American vs German Quality

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:

> > Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same ****ty
> > electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting
> > off on the North American market for decades.

> You're ignorance is showing again. The transaxle is not related to the AXOD.

I should have made myself clearer -- I didn't intend to suggest that the
AXOD or a derivative was used in the 500; I'm speaking on a much more
general level than you a You're thinking "AXOD" and I'm thinking "Ford
automatic transaxles".

> And it's not like Chrysler hasn't been foisting off cardboard transmissions
> on everyone worldwide.

Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords...


> Have you even driven a 500?

Nope

> Or looked at one up close?

Yup. VERY close, for several hours, as part of a dealer focus group.


> can't say it's the same car.

I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a
Taurus, but we both know that's not true.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:

> > Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same ****ty
> > electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting
> > off on the North American market for decades.

> You're ignorance is showing again. The transaxle is not related to the AXOD.

I should have made myself clearer -- I didn't intend to suggest that the
AXOD or a derivative was used in the 500; I'm speaking on a much more
general level than you a You're thinking "AXOD" and I'm thinking "Ford
automatic transaxles".

> And it's not like Chrysler hasn't been foisting off cardboard transmissions
> on everyone worldwide.

Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords...


> Have you even driven a 500?

Nope

> Or looked at one up close?

Yup. VERY close, for several hours, as part of a dealer focus group.


> can't say it's the same car.

I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a
Taurus, but we both know that's not true.

"Bill 2" wrote:

>Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have, you
>can't say it's the same car.

A Ford, is a Ford, is a Ford. Any hype you want to give it will not do it a bit
of good. BTW - the first cardboard transmission in my '96 Chrysler Town &
Country LXi (I gave the complete model name rather than abbreviating it as you
are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778 miles
before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add).

"Bill 2" wrote:

>Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have, you
>can't say it's the same car.

A Ford, is a Ford, is a Ford. Any hype you want to give it will not do it a bit
of good. BTW - the first cardboard transmission in my '96 Chrysler Town &
Country LXi (I gave the complete model name rather than abbreviating it as you
are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778 miles
before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add).

"RPhillips47" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill 2" wrote:
>
> >Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have,
you
> >can't say it's the same car.
>
> A Ford, is a Ford, is a Ford. Any hype you want to give it will not do it
a bit
> of good. BTW - the first cardboard transmission in my '96 Chrysler Town &
> Country LXi (I gave the complete model name rather than abbreviating it as
you
> are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778
miles
> before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add).

I drive Chryslers too, I know what a T&C is.

I drove my 1995 Ford Taurus GL 300 000 kms (185 000 miles) before I sold it
and I didn't once have any problems with the transmission. I don't know what
your point is, but for either make a sample of one is insignificant.

I don't know why you are playing down Ford so much, it's not like Chrysler
is the idol of car reliability.

500 is to Taurus as 300C is to 300M. The new cars don't have a whole lot in
common with the versions they replaced.

"RPhillips47" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill 2" wrote:
>
> >Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have,
you
> >can't say it's the same car.
>
> A Ford, is a Ford, is a Ford. Any hype you want to give it will not do it
a bit
> of good. BTW - the first cardboard transmission in my '96 Chrysler Town &
> Country LXi (I gave the complete model name rather than abbreviating it as
you
> are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778
miles
> before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add).

I drive Chryslers too, I know what a T&C is.

I drove my 1995 Ford Taurus GL 300 000 kms (185 000 miles) before I sold it
and I didn't once have any problems with the transmission. I don't know what
your point is, but for either make a sample of one is insignificant.

I don't know why you are playing down Ford so much, it's not like Chrysler
is the idol of car reliability.

500 is to Taurus as 300C is to 300M. The new cars don't have a whole lot in
common with the versions they replaced.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
>
> > > Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same ****ty
> > > electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting
> > > off on the North American market for decades.
>
> > You're ignorance is showing again. The transaxle is not related to the
AXOD.
>
> I should have made myself clearer -- I didn't intend to suggest that the
> AXOD or a derivative was used in the 500; I'm speaking on a much more
> general level than you a You're thinking "AXOD" and I'm thinking "Ford
> automatic transaxles".
>
> > And it's not like Chrysler hasn't been foisting off cardboard
transmissions
> > on everyone worldwide.
>
> Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords...

You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used against
Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability. I never see
you attacking Chrysler. Why is that?

>
> > Have you even driven a 500?
>
> Nope
>
> > Or looked at one up close?
>
> Yup. VERY close, for several hours, as part of a dealer focus group.
>
>
> > can't say it's the same car.
>
> I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a
> Taurus, but we both know that's not true.

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?

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
>
> > > Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same ****ty
> > > electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting
> > > off on the North American market for decades.
>
> > You're ignorance is showing again. The transaxle is not related to the
AXOD.
>
> I should have made myself clearer -- I didn't intend to suggest that the
> AXOD or a derivative was used in the 500; I'm speaking on a much more
> general level than you a You're thinking "AXOD" and I'm thinking "Ford
> automatic transaxles".
>
> > And it's not like Chrysler hasn't been foisting off cardboard
transmissions
> > on everyone worldwide.
>
> Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords...

You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used against
Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability. I never see
you attacking Chrysler. Why is that?

>
> > Have you even driven a 500?
>
> Nope
>
> > Or looked at one up close?
>
> Yup. VERY close, for several hours, as part of a dealer focus group.
>
>
> > can't say it's the same car.
>
> I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a
> Taurus, but we both know that's not true.

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?

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:

> You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used
> against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability.

Neither does GM.

> I never see you attacking Chrysler. Why is that?

Because you're not looking hard enough, perhaps. Googlegroups is good for
that sort of thing. I have attacked Chrysler in *scathing* terms multiple
times for multiple reasons over the years.

> > I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a
> > Taurus, but we both know that's not true.
>
> 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.

....based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record.

> Whose to say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has
> been pumping out?

Chrysler's track record hasn't been anywhere near as uniform as Ford's
over the last two decades. While Ford has churned out one piece of trash
after another, Chrysler's offerings have consisted, variously sequentially
and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable,
good cars.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:

> You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used
> against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability.

Neither does GM.

> I never see you attacking Chrysler. Why is that?

Because you're not looking hard enough, perhaps. Googlegroups is good for
that sort of thing. I have attacked Chrysler in *scathing* terms multiple
times for multiple reasons over the years.

> > I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a
> > Taurus, but we both know that's not true.
>
> 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.

....based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record.

> Whose to say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has
> been pumping out?

Chrysler's track record hasn't been anywhere near as uniform as Ford's
over the last two decades. While Ford has churned out one piece of trash
after another, Chrysler's offerings have consisted, variously sequentially
and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable,
good cars.