American vs German Quality

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.