RUMOR CONTROL: The notoriously bad Ultradrive caused by Iacocca's bladder?

There's a rumor that has been circulating since the '80s about the 4
speed A-604 "Ultradrive" disaster that slung mud on CC at a time when
it didn't need it. Pro-Chrysler forces blamed the oil companies and
GM's roll-out of Dexron II, whereas the 7176E Chrsyler spec (ATF+3)
was the only option for the A-604...AFTER all the trouble started
happening. However, enough time's gone by to say with authority that
there were MANY engineering bugs in the rollout year of the 604 that
persisted for years. Here's the rumor...anyone heard it?

Supposedly, in a development management meeting in Auburn Hills, the
subject at hand was the A-604 project, which was having tons of
developmental problems. Engineering didn't want to put the thing in
the new lineup due to reliability worries, but marketing said they
were losing a ton of sales, since GM had already put their four speed
4T60 to go into its '86 "downsized" B-O-P cars, and the 4T80E in the
new FWD Cadillac de Villes. Chrysler was still stuck with its A-413 3
speed and the A-904 for what was left of the M-body lineup. GM's
B-O-Ps were turning in impressive (for the time, anyway) EPA highway
figures, which CC couldn't match with the A-413, unless using instead
(as with the RWD M-cars) unacceptably tall final drive ratios.

Iacocca was, of course, in the driver's seat, and after hearing a rash
of arguments as to why the A-604 couldn't make it for production next
year and counter arguments as to how GM was kicking their asses in the
FWD upscale market, he allegedly said to his people:

"I'm gonna go take a ****. When I come back, this goddamned thing had
better be in production...."

True or false? Or at least...has anyone heard this in the old CC
dealer organization?

We plan to challenge Mr. Iacocca to confirm or deny this rumor once
and for all, but I need to know "who heard what when and where" first.

"CallingLee'sBluff" > wrote in message
news
> There's a rumor that has been circulating since the '80s about the 4
> speed A-604 "Ultradrive" disaster that slung mud on CC at a time when
> it didn't need it. Pro-Chrysler forces blamed the oil companies and
> GM's roll-out of Dexron II, whereas the 7176E Chrsyler spec (ATF+3)
> was the only option for the A-604...AFTER all the trouble started
> happening. However, enough time's gone by to say with authority that
> there were MANY engineering bugs in the rollout year of the 604 that
> persisted for years. Here's the rumor...anyone heard it?
>
> Supposedly, in a development management meeting in Auburn Hills, the
> subject at hand was the A-604 project, which was having tons of
> developmental problems. Engineering didn't want to put the thing in
> the new lineup due to reliability worries, but marketing said they
> were losing a ton of sales, since GM had already put their four speed
> 4T60 to go into its '86 "downsized" B-O-P cars, and the 4T80E in the
> new FWD Cadillac de Villes. Chrysler was still stuck with its A-413 3
> speed and the A-904 for what was left of the M-body lineup. GM's
> B-O-Ps were turning in impressive (for the time, anyway) EPA highway
> figures, which CC couldn't match with the A-413, unless using instead
> (as with the RWD M-cars) unacceptably tall final drive ratios.
>
> Iacocca was, of course, in the driver's seat, and after hearing a rash
> of arguments as to why the A-604 couldn't make it for production next
> year and counter arguments as to how GM was kicking their asses in the
> FWD upscale market, he allegedly said to his people:
>
> "I'm gonna go take a ****. When I come back, this goddamned thing had
> better be in production...."
>
> True or false? Or at least...has anyone heard this in the old CC
> dealer organization?
>
> We plan to challenge Mr. Iacocca to confirm or deny this rumor once
> and for all, but I need to know "who heard what when and where" first.

The word on the street was that Iacocca was in need to cut costs so that he
could earn his performance bonus. So he fired a number of technical
development members, and outsourced the development of the electronic
components to the new transmission. I don't know if this is true or not.

Richard

"CallingLee'sBluff" > wrote in message
news
> There's a rumor that has been circulating since the '80s about the 4
> speed A-604 "Ultradrive" disaster that slung mud on CC at a time when
> it didn't need it. Pro-Chrysler forces blamed the oil companies and
> GM's roll-out of Dexron II, whereas the 7176E Chrsyler spec (ATF+3)
> was the only option for the A-604...AFTER all the trouble started
> happening. However, enough time's gone by to say with authority that
> there were MANY engineering bugs in the rollout year of the 604 that
> persisted for years.

All you have to do is look at a Chrysler transmission manual for the A604
and see the list of design changes that are recommended for rebuilding old
transmissions to prove this.

>
> Supposedly, in a development management meeting in Auburn Hills, the
> subject at hand was the A-604 project, which was having tons of
> developmental problems.

Understandable - it was their first electronic transmission. This doesen't
have to be proved.

> Engineering didn't want to put the thing in
> the new lineup due to reliability worries, but marketing said they
> were losing a ton of sales, since GM had already put their four speed
> 4T60 to go into its '86 "downsized" B-O-P cars, and the 4T80E in the
> new FWD Cadillac de Villes. Chrysler was still stuck with its A-413 3
> speed and the A-904 for what was left of the M-body lineup. GM's
> B-O-Ps were turning in impressive (for the time, anyway) EPA highway
> figures, which CC couldn't match with the A-413, unless using instead
> (as with the RWD M-cars) unacceptably tall final drive ratios.
>

I don't know what engineering was saying on this, but once more, the
marketing side was obvious. All you have to do is look at the target
market for the minivan to see that overdrive was non-optional for the
van to be considered for purchase by it's target market.

What other overdrive option did they have than the A604? At the time,
nothing.

> Iacocca was, of course, in the driver's seat, and after hearing a rash
> of arguments as to why the A-604 couldn't make it for production next
> year and counter arguments as to how GM was kicking their asses in the
> FWD upscale market, he allegedly said to his people:
>
> "I'm gonna go take a ****. When I come back, this goddamned thing had
> better be in production...."
>
> True or false? Or at least...has anyone heard this in the old CC
> dealer organization?
>

I don't see much point in proving this. The first V6 introduced in the
minivan
line was in 1987, (Mit****ty 3.0) and the A604 didn't come along until 2
years later.
Chryslers marketing had at least a years worth of sales data to show if the
3 speed automatic V6's were going to be accepted or not. The 3.3 didn't
come out until 1990 and it and the 3.8 only mated to the A604. If customers
had demanded the 3 speed automatic in '87-'89 then Chrysler would have
made it an option for the 3.3 and 3.8. The 3.0 and 3.3 have the same A604
bolt pattern there is only one difference where the oil feed is so it would
have
been simple to do it. The fact they didn't wasn't an indication that they
were stuck
with the A604, rather that they chose to use it.

Ted