'83 Chrysler 5th Ave bucking

"There are some excellent, talented, highly competent techs you can run
into now and then, when their service managers let them do a good and
complete job. For the most part, though, turnover is high enough that
it's rare to find a tech who's even passingly
familiar with olde-tyme (carbureted) engine management....They won't
out-and-out refuse the business, but they'll often quote the job very
high, the object being
either to shoo the customer away, or to make the customer pay for their

time in chasing down parts that no longer exist in the Chrysler system,

digging dusty old books out of the basement, and time spent while techs

who can diagnose EFI faults in their sleep learn on the fly how to
diagnose and repair the older systems."

JS> Wow...that's an apalling description of Chrysler dealerships and
the quality of work their repair shops do. If true, I have to think
that car buyers would be abandoning Chrysler. And yet the news I read
tells me that Chrysler is doing far better than it's U.S. competition.
Interesting how the real world can sometimes differ from strongly held
opinions.

On Thu, 12 May 2005, John S. wrote:

> JS> Wow...that's an apalling description of Chrysler dealerships and
> the quality of work their repair shops do. If true, I have to think
> that car buyers would be abandoning Chrysler.

Spend some time over on rec.autos.makers.chrysler, or spend some
retroactive time there via dejanews.

John S. wrote:

> "VERY poor advice. New-car dealers don't want to see your 10-year-old
> car,
> let alone your 22-year-old one."
>
> JS> Really...what out-of-date car do you drive...a Yugo or Trabant???
> Or are you possibly an independent mechanic shilling for business?
> I've heard that spiel before from shady indies...
>
> Most dealers I'm aware of are glad for the business and will do what
> they can to repair the car. They are in the business of making money
> by repairing cars and it is hard to do that by turning business away.
>

Have you actually TRIED taking a 22 year old car to a dealer? I think
not....

John S. wrote:

> "There are some excellent, talented, highly competent techs you can run
> into now and then, when their service managers let them do a good and
> complete job. For the most part, though, turnover is high enough that
> it's rare to find a tech who's even passingly
> familiar with olde-tyme (carbureted) engine management....They won't
> out-and-out refuse the business, but they'll often quote the job very
> high, the object being
> either to shoo the customer away, or to make the customer pay for their
>
> time in chasing down parts that no longer exist in the Chrysler system,
>
> digging dusty old books out of the basement, and time spent while techs
>
> who can diagnose EFI faults in their sleep learn on the fly how to
> diagnose and repair the older systems."
>
> JS> Wow...that's an apalling description of Chrysler dealerships and
> the quality of work their repair shops do. If true, I have to think
> that car buyers would be abandoning Chrysler. And yet the news I read
> tells me that Chrysler is doing far better than it's U.S. competition.
> Interesting how the real world can sometimes differ from strongly held
> opinions.

Its the same if you take a 1980 Town Car to a Ford dealer, or an 85
Caprice to a Chevy dealer, or a 84 Civic to a Honda dealer. Its just not
profitable for DEALER service departments to work on cars that old,
brand has nothing to do with it.

Actually yes. And I've seen them working on cars from the 1970's.
There is no guaranty they will have the parts, but it is a better place
to start than some independent shop who will use the least expensive
alternative including boneyard parts.

Thanks, I 'm going to try that.

John S. wrote:

> Actually yes. And I've seen them working on cars from the 1970's.
> There is no guaranty they will have the parts, but it is a better place
> to start than some independent shop who will use the least expensive
> alternative including boneyard parts.
>

I have no idea why on earth anyone would think a dealer would be any
better, in general, than an independent. You get good and bad with both
if you don't do your homework, but dealers are geared to getting the
late-model customers in and out quick, not to diagnosing something that
they can't even call up in their computers anymore.

You obviously don't actually own an old car. I own 5, ranging from 1949
to 1993. I don't even go to the dealer with my wife's 1993 car anymore,
because the last time I did they told me "we can't get that part
anymore, you'll have to buy the whole assembly for $600," in regard to a
part that cost me $50 elsewhere.

"John S." > wrote in message
ups.com...
> JS> Wow...that's an apalling description of Chrysler dealerships and
> the quality of work their repair shops do. If true, I have to think
> that car buyers would be abandoning Chrysler. And yet the news I read
> tells me that Chrysler is doing far better than it's U.S. competition.
> Interesting how the real world can sometimes differ from strongly held
> opinions.
>
Chrysler is doing better than the US nameplate competition because of the
product, specifically the 300 and Magnum, and soon the Charger. Meanwhile,
GM has new, generic front-drive cars like LaCrosse, and Ford has new generic
front-drive cars like the 500. Actually, the 500 and Montego are nice cars,
but should have a little more motor. Still, the competition is pretty tough
in the $25-30K generic front-drive car catagory.

I agree, Steve.
There are some good dealerships (which is more than I would have said a
couple of years ago)
but there are a lot that are not good at all.
Prices tend to be higher and work crappier.
I have not had one of my cars serviced or repaired at a dealership in about
20 years.
Those things I cannot or will not do myself, I take to a dependable
independent garage.
(You may have to search for them too, but they are out there.)

Most, but not all, service or filling stations are to be wary of.

"Kokomo Kid" > wrote in message news:SJNge.304
> Chrysler is doing better than the US nameplate competition because of the
> product, specifically the 300 and Magnum, and soon the Charger.
Meanwhile,
> GM has new, generic front-drive cars like LaCrosse, and Ford has new
generic
> front-drive cars like the 500. Actually, the 500 and Montego are nice
cars,
> but should have a little more motor. Still, the competition is pretty
tough
> in the $25-30K generic front-drive car catagory.

GM and Ford have, from all reports I have seen, been very good at making
cars that few people want. Both these giants are in dire straits. Their
cars are bargains right now.

Chrysler has some interesting cars, if they can overcome the quality stigma
that they so justly deserved a couple of decades ago.

Still, quality concerns, gas prices, and state of the economy can play havoc
with the best laid plans.