On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:44:14 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?
>
> Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the
> Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing.

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

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

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