FORD COVERUP?/ NEW Trans 42K
Mark Vallejo
Anybody else ran into this mess.
I have a 1995 Ford Windstar with 42K. Just back from the dealer and cost me
$1,200
to repair. Not that I expect this Ford to out last my 4 other Hondas but at
least
better than this.
I get the feeling from other news items that this is very typical for
Windstars.
I'm working with a local Ford rep and they quickly offered a $400
compensation
given the circumstances. My immediate thought is Ford must know this is a
problem, if they are willing to kick in 1/3 of the cost or any amount then
why not the whole thing?
Also if anyone has names and numbers of people at ford to contact it would
be
appreciated, or share their payoff experiences.
M. Vallejo
10255...@Compuserve.com
William Norcott
In article <01bc9c11$4108bcc0$24e8...@CWADB72MV10697.Keybank.com>, "Mark Vallejo" <val...@slic.com> writes:
|> Anybody else ran into this mess.
|>
|> I have a 1995 Ford Windstar with 42K. Just back from the dealer and cost me
|> $1,200
|> to repair. Not that I expect this Ford to out last my 4 other Hondas but at
|> least
|> better than this.
|>
|> I get the feeling from other news items that this is very typical for
|> Windstars.
|> I'm working with a local Ford rep and they quickly offered a $400
|> compensation
|> given the circumstances. My immediate thought is Ford must know this is a
|> problem, if they are willing to kick in 1/3 of the cost or any amount then
|> why not the whole thing?
|>
No offense intended, but you chose not to purchase the Ford extended service plan,
didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty coverage at
additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had bought the ESP plan,
you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can describe for
us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who paid $800-900 for
their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles past the
warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill Norcott One Oracle Drive, M/S 03020 |
| Principal Member of Technical Staff Nashua, NH 03062 |
| Oracle Corporation Phone: 603-897-3157 |
| New England Development Center email: wnor...@us.oracle.com |
| |
| The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily |
| represent those of Oracle Corporation. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Kuo
In article <5rligr$igk$1...@inet16.us.oracle.com>,
wnor...@slocum.us.oracle.com (William Norcott) wrote:
>In article <01bc9c11$4108bcc0$24e8...@CWADB72MV10697.Keybank.com>, "Mark
Vallejo" <val...@slic.com> writes:
>|> Anybody else ran into this mess.
>|>
>|> I have a 1995 Ford Windstar with 42K. Just back from the dealer and cost me
>|> $1,200
>|> to repair. Not that I expect this Ford to out last my 4 other Hondas but at
>|> least
>|> better than this.
>|>
>|> I get the feeling from other news items that this is very typical for
>|> Windstars.
>No offense intended, but you chose not to purchase the Ford extended
service plan,
>didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty
coverage at
>additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had
bought the ESP plan,
>you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can
describe for
>us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who paid
$800-900 for
>their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles past the
>warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
I mean no offense either, but I think you're being harsh on the original
poster. The question as I see it concerns Ford quality, not the financial
implications of purchasing an extended warranty. Besides, I've seen the
question of purchasing an extended warranty kicked around the Honda
newsgroup, and almost everyone recommends not purchasing one. I'm pretty
surprised that you seem to think that it's a given that people should
purchase one for Fords.
I don't mean to make any judgments on Fords, as I don't own one.
Dennis
suga...@home.com
On Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:55:33 GMT, d.h...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:23:10 GMT, JFJ...@ix.netcom.com (Jesse James)
>wrote:
>
>>Robert Thomson <rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote:
>>
>>:]Jesse James wrote:
>>:]<snip>
>>:]> HeHeHe, I'm running an '88 T-Bird with 262K on the odometer (well, the
>>:]> reading is only 162K, 'cause it rolls back to 100K).
>>:]>
>>:]> Original 3.8L engine (NO engine work needed).
>>:]> Original transmission (fluid/filter change at 160K).
>>:]<snip>
>>:]> While most auto manufacturers do suffer the errant transmission, etc.
>>:]> My only transmission failure in the last 30+ years has been my own
>>:]> fault. And it was on a Ford, as I've mostly driven Fords.
>>:]>:]Sure ... but your Bird does not have the Taurus AXOD tranny. I
>>
>>The Wife traded in her '88 Taurus with AXOD last summer at
>>140K. The only tranny problem she had was that the OD valve(?)
>>was knocked out of place in one of the 16 accidents she had with
>>it (damn thing was dark grey, seemed to be an attractor). Her reason
>>for trading was the number of accidents, she simply wanted to get rid
>>of the attractor.
>>
>>Her '96 Taurus is only at 21K at this point, again with no visible
>>deficiency.
>>
>>The daughter's Escort wouldn't keep a tranny, however, her husband
>>was using it like an F250 for hauling tools, etc. While she was using it
>>exclusively, there were *no* tranny problems.
>>
>>
>> Jesse
>
>The AXOD trans. on our Taurus went out at 122,000 mi. The rebuild was
>$872. I guess if this one lasts 122k we will probably have used up the
>rest of the car.
>Are there any Taurus/Sable owners out there with 200-300k on their
>cars. My VW Rabbit has 155k with no major repairs and I am hoping for
>at least 250k, I know this is not uncomon with VW's, and I am curious
>if there are any Taurus's out there with this many miles.
>
>Dean
200K? 300K? I wish. The transmission in my '93 Taurus expired a year
ago at 63,000 miles. That was the first of six times the car has been
towed in a year. Don't get me started on the brake rotors ... I am
50 years old and drive and maintain the car very carefully. I
inquired about trading it in on a Camry or Altima, but found there is
a very low demand for used Tauruses. It's a lovely car, very
comfortable and roadworthy except that the brakes are apparently not
big enough for a Pinto. I would much rather have paid more for it and
gotten better quality and sturdier components.
Jon
Ray&Denise
William Norcott <wnor...@slocum.us.oracle.com> wrote in article
<5rligr$igk$1...@inet16.us.oracle.com>...
: No offense intended, but you chose not to purchase the Ford extended
service plan,
: didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty
coverage at
: additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had
bought the ESP plan,
: you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can
describe for
: us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who paid
$800-900 for
: their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles
past the
: warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
:
:
: Bill
Excuse me? A "theory of fairness"? Just because you were schmuck enough
to get screwed on the "extended warranty" bull doesn't mean that everyone
wants to pay for that scam. And as for being "past the warranty", most
manufacturers today provide drivetrain warranties that exceed the standard
"bumper-to-bumper" warranty without charge. And if Ford doesn't step up to
the plate, then they won't be getting any further business from the guy
whose transmission fragged at 42K. Maybe you can scenario for me why you
feel that the premature trans failure in the two-year-old family van
justifies your attitude of "Well, it's your own fault, now, isn't it?". If
we were talking about a Mustang with a v8 and a stick, then maybe it was
ragged, but we're not. And even Ford must realize that such an early
demise of a crucial component is more the result of poor engineering or
build quality than it is abuse. And as for Ford's "generous" offer, that's
nothing more than a pathetic attempt to buy off the guy's silence. A
rental car, for the amount of time required to repair the trans, sucks up
most of that.
Ford says quality is job 1. Make 'em live up to it.
Ray
Mike Pisarczyk
William Norcott wrote:
> No offense intended, but you chose not to purchase the Ford extended
> service plan,
> didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty
> coverage at
> additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had
> bought the ESP plan,
> you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can
> describe for
> us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who
> paid $800-900 for
> their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles
> past the
> warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
>
> Bill
>
Here's a question: If Ford wasn't making money on the extended service
plan, why would they be selling it?
A voluntary payoff by Ford has nothing to do with whatever warranty an
individual has. If Ford believes that their consumers are demanding
something that lasts more than 42,000 miles, then they might choose to
compensate someone if it doesn't last that long. The idea here is not
whether Ford is being "more than generous" -- they are clearly spending
money. However, in Ford's estimation, the goodwill bought with the
money is more valuable than the money itself.
MVP
JCLOUTIER
I agree that we are being a little hard on the original poster!
Apparently Ford does have some issues with the transmission that they are
not making aware to the public. Whether or not a person buys the extended
warranty is his or her personal choice, though I would never advocate in
doing so. Almost all of the time its "free money" for the company offering
the plan. Let's hope that Ford fesses up to this concern or we make them
do so....
Joe C.
eduardo.barberena
William Norcott wrote:
>
> In article <01bc9c11$4108bcc0$24e8...@CWADB72MV10697.Keybank.com>, "Mark Vallejo" <val...@slic.com> writes:
> |> Anybody else ran into this mess.
> |>
> |> I have a 1995 Ford Windstar with 42K. Just back from the dealer and cost me
> |> $1,200
> |> to repair. Not that I expect this Ford to out last my 4 other Hondas but at
> |> least
> |> better than this.
> |>
> |> I get the feeling from other news items that this is very typical for
> |> Windstars.
> |> compensation
> |> given the circumstances. My immediate thought is Ford must know this is a
> |> problem, if they are willing to kick in 1/3 of the cost or any amount then
> |> why not the whole thing?
> |>
>
> didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty coverage at
> additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had bought the ESP plan,
> you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can describe for
> us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who paid $800-900 for
> their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles past the
> warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
>
> Bill
>
> | Bill Norcott One Oracle Drive, M/S 03020 |
> | Principal Member of Technical Staff Nashua, NH 03062 |
> | Oracle Corporation Phone: 603-897-3157 |
> | New England Development Center email: wnor...@us.oracle.com |
> | |
> | The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily |
> | represent those of Oracle Corporation. |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
All Mr Vallejo said is that for quality does not compare to his previous
experiences with Honda. And that ford nows about this problem, because
they are offering money for his silence.
You are out of line, in your treatment of him.
Mr. Vallejo:
I have a 1995 Voyager (52,000 miles) with the same problem. I counted
the number of
Minivans at the shop (over half of the vehicules there), 4 were Chrysler
products, and 2 were Fords.
The manager says that he has never seen a Minivan transmission get to
100,000 miles, except for Previas. Maybe something to do with weight?
Regards,
Eduardo
Clifford R. Warren
I think this is a big reason why a lot of people are buying
trucks and SUVs - they come with good old fashioned
rock solid drivetrains, which are a lot more reliable in the
long run over most front wheel drive systems. This is why I
pick what I have:
'91 Mustang LX 5.0 - enough said!
'95 Chev Astro AWD - my wife's primary vehicle, and the one we
use with our 3 kids. Sure the door handles will
all fall off so we can't get in it, but at least it will
run forever. Everyone I know has got a lot of
miles out of them.
'79 Chev C10 PU - This truck is indestructible.
I realize that Volvos and Mercedes are also good, but where I
live (small town Idaho) its probably best to stick with the common
stuff.
Before long our only choices for rear-drivers will be Mustangs, trucks,
and maybe some european cars. Long live the Mustang.
Two cents, Cliff
nospametc.com wrote in article <33df19d...@news.vivid.net>...
>I urge you to press on and get the full amount and an extented
>warrantly . Write letters to the president of Ford, contact your
>state's dept of consumer affairs (you may be protected by a lemon law
>depending upon the facts) , NHSTA, and the Center for Auto Safety.
>If all else fails discuss the problem with an attorney who specializes
>in automobile lemon law littigation.
>
>I have been looking at minivans to replace my 175 k (w/no problems)
>85 Volvo 240. So far my reseach shows that it is not uncommon to find
>a Chrysler or Ford minivan that doesn't develop a major eng and/or
>trans problem before 75 K miles. It is hard to believe that they can
>keep selling (and making) vehicles like this.
>
>
>
>On 29 Jul 1997 15:22:09 GMT, "Mark Vallejo" <val...@slic.com> wrote:
>
>>Anybody else ran into this mess.
>>
>>I have a 1995 Ford Windstar with 42K. Just back from the dealer and cost me
>>$1,200
>>to repair. Not that I expect this Ford to out last my 4 other Hondas but at
>>least
>>better than this.
>>
>>I get the feeling from other news items that this is very typical for
>>Windstars.
>>I'm working with a local Ford rep and they quickly offered a $400
>>compensation
>>given the circumstances. My immediate thought is Ford must know this is a
>>problem, if they are willing to kick in 1/3 of the cost or any amount then
>>why not the whole thing?
>>
Brad Murray
Ray&Denise (Ray&Den...@digiscape.com) wrote:
:
:
: William Norcott <wnor...@slocum.us.oracle.com> wrote in article
: <5rligr$igk$1...@inet16.us.oracle.com>...
: : No offense intended, but you chose not to purchase the Ford extended
: service plan,
: : didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty
: coverage at
: : additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had
: bought the ESP plan,
: : you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can
: describe for
: : us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who paid
: $800-900 for
: : their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles
: past the
: : warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
: Excuse me? A "theory of fairness"? Just because you were schmuck enough
: to get screwed on the "extended warranty" bull doesn't mean that everyone
: wants to pay for that scam. And as for being "past the warranty", most
: manufacturers today provide drivetrain warranties that exceed the standard
: "bumper-to-bumper" warranty without charge. And if Ford doesn't step up to
: the plate, then they won't be getting any further business from the guy
: whose transmission fragged at 42K. Maybe you can scenario for me why you
: feel that the premature trans failure in the two-year-old family van
: justifies your attitude of "Well, it's your own fault, now, isn't it?". If
: we were talking about a Mustang with a v8 and a stick, then maybe it was
: ragged, but we're not. And even Ford must realize that such an early
: build quality than it is abuse. And as for Ford's "generous" offer, that's
: nothing more than a pathetic attempt to buy off the guy's silence. A
: rental car, for the amount of time required to repair the trans, sucks up
: most of that.
: Ford says quality is job 1. Make 'em live up to it.
Who is to say that he didn't drive the tranny into the ground? I know a
lot of people and many of them put their cars through hell and don't take
proper care of them. If you get a warranty of 36k on the tranny then you
have to accept the fact that if it goes at 36,001 it's your ass.
Jay Perrotte
Ray&Denise wrote:
>
> William Norcott <wnor...@slocum.us.oracle.com> wrote in article
> <5rligr$igk$1...@inet16.us.oracle.com>...
> : No offense intended, but you chose not to purchase the Ford extended
> service plan,
> : didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty
> coverage at
> : additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had
> bought the ESP plan,
> : you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can
> describe for
> : us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who paid
> $800-900 for
> : their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles
> past the
> : warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
> :
> :
Here in New York we are "priveledged" to have a new/used car
lemon law. The law is designed so that consumers can not exact some
measure of revenge on dealers, and vice versa. What it does allow
for is -- arbitration. It allows for our Attourney General's
office to step in and hear both sides of the story. The great
thing is that the AG's office also keeps records of merchants that
have many complaints against them. This includes manufacturers.
If the AG sees a pattern of poor service, chances are they will side
with the consumer. Of course if their are illegalities involved, the
violator (consumer or merchant) will be prosecuted.
Keep in mind though, that we are talking about laws. If you do not
have it in writing (i.e. a service contract, or waranty)
there is NO legal obligation on the part of the merchant.
However, it of course would be wise for the merchant to make a
good faith offer if they wanted to keep you as a faithful
customer (and IMHO car buyers are by far the most loyal).
Sometimes consumers will overgeneralize and have the attitude that
"These models all have problems!" This is VERY rarely the case.
A manufacturer would not remain in business if it did. Rather,
manufacturers expect, based on percentages over hundreds of
thousands of products, that a certain number will experience
problems.
Assuming that the problem involves a defect in design, materials,
or manuf. process, this is basically what the dealer is interested.
To the original point, Ford is interested in hearing of specific
problems with thier vehicles. From experience I know that if you
ask a Service Director in any Ford Service Center, they will have
forms for filing a complaint with Ford Motor Corp. Request to
have one filled out. GET A COPY with a tracking number. File a
complaint with your states AG office if you are not satisfied with
the financial end of the deal. Make sure you name the dealer and
Ford Motor Corp as the parties, and indicate the tracking number.
Call Ford Motor Corp Cust Assistance @ 1-800-392-3673 and
register a complaint with them as well. Again provide the
tracking number and mention that you have contacted your
states Attourney General's office. This sometimes gets their
attention ;-)
As icing on the cake, report the problem to the National Highway
and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). They have a nice
handy form you can fill out on line at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
These people are the ones responsible for forcing manufacturers
into doing recalls. They can only act if there are sufficient
enough reports of similar problems with similar makes/models.
The important thing to remember is "Do nothing and nothing will
be done!" If you want action, you have to take action.
Be Reasonable!!! Don't expect the merchant to jump through
hoops and give his dealership away for you if they have
no obligation to do so. What I usually bargain with is,
is splitting labor and parts. I ask for free labor and I buy
the parts. The price for parts will usually remain fixed, and
you can usually tell if your getting gouged. The labor, though, is
different from shop to shop. It also guarantees that the job
will be done quickly and effectively.
Also, stick to your guns. Don't be afraid to take 15 or 20 minutes
to read a service agreement before you sign it. Ask them to
point out their waranty on the repair in writing.
BTW (my little disclaimer)... I am NOT a lawyer. Just some
experience (mainly the bad variety) has guided me to these
avenues.
Jay P.
nospametc.com
TSUNAMI G
>Subject: Re: FORD COVERUP?/ NEW Trans 42K
>From: Mike Pisarczyk <m....@usa.net>
>Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 07:29:59 -0400
>Message-ID: <33DF25B7...@usa.net>
>
>William Norcott wrote:
>
>> No offense intended, but you chose not to purchase the Ford extended
>> service plan,
>> didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended warranty
>> coverage at
>> additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had
>> bought the ESP plan,
>> you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you can
>> describe for
>> us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who
>> paid $800-900 for
>> their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000 miles
>> past the
>> warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>plan, why would they be selling it?
>
>A voluntary payoff by Ford has nothing to do with whatever warranty an
>individual has. If Ford believes that their consumers are demanding
>something that lasts more than 42,000 miles, then they might choose to
>compensate someone if it doesn't last that long. The idea here is not
>whether Ford is being "more than generous" -- they are clearly spending
>money. However, in Ford's estimation, the goodwill bought with the
>money is more valuable than the money itself.
>
>MVP
Personally, I believe it to be kind of like insurance. Sure, we bitch
about having to pay premiums and deductables, but we are glad it's there
when we need it. I bought the 7/75 plan on my 94 Cobra, and I'm glad I
did. I wasn't about to pay out the nose for SVT parts after the 3/36 ran
out. My .02
G.
mj...@mail.netshop.net
In article <5rnjfi$ebi$2...@mars.njcc.com>, bmu...@pluto.njcc.com says...
>
>Ray&Denise (Ray&Den...@digiscape.com) wrote:
>:
>:
>: William Norcott <wnor...@slocum.us.oracle.com> wrote in article
>: <5rligr$igk$1...@inet16.us.oracle.com>...
>: service plan,
>: : didn't you? Your Ford dealer must have offered you extended
warranty
>: coverage at
>: : additional cost, and you declined to purchase it. Even if you had
>: bought the ESP plan,
>: : you would be paying $50 deductible per covered repair. Maybe you
can
>: describe for
>: : us a theory of fairness whereby Ford places you ahead of folks who
paid
>: $800-900 for
>: : their Ford extended warranty? Considering that the car is 6,000
miles
>: past the
>: : warranty, a $400 offer from Ford seems more than generous.
VERY doubtful! Ford has a known problem with their transmission design -
there is actually a webpage dedicated to the future class-action suit by
disgruntled Ford Taurus owners. Ford tranny's are basically dropping
like flies - at very low mileage. Given the prices of new vehicles these
days, the average transmission should last well past the warranty period
- 200k kms is NOT unreasonable. Hondas/Toyotas etc last well into the
"high-mileage" era without major repairs - why don't Fords?
Jesse James
mj...@mail.netshop.net wrote:
:]- 200k kms is NOT unreasonable. Hondas/Toyotas etc last well into the
:]"high-mileage" era without major repairs - why don't Fords?
:]
HeHeHe, I'm running an '88 T-Bird with 262K on the odometer (well, the
reading is only 162K, 'cause it rolls back to 100K).
Original 3.8L engine (NO engine work needed).
Original transmission (fluid/filter change at 160K).
If only the tires would last as long. <g>
While most auto manufacturers do suffer the errant transmission, etc.
My only transmission failure in the last 30+ years has been my own
fault. And it was on a Ford, as I've mostly driven Fords.
Ohh yeah, the transmission failure was due to overloading a '76 Torino
Wagon and running through the Appalachian mountains of W.Va. and
failing to change the 'burnt' fluid.
Jesse
Matt
[This followup was posted to alt.autos and a copy was sent to the cited
author.]
In article <33dfb5fa...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
JFJ...@ix.netcom.com says...
Just curious, but what kind of oil and filters did you use and how often
did you change them? Also does it burn any oil between changes?
Thanks,
Jeff Seeger
mj...@mail.netshop.net wrote:
>
> VERY doubtful! Ford has a known problem with their transmission design -
> there is actually a webpage dedicated to the future class-action suit by
> disgruntled Ford Taurus owners. Ford tranny's are basically dropping
> like flies - at very low mileage. Given the prices of new vehicles these
> days, the average transmission should last well past the warranty period
> - 200k kms is NOT unreasonable. Hondas/Toyotas etc last well into the
> "high-mileage" era without major repairs - why don't Fords?
I currently own and drive two Fords with well over 100k miles,
and another two well on their way there.
Wake up, all. It's not just Ford, a friend who raved about his
Chrysler Minivan, had a very similar story. And even the co-
workers he talked into buying these had the same tranny failure.
Of course, none of the 3 Chrysler's I'm speaking of had *any*
transmission maintenance, probably not even a fluid level check.
Sure, once in a while an OEM slips and has failures but we should
face it, automobiles should come in idiot proof wrappers. But
that would diminish the market by half...
--
Jeff Seeger
MDW
> Before long our only choices for rear-drivers will be Mustangs, trucks,
> and maybe some european cars. Long live the Mustang.
>
> Two cents, Cliff
Whoa there... do we forget the Camaro? The '98 Camaros are supposed to
have 305 horsies... what about the '98 'Stang... is that a HP figure in the
LOW 200s you say... bummer... When faced with the decision of a car with a
little over 300 horsies and a car with a little over 200 horsies for about
the same price, I pick the Camaro.
Jesse James
wo...@driversseat.com (Matt) wrote:
:][This followup was posted to alt.autos and a copy was sent to the cited
:]author.]
:]
:]In article <33dfb5fa...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
:]JFJ...@ix.netcom.com says...
:]> mj...@mail.netshop.net wrote:
:]>
:]> :]- 200k kms is NOT unreasonable. Hondas/Toyotas etc last well into the
:]> :]"high-mileage" era without major repairs - why don't Fords?
:]> :]
:]> HeHeHe, I'm running an '88 T-Bird with 262K on the odometer (well, the
:]> reading is only 162K, 'cause it rolls back to 100K).
:]>
:]> Original 3.8L engine (NO engine work needed).
:]> Original transmission (fluid/filter change at 160K).
:]>
:]> If only the tires would last as long. <g>
:]>
:]> While most auto manufacturers do suffer the errant transmission, etc.
:]> My only transmission failure in the last 30+ years has been my own
:]> fault. And it was on a Ford, as I've mostly driven Fords.
:]>
:]> Ohh yeah, the transmission failure was due to overloading a '76 Torino
:]> Wagon and running through the Appalachian mountains of W.Va. and
:]> failing to change the 'burnt' fluid.
:]>
:]> Jesse
:]>
:]
:]Just curious, but what kind of oil and filters did you use and how often
:]did you change them? Also does it burn any oil between changes?
:]
Oil changes have been every 3K miles on the engine.
Accompanied by a filer change.
Materials (Oil and filter) of the standard garage variety.
Sometimes Shell, sometimes Mobil, sometimes whatever
was available from the local parts distributor. Always
Fords recommended 5W30.
She does not burn oil between changes, however, she does
have a minor leak in the rear main seal, and needs a quart
replenished between changes.
She has had Slick 50 treatments every 50K miles, however I
don't put much stock in this, and continue it only because the
engine has done so well. It's more of a why not thing, since
the Slick 50 only costs $15 every couple of years.
I really doubt that the Slick 50 has had a significant impact on
the engine performance over the years.
Jesse
Robert Thomson
Jesse James wrote:
<snip>
> HeHeHe, I'm running an '88 T-Bird with 262K on the odometer (well, the
> reading is only 162K, 'cause it rolls back to 100K).
>
> Original 3.8L engine (NO engine work needed).
> Original transmission (fluid/filter change at 160K).
> While most auto manufacturers do suffer the errant transmission, etc.
> My only transmission failure in the last 30+ years has been my own
> fault. And it was on a Ford, as I've mostly driven Fords.
Sure ... but your Bird does not have the Taurus AXOD tranny. I
think it's just the AOD? My 84 Cougar 3.8, with the AOD, was
also a rock solid car. My Bro's '68 Mustang is at 285K mi with
no major problems ever. I am very much a Ford fan, but there
appears to be something wrong with the AXOD and AXOD-E design.
My 94 Taurus (AXOD-E) slips badly going into second.
--
======================================================================
\_____ \______ \______ | Robert T Thomson
\__ \__ \__ \__ | The MITRE Corporation
\_____ \__ \__ | Mission Planning
\__ \__ \__ \__ | Bedford, MA
\__ \__ \__ \__ | (617) 271-6480
----------------------------------------------------------------------
rtho...@mitre.org Don't be kind to animals ... EAT THEM!
======================================================================
Bob Webbink
bmu...@pluto.njcc.com (Brad Murray) writes:
>Who is to say that he didn't drive the tranny into the ground? I know a
>lot of people and many of them put their cars through hell and don't take
>proper care of them. If you get a warranty of 36k on the tranny then you
>have to accept the fact that if it goes at 36,001 it's your ass.
This is only the second time I have heard of a Windstar losing a tranny
early. I am sure there are more cases out there, but the fact is of about
20 people I personally know who have bought these, the only one to have any
mechanical trouble at all was the one person who lost a tranny. Needless to
say this was after getting into an accident, running off the road, and gouging
the bottom of the van on some rocks. Who knows if the mechanics actually
repaired it correctly. For it to give out a little over a week after getting
the van back from the shop seems a little suspicious, when it had no problems
before. Fact is, I wouldn't be happy if I had one which had a transmission
crap out that early (yes, 42k is premature - but also unusual), but at least
Ford was willing to do something. We have a Toyota Camry on its 3rd engine
at 110k, and Toyota still insists that they did nothing wrong and that it is
a quality car. I'd like to hear them say that after sitting in it at a
stoplight for a minute at idle, and having their hands go numb from the severe
vibration coming through the steering wheel
--
******************************************************************************
Bob Webbink bweb...@cco.caltech.edu
California Institute of Technology bweb...@ugcs.caltech.edu
*****************************************************************************
Bob Webbink
Jeff Seeger <jseeger.j...@appliedcad.com> writes:
>mj...@mail.netshop.net wrote:
>>
>> VERY doubtful! Ford has a known problem with their transmission design -
>> there is actually a webpage dedicated to the future class-action suit by
>> disgruntled Ford Taurus owners. Ford tranny's are basically dropping
>> like flies - at very low mileage. Given the prices of new vehicles these
>> days, the average transmission should last well past the warranty period
>> - 200k kms is NOT unreasonable. Hondas/Toyotas etc last well into the
>> "high-mileage" era without major repairs - why don't Fords?
You forgot to mention that this was for 1991 Tauruses and Sables with the
AXOD-E transmissions. Warranties for these *were* extended to 6 years/ 60,000
miles.
Now, as for new cars, from the Popular Mechanics owners reports, for 96/97
models, we can see the following:
Make/Model % of owners with mech. trouble % fixed satisfactorily
Ford Taurus 14.6% 84%
Toyota Camry 11.2% 75.5%
Dodge Caravan 29.3% 78.5%
Honda Accord 6.4% 55.6%
Basically, this means that (at least the Taurus (the Escort had fewer reports
of problems than the Camry)) Fords have more mechanical problems than
Toyota or Honda, but not by too much anymore. And if you look at the
probability of having mechanical problems after visiting the dealer once, you
see a different trend:
Make/Model % with mech trouble after 1 visit
Ford Taurus 2.336%
Toyota Camry 2.744%
Dodge Caravan 6.299%
Honda Accord 2.842%
I guess then the Ford doesn't look so bad....
> I currently own and drive two Fords with well over 100k miles,
> and another two well on their way there.
> Wake up, all. It's not just Ford, a friend who raved about his
> Chrysler Minivan, had a very similar story. And even the co-
> workers he talked into buying these had the same tranny failure.
> Of course, none of the 3 Chrysler's I'm speaking of had *any*
> transmission maintenance, probably not even a fluid level check.
> Sure, once in a while an OEM slips and has failures but we should
> face it, automobiles should come in idiot proof wrappers. But
> that would diminish the market by half...
>--
>
> Jeff Seeger
Robert Thomson
FYI, for those who are interested in a bit more info about the
Taurus tranny thing, I saved this post from a year or so ago.
Hope it's helpful ...
hope it's accurate ... I bought a 94 based on this 8-0
------------------
From: je...@iag.net (Jerry Jackson)
2. There have been problems with geartrain meltdown in this
transmission since it was introduced in 1986. The problem has been
inadequate supply of pressurized lube oil to the planetary geartrain.
Independant transmission shops typically address this inherent
problem by enlarging the orifice which feeds the lube oil and making
sure the bushings, which help control the oil flow, are replaced if
the least bit worn. In mid 1992, Ford finally figured out a way to
prevent the geartrain meltdown. In 1991, Ford revised this unit
(AXOD) and called it the AXOD-E. The newer one is completely
electronically controlled. When they went to the electronic control
system, they no longer needed oil going to the governor (which tells
the valve body the road speed of the car) because the governor had
been eliminated and replaced by an electronic vehicle speed sensor.
Now, in 1991, they had a large volume of oil going to where the
governor used to be which now only had to lubricate the speedometer
gear. The meltdown problems continued on through mid 1992. Then, one
of Fords "better ideas" was to take the large volume of oil going to
the speedometer gear and reroute it to the geartrain and take the
small volume of oil and reroute it to the speedometer gears. This
was very simple for them to do because all they did was redesign the
tubes above the filter by swapping the output end of the tubes
around.
If yours is a 91 to mid 92 unit, you'll want to have the revised
tubes installed even if yours hasn't melted down yet. They are
readily available from the Ford dealers. I can get you the part
numbers if needed.
3. In 1994, Ford came up with a fix for another notorious problem
with this transmission. From 1986 to 1993 or so, the forward clutch
piston was made of aluminum. They redesigned it three or four times,
but still kept making it from aluminum. It would crack and cause the
forward clutch for disengage and cause the transmission to feel like
it's in neutral. In 1994, they started making it using steel, which
eliminated the cracking problem (we hope). If you have any internal
work done on one of these units, it is a good idea to install the
1994 design steel piston in the forward clutch drum even if the
aluminum piston is not cracked.
Basically, if the geartrain meltdown problem is addressed, and the
forward clutch piston is updated, this transmission is a good one
and should last a long time.
Robert Thomson
Jeff Seeger wrote:
<snip>
> Wake up, all. It's not just Ford, a friend who raved about his
> Chrysler Minivan, had a very similar story. And even the co-
> workers he talked into buying these had the same tranny failure.
Let me guess, They were the 4-spd automatic. CC has a lot of probems
with that tranny. The 3-spd is fine.
> Sure, once in a while an OEM slips and has failures but we should
> face it, automobiles should come in idiot proof wrappers. But
> that would diminish the market by half...
Some designs are better than others. In the case of Ford the AXOD in
the Tauri seems to failure prone (especially the '91 model year).
The Ford C3 in my Bro's Mustang is at 285K mi and is rock solid.
davi...@cybermail.net
In <33e054b8...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, on 07/31/97
>She has had Slick 50 treatments every 50K miles, however I
>don't put much stock in this, and continue it only because the engine has
>done so well. It's more of a why not thing, since the Slick 50 only costs
>$15 every couple of years.
>I really doubt that the Slick 50 has had a significant impact on the engine
>performance over the years.
WHICH Slick50 treatment do you have? Oil treatment with Teflon is something
to be running away from... I'm not sure about Slick50's fuel treatment...
possibly just a bottle of gas with some detergent...
=Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan and ICE NEWS Beta Tester=
=========================================================================
Rise up against the EVIL CODEX and WHO alliance, for their
quest is to block access to natural remedies, like......
REQUIRING PRESCRIPTION FOR GARLIC!
Information will be available shortly on NUTS' Home Base
Thank you for considering and reading this short message
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
PGP Public Key Block available on my page.
-David Wei- <davi...@cybermail.net>, <lead...@lords.com>
=========================================================================
This message is brought to you by the combined power of
OS/2 TWarp Connect V3.0 and the amazing MR/2 ICE V1.31 News Beta 30.
=========================================================================
Warning! Vacuum Behind Windows! DO NOT OPEN!
Jesse James
Robert Thomson <rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote:
:]Jesse James wrote:
:]<snip>
:]> HeHeHe, I'm running an '88 T-Bird with 262K on the odometer (well, the
:]> reading is only 162K, 'cause it rolls back to 100K).
:]>
:]> Original 3.8L engine (NO engine work needed).
:]> Original transmission (fluid/filter change at 160K).
:]<snip>
:]> While most auto manufacturers do suffer the errant transmission, etc.
:]> My only transmission failure in the last 30+ years has been my own
:]> fault. And it was on a Ford, as I've mostly driven Fords.
:]
:]Sure ... but your Bird does not have the Taurus AXOD tranny. I
The Wife traded in her '88 Taurus with AXOD last summer at
William Norcott
In article <5ro7g8$6le$2...@noc.van.hookup.net>, mj...@mail.netshop.net writes:
|> >Who is to say that he didn't drive the tranny into the ground? I know
|> a
|> >lot of people and many of them put their cars through hell and don't
|> take
|> >proper care of them. If you get a warranty of 36k on the tranny then
|> you
|> >have to accept the fact that if it goes at 36,001 it's your ass.
|> >
|>
|> there is actually a webpage dedicated to the future class-action suit by
|> disgruntled Ford Taurus owners. Ford tranny's are basically dropping
|> like flies - at very low mileage. Given the prices of new vehicles these
|> days, the average transmission should last well past the warranty period
|> - 200k kms is NOT unreasonable. Hondas/Toyotas etc last well into the
|> "high-mileage" era without major repairs - why don't Fords?
|>
First of all, this sounds like an excellent marketing opportunity for
Honda. Perhaps they should seize the advantage and increase their factory
warranty to 150,000 on all their vehicles, which never seem to break after
the 3 year/36,000 mile Honda warranty. I agree with most people that
Honda's are more reliable than Fords. I do not believe for a minute that
you never get a bum transmission in a Honda. And frankly I am not
certain enough that Mr. Vallejo's transmission is part of a nationwide
problem, that I am would tell him to chuck the $400 offer from Ford and
go into litigation. But that's just my opinion. And if he just got
a bum transmission in his Windstar and it is not an epidemic problem,
no I do not think Ford owes him a new one for free.
The consensus here seems to be that a warranty ought to be 3 yr/36,000 miles,
plus unlimited free repairs on any part that comes with a web page or a
class action suit attached to it. Extended warranties are just free
money for Ford, so he shouldn't have bought one. But when he has
an unfortunate major repair 6,000 miles beyond the factory warranty,
and expects it done gratis by Ford, he is not asking for free money. We
would not even be discussing this had Ford priced Windstars at $500 more and
included the 6/100 drivetrain warranty as standard equipment. But somehow
if you price the vehicle that much less and sell the same warranty
separately for $500 it becomes an outrage. And if you skip the extended
warranty and keep the $500 in your pocket you are entitled to free repairs
anyway. Sorry, I don't buy it. If it really is an epidemic problem and
a class action suit settlement like the Chrysler transmissions, Mr. Vallejo
will certainly be entitled to a free replacement and I will be the first to
congratulate him.
Many people are saying extended warrantees are a ripoff and a scam
since you will not need repairs during the extended warranty. Yet in the
same breath they claim Ford transmissions are dropping like flies soon after
the factory warranty. Well, which is it? What is your advice for the next
Windstar owner who comes along, whose factory warranty is about to expire?
If the transmission is really a ticking time bomb as claimed, then he
is clearly better off extending the drivetrain warranty for $500 and
saving a $1200 repair bill later. What I seem to be hearing is keep
your $500 and wait for a lawsuit or some other group settlement by Ford.
I don't think that is responsible advice. Some people are so totally
against the whole concept of extended warranty they would think it is
a ripoff if it cost one dollar. If you know buy the car at just over dealer
cost, you can buy the warranty at or near cost. What if the guy buys the
warranty and the transmission breaks and is fixed under the warranty --
and later there is a class action settlement. You can be sure he will
be reimbursed the full cost he paid for the warranty, this is exactly
what happended with Chrysler. What if it is a legitimate, epidemic
problem and Ford weasels out of a class suit with their attorneys. Then
the guy's transmission is repaired under the extended warranty and the
people who didn't buy one are holding the bag. I would not advise
anyone to put themselves in that position if there is doubt. I would
advise Mr. Vallejo to take the $400 offer from Ford, pay the rest with
the money he saved by not buying the extended warranty, and to save his
receipts and hope for a legal settlement.
G. Paul Fredrickson
My experience with the Windstar after 60K is it is an incredibly well
built vehicle. My two Chrysler minivans were junk in comparison. Talk
about bad transmissions, when we got our second Voyager home and put it
in the garage, we couldn't get it out the next day for a while because
the thing wouldn't shift into reverse. It finally came out.
My Windstar has been incredibly comfortable and unfailingly reliable.
Paul
mj...@mail.netshop.net
In article <5rq2bs$l...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, bweb...@ugcs.caltech.edu
says...
>You forgot to mention that this was for 1991 Tauruses and Sables with
the
>AXOD-E transmissions. Warranties for these *were* extended to 6 years/
60,000
>miles.
This problem continued throughout the 1992 model year and was caused by
Ford directly trying to "solve" a slow shift problem. Yes, warranties
were extended. Big deal! They screwed up the transmission making the
likelihood of failure really high. If the tranny goes after the 60,000
mile period (this is normally done by the average driver in about 4
years) Ford is likely to tell you the take a hike...
>
>Now, as for new cars, from the Popular Mechanics owners reports, for
96/97
>models, we can see the following:
>
>Make/Model % of owners with mech. trouble % fixed
satisfactorily
>
>Ford Taurus 14.6% 84%
>Toyota Camry 11.2% 75.5%
>Dodge Caravan 29.3% 78.5%
>Honda Accord 6.4% 55.6%
>
>Basically, this means that (at least the Taurus (the Escort had fewer
reports
>of problems than the Camry)) Fords have more mechanical problems than
>Toyota or Honda, but not by too much anymore. And if you look at the
>probability of having mechanical problems after visiting the dealer
once, you
>see a different trend:
>
>Make/Model % with mech trouble after 1 visit
>Ford Taurus 2.336%
>Toyota Camry 2.744%
>Dodge Caravan 6.299%
>Honda Accord 2.842%
Unfortunately your stats don't tell the entire story. As a general rule,
newer vehicles, of any kind, should experience far less mechanical
problems than older ones. What are the numbers on five years cars? I
would guess, based on reputation alone, that Toyota and Honda would be
considered far more reliable by their owners than Ford and Chrysler...
>
>I guess then the Ford doesn't look so bad....
120% more problems than Honda? 30% more problems than Toyota as based on
your figures is not too bad???? Also, you don't specify what sort of
problems occurred. Were some more serious than others? Did some make the
vehicles undriveable? Checking out the recall history provides some
insight. Toyota/Honda tend to have far fewer recalls and generally the
nature of the problem is less serious. Ford Taurus has a huge list of
apparent problems, many safety related defects included...
The other problem that I have with the stats are that it is based soley
on reader response of that particular magazine. This makes the results
unscientific and probably unrepeatable. We have no idea how many
respondents were driving what kind of vehicle and how this corresponds
to the number of those particular vehicles on the road. Remember that
people with BAD experiences are more likely to respond that people
without GOOD experiences. Basically then, I wouldn't put too much stock
into your example without knowing more about the sample population...
>
>
>> I currently own and drive two Fords with well over 100k miles,
>> and another two well on their way there.
>
>> Wake up, all. It's not just Ford, a friend who raved about his
>> Chrysler Minivan, had a very similar story. And even the co-
>> workers he talked into buying these had the same tranny
failure.
Well, no one said Chrysler was particularly good either. I used to work
for them and can attest to some of the problems that existed in the
vehicles...
In general, Honda and Toyota are considered more reliable that Ford and
Chrysler period.
MJ
>
>> Of course, none of the 3 Chrysler's I'm speaking of had *any*
>> transmission maintenance, probably not even a fluid level
check.
>
>> Sure, once in a while an OEM slips and has failures but we
should
>> face it, automobiles should come in idiot proof wrappers. But
>> that would diminish the market by half...
>>--
>>
>> Jeff Seeger
>--
>***********************************************************************
Ray&Denise
Holy cow, Bill!! You really are totally clueless, aren't you? Let's look
at this point by point, shall we?
William Norcott <wnor...@slocum.us.oracle.com> wrote in article
<5rr3mb$fum$1...@inet16.us.oracle.com>...
:
: First of all, this sounds like an excellent marketing opportunity for
: Honda. Perhaps they should seize the advantage and increase their
factory
: warranty to 150,000 on all their vehicles, which never seem to break
after
: the 3 year/36,000 mile Honda warranty. I agree with most people that
: Honda's are more reliable than Fords. I do not believe for a minute that
: you never get a bum transmission in a Honda. And frankly I am not
: certain enough that Mr. Vallejo's transmission is part of a nationwide
: problem, that I am would tell him to chuck the $400 offer from Ford and
: go into litigation. But that's just my opinion. And if he just got
: a bum transmission in his Windstar and it is not an epidemic problem,
: no I do not think Ford owes him a new one for free.
Here's a little quandry for you. Maybe you can tell me who may have put
the "bum transmission" in his vehicle, and why that person or corporate
entity shouldn't be held responsible for it. Or don't we believe in
corporate culpability, or doing a good job, or responsibility to the folks
that keep us in business? Is that a credo that Oracle Corporation holds:
"Screw 'em, they didn't get the extended warranty!"? Or does Oracle
actually produce a product? And if so, just how bad is it, with no one
bothering to feel that it's important to make the best product they can,
regardless of whether someone buys insurance against someone else's
negligence?
: The consensus here seems to be that a warranty ought to be 3 yr/36,000
miles,
: plus unlimited free repairs on any part that comes with a web page or a
: class action suit attached to it. Extended warranties are just free
: money for Ford, so he shouldn't have bought one. But when he has
: an unfortunate major repair 6,000 miles beyond the factory warranty,
: and expects it done gratis by Ford, he is not asking for free money. We
: would not even be discussing this had Ford priced Windstars at $500 more
and
: included the 6/100 drivetrain warranty as standard equipment. But
somehow
: if you price the vehicle that much less and sell the same warranty
: separately for $500 it becomes an outrage. And if you skip the extended
: warranty and keep the $500 in your pocket you are entitled to free
repairs
: anyway. Sorry, I don't buy it. If it really is an epidemic problem and
: a class action suit settlement like the Chrysler transmissions, Mr.
Vallejo
: will certainly be entitled to a free replacement and I will be the first
to
: congratulate him.
So what you're saying here, then, is that the product is only as good as
it's extended warranty, or the price of a good lawyer. And I really don't
see where anyone's asking for free repairs for the life of their vehicle.
What I do see, is someone asking whether or not others have had similar
problems (which they have), what they did about them, and a little advice
on what to do. What I also don't see, is anyone asking someone to
instruct them in the way they should have purchased their vehicle in the
first place, as though they were children, or incapable of thinking ahead.
: Many people are saying extended warrantees are a ripoff and a scam
Here again, you're no help at all. Here a guy goes into a dealership and
negotiates in good faith to purchase what he believes is good, durable
vehicle. He pays literally tens of thousands of dollars for this, and
based on past experiences with other vehicles, opts not to buy the extended
warranty. 42000 miles later, boom. And it's not due to negligence, or
abuse, or a lack of care. And you say, "Oh, well. Too bad. Now take your
money, tuck your tail between your legs, and go away. It's been a pleasure
doing (business with) you." You see, that's just plain wrong. "Let the
buyer beware" may be a true enough maxim, but it's a sorry way to do
business. Even consumer agencies will tell you that an extended warranty
is a poor deal, that if a product has a history of failure, then maybe you
should consider another product. If an extended warranty were a good deal,
then people would buy them more often.
People shouldn't be belittled because they choose to speak out, or stand up
and ask questions. If we all followed your lead, Bill, we'd all still be
under British rule.
Ray
Arch Stanton
You purchased a Windstar after owning two Chrysler minivans? I can't
believe anyone would move to a Windstar after a Chrysler. The Windstar
can't even come close to the cheapest Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth minivan in
reliability, especially with that 3.8 engine (which is underpowered
compared to even Dodge's 3.0 V6). The Windstar doesn't have the 2nd
sliding door -- how can you live without that 2nd sliding door? Ford
will never be able to keep up with the Chrysler in quality or inovation,
because when Ford comes out with the 2nd sliding door, Chrysler will
come out with a 3rd sliding door (on the roof) in which case I will be
asking all Ford minivan owners (yes all 7 owners) how can they live
without that 3rd sliding door.
I thought the Ford Windstars had a much worse incidence of transmission
problems compared to the Chryslers.
Arch.
hspe...@cc.memphis.edu
I have nothing against the Town and Country, it certainly is a fine vehicle
with all the bells and whistles, but, in actuality, it does rate a little less
in reliability and substantially less in crash tests than the equivalent Ford
Winstar LX. Maybe the the 3rd sliding door? We don't have kids and there is
usually just the two of us, so the 3rd door Town and Country would have been 3
or 4 thousand more than the LX comparably equipped except for a 3rd door, which
wasn't worth it to me.
When we bought our '96 Windstar they were practically giving them away and the
Chrysler product folks were just not coming down at all. The Town and Country
did seem to handle a wee bit better and again it seems to be the Cadillac of
mini-vans, but, for a lot less bucks we preferred the Winstar. No problems at
all so far. Btw, I would be surprised if the Winstar wasn't the
quickest/fastest of the Minivans with the 3.8, although I could be wrong, it
certainly "seemed" to have more zip.
I would not have considered anything other than the Winstar or Town and Country
after having driven everything else calling itself a Minivan, including the
Dodge and Plymouth look alikes. If safety is an issue, the Windstar is the
only Minivan passing the insurance industry crash tests. If you want a third
door, Town and Country.
d.h...@worldnet.att.net
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:23:10 GMT, JFJ...@ix.netcom.com (Jesse James)
wrote:
The AXOD trans. on our Taurus went out at 122,000 mi. The rebuild was
$872. I guess if this one lasts 122k we will probably have used up the
rest of the car.
Are there any Taurus/Sable owners out there with 200-300k on their
cars. My VW Rabbit has 155k with no major repairs and I am hoping for
at least 250k, I know this is not uncomon with VW's, and I am curious
if there are any Taurus's out there with this many miles.
Dean
Jesse James
davi...@cybermail.net wrote:
:]WHICH Slick50 treatment do you have? Oil treatment with Teflon is something
:]to be running away from...
At 262K miles, I'm not inclined to *run* away from anything that's been in
use for a while. Seems like it would have done any possible damage a few
years ago. Or is this a slow kill that will ruin my engine in 500K miles
or so.
Jesse
Nadeem Azhar
I've been driving luxury cars (the high end) for the longest time and this
is the first time I bought an Explorer. I've heard a lot of bad thing
about FORD and I was very satisfied with the service and reliability of
luxury cars but when I wanted a SUV I wanted something small e.g. Explorer,
4runner size but I wanted it with a V8. Even the LX450 doesnt come with a
V8! It might be very reliable and dependable!! I bought a Ford because of
the power, xtra features <lx450 doesnt come with electrochromic mirrors or
the computer>, resale value <but expedition is too big for my needs>. Now,
the explorer might break down on the road but atleast anyone will be able
to fix it without trying to rip me off!
If the 4runner had all the features of the explorer and same resale value
and even if the price was a little high I would have bought it but it
doesnt serve my purpose.
Now I have a question. I've heard from a lot of people that Ford vehicles
USED to not be reliable but they've improved a lot, anyone agree? I've
only got about 500 miles on the explorer and no problems so far...
Nadeem
hspe...@cc.memphis.edu
In article <01bc9e2c$7ed0e420$ad4984d0@RAY>, "Ray&Denise" <Ray&Den...@digiscape.com> writes:
> Holy cow, Bill!! You really are totally clueless, aren't you? Let's look
> at this point by point, shall we?
How about giving the guy a break? His point was that if you have the extended
warranty the issue becomes moot regarding a transmission failure at less than 6
years or 100,000 miles. When you buy the vehicle they offer you that option
for x number of dollars. They plainly state what the factory warranty is
without an extended warranty. So where is his point invalid? You don't buy
the warranty and have engine/drivetrain failure at 3 years 1 month or 37,000
miles, well, you chose not to buy an extended warranty. You buy the extended
warranty and have the same failure, they tow you in, give you a rental car and
call you when your car is ready. Which seems easier? Why should a company pay
for anything not under warranty? As for whether or not these transmissions
become certified to be defective in materials or workmanship, he states that
point too, you get reimbursed either way. That's what you pay for with the
extended warranty, just like any other insurance policy, peace of mind and less
hassle than if you are uninsured.
Btw, the man clearly stated in his post that those were his opinions and even
used the standard disclaimer regarding his views not representing his company.
Where do you come up with all that stuff about his company?
mj...@mail.netshop.net
In article <01bca0e5$56e7ad70$b10d2ace@jaba>, nad...@firstnethou.com
says...
Where I live Ford Explorer is known as "Ford Exploder" by the local
repair shops - I heard this at three or four independant garages when I
'phoned when I had to get my Taurus head gasket replaced. They seemed to
tell me that I was "lucky" that I didn't have one of these vehicles...
Robert
-SNIP-
>
> VERY doubtful! Ford has a known problem with their transmission design -
> there is actually a webpage dedicated to the future class-action suit by
> disgruntled Ford Taurus owners. Ford tranny's are basically dropping
> like flies - at very low mileage. Given the prices of new vehicles these
> days, the average transmission should last well past the warranty period
> - 200k kms is NOT unreasonable. Hondas/Toyotas etc last well into the
> "high-mileage" era without major repairs - why don't Fords?
My co-worker just replaced his Taurus transmission last week. There
are several WWW sites noting a problem with this tranny. Seems Ford did
not provide adequate lubrication to the overdrive gears. There is a TSB
regarding using larger diameter oil tubes during a rebuild. I totally
agree there is a problem with this SPECIFIC vehicle. However, please
don't be fooled into thinking all apples are oranges (or lemons). I
just traded my '88 GT 5.0 with 111,000 original miles on the engine and
transmission. I tend to drive with a heavy foot. The only items I have
replaced on that vehicle were: ignition switch (warranty item),
catalytic converters (warranty item), headlight switch ($29), radiator
($150 -FL salty environment), and evaporator core ($100). I have
replaced many more items on my 1977 G-10 Chevrolet van (list includes
all front end parts, rear axle, A/C, tranny twice, vavles, etc). My
1995 Nissan truck wouldn't roll the windows up without opening the doors
while at highway speeds (known problem by Nissan). My 1990 Isuzu amigo
had the A/C fail at 37,000 and the engine ate a valve at 49,000. Other
co-workers have had problems with their "better than American cars".
One co-worker's Acura had his entire brake systems replaced (ABS).
Fortunetly for him it was covered under an extended warranty. The
factory rep tried to find ANY evidence of vehicle neglect (even checked
washer fluid level!). Another co-worker's owns a Lexus. He just had the
A/C fixed and also had to replace the power steering lines ($$$). The
car has 60K. Both co-workers with Honda's have had CV joints replaced
(70K/85K).
Sorry to ramble on but I get tired of folks trying to group a model of
car with the manufacturer. I also totally disagree with the notion that
Japanese cars are manufatured any different than American cars today.
Both sides use parts and labor from one another and produce the same
quality (or crap). I have yet to find ANY brand that doesn't have it's
faults. Some models have more than their fair share of problems.
Remember Cherolet's Chevette and Luv truck? No perfect vehicle has yet
been built. Between my father and myself, we have purchased more than
20 NEW vehicles in the last 5 years. Might even call it a hobby!
Robert-FL
C.W.
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:00:28 -0400, Robert Thomson
<rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote:
>Jesse James wrote:
><snip>
>> HeHeHe, I'm running an '88 T-Bird with 262K on the odometer (well, the
>> reading is only 162K, 'cause it rolls back to 100K).
>>
>> Original 3.8L engine (NO engine work needed).
>> Original transmission (fluid/filter change at 160K).
><snip>
>> While most auto manufacturers do suffer the errant transmission, etc.
>> My only transmission failure in the last 30+ years has been my own
>> fault. And it was on a Ford, as I've mostly driven Fords.
>
>Sure ... but your Bird does not have the Taurus AXOD tranny. I
>think it's just the AOD? My 84 Cougar 3.8, with the AOD, was
>also a rock solid car. My Bro's '68 Mustang is at 285K mi with
>no major problems ever. I am very much a Ford fan, but there
>appears to be something wrong with the AXOD and AXOD-E design.
>My 94 Taurus (AXOD-E) slips badly going into second.
>
>
>
>--
>======================================================================
> \_____ \______ \______ | Robert T Thomson
> \__ \__ \__ \__ | The MITRE Corporation
> \_____ \__ \__ | Mission Planning
> \__ \__ \__ \__ | Bedford, MA
> \__ \__ \__ \__ | (617) 271-6480
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> rtho...@mitre.org Don't be kind to animals ... EAT THEM!
>======================================================================
Just sold a 1986 Taurus with an AXOD. I put 175,000 miles on the car
and changed tranny fluid every 50k. Never has a problem!!
For reply drop the FD from address
Joe Merchak
I dont know what the problem is with some of these cars. I do know my
father-in-law owns a 91 Taurus and has not one problem with his
transmission )or anything else). I do know for a fact that he changes the
trans fluid and filter every 30K miles. The car has well over 100K on it
now and not one single problem. I too own Ford products (93 Ranger and 86
Mustang). I have owned the 93 Ranger since new, and I have never had a
problem with it. It has never gone back to Ford for anything other then
normal maintenance. I think what most peoples problems with these cars and
trucks, is they neglect to do normal maintenance. Then when something
breaks they say Ford should fix it for free. Well it was there stupid
fault for not doing the maintenance in the first place and they should pay
the price.
David Boarder <dboa...@bnr.ca> wrote in article
<33E72E59...@bnr.ca>...
> suga...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:55:33 GMT, d.h...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:23:10 GMT, JFJ...@ix.netcom.com (Jesse James)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>Robert Thomson <rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>:]Jesse James wrote:
> > >>:]<snip>
> > >>:]> HeHeHe, I'm running an '88 T-Bird with 262K on the odometer
(well, the
> > >>:]> reading is only 162K, 'cause it rolls back to 100K).
> > >>:]>
> > >>:]> Original 3.8L engine (NO engine work needed).
> > >>:]> Original transmission (fluid/filter change at 160K).
> > >>:]<snip>
> > >>:]> While most auto manufacturers do suffer the errant transmission,
etc.
> > >>:]> My only transmission failure in the last 30+ years has been my
own
> > >>:]> fault. And it was on a Ford, as I've mostly driven Fords.
> > >>:]>:]Sure ... but your Bird does not have the Taurus AXOD tranny. I
>
> > >The AXOD trans. on our Taurus went out at 122,000 mi. The rebuild was
> > >$872. I guess if this one lasts 122k we will probably have used up the
> > >rest of the car.
> > >Are there any Taurus/Sable owners out there with 200-300k on their
> > >cars. My VW Rabbit has 155k with no major repairs and I am hoping for
> > >at least 250k, I know this is not uncomon with VW's, and I am curious
> > >if there are any Taurus's out there with this many miles.
> > >
> > >Dean
> >
> > 200K? 300K? I wish. The transmission in my '93 Taurus expired a year
> > ago at 63,000 miles. That was the first of six times the car has been
> > towed in a year. Don't get me started on the brake rotors ... I am
> > 50 years old and drive and maintain the car very carefully. I
> > inquired about trading it in on a Camry or Altima, but found there is
> > a very low demand for used Tauruses. It's a lovely car, very
> > comfortable and roadworthy except that the brakes are apparently not
> > big enough for a Pinto. I would much rather have paid more for it and
> > gotten better quality and sturdier components.
> >
> > Jon
>
> My present 1987 Taurus (3.0) has 425,000 km. The transmission was
> replaced for the first time at 350,000km. Except for the transmission
> I am very pleased with the car.(This is the first automatic
> transmission I had ever fail and I've driven cars more miles) I do
> regular maintenance but the car is not treated gently. I still trust
> it for long trips and it always starts even in -40C weather. I tend to
> disagree about the brakes. They are more than adequate for stopping the
> car (I tow a 2000lb trailer at times). The rotors do warp too easily but
> that appears to have become a very common complaint for almost all
> makes.
> I found that using non FORD rotors and ensuring that a torque wrench is
> used on the wheels minimizes this problems. I just right off the rotors
> as disposable when doing a brake job (at $40 each Canadian). By the way
> the car seemed to get more reliable after it passed the 200,000km point.
> I'm going to hit 500,000km I'm sure and I'm not planning to stop there.
>
> Things that have been done that I can remember (other than brakes, tires
> etc)
> - 1 Transmission $2000
> - alternator replaced once($200), alternator brushes/bearings replaced
> once($40).
> - two windshield wiper motors (one used $50, one new $190).
> - one waterpump ($40).
> - two subframe mounts (free - recall).
> - fuel line clips (recall - free).
> - storage compartment latch replaced (recall -free).
> - rear shocks ($100)
> - ignition module and pickup ($100)
> - numerous sensors (ACT, OXYGEN, IAC, TPS etc)
> - all tie rods once.
> - one front wheel bearing.
> - one outer CV joint boot.
> - one set of ball joints.
> - one heater core.
> - ignition switch and ignition cylinder(cyliner was so warn that
> key could be removed
> with engine still running)
>
> The car still has its original front struts (pronounced okay by dealer
> a couple
> of months ago). It also has original exhaust system (stainless on the
> LX).
> Original radiator. Air conditioning is dead do to o-ring leakage and I
> haven't
> decided if I'm going to bother fixing it. I do almost all my own work
> which saves
> a lot of money. The biggest saving here was replacing the heater core
> myself which
> would have normally been at least 6 hours at a dealer.
>
Bob Webbink
mj...@mail.netshop.net writes:
>>Now I have a question. I've heard from a lot of people that Ford
>vehicles
>>USED to not be reliable but they've improved a lot, anyone agree? I've
>>only got about 500 miles on the explorer and no problems so far...
>>
>>Nadeem
*ALL* vehicles made in the past few years are *much* more reliable than what
they were before (heck - I remember when the Accord had 20-25% of their cars
breakdown in the first year, and the Taurus had 35%, while Chryslers ran
50%. Now the Accord is 6%, the Taurus is (as of mid-97) about 8.5%).
While all cars are getting better, SUVs are showing the biggest improvements.
Compared to cars, old Explorers were poor in terms of reliability, but compared
to other SUVs they were one of the best. They are still one of the best,
but like all SUVs, still considerably behind cars in terms of reliability,
although much closer than ever before....
--
******************************************************************************
Ray&Denise
hspe...@cc.memphis.edu wrote in article
<1997Aug...@admin1.memphis.edu>...
: How about giving the guy a break? His point was that if you have the
:
:
Okay, I'll grant that I slammed this guy a little too hard. I guess what
ticked me off (and apparently a few others, too) was the "tone" of his
so-called response. The original poster at the beginning of this diatribe
was asking if anyone else had had problems with their trans in a Windstar
crapping out on them in what seemed to him to be a premature failure. And
I tend to agreee that it was an early failure; I've owned a few Fords over
the years and the only trans failure I've experienced was my own fault:
leaking rear seal, and I neglected to check the fluid level. But even that
didn't occur until the vehicle had 80k miles on it. I've got a truck with
179k on it, and a sport-ute with 85k, and the drivetrain is running strong.
So my expectation of a vehicle's durability, even a Ford, is that it
should last longer than that, expecially since an automatic transmission is
one of those things that is a set-and-forget thing. ""D" for drive, "R" for
reverse, and "P" for park. Ba-da-bing. It's over.
The thing that really toasted my buns was the response. I realize that
this is a free forum (thank goodness), and this guy was voicing his
opinion. But his response was, basically, that the guy whose transmission
failed was at fault because he didn't buy the extended warranty. And I
don't see it that way, obviously. A mechanical failure in anything that is
clearly beyond the control of the operator is not the fault of the
operator, any more than a power station failure is the fault of the
homeowner who uses that utility.
I understood that an extended warranty would have covered the immediate
problem. That, to me, was not the issue, which was "Has anyone else had
this problem? What can I do about it?" And he didn't deserve the response
he was given. If someone thinks it prudent to purchase an extended
warranty, great. But he shouldn't look down his nose at others who chose
not to do so.
The post which I took to task just seemed, to me, to be an attempt to
justify the attitude. And within it, it also appeared to say that the
manufacturer of a product shouldn't be held liable for product failure, or
it's lack of performance, once it's purchased. The references to his
company were merely used to point out where such an attitude may be
detrimental to the future of a company, and I used his to illustrate my
point in a more direct way. I don't expect his opinions to be those of his
company; in fact, I would hope that they are not, but as a principal in the
company, as he states in his signature, it would behoove him to be aware
that his opinions could be construed to be a reflection of that company's
opinion of its consumers, or its committment to product quality.
I apologize for the length of this post; in future, I will e-mail any
responses since this has become more a philosophical debate, and less a
useful addition to this newsgroup.
Ray
GT Essex
Check the Consumer reports auto issue. (April 1997) I think
you will find that the Ford Explorer is one of the more
reliable SUV's.
GT
H. Wayne Spencer
Ray&Denise wrote:
> I apologize for the length of this post; in future, I will e-mail any
> responses since this has become more a philosophical debate, and less a
> useful addition to this newsgroup.
>
> Ray
As for the technical issue,I believe, there has just recently been a
recall on both the Windstar and the Taurus transmissions. I am having
my v.i.n. number run right now to see if my Windstar is included in the
recall.
As for the philosophical or business aspects of auto repair, I know how
most people feel about dealer service departments, extended warranties,
etc., and I know nobody likes having car problems period, especially
"premature" failures of any kind. With 9,000 miles, I'll feel that Ford
messed up somewhere if I have to have repairs or a new transmission.
That being said, I have an excellent service advisor, great relationship
with my dealer and always purchase an extended warranty, because, when I
take my vehicle in, even for routine maintenance, if they find anything
wrong or it needs additional repairs, they fix it, and the deductible is
the same for one repair or twenty repairs while it's there. Most of us
hate taking a vehicle in for repair and having them come back with,
"it's more than what we thought" and/or "you also are going to be having
problems with... if you don't get it repaired now." For me, because I
prefer an expected expense to an unexpected one, and because I'm getting
lazier the older I get, I prefer the convenience of, "The tow truck is
backing your car into the bay now, the rental department has the keys to
your rental car waiting for you and we'll call you as soon as your car
is ready."
I have had as good, if not better, fortune with Ford products as any
other. I think they provide decent bang for buck, but, again, it's the
relationship with my dealer that keeps me a Ford owner. If it's
something small, I've had them, more than once, open the hood, slap her
on the lift, whatever, see if the problem is minor and fix it on the
spot, without any charge or paperwork. I assume I have something to do
with this relationship, buying from them, maintaining good relations
with my service advisor, and, most of all, maintaining my vehicles
properly and understanding that when something does go wrong, it doesn't
mean Ford is crap, they are idiots, or that just because I am
inconvenienced when they are at a peak period, that I'm the only car
owner in the world and deserve to be treated like the President. All I
ask, and I usually receive far more, is to be treated honestly, fairly
and in a reasonable time in a business like manner.
No SPAM! Kevin Sheehan
In article <01bca0e5$56e7ad70$b10d2ace@jaba>, "Nadeem Azhar" <nad...@firstnethou.com> says:
>Now I have a question. I've heard from a lot of people that Ford vehicles
>USED to not be reliable but they've improved a lot, anyone agree? I've
>only got about 500 miles on the explorer and no problems so far...
>
I have a 93 Ford Taurus GL sedan with 77k mi on it. Never a problem. How's that for reliable?
The car spent the first 3 years of it's life in the New England area...and the last year in the
Dallas area. I would say those are the extremes. NE winters....and Texas summer.
Love that Taurus!
Kev
P.S.
In fairness to the people who have had problems with them, my mom had a 93 Mercury Sable that
probably had over $7000 in parts alone go bad on it while under warranty, (Transmission,
2 starters, 2 computers, front struts, exhaust) in just over 4 years and 77k mi. go figure?
Mark Kovalsky
Vinny D wrote:
>
> I own a 1994 ford mustang 3.8 liter with 41,000 miles and I very good about
> preventative care but my transmission has a wierd vibration when shifting
> from 2nd to 3rd .
> The 3 year 36,000 mile warranty just expired and now I have to fix a
> defective transmission myself. I know 2 other people with 1994 ford
> mustangs that had the same problem.
> I tried servicing the transmission , and it ran good for about 50 miles and
> started right back up.
> I think ford is putting out defective units. What do we do?
Have you changed the transmission fluid?
Old transmission fluid will cause the vibration during shifting that you described.
Change the oil every 20,000 to 30,000 miles and you will never see this problem again.
--
Mark
Speaking for myself - not my employer
Vinny D
David McCauslin
It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first transmission
after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well, your
warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not our
concern."
Not their concern!! So they are not concerned about the consumer, as
long as they pass the initial 36000 miles!!! Which is way too soon these
days, in my opinion.
I will never purchase a Ford product again. And any are encouraged to
ask my kids what "ford" stands for!
- Dave
In article <01bc9e2c$7ed0e420$ad4984d0@RAY>, Ray&Den...@digiscape.com
says...
ERIC HOUKAL
"Vinny D" <vde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Perhaps you should have had it repaired before the warranty expired.
hspe...@cc.memphis.edu
In article <5ssqmk$4un$1...@news.mich.com>, spi...@mich.com (David McCauslin) writes:
> It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first transmission
> after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well, your
> warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not our
> concern."
>
> Not their concern!! So they are not concerned about the consumer, as
> long as they pass the initial 36000 miles!!! Which is way too soon these
> days, in my opinion.
>
> I will never purchase a Ford product again. And any are encouraged to
> ask my kids what "ford" stands for!
>
> - Dave
Jeepers, creepers, everybody's got horror stories and then some. Individual
experiences do not equate to a statistical analysis and/or engineering study of
mechanical failure.
I am checking on a recall for Windstar and Taurus transmissions now. I own a
Windstar. Will I decide, on the basis of this recall, that I should buy
anything but a Ford product in the future? No. I base my buying decision on
the design of the vehicle, the overall quality of the vehicle, the total value
for dollar of the vehicle, the relationship I have with the dealer's sales
department, and, absolutely, the relationship with the dealer's service
department.
Is it too soon for transmission failure at 45,000 miles? How would customer
service know? How would they know if you towed a thousand pounds over
recommended capacity every day you had the car, never changed the transmission
fluid and slapped the shifter from drive to reverse or reverse to drive without
even coming to a stop? A warranty is a warranty. If the item is out of
warranty, then, the best thing to do is call customer service and explain your
feelings regarding what you consider a premature failure. I have never had
the negative experience that you indicate. I try never to be adversarial
regarding out-of-warranty repairs, and state precisely why I am calling and
what would make me a satisfied customer. They have either paid for parts and
labor or for just the parts or paid half the bill in all but one case out of
four in the last 14 or 15 years.
If you will look at the technical service bulletins and recalls, you will find
Ford hardly comes close to the top in number or severity. There's a recall out
right now from Chrysler for trucks, vans, wagons, 1994-1997 transmissions that
can have fittings melt and cause fires. I could go on and on, but believe me
the data is out there. I believe even Lexus had a major recall shortly after
their first release, and they are number one in most satisfaction surveys.
Lexus also has fewer tsbs and recalls than Taurus, but, hey, they also cost a
little more.
Btw, I would try Ford customer service one more time, one customer rep does
not equal the whole company.
da...@cris.com
>I own a 1994 ford mustang 3.8 liter with 41,000 miles and I very good about
>preventative care but my transmission has a wierd vibration when shifting
>from 2nd to 3rd .
>The 3 year 36,000 mile warranty just expired and now I have to fix a
>defective transmission myself. I know 2 other people with 1994 ford
>mustangs that had the same problem.
>I tried servicing the transmission , and it ran good for about 50 miles and
>started right back up.
>I think ford is putting out defective units. What do we do?
I seem to recall in Consumer Reports about a recall on these
transmissions...about the last couple of issues.
Danny
da...@cris.com
Mike Smolin
David McCauslin wrote:
>
> It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first transmission
> after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well, your
> warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not our
> concern."
>
> Not their concern!! So they are not concerned about the consumer, as
>
The issue isn't warrenty (although repairs do cost & someone has to pay
for them) - The issue is quality reliable products. Which is an alien
concept at Ford.
My '91 Sable (Taurus twin) wagon had three major transmission jobs under
warrenty. That I didn't pay for it did not set my mind at ease waiting
for the next transmission to act up.
At 50,200 miles (just past warrenty) the 3.8 V6 engine blew a head (Svc
mgr said that was unusual at such low mileage) - my $1200 expense.
Now at 53,000 miles the A/C has fused - just cost me $2450. Again I was
told (Ford's cust rep) that was unusual at such low mileage.
And dealer-service says my starter is about to go (yes, they can
diagnose that). est $485.
BTW, if you complain enough Ford will usually make some $ 'adjustment.'
In my case $1k toward the last repair.
However, why should the car start accelerated failure as soon as the
warrenty expires. Car life = Warrenty life??
So what can a guy do??
My wife says Toyota.
My friends say lawyer.
Research says out of warrenty doesn't mean out of implied warrenty.
I also have a '94 Winstar - so far OK, but Toyota still seems like the
way to go. I like the Ford body styles & leg room, but can't keep
pouring money into repairs which should have been designed out by Ford -
they're not new to the auto business.
Thomas
Mike Smolin wrote:
>
> David McCauslin wrote:
> >
> > It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first transmission
> > after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well, your
> > warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not our
> > concern."
> >
> > Not their concern!! So they are not concerned about the consumer, as
Forgive me if I am jumping in at the "midpoint" and do not know the
extant of this situation since I did NOT go back and read all of the
posts...
I am looking at this a number of ways... and I am sure others are going
to see that. But I have been where you are with other vehicles. Go
directly to the manufacturer... and quit wasting your time with the
dealerships... they generally will not do anything for you. Your
contract is with the manufacturer!
If those were the persons(dealership or manufacturers) actual words then
you have a right to be ticked off. I would ask for a very large cut on a
new vehicle...say four grand plus the trade in value directly from the
manufacturer for the inconvienience. The warranty had expired but the
vehicle has a fairly low mileage on it. However, to be fair it is
impossible to warranty all parts till ANY logical number of miles... it
is a contract you enter into at the time of purchase and is little more
than a gamble with any manufactured product, and it is imposible to tell
how a vehicle is cared for during it's lifespan of use.
I am not uncaring, my family has had similar problems with a
transmission from Subaru which had about ten to fifteen thousand miles
on it in the early 80's. It was a disater... the four wheel drive car
was rated excellent in all departments by all magazines (and since then
I have read much less since all of the magazines and are little more
than bought and paid for bullshit) but guess what... that year Subaru
had a huge failure rate! We had bought the car make small deliveries and
I ended up doing them in a personal vehicle. The Subaru sat at the
dealership lot for about six months before a new transmission was
installed UNDER warranty... We have never LOOKED at another Subaru
again... never will... and never will give one as a recommendation.
However, as to the Ford you have it is a shame, since I have had beter
luck.
My 1987, 5.0, Ford Mustang sedan with 146,000 miles on it is on it's
_second_ clutch, and the original tranny is just now getting bad (I can
tell when going around corners). Yes, I've done my share of burnouts and
all and still get on it once in a rare blue moon(why make it worse at
this time), and gone through the tires to prove it... but it lasted. I
changed the oil and tranny oil frequently too. I would buy another Stang
but I am going to buy an Explorer or Expedition in '98/'99 (I hope)....
Let's hope that I have better luck.
Dealerships... they are another story and I don't know what to make of
them. The Ford dealerships (inclusive of two D.G., and Naperville, IL.)
tried to stab me in 1987 when the Stang came out with a bad electronics
module on the distributor. The part was system wide in several Ford
vehicles and I never saw a nickel from the money spent at the
dealerships for labor, tests, coils, wires, fuel pump, etc, of which I
paid several hundred dollars. Then when they found the problem they
tried to convince me that it wasn't the module... so that I would pay
for that. I was very lucky that one of the dealerships would work on the
car... at first they both balked since I didn't buy the car at their
shop. I didn't buy a Ford for my other car, I bought two Hondas of which
the newest one, a '96 Civic DX is sitting in my driveway. I will not go
back to those dealers for anything.
I say get what you want but the Honda and Ford are OK for the money
spent. The dealerships are another story.
> However, why should the car start accelerated failure as soon as the
> warrenty expires. Car life = Warrenty life??
NO ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>
> So what can a guy do??
> My wife says Toyota.
> My friends say lawyer.
> Research says out of warrenty doesn't mean out of implied warrenty.
>
> I also have a '94 Winstar - so far OK, but Toyota still seems like the
> way to go. I like the Ford body styles & leg room, but can't keep
> pouring money into repairs which should have been designed out by Ford -
> they're not new to the auto business.
I would never buy a Toyota. I've been snubbed by the sales people when I
went in to look at the vehicles, and they are not ranked as well as the
Honda's anymore. The top small vehicles for reliability for the past few
years, which is your huge problem area, are HONDA's.
Good luck,
T.B.I.
Jesse James
Mike Smolin <mike....@nortel.ca> wrote:
:]The issue isn't warrenty (although repairs do cost & someone has to pay
:]for them) - The issue is quality reliable products. Which is an alien
:]concept at Ford.
:]My '91 Sable (Taurus twin) wagon had three major transmission jobs under
:]warrenty. That I didn't pay for it did not set my mind at ease waiting
:]for the next transmission to act up.
:]
Just for S&Ges, I'd be interested in just what kind of life this Sable
Wagon has lead.
I've been driving Ford vehicles for many years, and have never has such
experiences. Yes, my wife drives a Taurus (her second) sedan, and doesn't
seem to see these things either.
:]At 50,200 miles (just past warrenty) the 3.8 V6 engine blew a head (Svc
:]mgr said that was unusual at such low mileage) - my $1200 expense.
:]
I've heard that the 3.8L is a picky beast. It likes it oil changed, and
doesn't take well to overheating. With attention to the fine details,
They are nice engines though. However, they do have a tendancy to
warp their heads when overheated.
:]Now at 53,000 miles the A/C has fused - just cost me $2450. Again I was
:]told (Ford's cust rep) that was unusual at such low mileage.
:]
:]And dealer-service says my starter is about to go (yes, they can
:]diagnose that). est $485.
:]
Even considering the exchange rate, them's rather high prices to be payin'
for such repairs. I'd be upset, were my shop charging such rates also.
:]So what can a guy do??
:]My wife says Toyota.
HeHeHe, visit alt.autos.toyota, I'd venture the problem visible there isn't
much different from Ford. Just that Toyota owners seem to have the
perception that they're ultra-reliable. While Toyota does make an
excellent vehicle, and they do run a reputable business, I just don't see
the big difference that equates to the premium price tag that they carry.
It just happens that I'm assisting my wife's aunt in her selection of a new
vehicle, and we've looked at the Toyota Avalon (started looking at the
Camry). Looking at comparable US logo vehicles, I'm seeing about $5K US
difference 'out the door'. That $5K will fund a bit of bother.
:]My friends say lawyer.
:]Research says out of warrenty doesn't mean out of implied warrenty.
:]
HeHeHe, implied warranty doesn't seem to go as far as the manufacturer's
warranty in most places.
:]I also have a '94 Winstar - so far OK, but Toyota still seems like the
:]way to go. I like the Ford body styles & leg room, but can't keep
:]pouring money into repairs which should have been designed out by Ford -
:]they're not new to the auto business.
I'll grant you that Ford could design a better vehicle. However, that does
not seem to be what the consuming public wants from Ford. Ford has always
put a decent vehicle on the market for a decent price. You can get better
reliability from other manufacturer's, and even from Ford, but it does have
a price sticker associated with it. <g>
Jesse
Jim York
Thomas <www.coo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<33F4C0...@worldnet.att.net>...
> Mike Smolin wrote:
> >
> > David McCauslin wrote:
> > >
> > > It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first
transmission
> > > after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well,
your
> > > warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not
our
> > > concern."
I haven't been following this thread, but in my experience, Ford Taurus,
Escort, and Ranger all tend to have problems with their transmissions
(which is made worse when people try to tow things with then). My parents
owned a transmission shop and I would be willing to bet that more than 50%
of their work was on Fords.
Bill Rankin
hspe...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
> In article <5ssqmk$4un$1...@news.mich.com>, spi...@mich.com (David
> McCauslin) writes:
> > It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first
> transmission
> > after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well,
> your
> > warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not
> our
> > concern."
> >
> > Not their concern!! So they are not concerned about the consumer,
> as
> > long as they pass the initial 36000 miles!!! Which is way too soon
> these
> > days, in my opinion.
> >
> > I will never purchase a Ford product again. And any are encouraged
> to
> > ask my kids what "ford" stands for!
> >
> > - Dave
>
Transmissions are probably the most neglected mechanical contrivance
on a car. I believe most owners prefer to cry fowl when faced with the
demise of a device they do not care to know anything about. Hondas,
Volvos, Mercedes and a host of other over priced vehicles are made for
such people.
Lannie
Jim York wrote:
>
> Thomas <www.coo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <33F4C0...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > Mike Smolin wrote:
> > >
> > > David McCauslin wrote:
> > > >
> transmission
> > > > after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well,
> your
> > > > warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not
> our
> > > > concern."
>
> Escort, and Ranger all tend to have problems with their transmissions
> (which is made worse when people try to tow things with then). My parents
> owned a transmission shop and I would be willing to bet that more than 50%
> of their work was on Fords.
I heard a rumer that Ford Doesn't back up their products.
I know someone that use to sell Ford cars. He insisted that I buy a
1997 Taurus. He thinks they are great cars. Well when I mentioned that
I want a car that will last me for years, he said something very
interesting.
What he said was "that now adays, people trade their cars in every 3
years".
I think that what he was saying that most cares now adays are not
built to last beyond ther warranties.
I myself bought a Maxima after that.
I orignally want to buy an American car because I am an American and
I thought it was my patriotic duty to do so.
But I think that General Motors has let me down. When they make a
better product, then I will buy.
BrianCh302
my mom has an 89 for taurus and the trans just went with 52k miles. What
gives??????!!!!!!! It will be well over $1000 to fix it.
Dick Campagna
Reference your comment on so-called overpriced cars. The "cost" of a car
consists of more than the price you paid for it. It includes purchase
price (and financing costs, etc.), of course, maintenance/repair, fuel,
insurance and depreciation. These factors can easily be determined before
purchase. If you do this, and take all factors into account, you will find
that a so-called "overpriced" car like a Honda can be a "cheaper" car to
own than one with a lower purchase price.
Bill Rankin <gi...@voy.com> wrote in article <33F652AD...@voy.com>...
> hspe...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
>
> > In article <5ssqmk$4un$1...@news.mich.com>, spi...@mich.com (David
> > McCauslin) writes:
> > > It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first
> > transmission
> > > after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well,
> > your
> > > warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not
> > our
> > > concern."
> > >
> > > Not their concern!! So they are not concerned about the consumer,
> > as
> > > long as they pass the initial 36000 miles!!! Which is way too soon
> > these
> > > days, in my opinion.
> > >
> > > I will never purchase a Ford product again. And any are encouraged
> > to
> > > ask my kids what "ford" stands for!
> > >
> > > - Dave
> >
suga...@home.com
On 13 Aug 97 13:36:44 -0500, hspe...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
>In article <5ssqmk$4un$1...@news.mich.com>, spi...@mich.com (David McCauslin) writes:
>> It IS wrong, but a fact of life. My Taurus lost its first transmission
>> after 45000 miles. The Ford Customer Assistance Rep said, "Well, your
>> warranty was 36000 miles, and it is past that. Therefore, it is not our
>> concern."
>>
>> Not their concern!! So they are not concerned about the consumer, as
>> long as they pass the initial 36000 miles!!! Which is way too soon these
>> days, in my opinion.
>>
>> I will never purchase a Ford product again. And any are encouraged to
>> ask my kids what "ford" stands for!
>>
>> - Dave
>
Very good point about customer service. But don't bother looking for
a recall on the defectively designed transmissions. It's not a safety
issue, just an economic one.
Lexus had a major recall because they found a major design flaw (in
the engines, I think) and they fixed it, retroactive to the first car
they sold. Ford found a major design flaw and continued to produce
hundreds of thousands of them.
A very large number of Taurus\Sable\front-wheel-drive Lincoln owners
who drive carefully and maintain their cars very well (including
transmission service) experience premature transmission failures. A
statistical analysis is not necessary. Ask any transmission shop
about these transmissions. I hope Ford did something to improve the
longevity of the transmissions before they went into your Windstar.
Louis Capps
This whole conversation bothers me. I have a '95 Winstar that had to have
the transmission replaced at 32k miles under warrantee. The service guy
really didn't give much description of what went wrong other than there
were some broken parts bouncing around inside. He attributed it to a once
in a while bad new transmission so the odds are that the new one they
replaced it with should be better. I'm not comforted.
I'm wondering if the transmission really doesn't have a design flaw. In
any case if anybody finds out about a recall on these please post it.
Never had any problems with my '88 5.0 (except for rattling catalytic
converters at 110k which at first I thought was rattling rods or something
like that - I was sure I broke the engine overrevving or something, but the
emission control recall on the exhaust covered the replacement of the
cats!)
Thanks for any info on the Windstar...
Louis Capps
'88 Mustang LX 5.0, Black
'95 Windstar LX 3.8, Champagne
>In article <5ssqmk$4un$1...@news.mich.com>, spi...@mich.com (David McCauslin)
writes:
> >
> >I am checking on a recall for Windstar and Taurus transmissions now. I
own a
> >Windstar. Will I decide, on the basis of this recall, that I should buy
> >anything but a Ford product in the future? No. I base my buying
decision on
> >the design of the vehicle, the overall quality of the vehicle, the total
value
> >for dollar of the vehicle, the relationship I have with the dealer's
sales
> >department, and, absolutely, the relationship with the dealer's service
> >department.
> >
>
Terry C Cox
Very interesting,,,, My 95 Windstar also had transmission go at Exactly
32,000 miles also ( and yes , transmission had been serviced and never
abused). And yes a lot of broken parts bouncing around inside. And my
service guy confirmed they did in fact see this a lot on Windstars. (in
fact, transmission went while in dealers shop trying to get emergency
brakes fixed, been in 30+ times over last three years, still not fixed)
>
> Louis Capps <lca...@ibm.net> wrote in article
> <01bcab8d$4d690d40$6d76...@cappshome.austin.ibm.com>...
Roger White
> I haven't been following this thread, but in my experience, Ford Taurus,
> Escort, and Ranger all tend to have problems with their transmissions
> (which is made worse when people try to tow things with then). My parents
> owned a transmission shop and I would be willing to bet that more than 50%
> of their work was on Fords.
In 1993 when I was having some gear work done on my '92 5.0, the
transmission tech in the next bay said that if it was not for Taurus'
transmission problems, he would not have much to do.
--
Roger White
Murphy, Texas
1997 Cobra (stock so far)
1995 GTS 14.01 @ 100 mph (GT-40 engine/E-303 cam/3.73's, etc.)
1992 LX AOD (almost back to stock and then it's for sell)
1978 Fairmont (351W/C-4) (project car, sleeper on the street)
1993 Explorer (wife's car)
Thomas
I wrote awhile back about my experience with my 1987 5.0 Ford Mustang
sedan and 1996 Honda Civic... and then started thinking. The cars are
both made in the USA! You know even in the damm RV newsgroups they are
bitching and want the Japanese manufacturers to build an RV! It's a
joke... the US's people can build it, don't be so easily brainwashed...
but are the workers and people to apathetic to even care?
The problem with any car made in the USA or anywhere else will be
dependent upon the teams manufacturing the vehicles. For example, the
ZR-1 Corvette engine was NOT manufactured by Chevrolet! It was
manufactured by Munson Marine due to the lack of capability of the
current staff at GM!!!
What we are dealing with here is the location of the plants VS the local
population pool they hire from whose talent and educational levels
effect their desire and abilities to manufacture the object they are
hired for. The manufacturers and unions have the most senior people
manufacture the vehicles... and the most senior people may not know the
most up to date technologies, have bad habits, have developed inferior
products previously... etc.
So it is alot more than the manufacturer. It is management of the
manufacturer and union being able to get the workers to continue to
strive toward a great product, the engineers designing a well thought
out product, the plant employees being capable enough and caring enough
to create the product, the retailer being fair enough not to gouge you
on the purchase and maintanence, and of course... the end user applying
the product for it's intended task properly and maintaining it
appropriately.
In the Soviet Union the endusers pull their wiper blades when it stops
raining (Yes, so they don't get stolen... but they probably take care of
their cars too since they take up five years of their entire takehome to
buy.), in Japan they check the oil almost every week they drive their
vehicle (Hence the failure of the first rotary motors from Mazda when
they arrived here in the USA.), in the USA... I don't know? Are we
moving to a totaly disposable car too?
T.B.I.
Spell checker off to confound!
Robert Thomson wrote:
>
> Dick Campagna wrote:
> >
> > Reference your comment on so-called overpriced cars. The "cost" of a car
> > consists of more than the price you paid for it. It includes purchase
> > price (and financing costs, etc.), of course, maintenance/repair, fuel,
> > insurance and depreciation. These factors can easily be determined before
> > purchase. If you do this, and take all factors into account, you will find
> > that a so-called "overpriced" car like a Honda can be a "cheaper" car to
> > own than one with a lower purchase price.
>
> My personal experience does not agree with that. My Honda has been
> rock solid reliable (93 Civic), but the routine maintenance cost has
> far exceeded the routine maintenance cost on my Ford Taurus, or my
> old Mercury Cougar. As for insurance, the insurance cost on the
> Honda also exceeds the Fords. Both Fords were, and are cheaper to
> own and operate than my Honda.
>
> I do regard my Honda as overpriced. It's a good car, but very
> expensive for what it is.
Robert Thomson
Thomas
Robert Hall wrote:
>
> Thomas wrote: In the Soviet Union the endusers pull their wiper blades
> when it stops
>
> > raining (Yes, so they don't get stolen... but they probably take care
> > of
> > their cars too since they take up five years of their entire takehome
> > to
> > buy.), in Japan they check the oil almost every week they drive their
> > vehicle (Hence the failure of the first rotary motors from Mazda when
> > they arrived here in the USA.), in the USA... I don't know? Are we
> > moving to a totaly disposable car too?
>
> That's just common sense, isn't it?
>
> Rob
In the United States... you are a rare bird! Think again...
How many of your neighors do that. Hehehe.... NONE.
T.B.I.
Mohammad Farid
In a recent survey on reliability of different makes and models in the UK
(published in What Car? Magazine, UK) FORD came almost at the bottom
of the table with about 25% break downs on cars under 4 year old (most of
them nearly new). Japanese makes and Merc and BMW came on top.
Now let me tell you about my own experience with a FORD Escort Auto that
I bought in April this year. I asked the dealers to give me two years full
manufacturers
warranty instead of a discount. The car had 12800 miles on the clock and
was about
9 months old. It had full inspection certificate and approval of the RAC
(Royal Automobile
Club, UK). two days after delivery, I heard a very loud screeching noise
from the back
when I was braking. The screeching noise was also present when I lift my
foot from
the brake. Anyway I called the RAC and they came immediately and after
inspection
advised me to have full brake inspection at once. I took the car to the
Dealer and after
inspection they found one of the brake cylinders in the back was seized.
The repair was
done under warranty immediately.
About a week later I noticed that every time in the morning I change the
gear from P
to D the engine stalls. The same thing happened when I changed between D
and R. Normally
after the second attempt everything was OK. I took the car back to the
Dealer and after
inspection they ordered 8 items for the Engine Management Unit and the CTX
Automatic
Gear Box. All the work was done under warranty. Later I realized FORD
Engineers had
made a mistake in their first design and the new items actually replaced
the components
with bad design. The car is OK now. My car I think has cost FORD a lot
money, I guess
at least 1500 British Pounds (about $2250). Having an extended warranty is
essential
if you are buying a used FORD, the odds are against you!! If it wasn't
because of my
friendship with the Dealers I wouldn't have bought a FORD car.
--
Mohammad Farid,
email: m.f...@city.ac.uk
URL: http://www.city.ac.uk/~farid
Louis Capps <lca...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<01bcab8d$4d690d40$6d76...@cappshome.austin.ibm.com>...
> This whole conversation bothers me. I have a '95 Winstar that had to
have
> the transmission replaced at 32k miles under warrantee. The service guy
> really didn't give much description of what went wrong other than there
> were some broken parts bouncing around inside. He attributed it to a
once
Robert Hall
Thomas wrote: In the Soviet Union the endusers pull their wiper blades
when it stops
> raining (Yes, so they don't get stolen... but they probably take care
> of
> their cars too since they take up five years of their entire takehome
> to
> buy.), in Japan they check the oil almost every week they drive their
> vehicle (Hence the failure of the first rotary motors from Mazda when
> they arrived here in the USA.), in the USA... I don't know? Are we
> moving to a totaly disposable car too?
Hmm... I check my oil, tire pressure, brake fluid, etc. once a week.
That's just common sense, isn't it?
Rob
>
>
> T.B.I.
> Spell checker off to confound!
>
> Robert Thomson wrote:
> >
Phoenix Agritech
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:05:28 -0500, Roger White <AJ...@msg.ti.com>
wrote:
Funny thing about Overdrive Transmissions. I have 1989 Topaz (which
most people agree is not the best car model and it has had a lot of
problems) but it has gone 170K and 8 years with the same transmission
and the last 40000 K I haven't exactly treated it with kid gloves
(mostly because the rest of the car is a piece of junk and I'm getting
a new one this fall). I've done it all to it put in reverse and given
it a little gas then slammed it into Drive and floored the gas pedal
(it's the only way to get a 100hp car to spin it's wheels). I've also
floored it when getting onto the highway (it accelerates to about 60
KM's and redlines and the transmission waits about 2 secs to shift
into second not exactly a sports cars) but it refuses to quit. The
most I've ever had to do is add a litre of Transmission fluid. On the
other hand my father has a F150 from the same year 1989 with an over
drive transmission with only 120 K on it (compared to my 170) he
always treated it right but as I write this he is getting it rebuilt
for about $1500.
Sure makes me belive in 3 Speed Transmissions and Stick Shifts too. I
rather replace a $90 clutch ever so many years than a $1500
transmission.
Graham
1989 Mecury Topaz "THE BEAST"
Dick Campagna
You forgot to factor in fuel and the big one . . . depreciation. And,
going by the info on the Ford newsgroup, it looks like you might expect one
or several transmission rebuilds coming up on your Taurus.
Robert Thomson <rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote in article
<33F84F...@mail91.mitre.org>...
Teena
I haven't really been following this thread BUT when I bought my car w/
OD tranny I knew it had problems and it got me a good deal, before
having it redone for only $500, I open'd it up and I saw what I expected
to see on this 120K unit... the original factory filter... this tranny
would have last ALOT longer with regular filter and fluid changes, all
it needed was some new clutches and work done on the fliud pump, but
like I said, I got a good deal on the car because I knew the tranny was
in for it so I got right to it and had it fixed, on my next project I am
getting an engine and tranny and swap those into whatever.
DD
Chris Toney
Wow my first read on this thread and I thought my 92 Ranger fork
breakage was just bad luck! $2000 down the drain!
Robert Thomson
> On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:00:28 -0400, Robert Thomson wrote:
<snip>
> >no major problems ever. I am very much a Ford fan, but there
> >appears to be something wrong with the AXOD and AXOD-E design.
> >My 94 Taurus (AXOD-E) slips badly going into second.
Just as a follow-up, if anyone cares, I had my tranny checked
for slippage. Apperantly it is designed to shift very softly
at light throttle. So it's not slipping ... it's a feature.
At full throttle it shifts fine. I also was informed that
my 94 has the AX4S tranny.
Robert Hall
Thomas wrote:
> Robert Hall wrote:
> >
>
> > Hmm... I check my oil, tire pressure, brake fluid, etc. once a week.
>
> > That's just common sense, isn't it?
> >
> > Rob
>
> In the United States... you are a rare bird! Think again...
Yeah, common sense is an uncommon attribute..
Rob
** WIDE GLIDE **
RickB wrote:
> I have a 95 Explorer 45K. Replaced the tranny last week!!
> This is definitely my first and last ford! anybody agree?
NO!
--
(check the address before replying)
-Karl Fengler---------------- BRONCO*351 - FXDWG -
---------------------------- karl_f...@hp.com -
-!! You Have Strayed Upon The Motorway To HELL !!-
robe...@erols.com
I like my (used) 94 Taurus. Given that the transmission is a "likely"
failure item, what additional maintenance should I give it? Any
suggestions?
BTW I agree with the analysis below. My '91 Camry is currently very
reliable (112,000 miles), but for the first 40,000 miles had more
problems then a Vega, is hard to drive on roads with a significant
crown (and up here in New England, that includes most interstates), is
starting to rot, costs as much to insure as my Taurus, and service is
a bundle. May or may not buy another Ford (talk to me in 5 or 6
years), but probably won't buy another Toyota either. What's the
message - some cars may satistically be better than others, but each
one is a roll of the dice when it comes to reliability. Just my 2
cents worth.
Bob
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:11:50 -0400, Robert Thomson
<rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote:
>Dick Campagna wrote:
>>
>> You forgot to factor in fuel and the big one . . . depreciation. And,
>> going by the info on the Ford newsgroup, it looks like you might expect one
>> or several transmission rebuilds coming up on your Taurus.
>
>I did consider both fuel and depreciation. Depreciation can be
>your friend. I buy my cars used, at 2 or 3 years old, and never
>sell them until they are trash. I choose to buy my Taurus
>(used) specifically because it had depreciated more than similar
>Hondas or Toyotas. So I could get more car for the same money.
>(BTW: When I was buying the Taurus my first choice was a Camry
>wagon. But, to get a similarly equiped used Camry would have
>cost me between $3000 and $4000 more!!) A car that holds it's
>value well is less appealing to me. If you are the type of
>person to get a new car every 5 years (read: more money than
>sense), then yes depreciation is bad. (BTW, I don't finance
>either. I save up the cash in advance, so I get the interest,
>not some bank. Financing is a sucker bet. If you can avoid
>it, it is to your advantage.)
>
>As for fuel, At the time I also calculated the difference in fuel
>costs for my cars. My Civic gets 48-50mpg highway (really). My
>Taurus gets only 27mpg highway. The difference over 100,000mi
>is about $2000. 100,000mi is maybe 8 years for me. What does a
>V6 Camry wagon get .. maybe 30-35mpg? The savings in fuel was
>not even a significant factor, and certainly did not outweigh the
>high purchase price of a used Toyota.
>
>As for the tranny failures, you need to go back and read more
>carefully. The main problem year for Taurus was 91. 89 and 92
>are not great either. I own a 94. By 94 Ford had resolved the
>planetary gear failure by re-routing the oil feed tubes, and had
>resolved the forward clutch piston failure by making the part out
>of steel vs. aluminum. (AX4S tranny). I believe the reliability
>rating for the 94 was around the industry average. So, no I don't
>expect a tranny rebuild any time soon. Besides, for the $3000+ that
>I saved by not blowing my money on a Toyota, I can afford several
>tranny rebuilds.
>
>I could look up my insurance rates, but I don't really want to spend
>the time. I seem to remember that my Civic runs me about $100 more a
>year than the Taurus. I did not get a quote for the Camry when I was
>car shopping though.
>
>So, I don't think I did forget anything Dick. If my Taurus does
>turn out to be very unreliable in the long run, then perhaps the
>cost will even out. But, that has not been my experience. I maintain
>my cars very well, and my Fords have always served me well.
>
>One point I think you may be forgetting though: Take a walk through
>a junkyard sometime. Look at the Honda's and Toyotas, then look at
>the Mid size and larger Fords and GM's. The smaller imports seem
>to disintegrate in a serious collision, where as the larger heavier
>cars do much better. Forget about crash tests into a barrier. Look
>at fatality rates. Bigger cars ARE safer. I have a 1 year old
>daughter that I love very much. I think my Civic will be my last
>small car.
>
>Regards,
>Bob
>
>> Robert Thomson <rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote in article
>> <33F84F...@mail91.mitre.org>...
>> > Dick Campagna wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Reference your comment on so-called overpriced cars. The "cost" of a
>> car
>> > > consists of more than the price you paid for it. It includes purchase
>> > > price (and financing costs, etc.), of course, maintenance/repair, fuel,
>> > > insurance and depreciation. These factors can easily be determined
>> before
>> > > purchase. If you do this, and take all factors into account, you will
>> find
>> > > that a so-called "overpriced" car like a Honda can be a "cheaper" car
>> to
>> > > own than one with a lower purchase price.
>> >
>> > My personal experience does not agree with that. My Honda has been
>> > rock solid reliable (93 Civic), but the routine maintenance cost has
>> > far exceeded the routine maintenance cost on my Ford Taurus, or my
>> > old Mercury Cougar. As for insurance, the insurance cost on the
>> > Honda also exceeds the Fords. Both Fords were, and are cheaper to
>> > own and operate than my Honda.
>> >
>> > I do regard my Honda as overpriced. It's a good car, but very
>> > expensive for what it is.
>> >
>
>--
>======================================================================
> \_____ \______ \______ | Robert T Thomson
> \__ \__ \__ \__ | The MITRE Corporation
> \_____ \__ \__ | Mission Planning
> \__ \__ \__ \__ | Bedford, MA
> \__ \__ \__ \__ | (617) 271-6480
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> rtho...@mitre.org Don't be kind to animals ... EAT THEM!
>======================================================================
Rick
If any one wants more power out a ford explorer get a supercharger I
just got a used vortech last month and it gave me the power to keep up
with my friend stock mustang!!! wow!! Thats what he said and he runs,
14.78@some speed My Explorer will now bury the speedometer and take it
all the way aroud to zero on the speedo that is about 130-140 by the way
only cost 2000 much cheaper than new
Robert Thomson
mj...@mail.netshop.net wrote:
>
> In article <33FB12...@mail91.mitre.org>, rtho...@mail91.mitre.org
> says...
> transmission wear over time. It shouldn't "slip" at all. Did they tell
> you that you should floor it off of every traffic light? Doesn't seem to
> make sense to me...
First off, what I am calling slippage, is just a long shift. Like
letting out the clutch a bit too slowly. I would rather it chirp
second, but that's just me. My wife is sure to disagree.
No, they said Ford was getting complaints about harsh shift, so they
lowered line pressure for light and medium throttle shifts. I agree
that this might be a source of increased wear, and definatly a source
of unwanted heat. No good can come of this.
The dealer said they could inspect the main control valve for wear,
but there would be no difference. I guess the only remedy would be
to find an aftermarket main control valve which allows higher line
pressure? So they say anyway.
> How about keeping the group informed if the problem seems to get worse
> over time?
So far the tranny has performed consistently (now at 32K mi). It has
not degraded in any way. That's good so far. We shall see.
I can keep the group informed, but I only clock about 10K mi per year,
so it may be a while (I hope).
Jack Sanders
robe...@erols.com wrote:
>I like my (used) 94 Taurus. Given that the transmission is a "likely"
>failure item, what additional maintenance should I give it? Any
>suggestions?
<snip>
I heard of the Ford transmission problem in connection with fleet use,
such as police departments. Ford FWD systems, like the Taurus, are
less sturdy than the RWD systems. That's part of the reason why you
see Caprices and large Fords in police fleets; gasoline costs more,
but maintenance on the transmission costs less. Since we are not as
hard on our transmissions as the police are, it may not be a problem.
Just change your transmission fluid at recommended intervals, and keep
an eye on the fluid level. I had my 1989 Taurus transmission rebuilt
at 48,000 miles (under warranty), and I bought another Ford product.
Everything mechanical breaks, so anecdotal evidence is hard to take as
gospel. I'm not belittling the folks wo have had problems, they are
real and a serious expense.
Jack Sanders
my opinions, not necessarily the management's
SMITEX
I also had a problem with my transmission (transaxle) in my '93 ESCORT
WAGON. We had it replaced 3 times! All within 77,000
miles. We found out it had the MAZDA built ECAT (electronic controlled
automatic trans)! Ford did fix it the first time, 2nd and 3rd by AAMCO.
Crazy. I talked to FORD a couple of times - might as well been talking to
the wall. We decided to look for another car, we pretty much lost our
confidence in the car. We went to a ford dealer - the salesman just walked
behind us, did not even try to sell us a car. We now drive a "SATURN" ford
needs to take some lessons from these guys on how to treat customers. these
guys sold "5" cars in the hour we sat in the show rooM!!! We did like the
ESCORT - good car, except for the transaxle and fords attitude. I will
drive fords as long as they are 30 years old or older - I have a "68
mustang that runs great, original motor and tranny, LOVE THOSE PONIES.
steve smith
Mike A. Penner
I had a '94 Taurus wagon that I am thankful to no longer own. Among
the numerous problems that I had with the car in the year and a half
that I owned it was a transmission failure. I talked to a friend of
mine that owns a transmission shop and he told me that the AXOD and
AXOD-E transmissions are a known problem. Apparently, there is not
enough lubrication to some of gears in the rear of the transmission
under certain conditions. Ford has known about this for a long time,
and advertised that it had been fixed in the AXOD-E tranny, but it is
still a problem. Most aftermarket rebuilders install what is known as
a "full lub kit" during a rebuild, that fixes the problem.
BTW, the only transmission that they see more of in this particular
shop is the one in the Chrysler mini-van. According to some of the
Chrysler engineers that have conducted seminars for this shop, this is
the least expensive auto tranmission ever produced.
Robert Thomson <rtho...@mail91.mitre.org> wrote:
Opinions Expresses Are Entirely My Own.
In Fact It Is Rare That Anybody Agrees With Me.
Mike Penner | "Firearms Stand Next In Importance To The
Lucent Technologies | Constitution Itself. They Are The American
m...@cbmsg.att.com | People's Liberty Teeth." George Washington
Mark Kolber
mj...@mail.netshop.net wrote:
....
> >> >My 94 Taurus (AXOD-E) slips badly going into second.
> >
> >Just as a follow-up, if anyone cares, I had my tranny checked
> >for slippage. Apperantly it is designed to shift very softly
> >at light throttle. So it's not slipping ... it's a feature.
> >At full throttle it shifts fine. I also was informed that
> >my 94 has the AX4S tranny.
>
I also have a 94 Taurus.. mine seems to have a very soft shift from 2nd
to 3rd. First to second doesn't seem too bad. Mine has a 3.8L engine.
Is the AX4S tranny in our car the same as the AXOD that seems to have a
bad reputation?
Mark K
--
To reply via E-Mail:
Please remove (NOSPAM) from the return address.
Thank You.
David Wagner
In article <340F72...@dynanetNOSPAM.com>, Mark Kolber
<mko...@dynanetNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> Is the AX4S tranny in our car the same as the AXOD that seems to have a
> bad reputation?
According to my Chilton manual, the AXOD was succeeded by the AXOD-E
(which added electronic controls), and the AXOD-E was replaced by
the AX4N (non-synchronized) and the AX4S (synchronized). I still haven't
figured out which one is in my 93 Taurus 3.0L wagon. I can't tell
you whether the problems are just as bad for the AX4S/AX4N. I am
nervous about it though.
David Wagner
Just my opinion.
Glen Grant
I guess I have been one of the lucky ones , I have almost 90000 miles
on my 92 Taurus and so far it is still running . The 3.0 engine has been
the strong part of the whole car . Besides that the reliability of the
vehicle has sucked . Broken engine mounts , premature failure of coolant
hoses , TPS sensor gone bad (high idle) , currently has a vacuum problem
where it switches from the vent to defrost mode when accelerating . Been
towed twice for these problems . I'll try to get a couple more years out
of it then sayonara FORD !!! I wouldn't get another Ford if you paid
me for it . Besides they ruined the Taurus a couple years ago when they
redesigned it , it is UGLYYYYYYYY now . What were these guys thinking
, not just outside , the interior looks ridiculous .
Dr. Bob
Glen Grant <gmg...@mail.netacc.net> wrote:
Glen:
There's a check valve at the vacuum reservoir. Clean it or replace it
as necessary. That should take care of the diverter problem.
I always wonder why it's called a reservoir, when the less it holds
the better it's working...
I agree with you on the styling. Designed by a team of folks who are
used to going in circles. Take a look at the new '98 Accord. and see
what the competition has in store. Bigger, quicker, costs less, looks
better than last year. Taurus will have their hands full for the '98
model year. Camry nudged Ford out of first this year so far, and
Honda may take both in '98. Wake up over there, Ford!
dr bob
Bob Webbink
mailto-...@worldnet.att.net (Dr. Bob) writes:
>I agree with you on the styling. Designed by a team of folks who are
>used to going in circles. Take a look at the new '98 Accord. and see
>what the competition has in store. Bigger, quicker, costs less, looks
>better than last year. Taurus will have their hands full for the '98
>model year. Camry nudged Ford out of first this year so far, and
>Honda may take both in '98. Wake up over there, Ford!
You actually think the 98 Accord looks better?!?!?! IMHO, Honda couldn't
have styled a duller car if they'd tried. When the current Accord came out,
they were nailed for styling it too conservatively, and now this new one
comes out with a far more conservative style than the old. It seems Honda
is the one that needs to wake up. Personally, I like the styling of the
new Taurus. At the very least you have to admit that Ford isn't out
copying the same styling that everyone else seems to be using. And the
ergonomics of the interior are second to none, IMO. Besides, even the
price cuts Honda is offering for the 98's will be hard-pressed to match
the cuts in the price of the Taurus (average decrease almost $1300, if I
remember correctly). Considering that a 97 Accord EX V6 with Auto has an
MSRP of $25495, while an identically equipped Taurus LX is about $24300
MSRP, while getting similar performance numbers, a better chance to
negotiate, and better rebates, Honda will have to do more than cut a few
hundred off... I believe with the exception of the SHO, the most expensive
98 Taurus will run just slightly over $22000.
Oh - and btw - the 96 and 97 Taurus/Sable have actually sold better in the
retail market than the previous generation....
>dr bob
--
******************************************************************************
Bob Webbink bweb...@cco.caltech.edu
California Institute of Technology bweb...@ugcs.caltech.edu
*****************************************************************************
Mark Kolber
Mike A. Penner wrote:
>
> I had a '94 Taurus wagon that I am thankful to no longer own. Among
> the numerous problems that I had with the car in the year and a half
> that I owned it was a transmission failure. I talked to a friend of
> mine that owns a transmission shop and he told me that the AXOD and
> AXOD-E transmissions are a known problem. Apparently, there is not
> enough lubrication to some of gears in the rear of the transmission
> under certain conditions. Ford has known about this for a long time,
> and advertised that it had been fixed in the AXOD-E tranny, but it is
> still a problem. Most aftermarket rebuilders install what is known as
> a "full lub kit" during a rebuild, that fixes the problem.
I have a 94 Tauraus w/ 3.8 L engine. The Service manual says it has an
AX4S trans. In the service manual, the picture of the AX4S trans shows
the words AXOD METRIC stsmped on the side of the trans.
Questions...
How can I tell if my car has an AX4S or AXOD trans?
Are they the same thing? What are the diffreences?
Does the AX4S have the same "problems" as the AXOD?
Thanks.
Mark K
Churchville PA
Mark Kovalsky
Mark Kolber wrote:
<SNIP>
> I have a 94 Tauraus w/ 3.8 L engine. The Service manual says it has an
> AX4S trans. In the service manual, the picture of the AX4S trans shows
> the words AXOD METRIC stsmped on the side of the trans.
>
> Questions...
>
> How can I tell if my car has an AX4S or AXOD trans?
>
> Are they the same thing? What are the diffreences?
They are the same thing. In 1994 they changed the name to AX4S because
Ford introduced a new model based off the AXOD called the AX4N. They
are different so a new name was needed.
--
Mark
----------------------------
'30 Ford Model "A" Tudor
'94 Ford Club Wagon 7.3L Diesel with Hypermax Turbo
'94 Sportsmen's 37' Travel Trailer
'97 Ford Taurus SHO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rex
Glen Grant wrote:
> I guess I have been one of the lucky ones , I have almost 90000 miles
> on my 92 Taurus and so far it is still running . The 3.0 engine has been
> the strong part of the whole car . Besides that the reliability of the
> vehicle has sucked . Broken engine mounts , premature failure of coolant
> hoses , TPS sensor gone bad (high idle) , currently has a vacuum problem
> where it switches from the vent to defrost mode when accelerating . Been
> towed twice for these problems . I'll try to get a couple more years out
> of it then sayonara FORD !!! I wouldn't get another Ford if you paid
> me for it . Besides they ruined the Taurus a couple years ago when they
> redesigned it , it is UGLYYYYYYYY now . What were these guys thinking
> , not just outside , the interior looks ridiculous .
Hmmmm...then buy something else; but, for God's sake, quit your whining.
Rex (Like anyone really cares...)
netman
Bob Webbink wrote:
> >dr bob.....
Dear writer.........I gotta take issue with your BTW writing......how do you
figure and I do mean FIGURE..that the Taurus/Sable have sold more vehicles RETAIL
than the Accord??......You better do the math again guy......fleet sales should
not count in the equation.......As for styling.....it is all subjective....you
like what you like.......but please be real about your sales stats!
Bob Webbink
netman <ran...@iamerica.net> writes:
>> Oh - and btw - the 96 and 97 Taurus/Sable have actually sold better in the
>> retail market than the previous generation....
>>
>Dear writer.........I gotta take issue with your BTW writing......how do you
>figure and I do mean FIGURE..that the Taurus/Sable have sold more vehicles RETAIL
>than the Accord??......You better do the math again guy......fleet sales should
>not count in the equation.......As for styling.....it is all subjective....you
>like what you like.......but please be real about your sales stats!
If you could actually learn to read, you would notice that I said that the
96/97 Taurus/Sable have sold more cars in the retail market than the
*PREVIOUS GENERATION*..... any fool could realize this was referring to
the -95 models of the Taurus and Sable, not the Camry and Accord...
John
I had an 87 Taurus with the same tranny. It had 120000 miles on it and
went through 2 of them. I always see tauruss at the tranny shops as
well... it is a problem and all we can do is not buy them....
Tim