 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / November 2005Dodge Caravan 2002 Transmission Problem
Hi all, I have a 2002 Dodge Caravan automatic transmission, currently with 80K miles (mostly highway). Since about 20K miles I started feeling some "bang" noise down shifting to second gear. The dealer says all is OK. They replaced pump, changed computer settings and flushed computer software but nothing helps. When I asked them to hookup that computer thing that logs events they found every excuse in the world not to do so. The problem is getting worse (and the warranty will expire soon) any ideas (on top of going to another transmission place)? Thank You > Hi all, > I have a 2002 Dodge Caravan automatic transmission, currently with 80K miles [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thank You Dodge has had a lot of transmission problems over the past decade, but I thought that most of them had been ironed out by 2002. Maybe not The Caravan in particular was a problematic model because a lot of the smaller RE variant transmissions were used, and they just did not hold up well at all. Some say that the use of nonconforming transmission fluid caused a lot of the problems. Special fluids are available and must be used. In addition, Chrysler made a lot of changes to try to toughen up this series. A little later they introduced the 545RFE transmission (in about 2000?). I haven't kept up with them but they were believed to be much more durable and reliable. I wouldn't let the warranty expire before I got this solved. It could get expensive. > Dodge has had a lot of transmission problems over the past > decade, but I thought that most of them had been ironed out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the smaller RE variant transmissions were used, and they > just did not hold up well at all. > In addition, Chrysler made a lot of changes to try to toughen > up this series. > > A little later they introduced the 545RFE transmission (in > about 2000?). I haven't kept up with them but they were > believed to be much more durable and reliable. Consumer Reports says the problem rate for transmissions is: _______Chrysler minivans_________average vehicle_______ 2004:_____very low__________________very low 2003:_____low_______________________very low 2002:_____average___________________low 2001:_____low_______________________low 2000:_____very high_________________low 1999:_____very high_________________low 1998:_____high______________________low 1997:_____high______________________average > > Dodge has had a lot of transmission problems over the past > > decade, but I thought that most of them had been ironed out [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 1998:_____high______________________low > 1997:_____high______________________average Good to put some rough statistics to it. There have been many many complaints, especially about minivans. > Consumer Reports says the problem rate for transmissions is: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1998:_____high______________________low > 1997:_____high______________________average This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid job of telling us all we need to know about the veracity of Condemner Retards' "research". > > Consumer Reports says the problem rate for transmissions is: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of telling us all we need to know about the veracity of Condemner Retards' > "research". Then where are we supposed to get our information, from friends and mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are great and "Jap stuff" is junk? Those of us who aren't experts or industry insiders have very few other sources of reliability information, but it seems that CR's overall reliability scores coincide well with Popular Mechanics' and the records that one large fleet leasing company keeps. CR reliability surveys do seem to get it right for digital cameras, TVs, and central air conditioners (A/C experts seem to agree except for York, which they hold in higher regard), so why should they be so wrong about cars? >>> Consumer Reports says the problem rate for transmissions is: <snip idiocy> >> This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions >> were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid >> job of telling us all we need to know about the veracity of Condemner >> Retards' "research". > Then where are we supposed to get our information Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of sh.t, but what choice do we have but to believe them?". I reject that argument as...well, stupid. Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- but using CR because you can't be bothered to use your own five senses plus your mind is...well, it's lazy. > from friends and mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are > great If you have a mechanic who believes that Chevs and Fords are "great", it's a fairly good wager you'd do well to find another mechanic. > This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions > were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of sh.t, but what > choice do we have but to believe them?". That's a ridiculous summation, and what does the version of the transmission in each model year when CR is reporting the reliabily model year by model year? Also if CR's reliability surveys are so useless, why do they strangely correlate with the results of two other surveys? > Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public > library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- but using CR > because you can't be bothered to use your own five senses plus your mind > is...well, it's lazy. I wish they'd go back to testing more budget products and providing more information and fewer dumbed-down Money magazine-style articles, but they haven't changed their auto reliability surveys, except how they're tabulated (formerly only like year cars compared, now all cars compared together). But tell me: How is the average consumer supposed to judge the reliability of new cars using just his or her brain and five senses? Talking to people doesn't work well because of product loyalty (even lemons have their fans) or exceptional experiences, and initial quality and long term reliability are only loosely related (as so many British luxury cars have shown). > > from friends and mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are > > great > If you have a mechanic who believes that Chevs and Fords are "great", it's > a fairly good wager you'd do well to find another mechanic. I'm sure that there are many good mechanics who just don't know other brands. OTOH I haven't let a mechanic touch any car of mine in years. >> Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of sh.t, but what >> choice do we have but to believe them?". > > That's a ridiculous summation Only for those who blindly believe in the Gospel According to Consumer Reports. You apparently fit in that category. > and what does the version of the transmission in each model year when CR > is reporting the reliabily model year by model year? Would you like to try that again, this time with a complete, parsable sentence? > Also if CR's reliability surveys are so useless, why do they strangely > correlate with the results of two other surveys? Whether they do or not depends on your own biases -- and how much you know about how the magazine business works. > But tell me: How is the average consumer supposed to judge the > reliability of new cars using just his or her brain and five senses? Well, for starters, turn off the television set... > initial quality and long term reliability are only loosely related (as > so many British luxury cars have shown). Quite true. > Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of sh.t, but what > choice do we have but to believe them?". > > > > That's a ridiculous summation > Only for those who blindly believe in the Gospel According to Consumer > Reports. You apparently fit in that category. Why do you think that? I've expressed reservations about their surveys, and your own earlier statement says this -- with a lot of exaggeration. > This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions > were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid job > of telling us all we need to know about the veracity of Condemner Retards' > "research". > > and what does the version of the transmission in each model > > year [have to do with anything] when CR is reporting the > > reliabily model year by model year? > Would you like to try that again, this time with a complete, parsable > sentence? See the bracketed words. Again, all CR is doing is reporting the reliability year by year, so how do the exact versions of the transmissions matter? > > Also if CR's reliability surveys are so useless, why do they strangely > > correlate with the results of two other surveys? > Whether they do or not depends on your own biases -- The correlation button on a calculator isn't biased. > and how much you know about how the magazine business works. CR doesn't take money from advertisers, which makes them inherently less biased than other magazines. > > But tell me: How is the average consumer supposed to judge the > > reliability of new cars using just his or her brain and five senses? > > Well, for starters, turn off the television set... No, I mean a real answer, not a piece of flippant fluff. > > initial quality and long term reliability are only loosely related (as > > so many British luxury cars have shown). > > Quite true. > > You apparently fit in that category. > > Why do you think that? Because you have expressed unwarranted confidence in CR's "data". > Again, all CR is doing is reporting the reliability year by year, so how > do the exact versions of the transmissions matter? It matters when the transmission systems are the same (not just similar, not almost the same, not mostly alike, but *IDENTICAL* in all respects, including subsystems, control systems, vehicle weight, engine power and all other parameters relevant to the transmission's health) for model years CR claims have significantly different system reliability. There are only two plausible explanations: 1) The actual differences in transmission problem rates are insignificantly small between CR's "much worse than average", "worse than average", "average", "better than average", and "much better than average" categories, such that the classifications are statistically meaningless and therefore meaningless overall, or 2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random results. Or, (3), both of the above. > The correlation button on a calculator isn't biased. GIGO. Do you remember what that stands for? > CR doesn't take money from advertisers, So they're fond of trumpeting. In point of fact, every issue of CR is nothing but an 80-page-long "Look at us, we are so fabulous and wonderful and unbiased, and we're experts in everything from oil filters to red wine" advertisement for Consumers Union and the various publications they put out. DS >> > You apparently fit in that category. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > parameters relevant to the transmission's health) for model years CR claims > have significantly different system reliability. Haven't there been updates to the TCM code during that time? > Haven't there been updates to the TCM code during that time? Not between several of the "worse than average"/"average" or "worse than average"/"better than average" year pairs in that chart. >> Haven't there been updates to the TCM code during that time? > > Not between several of the "worse than average"/"average" or "worse than > average"/"better than average" year pairs in that chart. Daniel, Another issue with the CR data is how can one possibly compare reports of failure rates in 2004 vehicles with failure rates in 1997 vehicles? It's measuring completely different things. For example, what if the transmissions were completely reliable up to 50k miles, then about 10% immediately failed, one would think that the transission were rather poor, however, since there would be very few 2004 vehicles that had done 50k miles (if the report is published in 2005) the transmssions would appear to be reliable. It's not like these are the result of an accelerated life test -- they are (claimed to be) consumer figures. > Another issue with the CR data is how can one possibly compare reports > of failure rates in 2004 vehicles with failure rates in 1997 vehicles? The only ways to do so with statistical validity are to elucidate vehicle mileage explicitly or incorporate it as a part of the rating algorithm. An example of the first possibility is e.g. "1997 transmissions have such-and-such a failure rate. Sample population had a mean mileage of so, a median mileage of such, and the mode mileage is thus." An example of the second possibility is e.g. "1997 transmissions have a calculated failure rate as shown in the following line graph. The X-axis gives vehicle mileage, and the Y-axis gives number of reported nontrivial transmission problems per 100 vehicles at specific vehicle mileage. Sample population had a mean mileage of so, a median mileage of such, and the mode mileage is thus. Portions of the graph for which sample population was insufficiently large for validity are highlighted in yellow." Neither is completely satisfactory, but either would be a damn sight better than what CR puts out, which is "Here's the failure rate. Trust us." DS > See the bracketed words. Again, all CR is doing is reporting the > reliability year by year, so how do the exact versions of the > transmissions matter? Because the exact same transmission design is used in several of the years listed, yet the reliability ratings are dramatically different year to year. The tranmissions don't know what year they are so they have know way to know that they should break if made in one year, but not break if made the year after. If the data was at all accurate, you would expect to see step changes in reliability only if a step change was made in the transmission design, materials or assembly processes. The reality is that none of these have happened at every major reliability change listed in the CR table. Thus the data is very highly suspect at best. Matt >> See the bracketed words. Again, all CR is doing is reporting the >> reliability year by year, so how do the exact versions of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Matt I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and the Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had vastly different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were *identical* and manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me decades ago. >> If the data was at all accurate, you would expect to see step changes >> in reliability only if a step change was made in the transmission >> design, materials or assembly processes. The reality is that none of >> these have happened at every major reliability change listed in the CR >> table. Thus the data is very highly suspect at best. > I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and > the Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had > vastly different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were > *identical* and manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me > decades ago. Yep. That's one of a great many examples. They were also effusive in their praise of the 1990 Volkswagen Jetta's quality and reliability. And of the 1986 Lawn Chief #51D lawn mower. And of a particular 1987 Sears Kenmore dishwasher. And of a particular phone. And a particular oil filter, etc., ad nauseam, *all* of which, in my experience, contained major flaws in design, engineering, materials and/or build, which in turn caused poor reliability, poor performance and/or poor durability. My product experiences got much better when I quit reading CR and started using my own brain instead. And then, a couple years ago, when they declared themselves headlamp experts and started "testing" car headlamps based on criteria fabricated out of whole cloth, well... >I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and the >Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had vastly >different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were *identical* and >manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me decades ago. I remember something about the ratings for those cars because I was undecided between them, and they always received similar ratings from the magazine, not vastly different ones. The 1985 & later Novas/Prizms were identical to the FWD Corollas, except for body panels and, at least in the early years, also interior, radio, radiator, and possibly the driveshafts. The factory in California originally made only Novas but later added Corollas to the same assembly line (first the FX-16, rather different from the regular Corolla), and, at least initially, the Chevy and Toyota brand vehicles had different ABS. Virtually all the reported differences in reported reliability for these cars appeared to be related to the differing components. >>>See the bracketed words. Again, all CR is doing is reporting the >>>reliability year by year, so how do the exact versions of the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were *identical* and > manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me decades ago. Yes, I seem to remember that anomaly as well. I'm not saying though that CR is at fault as much as their subscribers, of which I'll admit I am one. Assuming they aren't editting the data, the likely issue is the data submitted by their subscribers. I know how fickle people can be and how easily mislead. After CR tells people for years how great Toyota's are and how poor Chevy's are, I can easily see people being conditioned to question every little flaw in a Chevy and overlooking similar issues with a Toyota. I recently test drove several small cars, Toyota Corolla and Dodge Neon in particular. I expected the Corolla to me miles ahead of the Neon given that they are nearly at opposite ends of the CR rating spectrum. I believe the Corolla is still in the top 5, although it has slipped in the last few years and the Neon was dead last as I recall. I found the driving position of the Corolla to be poor with the steering wheel much too close to the dash and the pedals. I simply couldn't get a comfortable driving position. Either my knees hit the bolster or my arms were stretched out virtually straight. Also, the standard shift models (I drove two in case one was an anomaly) were almost impossible to shift without having the engine rev during shifts. You literally had to consciously let off the throttle a good 1/2 second or so before depressing the clutch to avoid this. I've driven manual transmission vehicles for 30 years and never had anything like this. I found the Neon to be a fairly pleasant car to drive. A little more engine noise and vibration than the Corolla, but also better power. And the steering wheel wasn't quite as long a stretch and the shifting was much better. I was planning to buy a Neon until I found that this was the last year and also the dealer couldn't locate one even close to what I wanted. Most come with that blasted deck spoiler which impedes the rear visiblity, which is not geat to start with. Matt > > Again, all CR is doing is reporting the reliability year > > by year, so how do the exact versions of the transmissions matter? > Because the exact same transmission design is used in several of the > years listed, yet the reliability ratings are dramatically different [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > happened at every major reliability change listed in the CR table. > Thus the data is very highly suspect at best. How can you rule out changes in manufacturing unless you're an insider who've very familiar with what goes on with the company? After all there have been recalls for newer vehicles where the design had been in production for years. I'm not saying that CR is anywhere close to perfect, but some of the criticisms expressed here about their surveys don't seem valid and sometimes even outright false (i.e., twins with different brands from the same factory getting very different quality ratings). There have even been recalls for newer vehicles Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar results for mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge and Chrysler minivans, even though their owners are surveyed separately? > How can you rule out changes in manufacturing unless you're an insider > who've very familiar with what goes on with the company? That would be difficult indeed. You are assuming those who post the statements you're objecting to couldn't possibly have inside connections. > outright false (i.e., twins with different brands from the same factory > getting very different quality ratings). That particular one is quite true. Be careful; you're falling into the "I've never seen it, therefore it doesn't exist" trap. > There have even been recalls for newer vehicles True and irrelevant. > Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar results for > mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge and Chrysler minivans, > even though their owners are surveyed separately? What's your point with this question? It's nonresponsive to anything posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy was primarily based on CR's own, er, "tests". > > How can you rule out changes in manufacturing unless you're an insider > > who've very familiar with what goes on with the company? > > That would be difficult indeed. You are assuming those who post the > statements you're objecting to couldn't possibly have inside connections. I'm assuming no such thing and have said nothing to imply that. > > outright false (i.e., twins with different brands from the same factory > > getting very different quality ratings). > > That particular one is quite true. Be careful; you're falling into the > "I've never seen it, therefore it doesn't exist" trap. I've looked for it in their reliability tables but haven't found it. Cite two models and a year. > > There have even been recalls for newer vehicles > > True and irrelevant. Not irrelevant. I'd expect an older design to have its bugs worked out and its reliability to stay the same or decrease the longer it's produced, unless changes are made. > > Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar results for > > mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge and Chrysler minivans, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy > was primarily based on CR's own, er, "tests". What Corolla-Prizm dichotomy? Those cars have always ranked closely, both in CR's judgement and their surveys. Show me where they didn't, either by model year or CR issue, or admit that you don't have proof. The fact that brand twins have shown very similar CR reliability ratings indicates that CR's surveys are very repeatable, something you wouldn't expect if they were useless garbage. >>> outright false (i.e., twins with different brands from the same >>> factory getting very different quality ratings). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've looked for it in their reliability tables but haven't found it. Keep a-lookin'. > Cite two models and a year. Asked and answered. It's not for me to do your homework; hit your local well-stocked public library. > What's your point with this question? It's nonresponsive to anything > posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy > was primarily based on CR's own, er, "tests". > > What Corolla-Prizm dichotomy? Those cars have always ranked closely, > > both in CR's judgement and their surveys. Show me where they didn't, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ratings indicates that CR's surveys are very repeatable, something you > > wouldn't expect if they were useless garbage > > I've looked for it in their reliability tables but haven't found it. > > Keep a-lookin'. I already have, but apparently you haven't. > > Cite two models and a year. > > Asked and answered. It's not for me to do your homework; You've cited the Corolla/Prizm, but you're wrong about that pair. You haven't shown one valid example to back up your claim. > What's your point with this question? It's nonresponsive to anything > posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy > was primarily based on CR's own, er, "tests". > > What Corolla-Prizm dichotomy? Those cars have always ranked closely, > > both in CR's judgement and their surveys. Show me where they didn't, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ratings indicates that CR's surveys are very repeatable, something you > > wouldn't expect if they were useless garbage > > I've looked for it in their reliability tables but haven't found it. > > Keep a-lookin'. I already have, but apparently you haven't. > > Cite two models and a year. > > Asked and answered. It's not for me to do your homework; You've cited the Corolla/Prizm, but you're wrong about that pair. You haven't shown one valid example to back up your claim. And you are a twit for postng multiple times. >> What's your point with this question? It's nonresponsive to anything >> posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You've cited the Corolla/Prizm, but you're wrong about that pair. You > haven't shown one valid example to back up your claim. >>>Again, all CR is doing is reporting the reliability year >>>by year, so how do the exact versions of the transmissions matter? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > there have been recalls for newer vehicles where the design had been in > production for years. How can you rule out that I'm an insider? > I'm not saying that CR is anywhere close to perfect, but some of the > criticisms expressed here about their surveys don't seem valid and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > identical vehicles, such as Dodge and Chrysler minivans, even though > their owners are surveyed separately? As I said earlier, I'm a CR subscriber and have been for more than 20 years now, however, their biases on import vs. domestic car brands is just so blatant that it is ridiculous. They should ALWAYS show similar results for identical vehicles. The trouble is, they often don't. The fact that they do sometimes doesn't negate the fact that many times they don't, when in fact they should NEVER show different results for identical vehicles. As I also said earlier, I'm not necessarily placing the blame on CR as much as on their subscribers who submit the surveys. However, I do believe that the biases that CR publishes have affected the perceptions of their readers and these perceptions then in turn affect the survey results. I've seen enough study on human perception to know how unreliable it is and how easily many people can be swayed. Matt > I've seen enough study on human perception to know how unreliable it is > and how easily many people can be swayed. Amen. *clink* > As I said earlier, I'm a CR subscriber and have been for more than 20 > years now, however, their biases on import vs. domestic car brands is > just so blatant that it is ridiculous. Keep in mind that while CR may not cater to advertisers they have to sell magazines off the magazine rack to continue to replace subscribers lost through attrition with new subscribers. Since there's more domestic cars sold than imports in the US, (even today) if you gore the ox owned by most people, rather than the ox owned by fewer people, you will get more attention. Ted >Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar >results for mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge >and Chrysler minivans, >As I said earlier, I'm a CR subscriber and have been for more >than 20 years now, however, their biases on import vs. domestic >car brands is just so blatant that it is ridiculous. >I'm not necessarily placing the blame on CR as much as on >their subscribers who submit the surveys. However, I do >believe that the biases that CR publishes have affected >the perceptions of their readers and these perceptions then >in turn affect the survey results. This is false. In the 1970s they said GM car quality wasn't inferior to that of Japanese vehicles (based on what their reader surveys); when they first tested the Corolla and Nova they gave the edge to the Nova for handling (the Corolla lacked an anti-sway bar), and when they first tested the Toyota Tacome pickup they ranked it last and stated on their cover, "Ford Beats Toyota." I doubt a publication with an anti-American bias would do any of this. They have expressed opinions about vehicles, such as by calling interior materials cheap looking, but such opinions don't affect their scoring. >>Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar >>results for mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > about vehicles, such as by calling interior materials cheap looking, > but such opinions don't affect their scoring. Those comments most certainly affect the perceptions of their readers and that was my point. I wasn't talking about their scoring. Matt > > Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public > > library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- but using CR > > because you can't be bothered to use your own five senses plus your mind > > is...well, it's lazy. Actually, I don't believe they were ever what they were once perceived to be. Through high school and college, I worked weekends and holiday in radio and TV repair. CR was a cheerleader for some of the absolute worst sets that man has ever put together. Whether they were actively dishonest, incompetent, or just were looking very superficially at the equipment, their advice was pure caca. >Actually, I don't believe they were ever what they were once perceived to >be. >Through high school and college, I worked weekends and holiday in radio >and TV repair. CR was a cheerleader for some of the absolute worst >sets that man has ever put together. They've always rated according to performance, not reliability, unless samples failed during testing, so old GEs weren't penalized for their riveted circuit boards or Zeniths for their bad x-ray safety capacitors. On the other hand they went from rating Motorola Quasar highly one year to poorly the next year, and apparently they were right because for the newer model Motorola issued about 30 design changes, almost all related to grounding to eliminate power supply interference. I still have a Sears (Sanyo) TV from the 1970s that was rated highly. It's needed some new electrolytic capacitors, the wire wraps had to be soldered, the convergence rings crumbled (I was going to toss it because of that, but my dog spotted some new ones on the ground during a walk), and I had to patch holes eroded into the tuner contacts. >Whether they were actively dishonest, incompetent, or just were looking >very superficially at the equipment, their advice was pure caca. Why would they employ so many electrical engineers just for superficial testing? > Through high school and college, I worked weekends and holiday in radio > and TV repair. CR was a cheerleader for some of the absolute worst > sets that man has ever put together. > Whether they were actively dishonest, incompetent, or just were looking > very superficially at the equipment, their advice was pure caca. Late sixties and early seventies, their main criterion for television quality was pincushion distortion. Minor things like cost of service and frequency of failure apparently weren't considered. Nowadays, computer people tend to know what pincushion is. But back then, I did my own informal surveys. Even when I showed the customers the pincushion distortion on their own television sets, they couldn't spot it. So the smart people listened to us and bought Zeniths and hardly ever saw us again, and the CR faithful ignored us and bought Admiral and Motorola and saw us about 3 times a year for a couple hundred dollars a year. On major purchases I'll call a friend who subscribes to CR, and if my choice of product is high in their list I re-evaluate.  SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > Late sixties and early seventies, their main criterion for television > quality was pincushion distortion. Minor things like cost of service > and frequency of failure apparently weren't considered. Geez, you sure hold a grudge a long time............................ >> Late sixties and early seventies, their main criterion for television >> quality was pincushion distortion. Minor things like cost of service >> and frequency of failure apparently weren't considered. > > Geez, you sure hold a grudge a long time............................ It's not a grudge. I don't know what their criteria are today, but they still somehow manage to pick some pretty bad electronics for their top spots. Doesn't just hold true for electronic stuff, either. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of sh.t, but what > choice do we have but to believe them?". I reject that argument as...well, > stupid. Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public > library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- It was back in the mid- to late-60's that they were making television repairmen scads of money by rating the worst sets highest and the best sets lowest. So even back then they sucked. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. . . (concerning consumer reports mag) ========= ========= larrymoencurly@my-deja.com (larry moe 'n curly) blurts out: Then where are we supposed to get our information, from friends and mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are great and "Jap stuff" is junk? Those of us who aren't experts or industry insiders have very few other sources of reliability information, but it seems that CR's overall reliability scores coincide well with Popular Mechanics' and the records that one large fleet leasing company keeps. CR reliability surveys do seem to get it right for digital cameras, TVs, and central air conditioners (A/C experts seem to agree except for York, which they hold in higher regard), so why should they be so wrong about cars? ============ ============ you jest keep trusting in CR and PM's reliabitity data....... oh yeah........and git rid of that high mileage Mopop BEFORE the tranny takes a dump.... cuz it IS going to take a dump. I installed 3 604 trannies last week. (fwd mopop) I installed 2 518 trannies last week. (rwd mopop) and.......as i sit here and think about the 12 FWD stock units and 7 RWD stock units (all mopop) sitting there on my shelf waiting to be installed........ i'm also thankfull for the truck load that i installed so far this year. you jest keep igoring yer friendly neighborhood tech.....and reading those magazines...... oh......you may want to disregard the advertising in those magazines, and the magazines they are affiliated with......the OEMs may be spending millions on the ads....but you and i know that the real purpose of the mag is to let you know what products you can trust. don't we.... any whoooo...... never change yer tranny fluid.... always trust non techs in technical situation... and disregard all those Mopop tranny cores lying around the shop when you go get yer flashing OD light checked out at the tranny shop.........they don't mean a thing..... ~MarshMonster~ has to go check the hits on his "Swamp Land for Sale" site. > > Those of us who aren't experts or industry insiders have very few other > > sources of reliability information, but it seems that CR's overall [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > TVs, and central air conditioners (A/C experts seem to agree except > > for York, which they hold in higher regard), so why should they be so > > wrong about cars? > you jest keep trusting in CR and PM's reliabitity data....... All I'm saying is that they're useful, and if they were really invalid it would be a strange coincidence that they agree so much. > oh yeah........and git rid of that high mileage Mopop > BEFORE the tranny takes a dump....cuz it IS going to take a dump. Are you saying that Chrysler still hasn't gotten the bugs out? > I installed 3 604 trannies last week. (fwd mopop) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > i'm also thankfull for the truck load that i installed so far this year. > you jest keep igoring yer friendly neighborhood > tech.....and reading those magazines...... I've never taken any car of mine to a garage, except for tires and dealer warranty work, and the last time I did that, about a decade ago, my problem was misdiagnosed (but I got a new belt and tensioner out of that). > any whoooo......never change yer tranny fluid.... I change it every 15,000 miles (Ford/Mazda, Nissan) > always trust non techs in technical situation... Never, not even those who impersonate techs and work at bad garages and claim that if the computer doesn't put out error codes then there must not be any problems. Why are those Chrysler transmissions so particular about the fluid? Shouldn't the computerized adaptive control actually make them more tolerant of different fluid characteristics? > ~MarshMonster~ > has to go check the hits on his "Swamp Land for Sale" site. Do you know Swamp Thing? He owes me money, and I'll cut you in for some of it if you help me find him. > Why are those Chrysler transmissions so particular about the fluid? > Shouldn't the computerized adaptive control actually make them more > tolerant of different fluid characteristics? If it were just the main gear clutches at issue, then what you say might be true. However, those transmissions modulate the torque-convertor lockup clutch and spend a fair amount of time with it in a partial-slip mode (in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gears, with 100% lock only occurring in 3rd and 4th). Its the torque convertor clutch and operating it in partial lock mode that demands special fluid characteristics. > This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions > were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid job > of telling us all we need to know about the veracity of Condemner Retards' > "research". So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? >> This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions >> were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their > 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? The question is a complete nonsequitur. Are you still interested in the answer? > > This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions > > were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid job [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their > 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? Of course they had breakdown problems. However what you originally posted was a comparative survey that picked one item - the transmission. When people own cars their vehicle satisfaction is driven by expectations and what the actual maintainence history. For example I would be extremely dissatisfied with a vehicle that had to have all 4 tires replaced every 4 years and each tire cost $500. I do not think it reasonable to pay $2000 for a set of tires every 4 years. However this is exactly what the people who drive around in trucks with giant-a.s tires jacked up into God's a.s do, and they apparently have a high level of satisfaction with their vehicle. Those same people might be dissatisfied with a vehicle that has a transmission that breaks down every 4 years requiring a $2000 rebuild. I on the other hand might be perfectly fine with this if I was putting 20,000 miles a year on the vehicle, delivering pizza. With your survey, focusing on a transmission, the truck-jacked-up-into-god's-a.s would rate very high, the pizza car would rate very low. Even though both myself and the truck-jacked-up-into-gods-a.s drivers would have an equally high level of satisfaction with our vehicles. This is what Daniel is objecting to with the CR surveys, and what he's trying to get you to use your brain to figure out for yourself. I hope that you aren't insulted that I spelled it out for you. Ted > Of course they had breakdown problems. However what you originally > posted was a comparative survey that picked one item - the transmission. Because the OP mentioned the transmission. > When people own cars their vehicle satisfaction is driven by expectations > and what the actual maintainence history. So why do some brands of a given type (minivan, pickup, sports car, etc.) have much worse reliability rates than others of the same type? I doubt it's because Chevy owners are slobs and Toyota owners aren't. > With your survey, focusing on a transmission, the truck-jacked- > up-into-god's-a.s would rate very high, the pizza car would > rate very low. Even though both myself and the truck-jacked- > up-into-gods-a.s drivers would have an equally high level of > satisfaction with our vehicles. CR says their surveys show no correlation between satisfaction and reliability. And since this thread hasn't been about reliability, why do you bring up satisfaction? > This is what Daniel is objecting to with the CR surveys, and what he's > trying to get you to use your brain to figure out for yourself. That's not the impression I got from him. I thought he didn't like the surveys because they didn't include nearly enough information to make sound conclusions. > I hope that you aren't insulted that I spelled it out for you. You haven't spelled out anything, at least not well or in public. > > Of course they had breakdown problems. However what you originally > > posted was a comparative survey that picked one item - the transmission. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc.) have much worse reliability rates than others of the same type? > I doubt it's because Chevy owners are slobs and Toyota owners aren't. Consider the use the vehicle is put to. A sports car is going to have worse reliability simply because people that buy sports cars don't drive them like little old ladies that only drive it to and from church on Sunday. > > With your survey, focusing on a transmission, the truck-jacked- > > up-into-god's-a.s would rate very high, the pizza car would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > CR says their surveys show no correlation between satisfaction and > reliability. And since this thread hasn't been about reliability, "problem rate" of transmissions isn't about reliability? > why > do you bring up satisfaction? That's silly. Are you arguing that people have a high level of satisfaction with vehicles they consider to have low reliability? > > This is what Daniel is objecting to with the CR surveys, and what he's > > trying to get you to use your brain to figure out for yourself. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You haven't spelled out anything, at least not well or in public. I think the problem is you haven't been paying attention. Ted > When people own cars their vehicle satisfaction is driven by > expectations and what the actual maintainence history. > > So why do some brands of a given type (minivan, pickup, sports car, > > etc.) have much worse reliability rates than others of the same type? > > I doubt it's because Chevy owners are slobs and Toyota owners aren't. > Consider the use the vehicle is put to. A sports car is going to have worse > reliability simply because people that buy sports cars don't drive them > like little old ladies that only drive it to and from church on Sunday. But that doesn't explain why some sports cars are much more reliable than others or why some frumpy sedans compare poorly to other frumpy sedans. > > CR says their surveys show no correlation between satisfaction and > > reliability. And since this thread hasn't been about reliability, > > "problem rate" of transmissions isn't about reliability? It is, but for some reason you mentioned satisfaction, which is different from reliability or quality. > > why do you bring up satisfaction? > That's silly. Are you arguing that people have a high level of satisfaction > with vehicles they consider to have low reliability? Why is it silly when more than one survey has shown a lack of connection between reliability and satisfaction? For example, many owners of European sports cars love them even though owners tell surveys that they're very unreliable. > > > This is what Daniel is objecting to with the CR surveys, and what he's > > > trying to get you to use your brain to figure out for yourself. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > You haven't spelled out anything, at least not well or in public. > I think the problem is you haven't been paying attention. You're the one who introduced satisfaction into this discussion, even though it has nothing to do with the original thread, reliability, or Daniel's objections to CR's reliability survey. > Why is it silly when more than one survey has shown a lack of > connection between reliability and satisfaction? For example, many > owners of European sports cars love them even though owners tell > surveys that they're very unreliable. Well, in that case your original transmission survey must mean that people love the -older- Chrysler products with -less- reliable transmissions even better than the new ones with -more- reliable transmissions. Thus, Chrysler screwed up because they made the transmissions more reliable. > You're the one who introduced satisfaction into this discussion, even > though it has nothing to do with the original thread, reliability, or > Daniel's objections to CR's reliability survey. Why then don't you tell us what Daniel's objections to the CR reliability survey are, since you know them so much better than I do, and why his objections are wrong? Ted > > Why is it silly when more than one survey has shown a lack of > > connection between reliability and satisfaction? For example, many > > owners of European sports cars love them even though owners tell > > surveys that they're very unreliable. > Well, in that case your original transmission survey must mean that > people love the -older- Chrysler products with -less- reliable transmissions > even better than the new ones with -more- reliable transmissions. > > Thus, Chrysler screwed up because they made the transmissions more > reliable. The problem with your thinking is that CR's satisfaction surveys ask only about the whole car, not each component, as their reliability surveys do. > > You're the one who introduced satisfaction into this discussion, even > > though it has nothing to do with the original thread, reliability, or > > Daniel's objections to CR's reliability survey. > Why then don't you tell us what Daniel's objections to the CR reliability > survey are, since you know them so much better than I do, and why his > objections are wrong? Daniel can explain his viewpoints better than I can. > > So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their > > 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? > > Of course they had breakdown problems. However what you originally > posted was a comparative survey that picked one item - the transmission. When did I post it? All I asked was why Chrysler changed the fluid specs so many times. >>This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions >>were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid job [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their > 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns," it was to allow the torque-convertor clutch to be used in a partial-lock mode that no other transmission had done before. The fluid was re-specced to improve its lifetime and performance (reduction of shudder) not because it was causing failures. >>> This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what >>> transmissions were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, >>> does a splendid job of telling us all we need to know about the >>> veracity of Condemner Retards' "research". >> So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their >> 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? > The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns," it was to allow the > torque-convertor clutch to be used in a partial-lock mode that no other > transmission had done before. The fluid was re-specced to improve its > lifetime and performance (reduction of shudder) not because it was > causing failures. Quite correct. The laughability of the Consumer Reports chart is that it shows apparently-big differences in transmission reliability between Chrysler minivans of different model years *that use transmission systems identical in every respect*. There are only two plausible explanations: 1) The actual differences in transmission problem rates are insignificantly small between CR's "much worse than average", "worse than average", "average", "better than average", and "much better than average" categories, such that the classifications are statistically meaningless and therefore meaningless overall, or 2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random results. Or, (3), both of the above. > The laughability of the Consumer Reports chart is that it > shows apparently-big differences in transmission reliability between [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random > results. > Or, (3), both of the above. Couldn't manufacturing problems also cause big differences in reliability? If you look at CR's reliability charts for vehicles that differ only in name, like a Chrysler Voyager vs. Dodge Caravan, you'll rarely find no more than a one-rank difference, i.e. the engine of one may be rated much better than average but merely better than average for the other vehicle. It seems that when the differences are greater, then the vehicles or their parts came from different factories. What about the possibility of defects in manufacture? Consumer Reports reliability reports are based upon its subscriber base which submit reliability information once a year. I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place. The reports for Chrysler transmissions show that they were a real problem back in the early to mid 90's and that they have significantly improved ever since. The best source for reliability data would be the much larger sample Chrysler has based upon warranty work; but Chrysler keeps that data close to its vest. Consumer Reports did find that US made short wheel base models had different reliability issues than long wheel base Canadian built mini-vans. This turned out to be quite accurate. But giving any one rating for any one area too much weight gives too much credibility to their reliability reports considering their relatively small data base. Richard. > Consumer Reports reliability reports are based upon its subscriber base > which submit reliability information once a year. "Self-selection" and "Sample population" are concepts covered in any first-year stats course. > I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place. I don't. Not since about 1984! > But giving any one rating for any one area too much weight gives too > much credibility to their reliability reports considering their > relatively small data base. Agreed. (regarding Consumer Reports) > > I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place. > > I don't. Not since about 1984! which was several years after they comparison-tested a Toyota Celica V6 and a Mustang II I4. Guess which had better acceleration. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer skype: jjpfeifferjr > The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns," Do you mean I can run the transmission without any? ;) > it was to allow the torque-convertor clutch to be used in > a partial-lock mode that no other transmission had done > before. The fluid was re-specced to improve its lifetime > and performance (reduction of shudder) not because it was > causing failures. If it wasn't about breakdowns, why did they issue a bulletin warning Ultradrive owners to ignore the DEXRON marking stamped into the dipstick? >> The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns," > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ultradrive owners to ignore the DEXRON marking stamped into the > dipstick? Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different properties then Dextron. If you have Dextron in your car (why? I don't know). It will provide enough efficiency in moving your car to a repair facility if you are out of or low in fluid. BUT IT Must be drained. If not it will cause Harsh shifting and chatter, as the Fluid co-efficeny is different then the specs of ATF+ But are you trying to say, that tranny fluid protects from "breakdowns" of gears that are flawed, tranny cases leaking, and external damage. After-all they all can cause a breakdown! Let alone the sensors that short out causing limp-mode "breakdowns" If you want to know what specific breakdowns mention them! Oh, I guess an alternator failing, causing a "breakdown" is due to fluid too! Lets also mention Fluid "Breakdown" caused by heating and cooling and wearing of the components. >> If it wasn't about breakdowns, why did they issue a bulletin warning >> Ultradrive owners to ignore the DEXRON marking stamped into the >> dipstick? > > Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different > properties then Dextron. True, but there is no "t" in DEXRON. > > Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different > > properties then Dextron. > > True, but there is no "t" in DEXRON. And more importantly there's no "I" in "team" or orange juice in Sunny Delight. >>>Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different >>>properties then Dextron. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And more importantly there's no "I" in "team" or orange juice in Sunny > Delight. Or cat in a Kit-Kat, or dog in hot dogs... uh, nevermind. Not so sure about that last one.... . . ========= ========= MaceFace asked: So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? ========== ========== no@spam.thanks (Steve) incorrectly corrected with: The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns," it was to allow the torque-convertor clutch to be used in a partial-lock mode that no other transmission had done before. The fluid was re-specced to improve its lifetime and performance (reduction of shudder) not because it was causing failures. ========= ========= Steve, yer incorrect. Fluid types have not changed because of lockup strategy. Partial lockup has been around for over a decade.......and definately not specific to Mopop trannies. GM has partial lockup......it doesn't require Mopop fluid. neither does Ford neither does Mercedes and lets not even get into not sticking Honda fluid in a Honda.....whewww....now there's a shudder. MarshMonster ~sips his crownroyal~ > Steve, > yer incorrect. > > Fluid types have not changed because of > lockup strategy. <snip> > and lets not even get into not sticking Honda > fluid in a Honda.....whewww....now there's a > shudder. A man of many contradictions... > MarshMonster > ~sips his crownroyal~ Or, the town drunk... (inline) . . or is it?? . . ========= ======== maceface@nycmail.com (MaceFace) asked 2 questions: So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems? ======== ======== Mace, answers to yer Qs 1) Because the materials used to make clutches have changed since then. The characteristics of the lining materials have changed with all manufacturers over the years. Though this is not the only reason.....it IS the main reason. 2) No....they know they're gonna breakdown. so does every tranny shop in the country. (random thoughts) Most manufactures specify their own fluid type be used and it's best to do so. (my opinion) Most manufacturers use different clutch materials and the characteristics are different from one to the other. Putting Dextron/Mercron in a Honda will let the Honda shift.....however....eventually it will feel like your running over a washboard everytime the thing shifts because Honda fluid has different friction characteristics than Dextron. Same holds true for sticking Dextron in a Mopop. Friction properties from OEM to OEM (and even within the same oem) fluid types are different because the friction characteristics of the clutch materials are different from OEM to OEM. I stick Dextron/Mercron in most everything. most everything....with a friction modifier. But that's another war. ~MarshMonster~ > Mace, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > from one to the other. > Putting Dextron/Mercron in a Honda will let ^^^^^^ > the Honda shift.....however....eventually it > will feel like your running over a washboard > everytime the thing shifts because Honda fluid > has different friction characteristics than Dextron. Same holds true > for sticking Dextron ^^^^^^ > in a Mopop. Friction properties from OEM to > OEM (and even within the same oem) fluid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I stick Dextron/Mercron in most everything. ^^^^^^ > most everything....with a friction modifier. > But that's another war. Well, um... Thanks for all that. > I have a 2002 Dodge Caravan automatic transmission, currently > with 80K miles mostly highway). Since about 20K miles I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I asked them to hookup that computer thing that logs events > they found every excuse in the world not to do so. Considering the cost of a new transmission, I would insist on having the computer hooked up, even if I had to pay for it or go to another dealer. And I would want a printout or at least something in writing detailing the log. Have you tried another dealer? I've learned that the one that sells the vehicle is not necessarily the one that will provide the best service, even during the warranty period (in AZ, Sanderson Ford - lousy. Sunset Ford - great). I would file a complaint with www.bbb.org and, if the dealer is AAA approved, with AAA (provides binding arbitration that has real teeth, binding only on the garage, not the customer, whether you're an AAA member or not). Have you asked in some brand-specific forums, such as www.dodgetalk.com, www.dodgeforum.com, www.chryslerforum.com, or www.chrysler-forum.com? >Hi all, >I have a 2002 Dodge Caravan automatic transmission, currently with 80K miles [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Thank You Direct their attention to Service Bulletin number 21-004-05, which describes your problem and the fix. If they replaced the front pump (part of this bulletin's instructions), I'm surprised they didn't connect to the powertrain module and read fault codes. Part of the repair is to verify that the controller is at the latest software revision level. If they really did as you say, it should be OK. Keep hounding them until they fix it. The bulletin specifically says this is covered under warranty. Thank you all for your replays. Service Bulletin 21-004-05 relates to third and forth gear with the service light ON, so it is not applicable. Will give the dealer another try tomorrow. Thanks again > >Hi all, > >I have a 2002 Dodge Caravan automatic transmission, currently with 80K miles [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > did as you say, it should be OK. Keep hounding them until they fix > it. The bulletin specifically says this is covered under warranty. . ========= ========= NOSPAM@nc.rr.com (Stam) wrote: (op start of thread) . Hi all, I have a 2002 Dodge Caravan automatic transmission, currently with 80K miles (mostly highway). Since about 20K miles I started feeling some "bang" noise down shifting to second gear. The dealer says all is OK. They replaced pump, changed computer settings and flushed computer software but nothing helps. When I asked them to hookup that computer thing that logs events they found every excuse in the world not to do so. The problem is getting worse (and the warranty will expire soon) any ideas (on top of going to another transmission place)? Thank You ============ ============ Stam, VERY IMPORTANT here....... keep a record of everytime you go to the dealer and they ATTEMPT to fix your symptom. 3 documentations for the same repair extends the warranty on the symptom. Fact....not Fiction. It's the law. now....... yer tranny is in dire need of an internal repair. I find it hard to believe that they really replaced the pump. Though I do believe they probably "flashed" the computer. it's easier. The symptom is called a "downshift clunk" please follow yer thread for proof of my analysis of the situation. ~MarshMonster~ drinks some crown Thanks Marsh. As usual the dealer did not find anything wrong (and now they can not find the Computer logger cable). > . > ========= [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > ~MarshMonster~ > drinks some crown |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.