4 words in them.
Jeff
Christopher Jones
>
>
> Christopher Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AECDD60...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > > That was exactly the calculation I made. For the money I saved buying
a
> > > Chrysler, I could replace a couple transmissions out of my
> > > own pocket and still come out ahead.
> >
> > Only fools come rushing in. If you have to replace parts "out of
pocket,"
>
> Big if. If I don't then I save a huge amount.
You said you "could replace a couple transmissions out of my own pocket and
still come out ahead."
Why change the scope of your own premise?
> > then you're not necessarily "saving" money, especially if you have to
> > replace such parts (like transmission rebuilds at $1500)
>
> Not if I rebuild it and install it myself.
This is not practical for the average owner; we are not all grease monkeys.
Besides, you are adding elements outside your premise again.
> > more than once in it's lifetime.
>
> Unlikely.
What happened to the "replacement of a couple of transmissions?" You are out
in left field and are beneath worthy debate.
> > > ...which I like better than the Toyota, GM, or Honda minivans, over a
> > Honda or Toyota,...
> >
> > Can you "calculate" some proper English skills?
> No. But I'm sure with help from your special ed teacher you will be
> able to understand sentences with more than 4 words in them.
You correctly answered "no," but then you speak of the educational merits of
another?
Again, you're out in left field.
Bill Hale
.... deleted.
Back in '92, I did my own survey in the parking lot of HP
here in Ft. Collins.
I located Chrysler minivans that were parked out there. I found
9 of them. I e-mailed the owners.
7 of them had > 90,000 miles. Of those, 7 had had major transmission
work done, 3 more than once.
That's my unscientific survey of these transmissions. I'm told
that >'92, the problems were all fixed, so I'm sure it's better
now. Most in my survey were obviously '604s. Not to worry.
Mine was one of them. I don't worry--cuz I no longer own
a Chrysler minivan. Too bad. Bill Hale
: I'll take chance by jumping into the fray here. I've been lurking for
Art Begun
> > 21-07-99 APR 99 Transmission Output Speed Sensor Wires
> Fatiguing
Like I said.... big deal.
"Art Begun" <beg...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9cg228$vmm$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Art Begun
"> > 21-07-99 APR 99 Transmission Output Speed Sensor
Wires
> Fatiguing
"
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OphH6.919$j76....@news1.atl...
Art Begun
for seals. They broke apart and clogged the AT. Its likely
that Chrylser bought the same material too because some of
their AT's had seal problems too. The combination of
problems, first in design and software problems in the early
version and then the seal problem in later years has
probably mucked up the reputation of the AT so much that
there is no way of knowing how good the current version of
the AT is right now. Like I've said before, the 300M AT in
my car performs flawlessly and I've seen almost no
complaints from others so I'm optimistic.
"David J. Allen" <no_spam_...@san.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:no_spam_dallen03...@192.168.1.100...
Christopher Jones
> And hopefully for the last time, if you read it it says
>
> > > 21-07-99 APR 99 Transmission Output Speed Sensor Wires
> > Fatiguing
>
>
> Like I said.... big deal.
You said "other than the screwed up wires." That's what you were given. They
were big deals.
Christopher Jones
> Like I've said before, the 300M AT in
> my car performs flawlessly and I've seen almost no
> complaints from others so I'm optimistic.
He's "seen no complaints?
What a lost cause. The guy loves his car and don't you mock it!
Christopher Jones
> Here's the line you left out:
>
> "> > 21-07-99 APR 99 Transmission Output Speed Sensor
> Wires
> > Fatiguing
You said *besides* "the screwed up wires." That's what you were given. You
really are thick.
Again, more confirmation of your woeful reading comprehension disorders. The
most trivial and wayward minded one here.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3AEE348B...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Christopher Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > "Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3AECDD60...@earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > > That was exactly the calculation I made. For the money I saved buying
> a
> > > > Chrysler, I could replace a couple transmissions out of my
> > > > own pocket and still come out ahead.
> > >
> > > Only fools come rushing in. If you have to replace parts "out of
> pocket,"
> >
> > Big if. If I don't then I save a huge amount.
>
> You said you "could replace a couple transmissions out of my own pocket and
> still come out ahead."
>
> Why change the scope of your own premise?
>
I didn't. What don't you understand about the word "could"? If the
problem occurs, and I have to pay for it, I still save money. If the
problem doesn't occur, I save a lot more money. What don't you
understand?
> > > then you're not necessarily "saving" money, especially if you have to
> > > replace such parts (like transmission rebuilds at $1500)
> >
> > Not if I rebuild it and install it myself.
>
> This is not practical for the average owner; we are not all grease monkeys.
> Besides, you are adding elements outside your premise again.
No I'm not.
>
> > > more than once in it's lifetime.
> >
> > Unlikely.
>
> What happened to the "replacement of a couple of transmissions?" You are out
> in left field and are beneath worthy debate.
>
You obviously don't understand how to do any kind of cost analysis. The
worst case scenario is that you eat a couple transmissions. That is
what you base your cost analysis on. Most likely you won't have any
transmission failures and you will save a significant amount of money.
> > > > ...which I like better than the Toyota, GM, or Honda minivans, over a
> > > Honda or Toyota,...
> > >
> > > Can you "calculate" some proper English skills?
>
> > No. But I'm sure with help from your special ed teacher you will be
> > able to understand sentences with more than 4 words in them.
>
> You correctly answered "no," but then you speak of the educational merits of
> another?
>
I calculate numbers. I do not "calculate" English.
> Again, you're out in left field.
Maybe in your mind, but at least I'm not stupid enough to bring my car
to AAMCO to get it fixed.
Jeff
David J. Allen
Bob Meyers wrote:
> One of the real problems with the A604/41TE out in the real world is
> that any number of relatively minor problems, such as a bad sensor or an
> intermittant electrical fault, will result in the 2nd gear "limp in
> mode". A lot of these transmissions could likely have been fixed very
> easily for relatively few bucks by a skilled mechanic with the proper
> diagnostics, but instead have been rebuilt/replaced.
Sigh.
This kind of logic is revealing. These kinds of problems will only show
up as "background noise" because it applies to all vehicles and all
service techs. There's bad techs everywhere, not just those who work on
Chryslers with A604/41TE's during the early 90's. If the common defects
with this transmission were simple in nature, i.e., a bad sensor or an
intermittent electrical fault then the common cures would quickly become
known and only a *few* true idiots would be swapping transissions. Not
thousands like this transmission. Especially, since many, many of them
were fixed under warranty (i.e., paid for by Chrysler).
David J. Allen
heard of have failed somewhere between 75k miles and 100k miles. I
believe they are much more reliable than the older ones, but when you have
one of the ones that fail, it's not much consolation. Mine failed at
83,700 miles. A number imprinted in my mind... grumble.
In article <9cn1ui$40j$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Art Begun"
Christopher Jones
> > > Big if. If I don't then I save a huge amount.
> >
> > You said you "could replace a couple transmissions out of my own pocket
and
> > still come out ahead."
> >
> > Why change the scope of your own premise?
> I didn't.
You did. You said "big if," and "not if I do it myself." This is apart from
your premise of being cost effective. If you don't feel it's likely, then
the subject does not need special qualification of being a good value upon
"replacing a couple of transmissions out of your own pocket;" if you do feel
it's likely, then still, repairing such yourself is still apart from the
point of it being practical in the buyer's choice option, at least for the
majority.
> What don't you understand about the word "could"? If the
> problem occurs, and I have to pay for it, I still save money. If the
> problem doesn't occur, I save a lot more money. What don't you
> understand?
We're beating a dead horse here.
> > > > then you're not necessarily "saving" money, especially if you have
to
> > > > replace such parts (like transmission rebuilds at $1500)
> > >
> > > Not if I rebuild it and install it myself.
> >
> > This is not practical for the average owner; we are not all grease
monkeys.
> > Besides, you are adding elements outside your premise again.
>
> No I'm not.
The do it yourself mode is well apart from the typical, besides this would
void the warranty. Let's be real.
> I calculate numbers. I do not "calculate" English.
Evidently not.
> ... I'm not stupid enough to bring my car to AAMCO to get it fixed.
My experiences with the dealerships have been as poor as any could report
from AAMCO. Besides, once again (are you actually reading these postings, or
what?) defective parts were shipped to AAMCO from Chrysler; this is clear
and established. What difference would it have made if I had brought the car
to the 'Five Scar' dealership? When parts (like an overdrive assembly shaft)
break completely apart from it's drum, the part is defective on anyone's
account and, the dealership would have used an escape route to avoid any
responsibility for the mishap every bit as much as anyone else; far worse.
In fact, AAMCO offers a full year, unlimited mile warranty on rebuilt
transmissions. That's longer than anyone in the business, even the
dealership. What's more, AAMCO is cooperating with me in that they have
given me access to their service record archives upon their experience with
the 41TE as well as all technical manuals, including official manuals
written by Chrysler toward addressing the mishap.
AAMCO took a loss per the repairs upon this latest event; they waived all
service charges. This is something they didn't have to do; the warranty had
expired by one month. That's a whole lot more than the dealership would have
done. The dealership, conversely, would have said sorry, the part is out of
warranty, now get ready for the damages in full!
The fact that the new part should not have broken with just over a year of
driving would have been all too irrelevant to them. I would have had to pay
for a whole new rebuild at full price without any cooperation of service
records or the like toward recovering any funds upon the matter. They would
have done nothing more than they absolutely had to, which would have been
nothing. At least AAMCO expressed some sympathy and spilt the losses with
me, while again, offering assistance toward recovering said losses.
You're barking up the wrong tree with this AAMCO thing. Some of you are so
forgiving of your beloved Chrysler products (almost like a religion) and so
hell-bent against places like AAMCO, that you fail to filter the details as
you should.
Christopher Jones
"David J. Allen" <no_spam_...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:no_spam_dallen03...@192.168.1.100...
Oh the refreshing voice of wisdom again.
You've got this right. Great points here.
Art Begun
should never love anything that can't love you back. Once
again you draw the wrong conclusion. As for the question of
whether I am satisfied with my 300M, the defective power
windows have been a major annoyance. I also find the seats,
noise level and visibility much better in my 2001 Avalon
than in my 99 300M. Would I buy another 300M? Maybe. In
any case the AT has been excellent and I read the Edmunds
posts for months after buying the 300M and saw only 1 AT
problem posted.
"Christopher Jones" <c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:46FH6.1769$j76.1...@news1.atl...
Art Begun
"David J. Allen" <no_spam_...@san.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:no_spam_dallen03...@192.168.1.100...
Steve
Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> You said "other than the screwed up wires." That's what you were given. They
> were big deals.
"Big deals" indeed. Phooey! You quoted two software changes and a replacement
wiring pigtail. Thats chicken sh^H^H feed. The truth of the matter is that
there have been very few "hard part" changes required on these transmissions
since the mid 90's. It may have taken a while to iron the bugs out, but a) it
was the first transmission of its kind ever built, and b) its been working well
for years now, and c) we've told you a number of times how to make your problem
go away and stay gone. You just don't like the answer.
Steve
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> This kind of logic is revealing. These kinds of problems will only show
> up as "background noise" because it applies to all vehicles and all
> service techs. There's bad techs everywhere, not just those who work on
> Chryslers with A604/41TE's during the early 90's.
Except for one little thing.... until about 1995, the Chrysler tranmission
was the ONLY ONE IN PRODUCTION that depended exclusively on sensor inputs and
computer control for its operation. The so-called "background noise" you
mention only cancels out across brands if all brands are using that
technology. They weren't, and Chrysler took a beating for being a pioneer
(again, as they did for the whole 80 years of their existence).
> If the common defects
> with this transmission were simple in nature, i.e., a bad sensor or an
> intermittent electrical fault then the common cures would quickly become
> known and only a *few* true idiots would be swapping transissions.
I agree that what you describe *should* happen. But again, several other
factors come into play. When a $5.00 sensor on a 41TE/42LE fails, the thing
displays symptoms that would only result from a major meltdown in an old
hydraulically shifted automatic like a 727 or TH400. So the customer comes
*in* to the shop thinking "Sheesh, I'm screwed." Then there's the fact that
troubleshooting the sensors can be tedious and take a lot of technician time,
so there's not much motivation for a shop owner to spend time carefully
diagnosing a problem. And then, there is the fact that sometimes there *is*
an underlying hard-part problem, so even after a long troubleshooting session
the thing still has to be rebuilt. So a lot of shops, ESPECIALLY dealer shops
and mass-production meat grinders like ScAAMCO, have just adopted a "swap it
first, don't ask questions" policy. In the long run, it helps their bottom
line enormously: saved technician time, a more expensive procedure performed,
the customer isn't *too* mad because he expected it anyway, and oh by the
way, they get a really good "core" transmission that can be refurbished with
a minimum effort.
The only real reason I'm still in on this thread is because I *hate* to see
people get screwed by going into a shop mentally unarmed and ignorant,
already pre-disposed to thinking there's nothing to do but spend $2250 on a
rebuilt transmission. People like our friend Mr. Jones are just perpetuating
this, citing a list of complaints as "research" rather than considering all
factors and coming up with actual failure rates. Thats weak-minded thinking,
or a complete lack of thinking. Jones says I'm "sentimental." Bull. The car
maker I might have had some"sentiment" for was Chrysler.... and its been
wiped off the face of the earth for some years now. On top of that, I never
liked their front-drive vehicles anyway. But reality is reality:
DaimlerChrysler builds front-drive cars now, and people buy them. In many
ways, the're quite good vehicles. Like all things mechanical, they sometimes
break or give trouble, and it doesn't help ANYONE to spread the (false) word
that "the only thing to do is swap the transmission and maybe we can sue
someone."
David J. Allen
(build like a tank) and has 212,000 miles on it.
My newer Caravan is a '96 3.8L with 4-speed 41TE. This is the one that
failed at 83,700 miles. And just to underscore my belief that these
trannies can fail regardless of how well they've been maintained, my '96
has had all of it's scheduled maintenance from a dealer including
transmission services.
My '88, on the other hand, I've maintained myself over the years and have
been less than regular about changing the transmission oil and filter and
have never had the slightest hint of a problem with it.
Both my vans have followed the problem patterns that are well known in this ng.
In article <9cp1tt$qpt$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Art Begun"
Art Begun
But if that was the only major failure you had in
83,700 miles a lot of people would consider it a positive
buying experience. Of course if you lots of other major
problems, I'd be ticked off too.
David J. Allen
The rack and pinion went out twice, once under warranty and once on my
dime. I just replaced a front wheel hub. I've had the regular diet of
troubles like the warped gas tank (twice), leaking gas tank, fan relay,
clockspring, multi-switch and probably more I can't remember. Some of it
was under warranty, some not.
The transmission was the coup de grace. $2200 sucker punch. Before that
I had little to complain about given the mileage on the van. Frankly, I
love the van. I grouse and grumble mostly about the rack & pinion and
transmission, but it's been perfect for our family. The toyotas and
hondas are so much more expensive that whatever reliability advantage they
have is canceled out. I've never been impressed with the Ford or GM vans.
In article <9cpu1h$m9j$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Art Begun"
David J. Allen
> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> >
> > This kind of logic is revealing. These kinds of problems will only show
> > up as "background noise" because it applies to all vehicles and all
> > service techs. There's bad techs everywhere, not just those who work on
> > Chryslers with A604/41TE's during the early 90's.
>
> Except for one little thing.... until about 1995, the Chrysler tranmission
> was the ONLY ONE IN PRODUCTION that depended exclusively on sensor inputs and
> computer control for its operation. The so-called "background noise" you
> mention only cancels out across brands if all brands are using that
> technology. They weren't, and Chrysler took a beating for being a pioneer
> (again, as they did for the whole 80 years of their existence).
>
Okay, but the point is still valid that the new electronic transmissions
had problems. And if your point is that many of these transmissions
didn't really need to be replaced, just repaired at a fraction of the
cost... well... so what?
The $5.00 sensor is buried somewhere and can't be accessed or tested
easily. That means it's a loser for my garage to do the job correctly.
This reminds me of the valve guide problem with the early 3.0L engine.
Chrysler's fix was to pitch the heads over the side and replace them with
new/rebuilt ones. Fortunately for me, I saw a great post in this ng and
only had to replace the valve guide seals, which I could do myself for
cheap. BUT, it was very time consuming to figure out it was the seals and
not the valve guides. A good tech wouldn't have wanted to touch it.
All these fine details are interesting and sound believable, but again
they're down in the noise. Both Chrysler and customer are faced with too
many replaced transmissions... for whatever reason or logic. That's bad
for everyone.
What I have to decide is whether to take another chance on a Chrysler with
an electronic transmission. I'm certain Chrysler is listening to that
question.
At least doing a cost/benefit analysis of paying $$$$ to improve
reliability or taking a hit in customer loyalty.
BTW, my tranny symptom was sudden leaking (a lot of fluid). The tech said
the error codes and "sound" of the transmission told him the problem
"almost certainly" required a major repair. Opening up the tranny would
just increase the number of hours for the repair. They really had me over
a barrel.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> You're barking up the wrong tree with this AAMCO thing. Some of you are so
> forgiving of your beloved Chrysler products (almost like a religion) and so
> hell-bent against places like AAMCO, that you fail to filter the details as
> you should.
Look, chief, it's just a car. I happen to own a Chrysler, but I don't
have any special brand loyalty to that. Before this minivan, I owned
primarily GM products. When I went looking for minivans I was convinced
that the Toyota or Honda would be better and was quite dissappointed. I
bought the Chrysler because it was a great value. If it turns out to be
a piece of crap, although it's given me no indication that it will, then
I'll call it crap and move on.
AAMCO, on the other hand, will always be AAMCO.
Jeff
Jeffrey J. Potoff
That's not quite true because this transmission was much different than
anything else when it first came out. You also have the issue of using
the correct transmission fluid, which even to this day seems to befundle
many quickie lube places.
Jeff
David J. Allen
<jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I won't dispute that, but the point remains that the transmission was a
disaster. Even now with all of it's improvements it fails much more often
than it's less sophisticated 3 speed cousin.
As a consumer, this 4 speed electronic transmission has been a nightmare.
For all it's sophistication, it doesn't mean all that much to me that it
shifts "smarter and smoother" especially to sacrifice reliability for it.
I'm sure it's reliability will be up to snuff someday. We keep hoping
it's now.
Steve
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> Okay, but the point is still valid that the new electronic transmissions
> had problems. And if your point is that many of these transmissions
> didn't really need to be replaced, just repaired at a fraction of the
> cost... well... so what?
>
> The $5.00 sensor is buried somewhere and can't be accessed or tested
> easily. That means it's a loser for my garage to do the job correctly.
Actually, they aren't buried at all and are VERY easy to replace. The point is
that shops don't even *bother* unless the owner demonstrates that he *knows* that
a cheap sensor replacement might be all he needs.
>
> All these fine details are interesting and sound believable, but again
> they're down in the noise. Both Chrysler and customer are faced with too
> many replaced transmissions... for whatever reason or logic. That's bad
> for everyone.
But the only way to *stop* it is for consumers to educate themselves. Oh, Chrysler
might get draconian on their dealerships and persuade them to be more uniformly
competent, but thats not really the job of the car maker. Dealers are independent
entities, not owned or beholden to the dealer at all. If you think "it should be
different, Chrysler should be responsible for what dealers do" thats OK. But it
isn't reality, and there are so many other downsides to dealers being wholly owned
by the manufacturer that I don't really think you want to go there.
>
>
> BTW, my tranny symptom was sudden leaking (a lot of fluid). The tech said
> the error codes and "sound" of the transmission told him the problem
> "almost certainly" required a major repair. Opening up the tranny would
> just increase the number of hours for the repair. They really had me over
> a barrel.
So what is the downside of opening it up? It has to be done anyway, and an
independent will do it for about the same price that a dealer will slap in a
mass-rebuilt exchanged transmission.
Steve
"David J. Allen" wrote:
> Even now with all of it's improvements it fails much more often
> than it's less sophisticated 3 speed cousin.
>
Agreed. But Chrysler *cannot* sell that 3-speed in vans and bigger than compact
cars anymore because of tightening CAFE requirements for higher mileage fleets.
They could meet CAFE with 3-speeds bolted to 1.6 liter 4-cylinders, but how
competitive would that be in the marketplace? I think they were *brilliant* in
continuing to offer the 3-speed in the Neon for so long, but what a lot of
*grousing* that caused in the newsgroups!
>
> As a consumer, this 4 speed electronic transmission has been a nightmare.
> For all it's sophistication, it doesn't mean all that much to me that it
> shifts "smarter and smoother" especially to sacrifice reliability for it.
> I'm sure it's reliability will be up to snuff someday. We keep hoping
> it's now.
Then vote for politicans who will shut down the EPA. Remove that barrier, and we
can have dependable (but less efficient) 3-speeds again.
DSJKALLEN
My '94 Grand Caravan ES' 4-speed ECT is still fine after 100K+ miles. I do
change the transmission filter and fluid with Chrysler's spec transmission
fluid every 30K miles however. In addition, we do not drive the van
"agressively," with very few, if any, excursions into the "passing gear mode,"
for example. And, I've found it's important to come to a complete stop when
stopping to eliminate the notorious harsh downshift into first gear.
Don
Steve
DSJKALLEN wrote:
> I would be interested in the sensor location myself, please advise.
The input shaft speed sensor is behind the bellhousing on the side of the
transmission, and the output speed sensor is at the tail end near the
differential housing. I could give you "landmarks" to navigate by on a 42LE, but
not owning a 41TE (van version) I can't say precisely. The sensors are in the
side of the tranny case and have a connector with 2 or 3 wires typically. A big
bundle of wires is the connector for the solenoid pack.
D J Mann
>Obviously everyone would like everything to last forever.
>But if that was the only major failure you had in
>83,700 miles a lot of people would consider it a positive
>buying experience. Of course if you lots of other major
>problems, I'd be ticked off too.
I was at a shop the other day getting a part installed they had ordered when
another guy comes in. Has a 1996 Grand Caravan, and is getting the tranny
redone. "It has 108,000 on it, and they don't last that long". I asked when
his started to shift oddly. "Last week". My reply was "Yours DID last this
long!" :-{)}
David J. Allen
Amen. That, though, is highly unlikely. Most people are lucky if they
can find the dipstick.
Oh, Chrysler
> might get draconian on their dealerships and persuade them to be more
uniformly
> competent, but thats not really the job of the car maker. Dealers are
independent
> entities, not owned or beholden to the dealer at all. If you think "it
should be
> different, Chrysler should be responsible for what dealers do" thats OK.
But it
> isn't reality, and there are so many other downsides to dealers being
wholly owned
> by the manufacturer that I don't really think you want to go there.
I'm not under any illusion that Chrysler is responsible for dealers. I do
suffer from the illusion that reasonable people will always try hard to do
the right thing. If I look a service manager in the eye and tell him I
want to be dealt with fairly and he says "Okay" I just can't understand
why he wouldn't go out of his way to do it. Naive? Probably.
>
> >
> >
> > BTW, my tranny symptom was sudden leaking (a lot of fluid). The tech said
> > the error codes and "sound" of the transmission told him the problem
> > "almost certainly" required a major repair. Opening up the tranny would
> > just increase the number of hours for the repair. They really had me over
> > a barrel.
>
> So what is the downside of opening it up? It has to be done anyway, and an
> independent will do it for about the same price that a dealer will slap in a
> mass-rebuilt exchanged transmission.
For me? I had all the cards stacked against me. We needed that car back
in service quickly. I don't know any transmission shops well enough to
trust. And I'm informed enough about the problems this transmission has
in general that I wasn't suprised, but not enough to suspect a simple,
cheap fix.
My response has been to start to maintain and repair some things on my
own. Small consolation for the $$$$ it cost for the tranny.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> In article <3AF0DD1B...@earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey J. Potoff"
> <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > That's not quite true because this transmission was much different than
> > anything else when it first came out. You also have the issue of using
> > the correct transmission fluid, which even to this day seems to befundle
> > many quickie lube places.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> I won't dispute that, but the point remains that the transmission was a
> disaster. Even now with all of it's improvements it fails much more often
> than it's less sophisticated 3 speed cousin.
But does it fail more than the 4 speed autos used in other
manufacturers' minivans? It appears that even the "mythical" Honda
reliability isn't quite there in the new Odyssey. There are lots of
complaints of failed/replaced transmissions over on Edmunds Town Hall.
What about Ford or GM? Hey, maybe it is bad, but is it any worse than
the competition? Also consider that you have a lot more Chrysler, Dodge
and Plymouth minivans on the road than any other brand. Even if the
failure rate for transmissions is the same as other manufacturers, you
are going to hear about failures more often.
Jeff
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Steve wrote:
>
> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> > Even now with all of it's improvements it fails much more often
> > than it's less sophisticated 3 speed cousin.
> >
>
> Agreed. But Chrysler *cannot* sell that 3-speed in vans and bigger than compact
> cars anymore because of tightening CAFE requirements for higher mileage fleets.
> They could meet CAFE with 3-speeds bolted to 1.6 liter 4-cylinders, but how
> competitive would that be in the marketplace? I think they were *brilliant* in
> continuing to offer the 3-speed in the Neon for so long, but what a lot of
> *grousing* that caused in the newsgroups!
I wouldn't say that. I don't know what gearing they put in that thing,
the 3 speed turned the 150 hp Neon we had into a real dog. Bow wow.
Hardly a show of briliance. Of course if they put a 4 speed in it with
the same gearing and an overdrive it would have been a *real* dog, to
the point of being dangerous to drive. That engine didn't (doesn't)
have enough torque to pull on the highway in what would be 4th gear.
I did drive a 2000 Neon that seemed to have improved part throttle
response with the auto, but it still wasn't quite there.
>
> >
> > As a consumer, this 4 speed electronic transmission has been a nightmare.
> > For all it's sophistication, it doesn't mean all that much to me that it
> > shifts "smarter and smoother" especially to sacrifice reliability for it.
> > I'm sure it's reliability will be up to snuff someday. We keep hoping
> > it's now.
>
> Then vote for politicans who will shut down the EPA.
I like clean air and water and suspect that deep down everyone else
does, too. What do you propose as a better alternative to the EPA?
(wasn't that program started under Nixon?)
> Remove that barrier, and we can have dependable (but less efficient) 3-speeds again.
Improve the product and you won't have to remove any barriers.
Jeff
Daniel J. Stern
> > This kind of logic is revealing. These kinds of problems will only show
> > up as "background noise" because it applies to all vehicles and all
> > service techs. There's bad techs everywhere, not just those who work on
> > Chryslers with A604/41TE's during the early 90's.
>
> Except for one little thing.... until about 1995, the Chrysler tranmission
> was the ONLY ONE IN PRODUCTION that depended exclusively on sensor inputs and
> computer control for its operation. The so-called "background noise" you
> mention only cancels out across brands if all brands are using that
> technology. They weren't, and Chrysler took a beating for being a pioneer
> (again, as they did for the whole 80 years of their existence).
RIGHT. Another direct analogy of this effect is Bosch D-Jetronic, the
mainstream production Electronic Fuel Injection system to hit North
America in various foreign cars in the early 1970s (Volvo, VW,
Mercedes...). The system is absolutely down-the-line conventional by
today's standards in its design and construction and diagnosis, but at
that time it was WAY out of step with other fuel systems. A lot of owners
paid a lot of money for a lot of needlessly-replaced parts because
symptoms of relatively minor faults mimicked symptoms of large faults in
then-conventional systems. It is much easier to keep a D-Jet car running
perfectly today than it was in 1973, simply because the knowledge bank has
changed and EFI is no longer any kind of a poorly-understood "black art".
> > If the common defects
> > with this transmission were simple in nature, i.e., a bad sensor or an
> > intermittent electrical fault then the common cures would quickly become
> > known and only a *few* true idiots would be swapping transissions.
>
> I agree that what you describe *should* happen. But again, several other
> factors come into play. When a $5.00 sensor on a 41TE/42LE fails, the thing
> displays symptoms that would only result from a major meltdown in an old
> hydraulically shifted automatic like a 727 or TH400. So the customer comes
> *in* to the shop thinking "Sheesh, I'm screwed."
And especially in the "black art" transmission industry, such a customer
smells of money to too many transmission "technicians".
> troubleshooting the sensors can be tedious and take a lot of technician time,
And depends on techs knowing more than just how to swap transmissions.
> so there's not much motivation for a shop owner to spend time carefully
> diagnosing a problem.
Ayup.
> the thing still has to be rebuilt. So a lot of shops, ESPECIALLY dealer shops
> and mass-production meat grinders like ScAAMCO, have just adopted a "swap it
> first, don't ask questions" policy. In the long run, it helps their bottom
> line enormously: saved technician time, a more expensive procedure performed,
> the customer isn't *too* mad because he expected it anyway, and oh by the
> way, they get a really good "core" transmission that can be refurbished with
> a minimum effort.
And the customer gets a piece of paper that says "WARRANTY" instead of a
receipt that says "Repaired".
I will say this: Chrysler would've done well to drop the idea of a "limp
home" mode in the transmission. If the transmission stopped working when
something went wrong, collateral damage from a relatively minor problem
would be minimal or zero. Too many people force the poor transmission to
keep working in "limp" mode, which quickly becomes injurious and damage
rapidly cascades.
--Daniel
"Television is a medium.
It is a medium because it is neither rare, nor well-done."
--
NBCS b6f+wg++rp
--
David J. Allen
crime. It's a crime of bad faith to the customer.
If Chrysler wants to be on the cutting edge of automobile development and
take those kinds of risks I suppose that's okay, but I'm not sure I want
to be the one to shoulder those increased risk of failure.
Maybe Chrysler should extend the warranty of items it's experimenting
with, e.g., the A604.
If the dealer wants to - "swap it first, and ask no questions" - well,
they're playing around with my trust. I find myself looking for
alternatives to going back to the dealer when I'm left with a feeling of
being cheated or taken advantage of.
In article
<Pine.SOL.4.21.01051...@azure.engin.umich.edu>, "Daniel