Daimler steel/plastic "alloy"

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:26:30 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
>> changing the name of the transmission twice,

> All automakers revised their transmission designations in the mid '90s to
> conform to the new SAE nomenclature. This occurred ONCE, not twice.

OK, if you say so. Question and statement still stands, but I notice
you snipped the part where I asked if they've actually fixed those
widely known failure modes?

>> Maybe a Ford next time.

> Right. Good luck getting increased reliability out of a Ford. For that
> matter, good luck getting out alive when it catches fire.

Well, it damn sure won't be Chrysler, after the way they responded when
I asked what they were going to do about the known failure mode that
caused my tranny to dump. Contrast this with Saab's response when I
lost third gear in my 900 Turbo years ago - at 97,000 miles, well well
out of warranty. Their response, unsolicited by me, was "We're really
sorry, it never should have done that, we'd like to replace that for you
so we can analyze the parts to see what went wrong".

Too bad GM screwed _their_ engineering, or the next choice would be
obvious. So, who doesn't suck these days?

On 22 Jun 2005 16:57:26 GMT, Dave Hinz > wrote:

>
>Well, it damn sure won't be Chrysler, after the way they responded when
>I asked what they were going to do about the known failure mode that
>caused my tranny to dump. Contrast this with Saab's response when I
>lost third gear in my 900 Turbo years ago - at 97,000 miles, well well
>out of warranty. Their response, unsolicited by me, was "We're really
>sorry, it never should have done that, we'd like to replace that for you
>so we can analyze the parts to see what went wrong".
>
And what did this gesture that Saab made get them? You bought a
Chrysler sometime after that and haven't mentioned Saab in either of
your postings about considerations for a new car.

Chrysler sells a vehicle with a warranty. Chrysler sells an extended
warranty that covers the vehicle outside of the standard warranty
period. If you choose not to buy the extended warranty and your
vehicle breaks outside of warranty why would the manufacturer help you
out? They are in the business of making money and obviously helping
with a failure out of warranty doesn't get them any added customer
loyalty.

Personally I agree with you that Chryslers transmissions still aren't
where they could be. I see this as more of a sign of the times
though. Manufacturers are forced to make things lighter and lighter
to meet EPA and public demand for better mileage. Honda and Toyota
have had recent transmission problems. The junk yard is full of Ford
Tauri with the "biodegradable transmission". GM's 4 speed
transmissions give out somewhere in the 150k range and have done so
since the mid 80's. On the other hand my '59 Imperial just got a
rebuilt cast iron torqueflite after 46 years and only got it now
because the rubber seals inside had finally deteriorated to the point
of no hope.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:32:31 GMT, Steve B > wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2005 16:57:26 GMT, Dave Hinz > wrote:
>
>>Well, it damn sure won't be Chrysler, after the way they responded when
>>I asked what they were going to do about the known failure mode that
>>caused my tranny to dump. Contrast this with Saab's response when I
>>lost third gear in my 900 Turbo years ago - at 97,000 miles, well well
>>out of warranty. Their response, unsolicited by me, was "We're really
>>sorry, it never should have done that, we'd like to replace that for you
>>so we can analyze the parts to see what went wrong".
>>
> And what did this gesture that Saab made get them? You bought a
> Chrysler sometime after that and haven't mentioned Saab in either of
> your postings about considerations for a new car.

That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5.
What was your point exactly?

> Chrysler sells a vehicle with a warranty. Chrysler sells an extended
> warranty that covers the vehicle outside of the standard warranty
> period. If you choose not to buy the extended warranty and your
> vehicle breaks outside of warranty why would the manufacturer help you
> out?

If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would
have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the
mileage.

> They are in the business of making money and obviously helping
> with a failure out of warranty doesn't get them any added customer
> loyalty.

On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get
a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a
chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the
failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he
did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give
him consideration.

You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny.
Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do
they just keep adding bandaids?

> Personally I agree with you that Chryslers transmissions still aren't
> where they could be. I see this as more of a sign of the times
> though. Manufacturers are forced to make things lighter and lighter
> to meet EPA and public demand for better mileage.

Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep
the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds
probably two dollars to the cost, so I'm guessing that's the real
reason. As long as it holds long enough to pass the warranty, they have
a _negative_ incentive to perform proper engineering to fix the problem.
Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid
makers who do stupid stuff like that.

> Honda and Toyota
> have had recent transmission problems. The junk yard is full of Ford
> Tauri with the "biodegradable transmission". GM's 4 speed
> transmissions give out somewhere in the 150k range and have done so
> since the mid 80's.

150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure
modes for _years_.

On 22 Jun 2005 18:40:29 GMT, Dave Hinz > wrote:

>
>
>That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5.
>What was your point exactly?
>
The point is you bought a Chrysler in the meantime and are now
considering another car and haven't mentioned Saab as one of your
cosiderations. If their free fix was such a wonderful thing to do for
you as a customer and earned your loyalty why would you be buying
other makers cars?


>If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would
>have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the
>mileage.

If fixing a problem for free gets one person to buy one car every 11
years I think they would be better off putting that money in savings
bond and waiting.If you didn't want to take the risk of the car
breaking at 33k miles you could have bought an extended warranty. If
you choose not to insure the car and a tree falls on it should the
manufacturer fix that for free as well? After all they could have
made it with thicker metal and then it might not have dented.

>
>On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get
>a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a
>chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the
>failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he
>did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give
>him consideration.

That was a nice gesture by the dealer. Hopefully you will follow
through and buy more vehicles from them. I sure hope he sells Saab
motor cars.

>
>You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny.
>Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do
>they just keep adding bandaids?

How can I "keep not answering" when the last post was my only post to
this thread? I purposely didn't answer that because I have no idea if
they fixed any real or imagined flaws in the product.

>Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep
>the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds
>probably two dollars to the cost, so I'm guessing that's the real
>reason. As long as it holds long enough to pass the warranty, they have
>a _negative_ incentive to perform proper engineering to fix the problem.
>Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid
>makers who do stupid stuff like that.
>


I almost agree. If it's a real problem then they ought to fix it.
Other side would be what piece of the car could you not make better
for an additional $2? If that $2 part caused a high number of trans
failures during the warranty period (exteneded or regular) they would
fix it.


>
>150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure
>modes for _years_.
>

True but very few Chrysler transmissions fail at 33k. A bunch of GM
transmissions (and many other manufacturers as well) are gone by 150k.

Steve B.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:46:02 GMT, Steve B > wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2005 18:40:29 GMT, Dave Hinz > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5.
>>What was your point exactly?
>>
> The point is you bought a Chrysler in the meantime and are now
> considering another car and haven't mentioned Saab as one of your
> cosiderations.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership
history and potential future considerations in order to justify my
statements. I am married. The wife likes having a minivan. Do you
need a census of the household, or can we stipulate that there are
children?

> If their free fix was such a wonderful thing to do for
> you as a customer and earned your loyalty why would you be buying
> other makers cars?

Because Saab, in 1998, doesn't sell a minivan. Thanks for asking.
Different driver, different basic needs. When the 9-5 needs
replacement, if Saab hasn't been too ****ed up by GM, I'll consider
replacing it with a Saab.

>>If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would
>>have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the
>>mileage.

> If fixing a problem for free gets one person to buy one car every 11
> years I think they would be better off putting that money in savings
> bond and waiting.If you didn't want to take the risk of the car
> breaking at 33k miles you could have bought an extended warranty.

You sound just like the Chrysler customer-disservice person, who
basically said "Hey, if you knew our design sucked, you shouldn't have
bought the vehicle without the coverage". See, I come from an
engineering background, and I have this funny concept that if you know
your design sucks, you should _FIX_ the design. I'm funny that way.
"Screw you, you should have done more research (and not bought our
product)" only gets a "You're right, I won't buy it next time" from me.

> If
> you choose not to insure the car and a tree falls on it should the
> manufacturer fix that for free as well? After all they could have
> made it with thicker metal and then it might not have dented.

Hardly the same thing as having a known engineering defect and chosing
not to resolve it.

>>On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get
>>a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a
>>chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the
>>failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he
>>did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give
>>him consideration.

> That was a nice gesture by the dealer. Hopefully you will follow
> through and buy more vehicles from them.

Like I said, I'll go to him first and if he has what we want, we'll buy
it. He doesn't play bull**** games with pricing (let me check with my
sales manager, "what can I do to get you to drive out of here in this
car today" and all that crap, his service techs are good, and he's an
active participant in the community.

> I sure hope he sells Saab
> motor cars.

Why would that enter into it? When the van gets replaced, I'll go to
him. When the Saab gets replaced, I'll consider a Saab first. This
isn't complicated to understand.

>>You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny.
>>Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do
>>they just keep adding bandaids?

> How can I "keep not answering" when the last post was my only post to
> this thread? I purposely didn't answer that because I have no idea if
> they fixed any real or imagined flaws in the product.

So do you have anything to contribute to the conversation then?

>>Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep
>>the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds
>>probably two dollars to the cost, so I'm guessing that's the real
>>reason. As long as it holds long enough to pass the warranty, they have
>>a _negative_ incentive to perform proper engineering to fix the problem.
>>Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid
>>makers who do stupid stuff like that.

> I almost agree. If it's a real problem then they ought to fix it.

But, ten years of a known failure isn't a "real problem" in your world?
Wow. Just...wow.

> Other side would be what piece of the car could you not make better
> for an additional $2? If that $2 part caused a high number of trans
> failures during the warranty period (exteneded or regular) they would
> fix it.

Riiiiiiiiight, the 4-speed Chrysler auto trans failures are few and far
between, that's it. In my immediate work area, there are 6 vehicles
with that tranny, with a total of 14 transmissions between them. Maybe
we're all unlucky, yeah, that's probably it.

>>150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure
>>modes for _years_.

> True but very few Chrysler transmissions fail at 33k. A bunch of GM
> transmissions (and many other manufacturers as well) are gone by 150k.

And you think that's acceptable? (boggle)

Dave Hinz wrote:

>
> When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
> changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the,
> what, 5 fatal flaws causing distinct failure modes.

"Ultradrive" was a short-lived marketing term, intended to be like
"Torqueflite" but it never caught on. The transmission was called the
A-604 from the start, but that was a Chrysler internal designation like
A-727 or A-518. When the SAE adopted a naming convention, all the
carmakers switched to conform. The GM 700R4 derivatives became the
4L80E, the Chrysler A-518 became the 47RH, and the A-604 became the 41TE
(transverse applications) and its cousin the 43LE (longitudinal engine
front-drive cars- the LH family) appeared.

As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated the hardware and
software changes over the years. But most of them really weren't
necessary- my first-flight (1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles
because I a) kept the right fluid in it, and b) didn't let anyone
rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause of 99% of the the
alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family).

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership
> history and potential future considerations in order to justify my
> statements.

You're right; you needn't. You do, however, need to refrain from asserting
grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked engineering facts.
Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself look like an ass.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:07:56 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:

>> When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included
>> changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the,
>> what, 5 fatal flaws causing distinct failure modes.
>
> "Ultradrive" was a short-lived marketing term,
> A-604 from the start,
>, and the A-604 became the 41TE

OK, I see that as 3 names, which I thought was my original point, but
whatever.

> As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated the hardware and
> software changes over the years. But most of them really weren't
> necessary-

Riiiiight, because, dammit, differential pins _should_ be expected to
grenade. It's a _feature_, not a problem. I see.

> my first-flight (1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles
> because I a) kept the right fluid in it,

The dealer did all the upkeep on it. So, one would expect that this was
the case with mine - and the failed ones of my coworkers.

> and b) didn't let anyone
> rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause of 99% of the the
> alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family).

Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be,
what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your ass". A breakdown of the
failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever
so welcome.

Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination, or why
are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please?

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:30:43 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership
>> history and potential future considerations in order to justify my
>> statements.
>
> You're right; you needn't. You do, however, need to refrain from asserting
> grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked engineering facts.
> Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself look like an ass.

Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?

Steve B. wrote:

wrote:

> > Get a different van so you won't end up with the
> > Chrysler 4-speed automatic, which still remains one
> > of the least reliable transmissions made,

> Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably
> better than Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these
> days, thanks to years of development.

> > including 3-4 upgrades to the fluid.

> ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3.

How can the switch from Dexron to ATF+ to ATF+3 (was there an AT+2?) to
ATF+4 be considered just one change?

Regarding the reliability of Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda transmissions,
here's how Consumer Reports says they've stacked up in 2WD minivans,
along with the track record for transmissions in general:

Ave. Chrysler Honda Toyota

1998....B.......D........B......B
1999....B.......F........D......B
2000....B.......F........B......B
2001....B.......B........C......A
2002....B.......C........C......A
2003....A.......B........A......A
2004....A.......A........A......A