2000 Concorde LXi Tranmission

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Steve wrote:

> Let me play Karnac the Magnificent, and I'll predict the reply:
>
> ---
>
> Dear Mr. Gregory,
>
> Thank you for your letter concerning your DaimlerChrysler product. We
> appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.
>
> Regarding your questions about transmission fluid change intervals,
> please refer to your owners manual. Follow the service schedule that
> corresponds to the way you use your DaimlerChrysler Vehicle.
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.
>
> ---

Yep. It's a variation on what you get if you write to complain about the
specific implementation of any aspect of the vehicle:

Thank you for your letter concerning your <automaker> product. We
appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.

Regarding your questions about <poor headlamp performance, turn signals,
seat belts, gas filler door sticking in cold weather, cupholder size,
whatever>: Please be advised that all <automaker> products, including your
vehicle, comply in full with all applicable Federal standards.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.

Sincerely,

Misti Debbi Blondi,
<automaker> Customer Relations

Well... perhaps it will come to pass as you suggest, however, I've had
considerable success in such maters by sending them to an individual. And
that individual has to be an executive. Executives don't want to see or hear
about their names being associated with negative press (the net). Often -
usually very large corporations - their executive assistants write back with
a letter containing some of what you suggest but nearly always with the name
of someone they're giving it; that the old fly paper trap. Got it, get rid
of it, still got it, get rid of it.... it goes in circles. They want to get
rid of the piece of paper in their hand but the damn thing has their name on
it. What to do? "Give it to Mikey. He'll eat it!" So Mikey get's it. Sooner
or later it get low enough in the chain to where it lands on someone's desk
who really understand the issues and has the capability of addressing them;
usually an engineer or project manager. Because it now has HIS/HER name on
it... and it came from above ... sent by someone "brave" enough to write the
top brass... hey, man... better answer this so it stops flying around. "No
on else ta' give it to!"

It starts with something like this:

Dear Mr. Zetsche:



I realize this is misdirected but I want to make sure I receive a definitive
response to the questions I ask. As a man in charge of producing a great
car, I 'm sure you recognize the importance of solid communication with the
consumers who buy those cars and keep those plants of yours running as well
as they do; we're a fickle lot. So please see that his/her gets placed into
the hands of a capable individual who can answer these questions.

But... maybe I'll strike out. But again... maybe not. We'll see.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Steve wrote:
>
>> Let me play Karnac the Magnificent, and I'll predict the reply:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Dear Mr. Gregory,
>>
>> Thank you for your letter concerning your DaimlerChrysler product. We
>> appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.
>>
>> Regarding your questions about transmission fluid change intervals,
>> please refer to your owners manual. Follow the service schedule that
>> corresponds to the way you use your DaimlerChrysler Vehicle.
>>
>> Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.
>>
>> ---
>
> Yep. It's a variation on what you get if you write to complain about the
> specific implementation of any aspect of the vehicle:
>
> Thank you for your letter concerning your <automaker> product. We
> appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.
>
> Regarding your questions about <poor headlamp performance, turn signals,
> seat belts, gas filler door sticking in cold weather, cupholder size,
> whatever>: Please be advised that all <automaker> products, including your
> vehicle, comply in full with all applicable Federal standards.
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Misti Debbi Blondi,
> <automaker> Customer Relations

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:

> Dear Mr. Zetsche:
>
> I realize this is misdirected but I want to make sure I receive a
> definitive response to the questions I ask. As a man in charge of
> producing a great car, I 'm sure you recognize the importance of solid
> communication with the consumers who buy those cars and keep those
> plants of yours running as well as they do; we're a fickle lot. So
> please see that his/her gets placed into the hands of a capable
> individual who can answer these questions.
>
> But... maybe I'll strike out.

You certainly will with that sloppy grammar and syntax.

LOL
"aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "maxpower" > wrote:
>
> > I wonder if you read the word normally in this statement?
>
> Yes I did. Your use of the word "normally" suggests that on one
> day the page in the labor guide says one thing and on another
> day, it says something else.

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> maxpower wrote:
> > "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>maxpower wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The dealership I work at would have charged you 1 hr labor, In order to
> >>>verify which part is bad you would have had to at least remove the
> >>>connectors to perform the test...
> >>
> >>Not true.
> >
> >
> > whats not true?
>
> Read the very next sentence I wrote. You said that to verify which part
> (I assume you mean input vs. output sensor), you have to run a
> diagnostic. My very next sentence (still below) says that the fact that
> the speeodmeter doesn't work when it goes into limp mode tells you that
> it's the output sensor.

If the customer already told you that, then you
> are ripping him off by charging him to re-discover what he already told
> you that completely diagnoses it for you.

Ripping him off??? or verifying the repair?? I mean you still have the 6
step trouble shoot even if we know what the problem is.
>
> > The fact that, along with the limp mode, the speedometer was
> >
> >>not working tells you with a fair degree of certainty that the output
> >>sensor was bad.

That is true, for me and you, we know what is bad, but for Joe blow or
Aarcuda down the street, he may not know that, Also just because the
customer says his speedo doesnt work doesnt mean that there may be something
else wrong, maybe another fault, We at least want to check the system with
the DRB and then clear the codes and test drive it. The labor op for the
sensor is .2 the diagnostic time is .6.
> >>
> >>I get the impression from some people that some dealers would not do
> >>certain work, like replace a sensor, without doing and charging for a
> >>diagnostic. Out of curiosity, if I walked into your dealership and said
> >>"I am pretty certain that my output sensor is bad. If I agree to pay
> >>your price for replacing the sensor and accept the possibility that that
> >>isn't the problem, will you replace the output sensor without charging
> >>me for a diagnostic test?" would they do that?
> >
> >
> > And yes if the cust only wanted the part we would have to install the
part.
> > The same as nrake work, if the cust doesnt want the rotors turned, we
wont
> > machine the rotors,
> > There will be notes on the owners RO
>
> Well good. So why do you perform and charge for a diagnosis when the
> customer already told you the work he wanted done and the diagnosis
> won't affect the outcome? That's like going to a doctor with a cut on
> your finger, and he won't sew it up until he takes photos of the cut and
> sends it off to a specialist to verify that it is indeed cut and that it
> needs to be sewn up. For goodness sake - sew it up and quit gouging the
> customer with bogus charges.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

"maxpower" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Well good. So why do you perform and charge for a diagnosis when the
> > customer already told you the work he wanted done and the diagnosis
> > won't affect the outcome? That's like going to a doctor with a cut on
> > your finger, and he won't sew it up until he takes photos of the cut and
> > sends it off to a specialist to verify that it is indeed cut and that it
> > needs to be sewn up. For goodness sake - sew it up and quit gouging the
> > customer with bogus charges.
> >
> > Bill Putney

if a person comes to my dealership and says "my output speed sensor is bad"
my reply is if you would like for me to replace the sensor and not do any
diagnosis, I would be proud to perform the repair BUT I cannot guarantee
that will fix your issue without proper diagnosis.

Your "pearls" will be right there swirling among all the other grammatical
errors, Daniel.

"The manual has claimed "No fluid change is necessary" for decades now. It
was OK to follow this suggestion in the days of the overengineered,
bulletproof Torqueflite transmissions. With the electronic transmissions,
it's difficult to change the fluid often enough."

Indeed! :-)



"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Zetsche:
>>
>> I realize this is misdirected but I want to make sure I receive a
>> definitive response to the questions I ask. As a man in charge of
>> producing a great car, I 'm sure you recognize the importance of solid
>> communication with the consumers who buy those cars and keep those
>> plants of yours running as well as they do; we're a fickle lot. So
>> please see that his/her gets placed into the hands of a capable
>> individual who can answer these questions.
>>
>> But... maybe I'll strike out.
>
> You certainly will with that sloppy grammar and syntax.

What's the point? An "executive" doesn't know dick about transmissions
unless he came up through engineering, in which case he probably knows
more detailed info about a 1980 Torqueflite 904 than about the current
products. He's just going to punt it off to a flunkie, who may or may
not bump in to the right engineer who knows the real answer. Either way,
you'll get a "definitive" answer, but the odds of it being right are
about 50/50.

In this case, the sensible thing to do is what everyone who is familiar
with these transmissions recommends: follow the "severe usage" schedule.
Your bases are covered that way.

John Gregory wrote:

> Well... perhaps it will come to pass as you suggest, however, I've had
> considerable success in such maters by sending them to an individual. And
> that individual has to be an executive. Executives don't want to see or hear
> about their names being associated with negative press (the net). Often -
> usually very large corporations - their executive assistants write back with
> a letter containing some of what you suggest but nearly always with the name
> of someone they're giving it; that the old fly paper trap. Got it, get rid
> of it, still got it, get rid of it.... it goes in circles. They want to get
> rid of the piece of paper in their hand but the damn thing has their name on
> it. What to do? "Give it to Mikey. He'll eat it!" So Mikey get's it. Sooner
> or later it get low enough in the chain to where it lands on someone's desk
> who really understand the issues and has the capability of addressing them;
> usually an engineer or project manager. Because it now has HIS/HER name on
> it... and it came from above ... sent by someone "brave" enough to write the
> top brass... hey, man... better answer this so it stops flying around. "No
> on else ta' give it to!"
>
> It starts with something like this:
>
> Dear Mr. Zetsche:
>
>
>
> I realize this is misdirected but I want to make sure I receive a definitive
> response to the questions I ask. As a man in charge of producing a great
> car, I 'm sure you recognize the importance of solid communication with the
> consumers who buy those cars and keep those plants of yours running as well
> as they do; we're a fickle lot. So please see that his/her gets placed into
> the hands of a capable individual who can answer these questions.
>
> But... maybe I'll strike out. But again... maybe not. We'll see.
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> .umich.edu...
>
>>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let me play Karnac the Magnificent, and I'll predict the reply:
>>>
>>>---
>>>
>>>Dear Mr. Gregory,
>>>
>>>Thank you for your letter concerning your DaimlerChrysler product. We
>>>appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.
>>>
>>>Regarding your questions about transmission fluid change intervals,
>>>please refer to your owners manual. Follow the service schedule that
>>>corresponds to the way you use your DaimlerChrysler Vehicle.
>>>
>>>Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.
>>>
>>>---
>>
>>Yep. It's a variation on what you get if you write to complain about the
>>specific implementation of any aspect of the vehicle:
>>
>>Thank you for your letter concerning your <automaker> product. We
>>appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.
>>
>>Regarding your questions about <poor headlamp performance, turn signals,
>>seat belts, gas filler door sticking in cold weather, cupholder size,
>>whatever>: Please be advised that all <automaker> products, including your
>>vehicle, comply in full with all applicable Federal standards.
>>
>>Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Misti Debbi Blondi,
>><automaker> Customer Relations
>
>
>

In article >,
"maxpower" > wrote:

> LOL
> "aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "maxpower" > wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if you read the word normally in this statement?
> >
> > Yes I did. Your use of the word "normally" suggests that on one
> > day the page in the labor guide says one thing and on another
> > day, it says something else.

Well, does it or doesn't it?

That's exactly what I plan to do unless I get an answer form Chrysler
engineering telling me it isn't necessary.


"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> What's the point? An "executive" doesn't know dick about transmissions
> unless he came up through engineering, in which case he probably knows
> more detailed info about a 1980 Torqueflite 904 than about the current
> products. He's just going to punt it off to a flunkie, who may or may not
> bump in to the right engineer who knows the real answer. Either way,
> you'll get a "definitive" answer, but the odds of it being right are about
> 50/50.
>
> In this case, the sensible thing to do is what everyone who is familiar
> with these transmissions recommends: follow the "severe usage" schedule.
> Your bases are covered that way.
>
> John Gregory wrote:
>
>> Well... perhaps it will come to pass as you suggest, however, I've had
>> considerable success in such maters by sending them to an individual. And
>> that individual has to be an executive. Executives don't want to see or
>> hear about their names being associated with negative press (the net).
>> Often - usually very large corporations - their executive assistants
>> write back with a letter containing some of what you suggest but nearly
>> always with the name of someone they're giving it; that the old fly paper
>> trap. Got it, get rid of it, still got it, get rid of it.... it goes in
>> circles. They want to get rid of the piece of paper in their hand but the
>> damn thing has their name on it. What to do? "Give it to Mikey. He'll eat
>> it!" So Mikey get's it. Sooner or later it get low enough in the chain to
>> where it lands on someone's desk who really understand the issues and has
>> the capability of addressing them; usually an engineer or project
>> manager. Because it now has HIS/HER name on it... and it came from above
>> ... sent by someone "brave" enough to write the top brass... hey, man...
>> better answer this so it stops flying around. "No on else ta' give it
>> to!"
>>
>> It starts with something like this:
>>
>> Dear Mr. Zetsche:
>>
>>
>>
>> I realize this is misdirected but I want to make sure I receive a
>> definitive response to the questions I ask. As a man in charge of
>> producing a great car, I 'm sure you recognize the importance of solid
>> communication with the consumers who buy those cars and keep those plants
>> of yours running as well as they do; we're a fickle lot. So please see
>> that his/her gets placed into the hands of a capable individual who can
>> answer these questions.
>>
>> But... maybe I'll strike out. But again... maybe not. We'll see.
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> .umich.edu...
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let me play Karnac the Magnificent, and I'll predict the reply:
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>Dear Mr. Gregory,
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for your letter concerning your DaimlerChrysler product. We
>>>>appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.
>>>>
>>>>Regarding your questions about transmission fluid change intervals,
>>>>please refer to your owners manual. Follow the service schedule that
>>>>corresponds to the way you use your DaimlerChrysler Vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>
>>>Yep. It's a variation on what you get if you write to complain about the
>>>specific implementation of any aspect of the vehicle:
>>>
>>>Thank you for your letter concerning your <automaker> product. We
>>>appreciate your business and your concerns are important to us.
>>>
>>>Regarding your questions about <poor headlamp performance, turn signals,
>>>seat belts, gas filler door sticking in cold weather, cupholder size,
>>>whatever>: Please be advised that all <automaker> products, including
>>>your
>>>vehicle, comply in full with all applicable Federal standards.
>>>
>>>Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of help in the future.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>Misti Debbi Blondi,
>>><automaker> Customer Relations
>>
>>