If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve" > wrote in message ... > Bill 2 wrote: > > > > OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same crappy > > engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way you're > > making assumptions. Ford did actually spend some effort designing a new car, > > and rather than even give it a chance you write it off right away. Whose to > > say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has been pumping > > out? > > The obvious answer is that Chrysler hasn't been pumping out garbage for > YEARS now. Not since they got the 41TE/42LE working right (circa 1993) > and since they quit using Mitsu****ti engines. While Chrysler has changed the computers so they aren't programmed to eat the transmissions, and done some other improvements, they still aren't quite 100% of what they should be. Same with Ford, early AXODs were absolute disasters, but they improved somewhat in 1996, and even more in 2000. Again, not 100%, but better then they were. Also Chrysler had it's fair share of not supporting owners with known faulty 2.0L and 2.4L head gaskets. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve" > wrote in message ... > Bill 2 wrote: > > > > OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same crappy > > engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way you're > > making assumptions. Ford did actually spend some effort designing a new car, > > and rather than even give it a chance you write it off right away. Whose to > > say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has been pumping > > out? > > The obvious answer is that Chrysler hasn't been pumping out garbage for > YEARS now. Not since they got the 41TE/42LE working right (circa 1993) > and since they quit using Mitsu****ti engines. While Chrysler has changed the computers so they aren't programmed to eat the transmissions, and done some other improvements, they still aren't quite 100% of what they should be. Same with Ford, early AXODs were absolute disasters, but they improved somewhat in 1996, and even more in 2000. Again, not 100%, but better then they were. Also Chrysler had it's fair share of not supporting owners with known faulty 2.0L and 2.4L head gaskets. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff wrote:
> Well, on the reliability score I'm afraid you might be mistaken. > > Other than a misstep with one transmission design, Chrysler reliability > has actually been fairly good in the past 20 years, with the possible > exception of the 1st-gen Neon. And if you look at the last SIXTY years, Chrysler has been even better. The only real problem periods in that whole time in additioni to the transmission and Neon you mentioned we -Rust and QA problems on the '58-60 vehicles -Rust and QA (again) on the '77-80 vehicles And in both of those cases, the cars that survived (were at the high end of the QA curve) proved that the basic engineering was excellent even then- just a lot of the cars were VERY poorly put together. During that whole time, Chrysler has NEVER had a widespread recurring engine flaw in a Chrysler-designed engine (the Mitsubishis were crap) until the 2.0L head gasket problem with the first-gen Neon. That in itself is very remarkable when you compare Chrysler to GM (Olds diesel, Cadillac HT-4100 and V8-6-4, Chevy 60-degree v6 failures, the odd-firing Buick 3.8 fiasco, engine replacements due to piston slap in the current Chevy GEN-III v8s), Ford (early and often failures in the Modular V8 series with numerous recalls and warranty replacements, including piston slap, head failure, and high oil consumption), BMW (say 'Nikasil' and watch the BMW fans scream in agony), and most other brands. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff wrote:
> Well, on the reliability score I'm afraid you might be mistaken. > > Other than a misstep with one transmission design, Chrysler reliability > has actually been fairly good in the past 20 years, with the possible > exception of the 1st-gen Neon. And if you look at the last SIXTY years, Chrysler has been even better. The only real problem periods in that whole time in additioni to the transmission and Neon you mentioned we -Rust and QA problems on the '58-60 vehicles -Rust and QA (again) on the '77-80 vehicles And in both of those cases, the cars that survived (were at the high end of the QA curve) proved that the basic engineering was excellent even then- just a lot of the cars were VERY poorly put together. During that whole time, Chrysler has NEVER had a widespread recurring engine flaw in a Chrysler-designed engine (the Mitsubishis were crap) until the 2.0L head gasket problem with the first-gen Neon. That in itself is very remarkable when you compare Chrysler to GM (Olds diesel, Cadillac HT-4100 and V8-6-4, Chevy 60-degree v6 failures, the odd-firing Buick 3.8 fiasco, engine replacements due to piston slap in the current Chevy GEN-III v8s), Ford (early and often failures in the Modular V8 series with numerous recalls and warranty replacements, including piston slap, head failure, and high oil consumption), BMW (say 'Nikasil' and watch the BMW fans scream in agony), and most other brands. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Bill 2 wrote:
> While Chrysler has changed the computers so they aren't programmed to eat > the transmissions, and done some other improvements, they still aren't quite > 100% of what they should be. Same with Ford, early AXODs were absolute > disasters, but they improved somewhat in 1996, and even more in 2000. Again, > not 100%, but better then they were. > No modern automatic transmission is 100% of what I think a transmission should be. But then my gold standards are the Chrysler A-727 and the Ford C6, and nothing made today comes even close. Even the GM TH-400, which I admit was a good transmission, wasn't up to 727 and C6 standards. Weak transmissions have been virtually mandated by CAFE and emissions requirements. In order to make transmissions efficient enough to meet cafe and not increase emissions, makers have had to take all the safety margin out of the hardware to reduce weight and frictional losses, and then protect what is left of the transmission by doing annoying things like closing the throttle, retarding timing, or dropping alternate cylinders during shifts to reduce the power dissipated in the clutches, running heavily friction-modified fluids, and plain old praying for longevity. Modern GM front-drives AUDIBLY throttle down during shifts, and it just makes me want to scream every time I get one as a rental car! The 42LE is every bit as good as ANY of its competitors from any continent or manufacturer.... the problem is that NONE of them are good ENOUGH. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Bill 2 wrote:
> While Chrysler has changed the computers so they aren't programmed to eat > the transmissions, and done some other improvements, they still aren't quite > 100% of what they should be. Same with Ford, early AXODs were absolute > disasters, but they improved somewhat in 1996, and even more in 2000. Again, > not 100%, but better then they were. > No modern automatic transmission is 100% of what I think a transmission should be. But then my gold standards are the Chrysler A-727 and the Ford C6, and nothing made today comes even close. Even the GM TH-400, which I admit was a good transmission, wasn't up to 727 and C6 standards. Weak transmissions have been virtually mandated by CAFE and emissions requirements. In order to make transmissions efficient enough to meet cafe and not increase emissions, makers have had to take all the safety margin out of the hardware to reduce weight and frictional losses, and then protect what is left of the transmission by doing annoying things like closing the throttle, retarding timing, or dropping alternate cylinders during shifts to reduce the power dissipated in the clutches, running heavily friction-modified fluids, and plain old praying for longevity. Modern GM front-drives AUDIBLY throttle down during shifts, and it just makes me want to scream every time I get one as a rental car! The 42LE is every bit as good as ANY of its competitors from any continent or manufacturer.... the problem is that NONE of them are good ENOUGH. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
> Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. Well, *there's* a ringing endorsement! > the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles Yep, you can rely on the modular V8 engines to eat intake manifolds and cylinder heads, in addition to the rotating-electrics problems most all Fords have. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
> Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. Well, *there's* a ringing endorsement! > the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles Yep, you can rely on the modular V8 engines to eat intake manifolds and cylinder heads, in addition to the rotating-electrics problems most all Fords have. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu... > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote: > > > Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. > > Well, *there's* a ringing endorsement! > > > the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles > > Yep, you can rely on the modular V8 engines to eat intake manifolds and > cylinder heads, in addition to the rotating-electrics problems most all > Fords have. Sorry that just doesn't quite line up with reality. The engines might start to smoke after 350 000km, but other than the car is very reliable. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu... > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote: > > > Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. > > Well, *there's* a ringing endorsement! > > > the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles > > Yep, you can rely on the modular V8 engines to eat intake manifolds and > cylinder heads, in addition to the rotating-electrics problems most all > Fords have. Sorry that just doesn't quite line up with reality. The engines might start to smoke after 350 000km, but other than the car is very reliable. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American cars | Dave | Antique cars | 6 | February 13th 05 04:27 PM |
Driving lessons in American schools | John Rowland | Driving | 62 | December 23rd 04 12:33 AM |
German F-1 Calendar | Anna Lisa | BMW | 0 | November 25th 04 07:05 AM |
Where to find list of 1930's American Automobile Manufacturers | [email protected] | Antique cars | 4 | November 1st 03 06:44 AM |