A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Daimler steel/plastic "alloy"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 23rd 05, 09:41 AM
larry moe 'n curly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Steve wrote:

> 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).


Why do other transmissions seem to work more reliably than that
Chrysler even when the fluid in them isn't changed often -- or at all?

Ads
  #22  
Old June 23rd 05, 02:38 PM
Don Stauffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve B. wrote:
>
> 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.


Wow, they sure aren't doing a good job of making them lighter. I think
our old '94 van weighs in at around 3500 pounds. We ARE buying the new
one- pick it up tomorrow- and it weighs 3900 pounds! Heaviest car I
ever will have owned. And this is still the short wheelbase version- we
are not moving up to long wheelbase. Handling didn't seem bad- I always
liked the way the Mopar minivans handled- but was a bit disappointed to
see the wieght increase. I assume much of that is that it now has four
doors instead of the three on our old van.
  #23  
Old June 23rd 05, 05:04 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Don Stauffer" > wrote in message
...
> Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy"
> that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the
> description seems to indicate a laminate, plastic on steel. I am
> assuming it is a single layer of each. He said it provides both
> corrosion resistance and sound deadening.
>
> I have never heard of such a material, though I know that they have
> been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels
> for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now?


Screen wire reinforced polyester?


  #24  
Old June 23rd 05, 05:18 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Hinz wrote:

>
> 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.


Yeah, I did pull it out of my ass, but a number on the high side of 80%
is just about right. No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose
the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either
one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got
swapped because of that.

And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became
the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the
biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame, and most of them
never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades
through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read
about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup-
unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission
problems, mostly in minivans.

>
> Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination,


No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer
and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be
dealer mechanics (at an exceptional dealership in terms of technical
expertise) who have explained the whole sequence of events, what was
really wrong, and what "common practice" was. I've also participated in
re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and
I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand.

or why
> are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please?



Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of ****." And in the second
place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative
systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production
fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like
the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the
engineers to get it in production before it was ready. It ****ES me off
to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring
continue to verbally smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years
after the problems have been resolved to the point that the CURRENT
product has an industry-leading (or near it) reliability rate. And it
****ES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the
ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs)
are always better. Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for
a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed
Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any
complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the
41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown.
  #25  
Old June 23rd 05, 06:44 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 23 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?


Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the
Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing.
  #26  
Old June 23rd 05, 07:43 PM
Dave Hinz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:18:31 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.

>
> Yeah, I did pull it out of my ass, but a number on the high side of 80%
> is just about right.


Great, I'd love to see those stats if I could then?

> No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose
> the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either
> one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got
> swapped because of that.


So in addition to poor design for the mechanical failures, there are
documentation and/or training problems? It just gets better & better.

> And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became
> the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the
> biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame,


Well, my '98 had the two I mentioned. Simultaneously.

> and most of them
> never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades
> through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read
> about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup-


Well, sure, all those have died already.

> unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission
> problems, mostly in minivans.


....which to me, indicates a widespread problem (shrug)

>> Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination,


> No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer
> and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be
> dealer mechanics (at an exceptional dealership in terms of technical
> expertise) who have explained the whole sequence of events, what was
> really wrong, and what "common practice" was. I've also participated in
> re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and
> I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand.


Well, I don't think a sensor problem caused my fluid loss at the
connectors to the cooler, or caused the chunks of aluminum that the
differential pin was happily chewing from the case, but I could be
wrong.

> or why
>> are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please?


> Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of ****."


I call 'em like I see 'em, and from here, it sounds like it is.

>And in the second
> place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative
> systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production
> fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like
> the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the
> engineers to get it in production before it was ready.


I'm not specifically blaming the engineers. I've also been the guy
being pushed to release something not ready. Had a LONG talk with the
boss once after asking "How bad do you want it? Because right now, it's
pretty bad..." when being pushed to release something before it was
done. He didn't like that. I still didn't sign off on it.

> It ****ES me off
> to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring
> continue to verbally smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years
> after the problems have been resolved


Odd then that I asked several times if the problem had been resolved
yet, and you kept snipping that part. Now, you're ****ed off that I
didn't know if it was resolved, even though I asked several times and
you kept not answering it? Interesting rhetorical technique. Not
particularly effective, mind you, but interesting to watch.

> to the point that the CURRENT
> product has an industry-leading (or near it) reliability rate.


Thanks for finally answering my question.

> And it
> ****ES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the
> ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs)
> are always better.


I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort. (shrug?) maybe you're
transferring your frustration with someone else onto me or something?

> Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for
> a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed
> Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any
> complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the
> 41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown.


You just contradicted yourself, by the way.

Whatever. I really don't care. Fixed or not, after the way Chrysler
basically said "yeah, we know it's ****, but tough luck on you" rather
than doing the right thing, excluded them from future consideration. I
know two guys who are Chrysler mechanics, and the transmission (and
serpantine belt tensioner cluster****) on these vehicles is pretty much
a running joke from what they tell me.

Poor engineering (I didn't say bad engineers) shouldn't be rewarded by
repeat business.

  #27  
Old June 23rd 05, 08:01 PM
Dave Hinz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:44:14 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?

>
> Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the
> Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing.


Well, Steve posted the 3 names, so if you want to argue that something
with 3 different names hasn't had two name changes, well, go ahead but
you're on your own.

So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws, or what's the
game there? If the training and/or documentation problems caused
trannies to be replaced when it was just a sensor problem, well,
that may not be a fatal failure in your mind, but the effect to the
guy paying for a new gearbox is the same.

To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it,
but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable.


  #28  
Old June 23rd 05, 10:04 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:44:14 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
> >
> >> Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then?

> >
> > Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the
> > Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing.

>
> Well, Steve posted the 3 names,


No, Steve posted the same thing I posted: "Ultradrive" was never an
official name of the transmission, it was just a bit of hype used in car
brochures. The transmission was known as A604 until all automakers changed
their transmissions' designations in the mid '90s to conform to SAE
nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek
of yours is a complete red herring.

> So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws


Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other.

> To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it,
> but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable.


Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing.
  #29  
Old June 24th 05, 04:12 AM
Dave Hinz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:04:00 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Well, Steve posted the 3 names,

>
> No, Steve posted the same thing I posted: "Ultradrive" was never an
> official name of the transmission, it was just a bit of hype used in car
> brochures. The transmission was known as A604 until all automakers changed
> their transmissions' designations in the mid '90s to conform to SAE
> nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek
> of yours is a complete red herring.


First of all, you're using quotation marks. I challenge you to post a
google link showing I wrote specifically what you're claiming I wrote.
I mentioned two name changes, but it's hardly the central point of my
posts. That you have fixated on that, rather than the meat of the
problem, is rather telling. For instance:

>> So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws

>
> Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other.



Interesting that you snipped the context showing that this was a
question of what you're saying, rather than me telling you what you're
saying. I'll bite: how many fatal flaws do you feel that that
transmission has suffered from in it's ignoble history?

>> To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it,
>> but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable.


> Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing.


Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler
product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and
refuse to take responsibility. Full stop.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do VW steel wheels or alloy wheels weigh more? Fred Fartalot VW water cooled 27 June 8th 18 03:18 PM
alloy rims? William R. Watt Technology 25 April 2nd 05 08:16 PM
Replacing Alloy Wheels on 97 accord - what to look for? [email protected] Honda 3 February 16th 05 03:40 PM
Looking for a place to buy a 17in 3big bore 3 Hole Alloy wheel Duffy Alfa Romeo 4 September 7th 04 10:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.